DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 043 932 EP 001 578

AUTHOR Miklos, E., Ed.; Stewart, A. N., Ed.TITLE Developing a Concept of the Principalship. The

LE.---ture Series of the 1967 Leadership Course forSclool Principals.

INSTITUTION A:Jerta Univ., Edmonton. Dept. of EducationalAuministration.

PUB DATE 67

NOTE 8 D.

AVAILABLE FROM D-partment of Educational Administration, UniversityAlberta, Edmonton (Canada) ($1.50)

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$4.50*Administrative Organization, Administrative Policy,*Administrator Responsibility, *Administrator Role,Board Administrator Relationship, *EducationalObjectives, Evaluation Methods, *Principals, SchoolAdministration, Student School Relationship, TeacherAdministrator Relationship

This collection of nine papers by six differentauthors is directed toward developing a concept of the principalship.Topics analyzed include general functions of the principal, theorganization in which he works, formulation of objectives, and therelationship of the principal to his staff, students, superintendent,and school board. (LLR)

Developing A Concept of The PrincipalshipTHE 1967 ALBERTA PRINCIPALS' LEADERSHIP COURSE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY

REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATIONPOSITION OR POLICY.

rr DEVELOPINGrrN AeD CONCEPT OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP

uj

THE LECTURE SERIESof

The 1967 Leadership Course

for Schooi Principals

Edited byE. MIKLOS and A. N. STEWART

The Policy Committee, Leadership Course for

School Principals1967

LEADERSHIP COURSE PUBLICATIONS

Skills of An Effective Principal, 1961

Organization: A Means to Improved Instruction, 1962

The Talks of the Principal, 1963

The Principal and Program Development, 1964

Program and Personnel, 1965

The Principal and Educational Change, 1966

Developing a Concept of the Principalship, 1967

Leadership Course publications are available from the Department

of Educational Administration, University of Alberta, Edmonton.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageForeword vii

The Setting for the Principalship E. Miklos 1

The Principal: Administrator Enns 11

Establishing Direction W. D. Neal 19

Evaluating a School's Program W. D. Neal 29

Teachers: Employees or. Professionals? D. A. MacKay 39

Is the Principal a Leader? D A. MacKay 47

Students and School Organization D. Friesen 59

Principal and Administrative Team J. J. Bergen 69

Variations in the Principalship E. Miklos 77

Appendix

Policy Committee

Adviser'

Course Participants

Y/v

87

87

87

FOREWORD

The substance of the lecture series of the 1967 Leadership Course forSchool Principals was directed toward developing a concept of theprincipalship. The objective was approached through analyses of generaladministrative functions, of the organization within which these arecarried out, of the relationships between the principal and other personsin the school and school system, and of the way in which members ofthe organization are affected by and effect the manner in which aprincipal carries out his responsibilities. Perhaps the objective mightbe clarified and the papers introduced by an outline of the general assump-tions and views on which the content of the lecture series was based.

It seems essential that a principal should understand the nature ofthe organization within which he works; that is, he should be able toidentify significant organizational variables and to deal with them. Anunderstanding of the setting will be furthered by the recognition that aschool and school system have certain characteristics in common withother types of organization as well as being distinct from them in somerespects. This type of analysis leads readily to a general examinationof administrative functions, activities and processes in an attempt toidentify possibilities for developing a concept of the principalship. Ofcourse, modifications in emphasis and approach will probably be requiredbecause of differences in goals and structures between schools and otherorganizations.

The attention of a principal, and that of any administrator, shouldbe focused on directing the activities and processes of his organizationtoward specific goals or objectives. This suggests a major administrativetask as being that of identifying, selecting, or stating general goals andtranslating them into operational objectives. Numerous problems cometo mind in this general area : What goals should schools attemept to attain?What specific objectives might be selected under what conditions? Howmight a program for achieving these objectives be designed? Even whenthese difficulties are resolved, the principal is still left with an equallydifficult task of assessing the extent to which the program is achievingits objectives. Although an analysis of the general aspects of evaluationas an administrative function may be helpful, principals must also befamiliar with current practices in evaluation, with their limitations andwith possible alternatives.

The nature of the relationship between the principal and the pro-fessional staff within the school is crucial to his effectiveness as anadministrator. The development of an appropriate relationship depends,at least in part, upon an understanding of characteristics of teachersand of their work, and of the relationships between teacher and school.This suggests possibilities for identifying potential sources of stress aswell as conditions under which different teachers may be more effectivein achieving the school's objectives. It seems apparent that more detailedattention must be given to developing the concept of the principal as aleader. What functions can a principal perform as a leader? Howmight these functions best be carried out? How is leadership exercisedby teachers and what structural changes may be in order? In what waymight a principal attempt to develop his skills as a leader? Discussionssuch as these should assist principals in developing a better understand-ing of the process and problems of exercising leadership in the school.

Students form a significant group which is often ignored in dis-cussions of the role of the principal. No doubt this results from theassumption that generally teachers and not principals work with students.Yet, since the major, if not all, activities of the school are directed towardstudents an understanding of pupils as members of the +Drganization, oras a group within the school which is affected by and in turn reacts tothe school seems essential. An examination of student characteristicsand of the way in which they view the school would be helpful to principalsin relation to problems such as those involved in pupil control.

Finally, it seems important for a principal to recognize that the schoolis only one part of a larger organization and that he is but one adminis-trator within the school system. This consideration raises questions aboutthe division of responsibilities between principal, superintendent, andother central office personnel in larger school systems WI well as insmaller systems where there are fewer administrative personnel. Whatmight be the division of responsibilities in a typical school division orcounty? What might be a desirable type of relationship betweensuperintendent and principals? What can a principal expect of theschool board and vice versa? How can principals influence the opera-tion of the school system? In general, there is need for understandingthe relationships and responsibilities which bring a principal into contactwith administrators at higher levels in the school system.

In the papers which follow the participants in the Lecture Serieshave addressed themselves to the general areas and problems outlinedabove. It is their hope that the analyses will not only serve to clarifythe role of the principal as it is today, but that these will also serve as abasis for discussions which lead to the further development of theprincipalship as a significant position in education.

E. MIKLOS, Course Director.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The success of an activity such as the Leadership Course for SchoolSchool Principals depends upon the interests and efforts of all thoseinvolved: sponsors, leadership personnel, and course participants. Asa result, those charged with specific responsibilities for organizing theactivity find themselves indebted to many groups and individuals. Specialmention must again be made of the members of the Policy Committeeand the organizations which they represent for continued support andguidance; their leadership not only made possible a twelfth annualCourse but also assured its success.

One major aspect of the Course is the lecture series; the lecturesserve as the vehicle for developing a theme and provide the substancefor other course activities. High quality discussions were generatedthrough the papers presented by the following:Dr. J. J. Bergen, Associate Professor of Educational AdministrationDr. F. Enns, Professor of Educational AdministrationDr. D. Friesen, Associate Professor of Educational AdministrationDr. D. A. MacKay, Associate Professor of Educational AdministrationDr. W. D. Neal, Associate Dean, Planning and Development

All lecturers are members of the Faculty of Education, University- ofAlberta.

Group discussions on the lecture series and other group activitieswere under the capable direction of the following persons who servedas consultants:Mr. K. W. Bride, Executive Assistant, Alberta Teachers' AssociationMr. E. M. Erickson, Superintendent of Schools, Calgary Sehool DivisionDr. E. A. Mansfield, Executive Assistant, Edmonton Public School BoardDr. M. P. Scharf, Assistant Professor of Educational Administration,

University of Saskatchewan

Mr. W. G. Schmidt, Executive Director, Alberta School Trustees'Association

Special thanks are due also to Mr. A. N. Stewart for his highly capableassistance and to members of the clerical staff of the Department of Edu-cational Administration, in particular to Mrs. Pauline Klinck, for workon the manuscripts.

viii

The Setting for the PrincipalshipE. MIKLOS

To varying degrees, practicing admin-istrators, students of administration,school boards, and the public at large areall interested in effective administrativepractice. If it is assumed for the timebeing that agreement can be reached onwhat is 'good' administration, we are stillconfronted with the question as to whatpersonal and social characteristics of anindividual are likely to contribute to hiseffectiveness as an. administrator. Inorder to make the task set for this papersomewhat more manageable, the questionhas been delimited to the following: "As-suming that an individual has certainbasic personal characteristics and socialskills, what knowledge or what under-standings should he possess in order to beable to perform effectively as an adminis-trator?" It is not difficult to identifynumerous areas of knowledge which ap-pear to be relevant; if attention is focusedon, the principalship the relevance ofknowledge about teaching and learning,about curriculum, about records andschedules, about school buildings, andabout a host of other things seems self -evident.

Schools as the Setting

Because such lists of specific areas ofknowledge can readily develop into an end-less series of items, the attempt to respondto the question of "What should a principalknow and understand?" must be shiftedto a slightly more general and abstractlevel. Perhaps some analogies, in spite ofthe inherent dangers in applying them,might serve to suggest the nature of anappropriate response. If we were to con-sider the example of a physician, we wouldprobably agree that he must have know-ledge about the structure and function ofindividual cells and various groups of cells,about the causes and consequences ofvarious diseases, about the chemistry ofthe human body, about the actions ofvarious drugs and treatments, and soforth to another extensive list of par-ticulars. Yet it would also seem reason-able to suggest that beyond these specificunderstandings, a physician or surgeonmust understand the human body; he mustunderstand its total structure, the func-tions of various parts, and the interrela-

1

tionships among the various parts. Specificknowledge and specific skills become sig-nificant and useful only against a back-ground of a broader understanding of thehuman being as a biological, if not alsopsychological and sociological, entity.

Analogies might be selected from otherareas as well. The lawyer and the judgemust be familiar with the details of courtprocedures, with the sequence of events inthe judicial process, with the powers andprivileges of different actors on thejudicial scene under various conditions,and with many other facets of the judicialprocess. Again it seems reasonable to sug-gest that beyond the specific knowledgewhich enables the lawyer to function fromday to day, he must also have a basic un-derstanding of the total system of lawsand related processes which are designedto regulate interpersonal, social, and eco-nomic activity within a particular area(city, province, country, or world). With-out this general but basic knowledge,specifics lose significance, may be in-appropriately applied, and perhaps mayeven be forgotten. There are likely to besome marked differences in behavior be-tween the practitioner who understandsthe background or basic knowledge in anyarea and the one who does not.

In what way do the analogies contributeto clarifying the approach which might betaken in dealing with the question of whatunderstanaings are essential for a prin-cipal? Perhaps no more than to suggestthat for any area of practice or study itis possible to identify some totality orsome unit, whether it is a human body orthe system of laws, the understanding ofwhich is basic to competent practice inthat area. The point in question now isnot whether there is such an area or total-ity for principals to know and to under-stand but what it is. One might identifyseveral possibilities such as the totaleducational system, the teaching-learningprocesses and similar general areas ; how-ever, at a more restricted level, it seemsreasonable to suggest that a highly sig-nificant unit for a principal is the school.Whereas superintendents need to 'under-stand' school systems, teachers need to`understand' classrooms, principals needto 'understand' and to 'know' schools, not

merely as Dhysical objects, but as socialorgani7r.tions Principals should be ableto :ew schools as dynamic social units,as social systems characterized by certainstructures and engaging in certain pro-cesses, as units which share certain char-acteristics and problems with organiza-tions in general while also remainingunique in other respects.

A principal who can see his school as adynamic social system is comparable inreadiness to carry on practice as is adoctor who 'knows' the human body or thelawyer 1,7ho 'knows' the total system oflaws. Specific problems which are en-countered become more meaningful withinthe total setting, administrative activitybecomes significant when seen as part ofthe total functioning of the organization,and, although general knowledge does notreplace the specific knowledge which isessential for day to day practice, it doesaid the practitioner in deciding when andhow specific skills might best be applied.The balance of this paper is directed to-ward developing some useful and func-tional concepts of schools as organizations.

Allocation of Tasks

To say that schools are going to be ex-amined as organizations is to imply thatthey will be placed in the same generilcategory as hospitals, churches, businessconcerns, corporations, the army, branchesof government, and so forth; furthermoreit implies that the concepts to be used inthe analysis will be of a level of abstrac-tion which makes it possible to apply themto cases which do differ in some respects.For example, administrator is a conceptwhich encompasses particular instanceslike principal, bishop, manager and cap-tain. As a departure from the frequentlyencountered approach of dealing with dif-ferences, this analysis focuses on simil-arities. In particular an attempt is madeto indicate how various aspects or commoncharacteristics of organizations are mani-fest in the structure and functioning ofschools. Six organizational characteristicsor elements will be discussed: goals,division of labor, roles, hierarchical struc-ture, specifications and rules, and incen-tives. The first three fall into the generalarea of identifying and allocating tasksor responsibilities.

Goals

All organizations which fall into he2

same general category as schools arecreated for the purpose of attaining fairlylimited or specific objectives. In largemeasure the objectives or goals of an or-ganization determine its distinctive char-acter; organizations created for the pur-pose of producing some good, rendering aservice to the public, or benefitting itsmembers are likely to have differentrelationships with the broader society,different internal structures, and obvious-ly different activities. Organizationswhich pursue the same or similar goalsare likely to be similar in other character-istics. For example,. schools, which existfor the general puricse of providing aservice to clients, probably have more iv.common with other service-rendering,publicly-supported organizations thanwith other types of organizations.

Just as the presence of goals or ob-jectives is common to all organizations,so are some goal-related problems. Oneof these is the difficulty of stating clearlyand unambiguously what the goals of aparticular organization are. This problemseems to be rooted in the fact that mostorganizations pursue, or have possibilitiesfor pursuing, a number of goals with anattendant lack of agreement as to whichgoal should be the primary one. It mayalso be possible to state an abstract goalfor an organization but it may be dilficultto identify a clearly agreed upon specificinterpretation of that abstract goal. Underconditions of abstract goals and multiplegoals, it is not unusal to find organizationsstruggling with defining the end towardwhich activities should be directed. Theproblem is confounded by such circum-stances as having one set of goals statedfor the public and holding another setprivately, or recognizing one set of goalsbut not another.

Schools have problems with goals. Itis easy enough to state an abstract goalwhich is generally agreed upon by educat-ors and non - educators: schools exist forthe purpose of educating (or socializing)the younger members of society. Yet,when individuals are pressed to indicateprecisely what is their conception ofeducation or what is their conception ofactivities which contribute to achievingdesired goals, we find large variations. Itbecomes obvious that the general goal doesnot provide us with clear indications ofwhat should be going on in schools andhow specific ends might be attained; thiscondition presents major problems for the

administrator who supposedly is directingthe organization toward the achievementof its goals. Many other questions couldbe rejecd which are beyond the scope ofthis paper: How specifically should goalsbe stated? Do goals change over time? Arethe goals of an elementary school the sameas those of a secondary school? If not,what ate the differences?

The experience of numerous organize-hone seems to he that goals are "slippery";even if they are defined or identified atone time, they have a habit of "gettinsaway from" the organization. Goal dis-placement may occur hi a number of forms.One possibility is that secondary objectivesbegin to assume major importance. Thisis the case, for example, when schoolsbegin to assume or are asked to assumea disproportionalse amount of conce:for athletic and social activities at the espence of academic and intellectual pur-euits or when schools take on social wel-fare functione which seriously interferewith major goal achievement. It may wellbe that at certain times and under certainconditions it is entirely appropriate forschools to focus on the integration of dif-ferent cultural groups or on providingbasic health services; however, it shouldbe recognised when these goals tend todisplace what were the primary goals.

Another form which goal displacementtakes is a shift in attention from the ob-jectives to the means which are used toachieve the objectives. This appears to bea particular problem for administratorswho devise certain means for achieving ob-(tctivet and then treat the means as sacred

while tending to forget why a particularactivity exists. Rigid adherence to estab-lished time schedules, filling in requirednumber of forms in a required way, sub-mitting written reports regniarly maycome to achieve far more signifianee andattention than the purpose which the ac-tivity actually serves. Another aft-mentioned ndrninietrative failing is theesensshasisi an keeping costs down at theexpense of achieving certain goals. Per-haps the moet ohjectioneble form whichcoal displacement takes in education in-volves diatorting -activities in the schoolanti interpreting all goals in terms ofOgled which Are ilAtieMed by departmentalexaminatione; for many schools, the onlycoals Kern L be getting youngstersthrough the grades nine rind twelve ex-

aminations, often without the realizationthat this has become the major goal. Theadministrative problems seems to be notonly identifying goals but holding ontothem, or at least being aware of shifts,after goals have been identified.

Division of Labor

Another characteristic common to allorganizations is that they attempt toachieve their objectives by creating adivision of labor ; that is, the total task ofthe organization is divided into componentparts and these parts are assigned to dif-ferent groups and individuals. As a resultof the division of labor, organizations canachieve objectives which individuals cannever achieve in terms of producing goods,achieving political or economic control,and rendering services. This is possiblebecause seemingly unmanageable tasksare separated into manageable parts andalso because specialization through thedivision of labor makes it possible to de-velop a high level of competence in any onearea. By capitalizing on skillful perform-ance of highly specialized individuals inlimited areas, the organization has provenitself as a highly effective mechanism inmany areas of modern life.

Although a division of labor is basic tothe idea of an organization, it is by nomeans determined completely by the taskto be performed. There are usually manyways in which a job can be divided. Inschools one of the ever present problemsfor principals is that of creating aneffective division of labor. Among theproblems that have to be considered aredeciding on (1) how to group pupils; (2)how to assign activities to teachers; (3)what criteria to use in assigning groupsof students to teachers, and so on. Thedivision of labor in a school can varyfrom simple to highly complex; smallschools with clearly limited programs re-quire only a simple division of laborwhereas larger schools with diversifiedprograms are characterized by a complexdivision of labor. Complexity is increasedby attempts to use special skills of teachersand pupils, to classify pupils according tovarious criteria, and to make instructionmore highly individualize& Specializationand increasing complexity are evident intrends toward forms of team teaching,departmentalization, and more flexibleforms of scheduling at all levels and inall types of schools,

While schools benefit from the increasedlevel of specialization they also inheritsome of the associated problems and di-lemmas. As people become more highlyspecialized they become more concernedwith their particular activity, with theirspecific objectives, than with those ofthe total school and of people in otherspecializations. The administrator isfaced with the task of reconciling conflict-ing demands, of serving as a communica-tion link between people who are less andless able to communicate with each other.Complex forms of division of labor lead tomore types of coordinating activity suchas committee meetings and conferenceswhich probably take up more and more ofthe administrator's time.

One of the problems that is closely re-lated to specialization is that of increasingimpersonality. In some types of organ-izations this might be considered desir-able; however, in schools, it would seemto be desirable that the student shouldbe known as an individual. As teachersand activities become more highly special-ized a number of teachers may know alittle about a particular child but few, ifany individuals, may know him well. De-cisions which have a marked effect on theprogress and future of an individual arethe result of many smaller decisions ratherthan the result of thorough analysis andexamination which leads to more completeknowledge of the individual. If there is apossibility of undesirable levels of im-personality as a result of increasingspecialization, then some means have tobe built into the structure of the school sothat the ill-effects of the increasing im-personality are reduced. Various formsof team organization may make it possibleto recover desirable elements of more per-sonal relationships between teachers andpupils while retaining the advantages ofspecialization.

Roles

Closely associated with the division oflabor is the configuration of roles whichis created within the organization. Thespecialized tasks in an organization aredefined in terms of certain behaviorswhich are expected of individuals in par-ticular positions. The sets of expectationsdefine the role which the individual is toperform ; the role assigned to an individualdetermines what activities he performsand to a certain extent how he is to per-

4

form them either because of his generalknowledge about that role or as a resultof specific information given to him con-cerning the role. The basic roles of pupil,teacher, and principal are generally com-mon to all schools; however, specializedroles such as vice-principal, counsellor,team leader, department head and consult-ant may also be created as more activitiesand tasks are defined in the division oflabor. Although roles are usually definedfor an individual, frequently, particularlyin the case of new roles, an individual i3faced with lack of clarity in the definitionof his role. This may present particularproblems for vice-principals, for example,and to some extent principals who expressconcern for a clarification of their roles.

Knowledge about the roles which arepresent in an organization yields someuseful information about the character ofthat organization; however, the informa-tion can also be misleading if it is assumedthat roles which are designated by thesame term are characterized by the samebehavior or expectations. For example,both elementary and secondary schools in-clude the role of student or pupil but therole at one level is quite different fromthe role at another. Even though stud-ents at both levels are expected to respondas serious learners, behavior which istolerated or even expected at the gradefive level may not be tolerated at the gradeeleven level. In the same way the specificaspects of performing the teacher rolevary sufficiently among the levels that asuccessful teacher at one level may behighly unsuccessful at another becausethe individual is unable to sense the subtleshifts in appropriate or acceptable rolebehavior.

The same holds true for principals ofdifferent types and sizes of schools. At asufficiently high level of abstraction itmay be possible to identify the same gen-eral functions; however, the way in whichthe functions are fulfilled will differmarkedly between a five-teacher and afifty-teacher school. Relationships be-tween teacher and principal, activitieswhich are delegated, relationships withpupils, and emphasis in the role will resultin two widely different role behaviors.Unless principals are sensitive to differ-ences in the role as they move from onetype of school to another or from one sizeof school to another, they are likely to en-counter serious difficulties.

Attempts to define or to clarify thebehavioral expectations associated withany role usually lead to the realizationthat there is a lack of complete agree-ment as to the precise definition of specificroles. Although a school system mighttry to !Tell out the role of principal, itsoon becomes evident that other personsalso become involved in defining a role;teachers hold certain expectations for aprincipal's behavior, so do pupils, and sodo parents. In addition to this theprincipal himself has some ideas aboutwhat is appropriate behavior. One mightconjecture that the principal who is sen-sitive to, but not necessarily subject to,the expectations of various groups and in-dividuals is likely to be more successfulthan one who is not as sensitive. Otherrole incumbents also find themselves sub-ject to conflicting expectations; teachersmay encounter problems as they try tomeet the expectations of the administra-tive structure, of their fellow teachers, ofstudents, and of the community. One ofthe realities of organizational life seemsto be the presence of conflicting expecta-tions. On the more optimistic side zi. doesseem that except in instances where an in-dividual is expected to engage in two in-compatible activities, such as counsellingstudents and also disciplining them, theconflicts are usually at a tolerable level orcan be reduced by various means.

Another form of strain or tension inrelation to role might be mentioned,namely, role-personality conflict. Organ-izations take certain steps in recruitmentand in selection to match the demands of aparticular role with the knowledge, abili-ties, and preparation of a prospectivecandidate. If there is a good fit betweenwhat a role requires of an individual andthat individual's skills and personal tend-encies, it is likely that he will performeffectively, at least to his satisfaction, inthat role. However, if there is a poor fitbetween role and personality, the individ-ual will likely experience frustration anddissatisfaction. He will probably performineffectively due to excess tension andloss of energy through strain associatedwith attempting to meet the demands ofthe role. This type of difficulty is notat all uncommon in education ; some teach-ers find after a trial that they arc notsuited to teaching at a particular gradelevel, or to teaching at any level, and thesame may hold true for principals. In

5

such instances the only solutions wouldappear to be to seek out roles which aremore compatible with personal tendenciesor to modify expectations 30 that they arcmore highly related to individual charac-teristics. In dealing with other members ofan organization, the administrator mayfind himself suggesting and applying bothforms of solutions to teachers and otherrole incumbents.

Coordination and Control

To this point a school has been identifiedas an organization which is directed to-ward the attainment of limited goals orobjective_s: It attempts to achieve its pur-poses by creating a division of labor whichpermits specialization hi performing com-ponent tasks ; these tasks are assigned toindividuals who perform various roleswhich define behavior designed to movethe organization toward its goals. So faronly one-half of the organization's es-sential characteristics have been outlined,and only one-half of the organizationalpicture has been displayed. The otherhalf consist of putting together the variousindividual activities that supposedly con-tribute toward the achievement of ob-jectives; that is, the organization requiresstructures and mechanisms which enableit to control and coordinate the activitiesof the members of the organization sothat desired behavior and an appropriatemeshing of behavior is forthcoming. Co-ordination and control are achieved inthree main ways: a hierarchical orderingof roles, explicitly stated rules and specifi-cations, and a system of motiv Won andincentives.

Hierarchy

One of the ways in which organizationsattempt to achieve control and coordina-tion is by designating certain role;z. asbeing centers of authority and then ar-ranging all other roles in levels beneaththe centre of authority in a pyramidalfashion. Roles at one level come underthe control and supervision of a role at thenext higher level. In this way a directivefrom the highest or administrative level iscommunicated downward and eventuallyinfluences and controls the behavior at thelowest level. The extent to which thehierarchical nature of the control structureis emphasized varies according to typeof organization and also within org-aniza-

tions of the same type. The military tendsto have a tall clearly pyramidal controlstructure while schools tend to have flatterstructures. Among schools, some willhave a taller structure with greater em-phasis on the authority of higher levelroles than will others. The size of theorganization as well as the type is prob-ably related to the height of the pyramid.

A clearly designated pyramidal struc-ture is probably an indication that thepower to make decisions is centralizedat the highest level while a flatter struc-ture suggests that decision-making poweris more decentralized. Obviously, thiswonld not held trees in pi! easels for even atall structure may only impose hierarchicalcontrol in some aspects of operation andleave others decentralized. in theory atleast, the structure of a provincial schoolsystem tends toward the pyramidal with aconsiderable amount of centralization invarious aspects of the operation of thesystem; yet in other areas, scope for de-cisions is left to local school districts andto local schools.

Although individual schools contain therudimentary elements .,r roles for a hier-archical arrangement in the form of prin-cipal, assistant principal, departmenthead, teacher and pupil, the hierarchicalaspects are never as fully developed asthey are in the military. Administratorsin education tend to think of their functionas helping rather than centroWnsr teach-era; the emphasis tends to be on coopera-tion and leadership rather than on formal,hierarchical control. The intermediatepositions that have been mentioned donot clearly fall between any other two, noris there t strict supervision of one levelby anno:er. The apparently loose arrange-ment to the ordering of roles may confusenon-educators who tend to think in termsof hierarchical arrangement in all or-ganizations or even among educators who,for some reason or other, prefer the mili-tary model, liven in more complex formsof organization such as team teaching,the potential for hierarchy is played downas we prefer to discuss 'cooperative teach -ing' and to talk about teachers sharingresponaibilitiee for the operation of theseam. Only in the case of non-professionalnesistante is there dear indication ofhierarchical distinction and status dif-ferences; however, it a good qucts'tionwhether hierarchy is as absent in soopera-live teaching nppreechea as educators

frequently like to think that it is.There is sufficent evidence from other

organizations that hierarchy is an effectivemeans of control; yet it also has its limita-tions and attendant problems. Perhaps itis an awareness of these problems thatleads organizations such as schools to de-emphasize hierarchy and status differ-ences. One of the problems is that thehierarchy creates sharp divisions in theorganization which may lead to resentmentby those at lower levels, resistance to con-trol attempts from higher levels, an un-willingness to assume any part ofresponsibility for actions taken as a resultof directives from higher levels, and a re-luctance to go beyond the scope of direc-tives and commands in performirg one'stasks. Hierarchical levels also introducegeneral problems in upward and down-ward communication; higher levels mayeat 'se made aware of problem:: which existat lower levels because Reel) informationshows performance at lower levels in apoor light. Decision!) and actions proposedby the higher levels might not be consist-ent with the reality that exists at the levelof operations.

The limi'eed emphasis on hierarchicalcontrol in schools has a number of con-sequences. One of these is that a principalis forced to rely to a conaidereble extenton his knowledge and skill as an educator:uld as an individual to try to influenceteachers rather than on the formalauthority granted him by the organization.The second is that teachers tend to have,in many instances, a fair amount of dis-cretion for making decisions about theiractivities. The latter may not hold true ink_ :stations where the presenoe of a numberof teachers in the same subject area re-quires' that there be some attempts atcoordination; even here, the Solution maybe to strive for some consensus for ad-hering to a particular schedule or usingcertain materials rather than resort to adeciaion imposed by the hierarchy. per -haps the main probiern lie* not in decidingwhether or POI. to have hierareajjcal controlbut rather to identify the areas in whichhierarchical control is essential (e.g., do.tertnining, basic guides for l'ee operationof a school, and dealinz with a leather whoIs clearly jeeffectave) and those areas inw`eish hiererchial control may be clys.feeetionel pace and 6,cquencelearning activile*. and selection of ma-nerials). Unless there is a con*.laas

attempt to make such distinctions it maywell be that hierarchical control is at-tempted in the areas which need it letiotand overlooked in areas where it should beapplied.

Specifications and Rubes

A related mechanism through which or-ganizations attempt to control behavior isthrough specifying the procedures whichare to be followed in performing theactivities in the organization and makingexplicit a system of rules designed to guideoperations. Much of the hierarchical ecni-trol takes the form of checking to makecertain that specified procedures are beingfollowed and that rules and regulations areadhered to. It would seem obvious that ifthere is to be organization there has to besome finelling out of rules, norms, orspecifications which have to be followed;however, in some organizations this takesan extreme form in which procedures arespecified in great detoil and in which rulesand regulations have been devised to meetalmost any cont'ngency. Criticism of"red tape" in dealing with governmentalbureaucracies is based on problems of try-ing to work one's way through the variousnil' A, regulations, and channels that serveas a guide for a particular case or perhapsin search of the rules that can be used an asruide.

The other end of this continuum ofspecification and official guides in notthtl completely rule-fret crganization. butone in rules and gulden arc at aminimum. Such erganizationn are usuallythose which employ profesqionals whosebasic preparation, and professional skills,are relied upon to sv:rve an gulden forbehavior. In other words, the organize-tion places faith in the comp( the

anO in bin ability to make op-propriate decisions; it recognize* the needfor Lim to be able to deal with s;oecialcase.* and refrains' from spelling tut bowhe in to carry out his activities. Theonly specificationn and rules in evidencemay be those designod to make. it, possiblefur a number of similar professionain t:enjoy the; same prerorstivcs in perfermiegtheir functions within an organization.Medical clinics composed of specialists,research centers, tend uniOTAitSeA oreprobably close approximations to this pro.fessionol

The ratan of eclUCAti,ori ix an thirre,Afrigone, particularly ciA this might be viewed

by the individual teacher. Not long agoprovincial school systems showed consider-able interest in outlining what was to betaught, how it was to be presented, howschools were to be conducted and so forth.The specification was accompanied by asystem of supervision designed to enforcethe rules, regulations, and specified pro-cedures. In recent years the emphasis hasbeen on the suggestive nature of whatused to be authoritative documents; pre-scriptions became examples of what mightbe done, prescribed textbooks and outlinesgave way to lists a generally appeovedreferences. Associated with this hasbeen an increasing interest on the partof school systems in developing guides,in prescribing content, and in makingsuggestions as to methods and materials.It is as if schools and school syetem.;moved into a vacuum of specificatioaswith the re.sult that the teacher is still itmuch the same situation as before.

The continued specification of pro-cedures for teachers moth with regard toinstruction and classroom control itjustified on various groends. One is thatteachers need thin specification aud wantit; no doubt this is true in some cases.Nor can it be denied that there i3 risk inremoving the specifications if some mem-ben of the organizr.tion require suchdirection in performing their work. ThereACVMA to be, much less concern about theeffecta on teachers who do not need suchspecifications and giildes but may be ex-pected to follow them. Another justifica-tion Si that it ensuren that all poplin re-ceive equitatile txratment in terms of thereneral Om and content of the instruc.Lion to which they are exposed. Again thisix true if one assumes' that specified proceliures are in fact beirg adhered to andthat the specified prot3edUren are equallysuited to all etudents. Neither of theseassumptions n.ae be v4lid Its all instancrre.The challenge avain would seem to be towork out ways and means of assuring thaiinstances' vrMrre procedures roust bespecified rinse rigidly followed .,reheld distinct from those where owlspecifications may be inappropriateTieme,hers who teed guides should havethem, and the use of the guides ehoulti.bs enforces); These who do not heed suchtepeeritit:st.ions *Mould pot he exprected tt,follow then. Even generally requirtedmateriels should be torsi only with thosepupils for whom the inAterfol Is useful.

Lack of ruler, regulations, and pro-cedural specifications leads to variationsin practice; it is a good question as to howmuch variation an organization such as aschool can tolerate without ceasing toexist as an organization. Schools musthave certain minimum regulations in suchareas as pupil conduct, but what thisminimum level might be is not easily de-termined. Principa!s 'need to consider what:variations in practice are beneficial, whichare harmful, and which do not matter. De-cisions like this will again be made onthe basis of knowledge about the studentsand teachers, the type of school, andsimilar variables which may well changefrom time to time.

Motivations and incentives

Organization must have sorne systemof motivation, some system of rewards andincentives which attracts members to theorganization and encourages tha behaviorwhich is desired. This is a clear recogni-tion that the organization enters into anexchange with the members of the organ-ization; it can obtain their assistance inthe pursuit of its goals only if it can serveas a :11CaLN through which individuals cansuccessfully pursue one of their owngoalfc. It recognizes also that the organ-ization must expend some effort inmaintaining the organization, in holding ittogether, in building up its strengthrather than focusing only on the achieve-ment of organizational goals. The invest-ment in maintairing an organizationcontributes to the achievement of goalsonly in an indirect, way; that is, by makingthe organization more eapeble of pursuingit gri:als.

The problem of 1113tivation raises thequteeion of what, it is that people arewilling to expend energies on, what theyars P00;ing when they enter at organiza-tioe. what conditions will appeal to themsufficiently eo that they will 40 willingto work toward etteining the goals of theorganization. l.11ost organizations offereconomic rewards which attract indi-viduais to the .orronigmtion some offergreater rewards to those whose perform-ance. is paeticulerle pleasing. Iteyond di-re<t economic rewards, oretnisationerewmal people giving recognition andstates, them a s.ens,e of achievement,and offering them opptueenities for reel-ieing various individual goals. At times

S

organizations also resort to various formsof coercion and punishment in order tosecure desired behavior, as schools doin some attempts to control students. Toa more limited extent, coercion plays apart in controlling the behavior of teachersfor a negative reaction from the organiza-tion may be an immediate and also a longterm form of punishment.

Many organizations, particularly thosewhich are like schools, have found thatthe most effective system of motivationand the most effective way to control theirmembers is to secure their commitment tothe goals of the organization. If an in-dividual identifies with an organizationalgoal, and accepts it at least in part as hisown goal, the achievement of the goal be-comes a source of satisfaction to him.Under such circumstances, the practiceof offering various kinds of incentives as-sumes minor significance. Schools andschool systems rely heavily on the generalcommitment which teachers have towardsthe goals of schools and education gen-erally. 'Much of the effort to increase thelevel of motivation takes the form ofoffering ?eadership in identifying thepoesihilisies for achieving various goals.assisting individuals in working towardthose goals, and accepting the achievementof the goals as a major reward. Thepresence of these general conditions isindicative of :. high level of morale ormotivation. Emphasis on the high levelof morale, however, should not obscurethe fact that even echools rely upon subtleforms of reward and punishment; schoolado have preftrred classes and preferredclassrooms, preferred time scheduleswhich principals probably use in reward-ing those who have served the school well.

Cancluilon

As an attempt to describe and to discussthe school as an organization, the outlineWhich has been presentcd leaves much tobe desired; the elements which were se-lected for discussion, althougharc only a few among many that mighthave been included. The description failsto deal with the many additional processes,activities, end inleractioes that take placewithin the ,4.;chool. In fart, what has beenpresented is a fairly static framework ofwhet is in reality a changing and dr untiesocial system. In spite of this limitation,the feamework may be useful as a begin-

ning on a more thorough knwledge andunderstanding of the school as an organ-ization. The school was identified as asocial unit which strives to achieve itsobjectives through a division of labor anda system of roles; mechanisms of controland coordination such as the hierarchicalordering of roles, guidelines and authorita-tive specifications for activities and asystem of motivation are present in someform in all schools. Only a few of themany school problems and implications

9

for principals which these bring to mindhave been developed.

In the papers which follow, most ofthese features will be discussed in moredetail and deeper implications for ad-ministrative practice will be developed.The point of view expressed in the earlierportion of the paper is still maintained:In order to understand administration andthe principalship, the practicing principalmust understand the school as an organ-ization.

The Principal: AdministratorF. ENNS

The purpose of this paper is to examinethe principalship as an administrativeposition. To make such an examinationrequires the development of a concept ofadministration, an examination of taskareas and situational variables affectingtasks and task performance, and finallya review of the administrative process.Against this background of basic conceptsit will be possible to assess the administra-tive aspects of the principalship.

A Concept of Administration

With few exceptions, human endeavorinvolves cooperative action. Whenever atask situation involves two or more per-sons, or when a person performs a giventask in a sequence of other tasks per-formed by other persons, there is need forsome form of organization, facilitation, co-ordination, control or direction. When thetask requirements are simple, these func-tions can be simple, but when that taskgrows more complex, or when it increasesin scope, the functions also become morecomplex, and it becomes more importantthat they be performed effectively. Itbecomes necessary to assign particular in-dividuals and groups to particular jobs; todirect and coordinate their efforts in somesequence or order; to motivate individualsand groups to higher levels of perform-ance, effectiveness and efficiency. It maybe necessary to remove distractions andinterferences from the situation. It maybe necessary to help individuals see theirawn specialized contribution more clearlyin terms of overall purposes. It is alsonecessary to provide and manage suppliesand equipment or facilities. The sum ofthe activities which make it easier forindividuals and groups to perform effec-tively in the achievement of complex goalsmay be thought of as administration,

In a school or school system this com-plex goal activity is the education ofpupils. The direct activity of educatingis the sum of those inter-actionswhich take place among teachers andpupils, among pupils themselves andbetween pupils and such facilities andequipment as books, labs., audio-visualmaterials, and the curriculum. The taskof educating is a complex one with an ex-,

11

tremely wide scope, extending well beyondthe mere acquisition of skills and factualknowledge. While the skills and know-ledge are essential aspects of educationthey are more means to other ends thanends in themselves. Pupils' developmentof attitudes and appreciations, growth ofunderstanding, moral and intellectualgrowth and development of interests andabilities that will lead to vocational suc-cesses are some of the more importantgoals. And the means by which the taskof educating is performed are just as im-portant, and just as complex, as the endpurposes themselves.

The overall task of educating, in all itscomplexities, cannot occur in schoolsystems or schools without the perform-ance of administrative functions. Theremust be teachers, buildings, pupils, books,programs of study, facilities, equipment,supplies. And somehow administratorsmust work a miracle so that the rightteachers meet the right pupils in the rightbuildings and rooms. And they have toassure that supplies in the right amountsare there at the right time; that suitablebooks are available, that the curriculumapplies and is relevant. To bring twothousand children spread over the lengthand breadth of a rural division or county,into schools where they come into the con-tacts mentioned above with only minimaldisruptions is no mean achievement. In asystem having 60,000 pupils; the smoothoperation takes on the quality of a miracle.

This is the function of administrationwhich must be distinguished from thefunction of educating (or if you preferteaching and learning). It is evident thatconsidered in this way administration ismuch more than the clerical kinds of tasksit is often thought to be It is very breadin scope, being concerned with definingmajor goals and resources, with organiz-ational maintenance and development, andwith leadership in developing improve-ment and engineering change. But ad-ministration is not itself the performanceof the mainstream functions in an organ-ization. Rather it concerns facilitatingthe performance of these functionsusually by others.

One way of looking upon administration

is as a function distributed throughout anorganization and performed by all in-dividuals as incidental to their mainstreamactivities. Under this concept, a doctorwould receive his own patients, make ap-pointments, prepare them for examination,keep records, operate the hospital, lookafter its finances and staffing, etc., inaddition to practicing medicine. Teacherswould arrange for buildings, maintainingand caring for schools; employ, promote,transfer or dismiss colleagues; raisemoney for their salaries, for supplies andequipment; purchase, store and distributesupplies ; etc. as well as practice theirprofession of working with boys and girls.Obviously there are some serious diffi-culties involved in this method of opera-tion, especially as schools and schoolsystems grow larger and as educationalprograms grow more comprehensive andtherefore more complex. Performance ofthe administrative function then tends tointerfere with the performance of theeducating function, by diverting too muchtime and effort. It represents too much"overhead" in terms of the main function.

But there are some aspects of this ap-proach that are not at all unattractive;the flexibility which it permits, the de-centralization of many decisions, the con-trol over many matters which remain inthe hands of those immediately invol-Yedin teaching and learning. This suggeststhat at least some of the administrativefunction should remain in the hands ofteachers and instructional specialists inschools.

An alternate way of handling the ad-ministrative function ie, to abstract itcompletely from the mainstream operationand assign it to a group or class ofpersons who are specialized in the per-formances and skills required, therebyfreeing others in the organization to givetheir full attention to the main operation.This is the more common approach. Inhospitals it permits doctors to concentrateon the practice of their profession; inresearch institutes it permits researchersto apply their creative skills more fully;in schools it is intended to enable teachersto be more fully professional.

While this abstraction of the administra,tive function is also very attractive inmany ways, it is not an unmixed blessing.First, it may mean that decisions areoften too far removed from the point of

action. Second, administrative perform-ance may not always be perfectly co-ordinated with the needs of the goal-achieving activity. Third, administrativecontrol may actually hinder other activitiesand because of separation of function,communication may suffer. And some-times administrative criteria are used toassess performance of the teaching func-tion.

In most situations, however, we arelikely to find a combination of the twoalternatives, and we will find considerabledifferences of mix in specific offices.Certainly the superintendent in a largeschool system. is far removed from teach-ing, and his whole function is administra7tive. The specialist teacher, such as aspeech therapist in a school, is very closeto the education of pupils and is little con-cerned with such administrative mattersas debt management and wage negotia-tions with the caretakers' union. Andthere are many positions between theseextremes which consist of varying propor-tions of administrative and educative funstions. Those nearer the superintendent'soffice will be more concerned with ad-ministration, and those nearer the class7.room will be more concerned with teaching.Thus there are administrative aspects ofthe teacher's role, though these would .beless emphasized than the administrativeaspects of the department head's role,and these- in turn are less evident thanthose of the principalship.

Tasks of Administration :, .

The complexity of teaching. and facilitateing learning have been pointed outTeaching is a subtle process, imperfectlyunderstood, and dependent on highly crew-tive and artistic behavior on the part ofteachers. The facilitation of teaching; oreducational administration, is no . lesscomplex, and its effective performance,too, is subtle, creative and artistic. Sinceits scope is so broad, the function mustbe sub-divided and assigned to specialistsin the performance of particular tasks.Moreover, administration has been re-ferred to as a facilitating function; or.'t,second-order operation. This mean: thatwhen we consider the educational systemas a whole, administrative behavior is s-ameans to another end. When the adminis-trative sub-system is considered; however;then the tasks may be thought of as endsin themselves. For example, the process

12

of preparing the school district's annualbudget is a very important end in itself-as far as the secretary-treasurer and hisassistants are concerned. But as far aseducators in the system are concerned itis important only to the extent that itfacilitates the overall operation of thedistrict, and this in turn only insofar asit is reflected in the educational growthof pupils.

What are the major task areas withwhich administrators must be concerned?Any standard textbook will present acomprehensive list. These vary from textto text, and they differ according to theposition being discussed. By and large,however, the following are included:

1. Pupil Personnel Tasks. In every,school there are pupils of considerablerange in age, maturity, size, ability, andmotivation. Somehow they must be or-ganized into smaller or larger groupsfor instruction and learning. Somehowtheir progress must be guided and record-ed. Each of them must be accounted forthroughout the day and the year. Pupilpersonnel tasks include attendance, ac-counting and control, or discipline. Be-cause pupils are individuals and differentin many ways, there must be differentia-tion of treatment. Fortunately, however,within limits pupils are also similar inmany ways, and group procedures can beeffective for many, if not most of theaspects of pupil personnel tasks. Please,note, however, that we are concerned withtasks which are intended to make teachingand learning possiblenot with the teach-ing and learning themselves.

2. Tasks Related to Teacher Personnel.Schools certainly abound with pupils, butthey also have to be staffed with teachers.The administration of teaching personnelinvolves all the complexities of recruit-ment, employment, placement, orientation,promotion, transfer and even in somecases, dismissal of staff. It involvessalary and teacher welfare programs, in-service education and continuing profes-sional development, supervision, profes-sional motivation, job-satisfaction andmorale. The tasks related to all thesematters are complex, and on their adequateperformance depends much of the effec-tiveness of the school and school system.

3. Tasks Related to Program Develop-ment. Even when all the tasks of ad-ministering pupil personnel, and teacher

personnel are adequately looked after, westill do not have a school or school system.There must be a curriculum or program,for this is really the medium or vehicle ofeducation. The program provides themeans through which social, intellectual,vocational and moral development canoccur. It is the focus of pupil and teacherinteraction.

"Program" must be interpreted broad-ly, for all the experiences a pupil has havean effect upon his education. Thus varia-tion in subject content, modification inorder and method of presentation, ex-perimentation with teaching techniques,employment of technical media, variationin classroom organization and routine,provision for pupil motivation andstimulation, the extra curricular activities,may all be thought to be aspects of pro-gram development.

The program is developed at variouslevelsin the provincial department ofeducation, in the school district centraloffice, in the school and in the classroom.At each level some kinds of decisions anddevelopments are more appropriate thanare others. Thus it is evident that someaspects of these administrative tasks arebest distributed throughout the organiza-tion, while some are best abstracted fromit.

4. Tasks Related to Administration ofPhysical Facilities. Provision, manage-ment and maintenance of such facilities asbuildings, grounds, supplies, equipmentconstitute the tasks involved here. As theprogram becomes more diversified, as forinstance in the vocational wings of com-posite high schools, the provision andmaintenance of equipment becomes evermore important. But even in regularclassrooms it is vital. Few things aremore frustrating to teachers than to haveplanned pupil and classroom activitiesonly to find that needed supplies andequipment are not available, or that thoseprovided are unsuitable. In the adminis-tration of facilities the standard by whichto measure effectiveness must be satisfac-tion of teacher and pupil needs ratherthan administrative convenience andorderliness.

5. Tasks Related to Office Proceduresand Operation. A number of writers whodeal with administrative tasks tend torefer slightingly to these tasks as "ad-ministrivia". This reference is unjusti-

13

fied, for although much of this task areaconcerns details, attention to these detailsmay be very important. Certainly thesematters are insistent and demanding andmust be attended to. Furthermore,especially in larger schools, the office isthe nucleus of the school, of its com-munications network, of its contacts withthe home and community, of its relationswith the whole school system. The ef-fective operation of the office is of con-siderable importance in the school's overalleffectiveness. What should be drawn tothe attention of school authorities, how-ever, is the appropriate assignment oftasks in this area. For teachers, or prin-cipals, to perform many of the jobs re-quired is an inappropriate use of availablehuman resources. There are peoplespecially trained to do the kinds of tasksrequired. They do them more effectively,more efficiently and at much lower cost.

6. Tasks Related to Organization andStructure. This area is concerned withthe proper functioning of the school as asocial system. The organization mustlook after adequate communication, fa-cilitate the attainment of educationalgoals, and offset and accommodate to theincreasing complexities brought about bygrowth in size and diversity. Organiza-tion is a means to other ends. Inadequateorganization interferes with the attain-ment of such ends, but organizationalstructure without attention to the peoplein it is also inadequate.

Situational Variables

How these task areas will be approached,and the extent of direct personal involve-ment of any one person, will depend uponfactors which make up the situation.Every administratorand indeed everypersonfunctions in a situation which hasgrown up over a period of time. Thesituational variables will determine to alarge extent the specific aspects of taskareas, and also the behavior of the ad-ministrator as he performs tasks or seesto their performance. Among such vari-ables one might list the following:

1. Size: Size of school and schoolsystem will affect very much the nature oftask involvement of the principal, superin-tendent or other officer. The principal'sinvolvement in teaching, for instance, willbe much greater in a five-teacher schoolthan in a fifty-teacher school. The super-

intendent's involvement in visiting class-rooms will be much different in a hundred-teacher system than in a thousand-teachersystem. One of our major errors is thatwe attempt to run large, complex organiza-tions as we did small, simple ones. Andthat gets us into untold troubles.

2. Availability of Resources: If re-sources of all kinds are readily available,task involvement of administrative per-sonnel will differ accordingly. Emphasiswill shift from procuring to allocating re-sources effectively. With plentiful quan-tities of equipment and supplies, the tasksof program development, for instance, willbe quite different from what they wouldbe if such things were strictly limited.

3. The Kind of School: Administrativetasks vary from elementary to secondaryschools. They differ in academic andtechnical-vocational schools. These in turnwould differ from what was required inschools for the handicapped, in post-secondary institutions, in pre-employmentprograms.

4. The Kind of Staff : Differences inage composition, sex, professional prepara-tion and commitment, experience, etc.will affect the way in which personneladministration tasks are approached.Often older, more experienced teachersmust be motivated to approach their jobwith renewed enthusiasm and vigor.Young, inexperienced teachers often needto be assisted in developing efficient rou-tines in establishing and maintaining aneffective classroom climate. The super-visor who attempts to deal with a highlyqualified teacher in the same way as witha marginalLT qualified one deserves therebuff that he gets from the former.

5. Status of the School and System:A rapidly growing school or system facesproblems quite different fm those of astatic one. In the former the expenditureof energy and resources merely in keepingpace with changes may require major ef-fort. In a stable system, these same re-sources can be applied for developmentalpurposes rather than for merely keepingup. The problems of a school system indecline are even more agonizing than thosebrought on by growth. Similarly schoolsin cultural and ethnic transition will haveeffects on the way in which administrativetasks are approached. Illustrations ofthese matters are to be found particularlyin the central cores of major North

14

American cities, where considerable shiftin culture and ethnicity is taking place.

6. The Type of Community: Thislatter comment raises the whole issue ofthe efiect of the community not only on themajGr educational tasks, but on the ad-ministrative tasks related to them. A city-centre community has problems differentfrom those of a wealthy suburb. A homo-geneous communityin terms of race,wealth, religion, age, etc.poses problemsdifferent from those of heterogeneouscommunities. The policies, values, classstructure, traditionsall will have theireffects.

This list of situational variables is notintended to be exhaustive. There are manyothers that might have been included. Itwill illustrate the kind of considerationthat must be kept in mind, however. Thestudy of situational variables is a studyin its own right and extremely interesting,and the product of such study is helpingus to acquire a better understanding ofadministration.

The Process of Administration

To this point the discussion has beenfocused on the meaning of administration,the tasks or job of the administrator, andbrief suggestions of the effect of situa-tional differences on the way in whichtasks are carried out. The process vari-ables through which tasks zee performedmust now be examined. Each of the pro-cesses is involved in each of the task areas,so they must be thought of as being insimultaneous operation. Moreover, thereis no such thing as pure process. It ismerely a convenient construct which isused to study administrative behavior. Theexistence of process is inferred from theobservation of behavior in administrativetasks and situations.

Various writers give different enumera-tions of process elements. Perhaps themost widely known is Luther Gulick's fam-ous formulation POSDCORB Plan-ning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing,Coordinating, Reporting, Budgeting. Searswas one of the first writers in Educationto use the notion and he listed Planning,Organizing, Directing, Coordinating, Con-trolling. I prefer to use Gregg's for-mulation: Decision-making, Planning,Organizing, Communicating, Influencing,Coordinating, Evaluating.

Again, each of these process elementscould give rise to extensive study and de-velopment. Each is merely introduced,however, and some suggestion of its extentgiven in order to establish its significance.

1. Decision Making : Decisions aremade at all times in all situations. Thereare individual decisions, group decisions,strategy decisions, tactical decisions,policy decisions, operative decisions. Thereare decisions which affect a whole institu-tion for years, and others which affectonly a few persons for a short time. Somedecisions have a highly political connota-tion, while others have mainly rationaldeterminants. Every decision involveschoice from among possible alternatives.Every decision is followed by conse-quences, some of which may bo unantici-pated. Hence every decision involves risks,and the decision-maker must be preparedto live with these risks. Every decisionis located within a chain of prior andsucceeding decisions. No decision is im-mutable. In fact, one of the qualities ofeffective decision-makers is that they canchange or alter their decisions quicklywhen needed. It is also a widely acceptedprinciple that those who are going to beaffected by a decision should be involvedin its making. Not all decisions can becompletely correct, but not too many canbe totally wrong either. And once the dieis cast, it is impossible to go back to thesituation as it was before. The importanceof effective decision-making from class-room to school board is clear.

2. Planning : Little needs to be saidabout the importance of planning in theperformance of administrative tasks. Re-gardless of the job to be done, or thesituation in which it is to be done, effec-tiveness can be increased by planning.Long range planning is essential, but evenshort range plans make great differences.Particularly in such task areas as programdevelopment, provision of buildings andfacilities, professional personnel pro-grams, adequate planning is essential.

3. Organization: The tasks of maintain-ing the 2.3hool and system as an organiza-tion or social system have already beenmentioned.

4. Communicating : One of the mostimportant, and at the same time mostdifficult, organizational processes is com-munication. Merely making sure thateveryone receives a message is difficult

15

enough, bat it is vastly more complicatedto make sure that everyone understandsit. and understands it in the same way.There are many barriers to effective com-munication, and many of these barriersare personal as well as organizational.Every teacher knows how difficult it isto communicate simple information topupils. Every parent knows how difficultit is to communicate effectivly with child-ren and teen-agers. Every administratormust know how difficult it is to communi-cate in an organization. He must be pre-pared to spend a great deal of time, careand effort on it, and he must be able to usea wick range of media. Even then he mustalways be prepared for evidence of in-adequate communication and to deal withit.

5. Influencing: If decisions are madeand courses of action determined, thenpeople must be influenced to change in ac-cordance with the new directions. More-aver, in organizational situations peoplemust be led, motivated, encouraged anddirected. This is what influencing involves.There is nothing underhanded about it, butit is a subtle process. Leading people tomake changes, motivating them to exercisegreater effort, cannot be achieved by op-pressive means. Influencing also involvesthe appropriate exercise of authority. Inimplementing the process of influencing,the administrator must recognize all thecomplexities not only of individuals as in-dividuals, but as individuals interacting inorganizational situations.

6. Coordinating: This too is a mostimportant aspect of the administrativeprocess. If pupil personnel and teacherpersonnel tasks are not adequately co-ordinated with tasks related to facilitiesand program, serious dislocation results.The effect of inadequate coordination isillusarated by new course authorizationsbefore text and reference books are avail-able. Coordination is often taken forgranted and its importance does not be-come apparent until it breaks down, oruntil it is inadequate. There is no usein having splendid laboratory facilities ifthe science program has not been de-veloped to utilize such facilities fully.Nor is there any point in having a staff ofschool librarians for the district if thereare inadequate libraries in the schools.Similar reasoning applies throughout. Pro-curing resources is vitally important, buteffectiveness in procuring is nullified if

the resources are inadequately appliedand procedures inadequately coordinated.A film is useful to a class only if it can beshown at the right time.

7. Evaluating: The importance ofevaluating is self-evident. It is alwaysnecessary to assess the degree to whichwe are attaining our objectives. It is al-ways desirable to have some indication ofthe extent of progress or lack of it interms of some criteria. Hence it must dealwith purposesboth the overall or ulti-mte goals, and the intermediate or pro-cess goals. Evaluation must be continuous;it must be objective; and it must be valid.To meet these criteria is very difficult evenin so simple a matter as assessing pupils'acquisition of factual knowledge. It ismuch more difficult in matters of assess-ing effectiveness of total learning, totalteaching effectiveness, total school ef-fectiveness, and general system effective-ness. It is very difficult to attributecause of apparent success or failure. toindividual aspects of the systemto,teach-ers, libraries, buildings, programs, equip-ment, etc. And yet, if we are to makeappropriate decisions regarding .applica-tion of resources, we must make reason-ably accurate assessments of the effects ofone approach over another, or of oneaspect of the program as opposed toanother.

It would be quite possible to go on inthis consideration of tasks, situations, andprocess at some length. In fact, the studyof administration is concerned mainlywith these aspects and involves an ex-tended program. In conclusion, therefore,a brief consideration of the principalshipas an administrative position will be given.

The Principalship

Like all officers in middle managementpositions, the principal finds his role abundle of paradoxes. Though he is a lineofficer charged with line responsibilitiesand clothed with formal Authority, he canbe wholly effective only if he also acceptscertain staff functions and exercisesauthority accordingly. On the one handhe has responsibilities to his superiorsand on the other to his colleagues on theprofessional staff, and at times there maybe conflict between the two. There is adefinite job to be done, but it can be doneonly through and by means of the effortsof others. Thus, somehow, the principal

16

must translate system expectations anddirectives into a program of action accept-able to his particular staff, but also effec-

n achieving aims and purposes in-ed. He cannot be an individualist

.d ignore the system, but neither canne be an impersonal agent of the systemand ignore the individuals with whom heworks. In short, like all people who workclose to the point of action, he has to imple-ment decisions of others, through theefforts of still others. He finds himselfat the vortex of conflicting expectationsand needs. Somehow he must live withthese conflicts and mediate among them.

Is he a teacher or is he an adminis-trator? The answer will depend uponsituational factors such as size of schooland system, status of school and system,etc. Actually he is both, but the propor-tion of each will vary with the tasks andwith the situation. Certainly a principalis concerned with many administrativetasks in the areas of pupil personnel,staff personnel, facilities, program, officeprocedures and organization. He may notprobably should notdo all these taskspersonally. But he must see they are done.The extent of his direct involvement willdiffer from task to task, from time totime and from situation to situation. Butif the administrative tasks are not ade-quately apportioned and effectively dis-charged, the effectiveness of the school isimpaired. Too much assignment of thesetasks to teachers will interfere with theirprofessional teaching; too little involve-ment of teachers may serve to isolate themfrom ongoing processes and this too mayinterfere with their professional effective-

ness. To the extent that lie is concernedwith the administrative function, then, theprincipal is an administrator.

Certainly the performance of the tasksdepends on the situation. To the extentthat he recognizes the situational variablesand their effect, and to the extent thathe attempts to accommodate to them orto modify those variables which tend tolimit effectiveness, the principal is en-gaged in administrative activity.

The effective principal, like any effed-tive administrator, must understand andemploy process in his work. The morefully he understands the science aspe6sof the processes I have outlined, the lesshe has to depend on art and intuition inhis work, and more important, the morecontrol he has over consequences.

Is the principal an administrator?Most would agree that he is. By %irtue ofhis position and the responsibilities as-signed, he becomes a facilitator whosemajor function is to enable others todo their jobs better. This is a most im-portant matter, for upon the erieeareperformance of administrative functiimsdepends to a large extent the effectiveperformance of the teaching function.Schools and school systems are today solarge and so complex that we can nolonger depend upon the incidental per-formance of administrative functions.Much of the criticism of administrationtoday is criticism of amateur administra-tion. So important, and so complex hasadministration become that we cannotdepend much longer on an amateur ap-proach.

17

Establishing DirectionW. D. NEAL

What are the objectives of your school?I do not mean school in general but yourparticular schoolthe one of which youas the principal are the educational leader.

If I were to ask you to take a fewminutes to answer this question 1 thinkwe would be surprised at the variety ofreplies we would obtain. Some of youmight respond by giving the general aimsof education. Others might quote state-ments made by your school board orsuperintendent. Still others might saythe objectives of my schoel are those setout in the courses of study issued by theDepartment of Education.

It is true that all of these form part ofthe background which helps to determinewhere the school is going but are theyreally enough? Do they do any more thanset the general direction? It seems that torely on such vague objectives is like settingout on a trip on the basis of just pointingthe carsay in a westerly direction and

for the best.

A more promising answer to the ques-tion I posed initially might be given by aprincipal who replies that he will presenta written statement of his school's policiesand I mean policiesnot just rules andregulations of the kl that tells a teacherwhat to do when she orders a film; orthat consist of thou shalt not do this, nordo that and so forth.

However, perhaps my question hasserved its purpose for the momentifonly to get you annoyedbut also to forceme to try to systematically develop mytheme. Stated over simply, that theme isthat a school has little chance of beinga good school unless it has its own compre-hensive set of objectives stated in opera-tional terms and to which there is a strongcommitment by principal, staff, studentsand parents. Let me emphasize the wordscomprehensive, operational and commit-ment.

Why Does a School Need Objectives?

This question really consists of two sub-questions namely:

a) Why objectives at all?

b) Why does each school need to developits own ?

One obvious answer to the first questionis that a school must know where it isgoing. We have accepted this answer fora long time without finding it sufficientlycompelling to develop objectives that makea real difference in the conduct of schools.Perhaps part of the reason for this isthat objectives, as usually developed, aretoo generalized and imprecise to he suf-ficiently directional. This aspect will beconsidered in the next section when thenature of objectives is discussed. How-ever, a further reason, relevant to thequestion posed here, is that we have notbeen sufficiently clear on the part thatproperly developed and stated objectivescan play in the ongoing operations of theschool as an organization. In other wordswhat is the function of a set of objectivesin the total organizational structure andoperation of the school?

Perhaps the major functions are thosegiven below. I shall list them first andthen examine each in turn.

A set of objectives which satisfy certaincriteria to be given later can

1. set the tone for all of the activitiesof a school and in so doing ensurethat purposeful action takes place;

2. serve as a guide to decision-makingin all areas of operations;

3. ensure that the school offers acomprehensive program of activitiesbut establishes desirable prioritieswithin those;

4. provide a proper basis for evaluationof the school's performance;

5. help to ensure that the school isefficient.

The above statements are not mutuallyexclusive but that is not important. Ishould like to examine each in turn.

Setting tone and giving purpose. Nodoubt each of us has visited similar schoolswithin the same district where it mightbe expected that the external and generalforces would be much the same. :Yet inone school it is possible to sense quicklythat the school seems to know where it is

19

going; that teachers and pupils in generalgive the impression of working togetherwith a shared commitment. Yet in an-other similar school there appears to be anaimlessness -- -a feeling of tension anduncertainty. Such differences may ariseof course from several conditions. How-ever, any organization needs to develop ashared commitment to objectives if it isin the first place to have a sense of pur-pose, secondly to have any chance of reach-ing its objectives in any satisfactorymanner and thirdly to remain a viableorganization in the process.

Essdence from a study of other organ-izations suggests that a cooperative enter-prise is more likely in the Ion tan toperform better than one in which thetheme is competition and even betterstill than one in which the theme ischaracterized by aimlessness. Let's be quiteclear about this. A school is one organiza-tion which can exist without a clearly de-fined sense of purpose based on clear cutand accepted objectives but mere existenceis not enough. In the process of just exist-ing many children will receive an in-adequate education and many teachers willbe frustrated and will perform at in-adequate levels.

Most people like to work from a securebase and this base, in the case of schoolabove all, ought to be philosophical ratherthan traditional, idealistic rather thanroutine, yet realistic enough to be achiev-able rather than based on vague expree-sions of hope.

A final comment on this aspect is thatin establishing the relationship of theschool as an organization to its environ-mental society, the individual institutionhasn't a great deal of influence in theoverall dimensions. But once given thosedimensions, a school ought to translatethem into clearly stated objectives so thatits purpose is clear. Then the bogy ofcriticism and excessive expectation by thesociety and by parents can be kept withinmanageable limits.

A guide to decision making. Decisionsare made continuously in the school situa-tion by many people. Some decisions areof a long term nature. They may evenbe extensions of policy. Others are madead hoc to meet particular situations. Inboth cases better decisions are made ifthere is a basic point of view from whichto work. Suppose that one of the objectives

of the school is to adapt the learning pro-gram to meet incivi,lual differences ofchildren. To be an effective objective thismust be elaborated in a whole series ofother eubc6jecUves; for example, de-cisions about what this means in be-havioral terms in the various subjectmatter areas offered in the schoolnotjust lip service hut real specific decisionsrelated to an array of information alautpupil, subject matter, resources, etc.Iloveever, this is only a beginning. Suchan objective would lead to decisions aboutwhat kind of testing and observationalactivities would be undertaken by theschool as a whole and by individual teach-ers to ascertain what those individual dif-ferences really arc. In addition the wholeorganization of the school is affected sinceit is hardly likely that such an objectivecan be realized with the traditional rigidorganization of classes and grades. Theevaluation program is affected too since,for example, there is then only a verylimited place for common examinations atcommon times.

In fact objectives of this kind (P:e3there are several others one could list)change the whole school to a place wherelearning is regarded as a process ofgrowth and change in an individual. Aschool becomes learning centred ratherthan teacher or subject matter centred.This approach will apply only where ob-jectives are operational and a school iscommitted and not with objertivee whichare vague expressions of intent. I knowyou will be reacting by saying that De-partmental courses and examinations andschool system policies don't let us do allthese thing's. But is this really true tothe extent that we find it comfortable tobelieve? I propose to come back to thisquestion later.

Let me just reiterate the main point(which can be illustrated in many moreways) namely, that a properly developedset of objectives leads to purposefuldecision-making both on a long term andon an ad hoc basis.

Ensuring comprehensiveness and estab-lishing priorities. A school has many ac-tivities. Some of these are directly relatedto the main task of developing a soundlearning program. Others are more in-directly related, for example, the develop-ment of extra curricular activities. Othersare more distantly related still, for ex-

20

ample, those tasks related 10 ittaff growthand satisfaction. All are important and aschool policy has to include objectiveswhich ensure that ell taaks are accomp-liabed and t,Ie most itIlitAbk, Cffr:viitic4isare developed. However, there is per-haps a more demanding aspect involved.Suppose that one major intellectual objec-tive adopted by the school is that allchildren should be encouraged to thinkcritically. I think you will agree thatmost statements of educational purposeswould include this one. What does a.school do to translate it, into meaningfulaction? One thing, of course, is to de-lineate what this means in actual pupilbehavior but in terms of comprehensive-ness this d-,l'oeation must 'Ake place fnany relevant :earning activity in whichpupils participate. It is a wasted oppor-tunity if the science teacher, for examplesays, "I'm not concerned with criticalthinking: my concern is to teach science(adz and principles." This would applyeven to the music teacher or to the physicaleducation teacher. The point is that if theobjective of critical thinking is regardedas of high priority and the school as suchis committed to it, then opportanities arepurposely created and seized uponbothin the regular instructional program andin the extracurricular activities, to ensurethat the objective is realized, in as faras it can be, for every pupil in the school.

I need say little about using objectivesto set priorities. Some of these are de-termined by the school's environment butthere is still much scope for the schoolitself to determine what comes first. Amidthe conflicting pressures and claims eachschool has to protect itself by establishingits' priorities on the basis of pupil needsand the school'a resources.

A basis for evaluaCon. This topic isthe subject of .a later paper in this series.Hence it is necessary only to mentionbriefly that the accepted procedure re-quires that the first step in any evaluationprocess is to know the objectives thatform the cornerstone of the activity to beevaluated. This applies to schools whetherthe activity is part of the instructionalprogram or some other aspect of the or-ganization.

To ensure efficiency. This is in partan extension of the use of objectives fordecision-making but is worth elaboratingfor. its own sake. If we were able to ob-

thin an index of efficiency for schools interms of learning output for the input ofresources and effort I'm not too sure wewould Phow up in a favour:IMF! light. This,of coorse, is in part due to the nature of aneducational institution. It, is also due tothe fact that we have a large amount ofrandom and uncoordinated effort whichis not based on sound objectives nor on thebackground of knowledge already avail-able to us about pupils and organizations.Quite clearly a proper policy of objectiveswould reduce our inefficienry.

:suppose that the objective of meetingindividual differences of pupils which Imentioned earlier is further delineated enthe basis of our knowledge that pupilslearn at different rates. We might thensay that one of the sub-objectives is toenable pupils to learn at the maximum rateet' which they are capable with a minimumwaste of effort by repetition or other use-less diversion. Many things follow im-mediately if we are genuine. Why agraded structure of curriculum and schoolorganization? Why a self contained class-room with teaching aimed at the middlewith wested effort on both sides? Whycommon examinations inevitably pitchedat a selected level which means wastedeffort for the more able and anotherfrustating failure for the lessall ofwhich could have been predicted mucheaeler? And so on.

For many reasons in the interests ofpupils and in the proper utilization of ourorganizational resources, schools must be-come more efficient. Proper objectivescan at least make a start in this respect.

I now return to the second part of thequestion with which I stserted this sectionand that is: Why does each school haveto develop its own objectives? Of coursethe first thing that needs to be admittedis that the school doesn't start with aclean sheet. Its general directions are setby provincial requirements, by courses ofstudy and by the policy of the system ofwhich the school is a part. However, theobjectives I have in mind are of a some-what different kind and must be so if theschool is to be a viable, purposeful andefficient organization. The following arethe major reasons I would advance for thedevelopment of the policy objectives foreach school by its own staff.a) Each school is to some degree. uniqueand its objectives should be developedaccordingly.

21

Pupils are different individually and asa group from school to school and hencethere is room for variation in learningobjectives. Teachers are different incompetence. The resources of a schoolwill vary and in addition the communitya school serves may have considerablevariations in composition, values andhopes for education. Perhaps of still moreimportance is the fact that as a schoolstaff develops in professional strength andresponsibility it will want to do things thatare different, to experiment with newlearning patterns and organizationalvariations. Given creative administrativeleadership, especially by the principal, aschool ought to interpret and develop ob-jectives to suit its own philosophy andespecially its own students.b) A school needs to develop its own ob-jectives in order for them to be meaning-ful and to result in a sense of commitment.

Presenting teachersand pupilswitha ready-made set of objectives just invitesapathy and possible rejection. To thinkthrough what the school should be tryingto accomplish is an exercise of consider-able value of itselfa learning experiencewhich leads to commitment. It followsalso that the development and review ofobjectives ought to be a continuous dy-namic activity. A set of objectives whichremains tucked away gathering dust onthe office shelf serves little purpose. Cer-tainly there is a strong case for the regularreview of the objectives and their interpre-tation related to the instructional programbut also there ought to be a cyclic reviewof the objectives in a school policy.c) The objectives which emerge from aprovincial department and from a schoolboard are not comprehensive enough tomeet the needs of a school.

They may cover instruction in theregular curriculumbut not in operationalterms. They may deal with certain othergeneral aspects, but what about such areasas:

the flexible organization of pupils?a school testing and examinationprogram?the development and effective util-ization of learning resources?the effective implementation ofextracurricular activities?reporting and cooperation withparents?

(vi) the intangible objectives of learn-ing?

I think there are enough examples givento cover any school.d) The objectives developed outside theschool arc often too vague and too gen-eralized to be of real value as operationaldirections.

As I have said earlier they set the gen-eral direction but usually do little more.Even in the courses of study where thenature of objectives specified is changingfor some subjects, much remains to bedone by the school for effective transla-tion into action. Howe ver, this is a topicI want to examine in some detail in thenext section of this paper.

The Nature of Objectives

It will be noted that I have refrainedfrom using the words "aims" and "goals".There is no particular virtue in using oneword in preference to another since themeaning is given by definition and usage.However, it is necessary at this stage toconsider in more detail the nature of anobjective and in so doing explore some ofthe reasons that may have prevented ob-jectives from having more meaning andinfluence in the operation of school.

The first observation that might bemade is that objectives differ in leyei ofgenerality. The same thing might be saidin reverse L using the term level ofspecificity. For example, the objectivesof education are usually very generalizedand in effect describe the broac field andset general directions. Similarly the firstlevel of objectives for a curriculum andeven for a particular course of study arenearer to this category. At the other endof the range we find very specific andlimited objectives such as a teacher mayuse for a small sequence of workperhapseven one lesson. In between these ex-tremes, various levels of generality or, ifyou prefer, specificity, can be used informulating objectives. The degree towhich a school: objectives should bereally specific depends on such things asthe area under consideration, the back-ground of k aowledge available and thedegree of freedom desirable for those mak-ing further decisions in implementation.However, as a general rule objectivesshould be developed and translated fromone level to another to a degree of spe-cificity that makes quite clear the direction

22

for subsequent action and gives a realsense of purpose. One of the reasons thatour schools often seem confused and thatmuch inefficiency is apparent is this verylack of snecif ic objectives. This does notnecessarily mean uniformity and stultifi-cation. In fact, as I shall argue later, ateacher working from a secure and pur-posive base has much more incentive tobe creative and in fact may lift her level ofaspiration and performance to higherlevels.

A second and closely related feature ofacceptable objectives is that they shouldbe stated as far as possible in behaviouralterms. This is not always possible becauseof limitations in our present knowledgeand also because certain aspects of an or-ganization's activities may not lead itselfto this kind of objective. However, it ispossible to a greater degree that we usuallyaccept. For example for most of the in-structional program it is possible tospecify objectives hi behavioural terms.After all, learning resulte in changed be-haviour. It naturally follows that opera-tional objectives are those which havebeen broken down until they specify actualbehavioural responses desired of the learn-er. Trow puts it succinctly when hesays:

When introducing statements of ob-jectives, such words as "to know, tounderstand, to appreciate, to grasp thesignificance of" and "to enjoy" are opento many interpretations. "To write, torecite, to construct, to test, to compare"and "to contrast" can be interpreted lessfreely, and the words following thesewould refer to limited units of instruc-tionthe behaviour the learners wouldbe expected to exhibit as evidence ofachievement when they have completedthe program.1

Later on he points out that often we ineducation have been asking the wrongquestion, namely:

What arithmetic (or other subject)should be taught? Instead, the questionshould be, what arithmetic (or othersubject) should be learned? The dif-ference is often not recognized, but itis of tremendous importance.=

These quotations are intended to showthe nature of objectives that should be de-veloped wherever possible. These typesof objectives need to be extended and

modified for many kinds of pupilsif notfor each individual pupil and also for areasin addition to the instructional program.

Now if i refer back to the originalquestion with which I started this papernamely "What are the objectives of yourschool?" I should refrarne it more usefullyas follows:

"What changes in behaviour do you ex-pect of your teachers, your pupils andyourself by, say June of next year?" Thisis the type of question which will lead tomore specific and operational objectives.These would also be more realistic anddynamic in the sense that they set realiz-able targets and foreshadow the setting ofnew objectives for an ensuing period oftimeall of course within the frameworkof more general philosophical directionsset by the outside environment and theschool.

A corollary to the requirement thateventually policy should be broken downinto behavioural objectives is that withinthe school there should be further specifi-cation as to the content or context withinwhich such behaviour applies. In effectthis means that teachers working in sub-ject matter areas would be required totake the behavioural objectives associatedwith say the "ability of pupils to thinkcritically" and interpret these in contextand realistically for mathematics, English,music and other subject areas. Furtherexamples will be developed in a later sec-tion.

My last comment on the nature of oh-jectives is that the majority of them areessentially developmentalcertainly at theoperational level anyway. In one sensethey represent staging points along a di-rection to be followed rather than finaloutcomes. With respect again to theinstructional program this is easier toillustrate since objectives are developedsubsequently so that pupils can progressthrough stages of growth at rates appro-priate to their abilities. In this respectalso the objectives usually specified in aprovincial course of study are seldomadequate for the continuous guidance ofthe learning activities within a school.

In another sense objectives are set upwithin the realistic resources of a schooland many of them over a limited timeperiod. Hence the attainment of these ob-jectives or an evaluation which throws

23

new light on achievement related to ob-jectives, inevitably leads to further di-rection and redirection. This latterdimension probably applies more particu-larly to those aspects of the school as anorganization. It leads to the expectationthat objectives are to be reviewed andthat controlled incremental change is anexpected state of any healthy organizationand especially of a school.

The Scope of Objectives andSome Examples

How extensive should be the statementof a school's objectives? The answer isnot a simple one. There is a danger inbuilding up a massive document whichnobody reads or heeds; on the other handthe school is a complex organization.Probably no other institution has sucha mass of tasks allotted to it by its share-holderstasks which are also anything

, but clearly defined and in fact which oftenpose contradictory expectations. Teachingand learning are complex activities andhuman interactions among administrator,teacher, pupil and parent are also complex.Hence it is not to be expected that theWorking objectives of a school will be asimple brief document. This is not to say

; that individual objectives should not be: as simple and meaningful as possible and.I suggest that some of the discussionearlier on the nature of objectives would

:result in such improvement.

It does seem necessary that theschool's objectives should cover everymajor area of activity. This seems almost.unarguable in terms of breadth of opera-. tions. It is more difficult to make sub-divisions in terms of depth. It is easy todistinguish a starting line where (1) theSchool policy develops to make more mean-ningful the general directions imposed onit by society and by provincial authorities;and (2) the school fills in the gaps to meetthe necessary conditions of its operationas an organization. However, it is not so: easy to decide what should be included ingeneral school objectives and what shouldbe left to departments, teachers and pupilsto develop. Perhaps the answer dependson such factors as the area of operationinvolved and the particular school in termsof staff competence, professional attitudes,

:.age and maturity of pupils, and sophistica-tion 'in the ability . to develop objectives.One thing seems obvious, however, andthat is at all levels of the school, action

should emerge from purposeful objectivesdeveloped by someone.

In an earlier paper in this series it wassuggested that some objectives of an or-ganization are task oriented i.e. gettingthe job done for which the school exists.Others are aimed at the maintenance, ofthe organization as such. Still othersprobably serve both functions.

The first group of objectives is centredaround the instructional program. Whilecurriculum planners are developing moresatisfactory objectives, the translation ofthese into school objectives suitable forsequential levels and various pupils is' .amajor task. Furthermore, there remainsa big gap between the curriculum plannedand the learning experienced. Part of thisis due to lack of adequate objectives alonglines already discussed.

Of considerable and perhaps greater im-portance are those objectives which aimat more lasting outcomes and which cutacross subject area lines. Space precludesa full discussion here but I should like torefer you to the appendix to this paperwhere an extract is given from the publica-tion entitled Behavioural Goals of GeneralEducation in High Schools by Will Frenchand Associates.3 One aspect only has beentaken namely the general objectives :of"growing towards self-realization." It willbe noted that this has been broken downinto four rather more specific objectives.Each of these in turn is specified furtherinto sub-objectives. For example, (1.1)dealing with intellectual self-realizationhas three. In turn each of these is brcikendown further; (1.11) has four furthersubdivisions. Finally, under each of thesespecific operational objectives, for.; ex-ample (1.111), is listed a set of illuStra-tive behaviours that specify the outcomesthat might be expected. Under (1.111)are given sixteen such outcomes of whichI have given only a few as examples. Thishas been done right through the variousareas. The publication gives also modifiedexpectations for less able students.

Quite apart from the purpose such ob-jectives give to school activities it shouldbe noted too that thPy can and should begiven meaning in each of the subject areasoffered in the school and on a sequentiallydeveloped basis. This does not cut acrossthe legitimate demands of provincialcourses of study. In fact it adds to themas well as providing the integrating focuson important long term outcomes. ,

24

Any school or teacher concerned withobjectives in the instructional programought to consult those publications whichattempt to classify educational objectives.Perhaps the most useful is still Bloom'sTaxonomy' which in the cognitive dom-ain classifies objectives on the basis ofthose dealing with knowledge of variouskinds (for example specifics, terminology,conventions, trends, classification, metho-dology, universal principles, theories) andthose which caB for higher levels of in-tellectual abilities and skills (for examplecomprehension, interpretation, applica-tion, analysis, synthesis, evaluation). Anattempt has been made to do the same inthe affective domain.5 Illustrative typebehaviours are given.

Other task oriented areas of the organ-ization for which objectives are necessaryare as follows :

I. Organization of pupils2. Allocation of resources teachers,

materials, etc.3. Development of supporting services

e.g. counselling, library, testingprograms, reporting to parents etc.

4. Business and clerical functions5. Various administrative and supervis-

ory tasks

Some searching qustions can be askedabout the objectives of current practicesand the degree to which current practicesare reaching even the hopeful objectivesstated. It seems clear that in many caseslittle thought has been given to the desir-able objectives to be achieved in the aboveareas in relation to the general philoso-phy of the instructional program.

Activities concerned with the mainten-ance of the organization are those gene-erally which give satisfaction to itsmembersin this case teachers andpupils. Some of this satisfaction arisesfrom the very fact that the organizationhas clear purposes and seems to be achiev-ing them. However, much of the satisfac-tion emergtz, from the kind of organiza-tional climate and interpersonal relationswhich exist. The key to this appears to bethe administrative staff led by theprincipal. While much more knowledge isrequired about how the school operates inthis respect we do have some indicationsthat such factors as professional re-sponsibility, cooperative decision-making

in appropriate areas, recognition of teach-ers and pupils as individuals in their ownright and opportunities for genuine pro-fessional growth are important in themaintenance of a healthy organization.Objectives in these and similar areas canbe developed to guide action and pro-cedures. Again the same principles applywith respect to the nature of those ob-jectives which will be effective.

Who Should Decide a School's Objectives?

The development of an organization'sobjectives is part of the administrativefunction. Hence the principal has theprimary leadership role in the activitieswhich formulate objectives and which re-view them continuously. However, thereis ample evidence to support the view thatwhile the principal should initiate andlead, the best results are obtained by co-operative effort involving teachers in par-ticular but also pupils and parents onappropriate aspects. Commitment isclearly necessary and cooperative involve-ment in the process of developing objec-tives is more likely to obtain this.

It is not being suggested here that aschool staff should become one big happyfamily all adopting the same values. Noris it suggested that authority and re-sponsibility be abdicated in favour of totalgroup decision-making. It is proposed,however, that a school staff, working to-gether on a continuous basis can developan acceptable set of objectives withinwhich there will be a clear allocation ofresponsibility at various levels of the or-ganization and which also will give pur-pose to the further specification and im-plementation of objectives by each teacherin her sphere of work.

The further question arises as to howobjectives in various sub-units and atvarious levels may be coordinated. Rely-ing on information from evaluation pro-cedures is insufficient and in any case isstarting at the wrong end. Not much re-search evidence is available in schools onthe degree of correspondence between thebasic objectives of the school and of peopleat various levels but it seems almost axio-matic that desirably it ought to be con-siderable. What then does an administrat-or do?

In discussing this question in relation tothe concept of "management by objectives"

25

in an industrial organization Knowlescomments as follows:

One possibility may be for a superiorto call his subordinate into the officeand say, "I have some objectives I wantyou to achieve." It is quite likely thatimposition of this kind will evoke defen-sive behaviour, especially if the levelsof performance are too high. On theother hand, if the levels of performanceare too low, complacency may be en-couraged. Also, if the subordinate isheld rigidly to the achievement of theobjectives, it is possible that he willattempt to shroud his performance inambiguity so that the true position willnever be known. Furthermore, this ap-proach leaves untouched the motiva-tional characteristics that usually tendto be associated with consultative andparticipative approaches.°

As a result of working with people inlower levels of the organization beingstudied, Knowles was able to say:

As the whole exercise of setting ob-jectives was repeated, people tended tobecome aware of the importance of thevarious dimensions of their jobs, and toview their roles in a broader way. Theresulting role expansion is considered tobe an important aspect of "managementby objectives."

Another important characteristic of"management by objectives" is this. Asa person tends to set levels of perform-ance which are realistic, achievementof the target serves as a powerful sourceof reward. Confidence in his capabili-ties tends to grow, and the person mayincrease his level of aspiration by settingmore difficult objectives. This increasedexpression of himself in his job, and theadded satisfaction received from hiswork, leads to greater actualization ofthe person:

The point does not need elaboration. Inthe school the principal has a major ad-ministrative function to lead the staff andothers in determining organizational ob-jectives and then the further role ofworking with teachers and groups ofteachers in clarifying the objectives at the

various levels and in the various areas ofoperations. In the instructional programthis can be done to a large degree independ-ently of the particular subject or otherarea of expertise involved. The principalis a catalyst and need net be expert in allthe details; teachers can supply this re-quirement. The emphasis is on a co-operative organization but with adequateleadership.

In considering who sets objectives somemention should be made of the backgroundof knowledge about education which ofitself acts as a determinant. Knowledgeabout society and its values form one di-mension. Another one is the wealth ofknowledge about the particular pupils inthe school as well as pupils in generalhow they grow, develop, and above all,how they learn. Still another dimension isconcerned with the structure of knowledgeitself and how this is determined in thevarious areas of learning experience. Fin-ally, there is the sociological aspect deal-ing with the finctioning of organizationsand of groups. All this and more con-stitute the background which, togetherwith the philosophical values and creativ-ity of teachers, leads to the determinationof objectives.

In Conclusion

Objectives are the controlling elementsin an organization; when properly de-veloped and implemented, they determinethe direction and the subsequent bases forimplementation. They are the key toevaluation and subsequent redirection.They can both lift up sights and yet berealistic; can give security and yet bechallenging; and can ensure that the or-ganization is task-oriented and yet main-tain itself as viable and dynamic.

Let us pose my initial question in yetanother way:

"Having in mind the many activitieswhich you and your staff can influenceand the vital importance of the answer tothe pupils in your school, what kind ofeducational institution do you want tohavesay one year from now, two yearsfrom now and even five years from now?"

26

REFERENCES

1. William C. Trow, Teacher and TechnologyNewDesign, for Learning, (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963), p. 14.

2. Ibid., p. 16.3. Will French and Associates, Behavioural Goals of

General Education in High Schools. (New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1957), pp. 92-133.

4. Benjamin S. Bloom (ed.), Taxonomy of Educa-tional Objectives: The Classification of EducationalGoals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, (New York,David McKay Company Inc., 1956).

5. David K. 1Crathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom and Bert-ram B. Masia, Toxnomy of Educational Objec-tives: The Classification of Educational Goals,Handbook II: Affective Domain, (New York:David McKay Company Inc., 1964).

6. M. C. Knowles, "Changing Management Practicesin an Industrial Organization" ( a paper preparedat the University of Edinborough), p. 2, (mimeo.).

7. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

APPENDIX

Behavioural Outcomes of General Educationin High School

(W. French and Associates)I. Growing Toward Self-Realization

I.1 Developing Behaviours Indicative of Intel-lectual Self-Realization1.11 Improving study habits, study skills, etc.

1.111 Is skillful in securing informationand in organizing, evaluating andreporting results of study and re-search.

27

Illustrative Behaviour(a) Decides on purpose before

planning action.(c) Consults periodicals etc.(d) Uses common sources of print-

ed information effeciently etc.(n) Develops skill in noting and

recording information etc.1.112 Displays an inquiring mind: is in-

tellectually curious and industriousIllustrative Behaviour etc.

1.113 Can learn independently and showsdesire to do so.

1.114 Recognizes the importance of con-tinuing to learn.

1.12 Improving His Ability to CommunicateIdeas and to Recognize and Use GoodStandards.(Again broken down as illustrated above)

1.13 Becoming Sensitive to and Competent inthe use of Logical Thinking and ProblemSolving Processes.

(etc.)I.2 Developing Behaviours Indicative of Growth

Toward Cultural Orientation and Integration(Broken down as before)

1.3 Developing Behaviours Indicative of GrowthToward Personal, Mental and Physical Health

(etc.)1.4 Developing Behaviours Indicative of Growth

Toward Economic Literacy and Independence(etc.)

Evaluating A School's ProgramW. D. NEAL

A PerspectiveThe word "evaluation" and its use with

other words, as in "self-evaluation" or"evaluative criteria," appear to arousestrong reactions among many teachers.Some, of course, associate the term withprojects in which they have participatedand in which they were committed to agreat amount of work from which littlelong term benefit emergedor so teachersallege. Others think of the evaluation ofteachers and this naturally arouses theirrighteous indignation. "What right,"they say, "has anybody got to assess us?We are professionals." Other teachersassociate evaluation with traditional ex-aminations and testing and who can blamethem if these have caused their negativereaction?

Apparently the term "evaluation" hascome to mean many things to many people.One reason of course is that it has beenapplied in many areas and to many pro-cesses. This difficulty can be resolvedfor purposes of our discussion by limita-tion and definitionwhich I shall try todo shortly. Of greater difficulty is thecommunication gap which arises whenevaluation is regarded as somethingspecialas an activity which is taken onas a real burden and which is somehowextraneous to the real task of teaching.Evaluating ought to be as automatic asteaching or administering or any otheractivity carried on in a school. In factthe teaching act is not complete unlessevaluation procedures have been built intoit.

Hence while it is true that there areoccasions when a more demanding projectof an evaluative nature might be under-taken, the main approach ought to be suchthat evaluation is commonplace and thenecessary competence ought to be part ofthe working tools of every teacher andadministrator. I see no other possibleinterpretation if we are to regard theactivities of the school as having anyrational basis at all.

In this paper evaluation is defined asprocess involving:a) the establishing of criteria related to

the objectives of the particular educa-tional activity;

a

b) the collecting of data concerning thesituation with respect to those criteria;and

c) the interpreting of the data and thenthe making of judgments on theevidence available concerning perform-ance in relation to objectives and thelines of future action.

This is along the lines of traditionaldefinitions of the process but it is wellto clarify our terms. A more detaileddiscussion of the steps involved will beundertaken later.

Where the term "appraisal" is usedhere it should be regarded as synonymouswith "evaluation". The term "assess-ment" will be avoided since it implies an-other shade of meaning. Testing, exam-inations and measurements are all relevantterms but in traditional usage they referto only part of the evaluative process.

From the above definition it will benoted that knowledge of the objectives ofan activity is essential to an evaluationfunction. Some writers actually includethe establishment of objectives as thefirst step. However, my view is thatobjectives are the key to the whole educa-tional program and its related activitiesand that evaluation therefore just proceedsfrom this base. However, the require-ments stated in the preceding paper,namely, that objectives should be specificand stated in behavioural terms wheneverpossible are equally important to theevaluation process.

I have said already that every activityin an educational organization ought tobe evaluated as a natural and rationalpart of that activity. This does not meanthat every part of the organization willbe continuously under the evaluativemicroscope. Some activities, for example,the instructional program will have itsoutcomes under constant appraisal. Othersfor example, some administrative ac-tivities, might 1:.-° reviewed only periodical-ly. However, in addition to the need forcomprehensiveness with respect to all thevarious areas of operation there is also therequirement that as many of the objectivesas possible within each area be subjected

29

to :crag., ny. We have been saying this fora long tim( with respect to the instruc-tional program, but with so little effectthat it In ,,st be repeated agdn and againuntil the message gets through. If wetee, only selective objectives then thoseobjectives won become the only ones whichare pursued in schools. This, of course,is the result from our testing and ex-amination systems, especially the externalexaminations, which force schools toemphasize limited objectives and many ofthem not the important ones.

It is difficult to talk rationally aboutexternal examination practices since thosewho support them ignore the evidence con-cerning even their own claims for theiradvantages. In any case this paper is noton that topic; however, schools surelyhave to avoid perpetuating the samesystem on other grades of pupils any morefrequently than is absolutely necessary.

A corollary to the above comment is thatif schools change their objectives theyshould at the same time change theirevaluative criteria and procedures. Forexample, a school which puts moreemphasis on catering for the individualstudent in say, non-graded organizationhas very little use for common examina-tions. Objectives stressing individualdifferences mean individualized teachingand all its consequences and, obviously,individual testing and evaluation. All thisseems obvious but what is happening inpractice?

A further perspective is that evaluationis less than adequate if it takes place inan atmosphere of anxiety and hostility. Infact valid evidence is likely to be concealedwhether it be for teacher or pupil.Furthermore the regular presence of suchan atmosphere is indicative that the majorbenefit of evaluation, namely an assess-ment of growth so that positive progresscan ensue, is not being developed.

Finally, in this section it seems neces-sary to point out that the mark of a goodevaluation system is not the percentageof failures which has been obtained. Thereis no virtue in failure on the basis oftin; intaining some so-called artificial"standard". Those who fail are usuallythose who can stand the strain least wellbut they have been subjected to a historyof failure. In many cases it is the or-ganization which has failed because it hasbad either inappropriate objectives or in-

adequate evaluation procedures. I am ofcourse leaving aside those students whofail from lack of effort or from unrealisticparental ambition.

What has emerged from the discussion sofar seems to point to the need to look verycarefully at the purposes of evaluation.

Purpose in and Purposes of Evaluation

While it was said earlier that the mainreason for evaluation was to see how wellthe school was doing, it becomes clear aswe proceed further that any particularevaluation activity must have a muchclearer purpose if it is to make a real con-tribution. This can be illustrated by look-ing at appraisal in the area of the instruc-tional program. Here the main emphasisin much of our evaluation will be onobtaining data about pupil performance inrelation to our objectives and the criteriawe have established. However, our purposein making this appraisal is important. Arewe interested in comparing pupil achieve-ment against some norm? Or are we in-terested in the much more productive taskof diagnosing strengths and weaknesses inperformance so that positive action may beplanned? There is a place of course formany purposes in evaluation. Schools haveto, from time to time, measure a pupil or agroup of pupils against norms; they haveto mark, grade and report on pupils; andalso unfortunately they have to providedata for predictive purposes such as ma-triculation.

However, these purposes do not lead toanything like a complete evaluation pro-gram. The more important task, with re-spect to pupil performance, is to buildevaluation procedures into the very coreof the teaching and learning process sothe purpose of regular and systematicchecking is done at the most appropriatetime for the learner and contributes to hismotivation. Hence the emphasis will beon such procedures as placement anddiagnostic testing. The common examina-tion given at pre-determined times justbecause the specified month rolls aroundshould be a thing of the past. Studentsare evaluated when they have made thenecessary progress and this largely on anindividual basis although the procedurecan apply equally to small groups ofstudents. This is not just fantasy. Ourobjectives make the claimto meet the in-dividual needs of students. Pupils learn at

30

different rates. How can we possiblysupport common evaluation procedures foranything but a very limited purpose?

The same stress on knowing what pre-cisely we have in view applies to evaluationof the curriculum as a whole or to evalua-tion of teacherswith the same emphasisone would hope on the positive diagnosticand remedial approach. Of course ourpurposes must be intensive and compre-hensive if we are to test out the manyobjectives of the program and also themany instructional and organizational de-vices we useat present often on the basisof hope only.

Having in mind some clear conception ofwhat evaluation should and can do helpsus also to avoid making exaggeratedclaims for it. For example, our difficultyin establishing clear criteria about goodteaching ought to make us cautious in theinterpretation of data about teachers.However, the main point I want to stressin this connection is that evaluation pro-cedures as defined can make only a partialcontribution to decision-making about theappropriateness of our objectives. Sup-pose we change the objectives for a par-ticular course of studysay as has beendone in mathematics and physics. We canevaluate how successfully we are inachieving those new objectives ; we cancompare achievement under the new coursewith that under the old for those objectiveswhich are common, if any. Indeed thereis a strong case for this kind of researchactivity on a much more extensive scaleprovincially and within schools than iscurrently the practice. We can also makesome decisions as to whether the new ob-jectives are realizable for certain stud-ents or whether they should be modified.

However, on the question as to whetherthe new objectives in mathematics are bet-ter than the old ones we need a differentkind of judgment procedure. It is neces-sary to look at the determinants of ob-jectives, that is, information about society,structure of knowledge, learning theory,pupil characteristics and so on, togetherwith appropriate value judgments arisingfrom a soundly based philosophy.

The Evaluative Process

Earlier, evaluation was defined as theprocess involving:

a) the establishing of criteria;

b) the collecting of data; andc) the interpreting of the data and the

making of judgments.

It is necessary now to take a more de-tailed look at this process. As outlined, itrepresents the traditional or classicalevaluation model. To function effectivelyit depends on the proper completion ofeach stage. If we confine our attentionto the instructional program for the mo-ment we might illustrate very simply whatis taking place with the following diagram:

rPROCESS CRITERIA

R

.1

E

C

TI

E

P

R

C

T

I

k

0

C

E

S

_T___.>

S

PRODUCT CRITERIA zFigure 1

The Instructional Program and Sourcesof Criteria

The instructional program is shown asproceeding from objectives throughprocess to result in certain products.Objectives, of course, are expected to meetthose standards of specificity and be-havioural characteristics already dis-cussed.

The area labelled as process is made upof such components as:

a) course of study (i.e. curriculumplanned) ;

b) various aspects of organization ofcurriculum within the school; and

c) units of instruction, i.e., specificteaching units around more limitedparts of the curriculum with theirown objectives; selected learningexperiences; teaching methods ; in-structional materials; and built-intesting devices.

The product area of course represents theoutcomes of the instructional programme

31

in terms of the changes in behaviour (orlearning) actually resraing.

Turning now to the evaluation processone source of criteria arises out of theobjectives of the program. They mayindeed be the objectives themselves if theseare sufficiently explicit and precise. How-ever, in many cases it will be necessary toadd to the objectives a specification asto the degree of mastery that is acceptableand perhaps the conditions that must bemet. Suppose that one objective is "theability to translate non-literal statements(metaphor, symbolism, irony, exaggera-tion) to ordinary English." Knowing thelevel of student involved we could fairlyreadily accept this objective as a criterionand draw up suitable evaluative pro-cedures. We would later have to interpretour data in terms of expectations of howmuch the student should be able to answer.However, if we take another objectivesuch as "the ability to apply principles tonew situations" we have considerablymore qualifications to make before wehave our criteria. These qualificationswill emerge from an examination of theparticular curriculum, the learning ex-periences of the student, and so on.

Some further discussion of criteria ingeneral will be undertaken later; the mainpoint to be emphasized is that productcriteria which can be based directly onsuitably developed objectives shouldenable us to at least start the evaluationprocess with a good chance of makingvalid decisions. To follow through thisprocess requires the correct developmentof data collecting techniques such as testsand observations, to give the informationon which interpretation and judgmentsare made.

Unfortunately the classical evaluationmodel as outlined above often is not ap-plicable in a number of situations. Firstly,it is difficult to establish product criteriaif the objectives of the curriculum cannotbe expressed in behavioural terms. Someof our objectives are intangible and stillothers, while intellectually based, are dif-ficult to specify. I refer to such objectivesas those dealing with personality develop-ment and those dealing with say creativethinking. We are concerned also withintegrated growth and development andthe completely analytic approach to ob-jectives does not cope adequately withsome of the more general objectives. A

second factor which may cause a break-down in the model is that despite yearsof developing testing programs and con-siderable recent advances, there are stilllarge gaps in our ability to develop validdata collecting techniques.' A third reasonis that some of the educational outcomesmay refer to behaviour which will not befully developed until many years afterschooling is finished. Long term studiesof what happens in real life situations areneeded but they do not help our immediateevaluative problem. A fourth reason isthat behaviour results in part from schooland in part from effects of many other in-fluences. We cannot isolate always whatthe school has achieved.

Hence it is necessary to look for sup-plementary criteria which may be used asthe basis for evaluation. These may bedeveloped out of that area in the diagramin Figure 1 which has been called the"Process". For example, if we look at theconditions of learning which guide theeducational process we can find a numberof criteria which ought to be present. Ourcurrent information suggests for examplethat criteria could be developed aroundsuch principles as :

a) motivationas essential to learning;b) rewardwhich should' be positive,

related to effort and as immediateas possible;

c) transfer of trainingwhich takesplace only under certain specifiedconditions;

d) problem solvingor inquiryordiscoverya central part to learningof the learning emphasis; and so on.

The argument being advanced here isthat if the process of education is beingcarried on in accordance with soundlyestablished psychological and educationalcriteria, then there is a strong possibilitythat the products will be satisfactory.Many of the criteria that we now use, fallin this category of process, but we shouldrecognize the indirect nature of their re-lationship. They do not replace productcriteria. They can help to fill gaps in theevaluation process and can indeed supplysupplementary information.2

Of course the evaluation proceduresbased on process criteria are still the same.We still have to devise valid data collect-ing techniques about the degree to whichcriteria are being met. This may en-

32

compass testing and observation as beforebut again we lack sufficient knowledgeabout adequate techniques in some areas.The interpretation and judgments aboutour data may be somewhat; more difficultbut not impossibly so.

So far the illustrations given have re-ferred to the instructional program. How-ever, other activities of the organizationcan and should be evaluated too. For ex-ample, what kind of criteria should be usedto evaluate aspects of the administrativeprocess? Again the procedure is the same.We require a knowledge of objectives fromwhich we develop criteria, some of whichmay be the product type. In many ac-tivities we may have to rely rather heavilyon process criteria. It is worth notinghowever, that some of the criteria we havelabelled as process for the instructionalprogram are really the products of ouradministrative process. An examplemight be in the area of organization oflearning experiences and of pupils. Pro-cess criteria related to instruction wouldbe such things as :

integration i.e. sequential learningexperiences;

continuity i.e. reinforcement andmutual effort;

flexibility i.e. a variety of group-ings and other arrange-ments.

Administration in this respect within theschool is aimed at producing these veryconditions, i.e., the end products aimed atbecome process criteria for the instruc-tionnl program. Hence there appears tobe an intorlocking of criteria which re-inforces the validity of the evaluative pro-cess. Some of the criteria may arisefrom the structure of the organization.They may indeed be a different type againfrom product or process. In fact werecognize that, as well as achieving thetask for which the school exists, anotherpurpose of the school as an organizationis to maintain itself in a healthy state tocontinue as a viable entity, and thereforealso with the flexibility to adjust to chang-ing circumstances. A variety of criteriawill be needed for evalutive purposes.

Sources of criteria. The emphasis indiscussing criteria with respect to evalua-tion has been up to this point on broadprinciples and classification. It is neces-sary now to examine sources of criteria insome greater detail.

The first possibility is to use one of thestatements of criteria developed by variousorganizations : An example would be thestatement developed for secondary schoolsby the National Study of. Secondary SchoolEvaluation (formerly the CooperativeStudy of Secondary School Standards).3The major emphasis is on the instructionalprogram although other aspects of theschool's activities are included. Anothersource might be the publications of theAlberta Teachers' Association which arequite extensive and cover most of a schoolsystem and schoo1.4 There are, of course,many similar publications too numerous tomention.

On of the difficulties with such pub-lished criteria is that they do not dis-tinguish sufficiently between the type ofcriteria being advocated, namely whetherprocess, product or other. This causesconsiderable difficulty in precise collect-.tion of data and also with the interpreta-tion of information gathered. A seconddifficulty, which is in effect a byproduct ofthe first, is that many criteria are notdefi_ :Id precisely enough even in areaswhere greater precision is possible withour present knowledge. A third difficultyagain related to those already mentionedis that evaluative criteria developed on ageneralized basis do not necessarily applyto a particular school with sufficientprecision to be as useful as they might be.The publication Evaluative Criteria, al-ready cited, avoids this to some extent bystressing the need to ascertain the ob-jectives of a particular school first andproceeding accordingly, a precautionwhich many others do not state explicity.

The criticisms mentioned of variouspublished statements of criteria are notintended to imply that they are not usefulas a starting point. Many valuable evalua-tion projects have been undertaken in thisprovince and elsewhere using these state-ments as a guide. It is necessary however,to give considerable time and study to theadaptation and interpretation of suchstatements before they are used in anyparticular school.

Another valuable framework of refer-ence is the use of a classification systemof educational objectives which not onlyhelps to ensure a comprehensive set ofcriteria but also emphasizes the variationsin the nature of objectives and hencecriteria. Mention was made in the pre-

33

ceding paper of the Taxonomies of Educa-tional Objectives. Another useful andsomewhat simpler schemewhich againapplies mainly in the instructional pro-gram field is that developed by Ebel.5 Theemphasis is on tests and test items but theimplications are clear. He suggests thefollowing categories, which have been re-arranged and adapted slightly from the or-iginal to make them more significant forour purposes :1. Vocabulary objectivesresponses based

on knowledge of terms;2. Fact objectivesresponses based on

specific observations on restrictedstatements;

3. Generalization objectives responsesbased on extensive groups of events,observations, experiments; or dealswith principles, conclusions and trends;

4. Understanding objectives responsesrequire knowledge of casual factors,purposes, interpretations, explanations;

5. Application objectivesresponses de-mand problem solving, judgment,evaluation, originality in dealing withnew specific situations etc.

Whatever classification scheme is usedthe advantage is that there is a compre-hensive approach to the formulation ofproduct criteria, and hence a more validevaluation of the total desirable objectivesof a school.

When we come to process criteria thesituation is somewhat more difficult; how-ever, it is possible to develop in some areasquite precise criteria. Earlier in thispaper it was suggested that a desirableprinciple related to the conditions of learn-ing of the instructional program would bethat emphasis is placed on problem solving.There would be little difficuly in estab-lishing precise criteria and subsequentlymeasurement techniques to evaluate thedegree to which this principle is beingobserved. It could be measured directly insome learning vreas also.

With other process criteria we mightJ e forced into less precise definitions. Oneuseful practice is to use a scale consistingof say five points which might be labelledinferior, below average, average, aboveaverage, superior. Typical descriptivestatements are then developed for selectedpoints, for example, inferior and superior.°

As an example of how this may be de-veloped, we might take the principle

motivation which was suggested earlier asleading to process criteria in the area ofconditions of learning. If we were con-sidering the social studies curriculumbench marks might be set as follows :

Inferior. The content is rigidly pre-scribed in the course of study andlittle attempt is made to vary the?material to the local environment.Interest is not used as a basic in-gredient of learning either by build-ing on pupils' experiences or on de-veloping motivation through successnd pride in mastery of skills and

principles involved.Superior. Motivation is developed by

creating conditions which requirestudents to build on experience oftheir environment. Emphasis is onthe social world around them andstudents are encouraged to do re-search in depth, to undertake guidedfield experiences, etc. Interest isencouraged by helping students toacquire mastery of the concepts andskills involved and to test and demon-strate these for themselves.

If we turn now to the development ofprocess criteria related to an area otherthan the instructional program it is pos-sible to use the same technique. For ex-ample we might want to evaluate the ef-fectiveness of communication with staffas part of the administrative function. Thefollowing example could be used.?

Inferior. Little attempt is made at staffcommunication. Information that isavailable often consists of hearsayand rumours and tends to lead to Itvmorale and confusion.

Superior. Staff personnel are kept wellinformed of school system policies.

. . A variety of informational ma-terial is used including, where ap-propriate, meetings, bulletins, news-letters, personal conferences, work-shops and staff handbooks. . . . Spe-cific provision is made for two waycommunication.

The collection of evidence on suchcriteria is possible and can be made moreuseful by observation and recording ofspecific items which back up the interpre-tation made. Space precludes any furtherdevelopment of this topic on criteria. It isvital to valid evaluation and to the subse-quent effect on the school's direction of

34

endeavour. It has been pointed out thata number of useful sources and frame-works exist to help in establishing criteria.Statements of evaluation criteria, taxono-mies of objectives and principles arisingfrom our knowledge about learning, ad-ministration, etc. are valuable sources.However, the stress I would place is thatthese are most useful when used by aschool to develop its own criteria relatedto its own objectives and specific to itsown situation.

Some of you may wonder about the roleof standardized tests and various otherforms of achievement tests. Undoubtedlythey furnish valuable information butlimited. At present, and perhaps this willalways be the case, the available testsand examinations do not come anywherenear to being an adequate basis to judgea school, quite apart from the other un-desirable consequences of over emphasisto which I have already referred.

Collecting data. The techniques to beused to collect information related to thedetermined criteria depend also on thepurposes of the evaluation. Whatevertee niques are used, the main function isto ensure that they provide the oppor-tunities for the real behaviour under examination to emerge. Such well knownrequirements of objectivity, validity andreliability apply to all techniques and notjust to testing.

One type of device and the most com-mon one with respect to product criteriais testing. The range of techniques is in-creasing and some useful tests are avail-able in certain aspects of the more com-plex forms of intellectual activity.8 Typi-cal tests are those published by the Edu-cational Testing Service (SequentialTests of Educational Progress) andScience Research Associates (SRAAchievement Series). Even some of theintangible objectives are yielding to eval-uation techniques of the testing kind.However, the various kinds of tests stillleave large gaps. In addition, they oftenmust be adapted to the requirements ofthe instructional program of Canadianeducation generally and of a particularschool. Unfortunately, the Canadian edu-cational scene lags in developments of thistype.

Other techniques are available, however,for use by interested schools. They in-clude:

(a) Observational techniques which canbe structured in various ways;

(b) Questionnaires, attitude scales, in-ventories, etc.;

(c) Interviews and structured group dis-cussions;

(d) Records of various kinds anec-dotal as well as statistical.

Some of the publications on evaluativecriteria and procedure give suggestionson ways of collecting evidence.

Again with respect to those areas ofthe school's activities other than the in-structional data gathering techniques areless well developed. Some instruments areavailable which at least give possibilitiesof adaption." In general, however, themore informal type of technique as listedhas to be employed.

Some technological devices add addi-tional possibilities for the collection ofinformation. The tape recorder, and thefilm and television camera can be usedfrom time to time as appropriate and ifavailable. Furthermore, the increasinguse of the computer helps in processingdata of a quantity and complexity whichhave been beyond reasonable compassuntil quite recently.

Interpretation and judgments. A massof data of itself carries little direct mes-sage about the state of operation of aschool. It is the stage of interpretationand judgment that perhaps call for themost demanding and creative thought.Out of this may emerge further ques-tions on which information must besought. Certainly an end result may be areview of many aspects of the school andsome redirection of energies and resources.

The basis of interpretation will de-pend, naturally, on the original purposesof the evaluation. However, some generalcomments are appropriate.

Comparison of group performance or ofindividual performance against norms orstandards will yield useful but limitedinformation. New and more perceptive di-mensions are injected if we ask questionssuch as the following:(i) What is the performance of the

class, or of the pupil,(ii) or of the teacher compared with

what it was, say, three months ago?(iii) What educational growth has

occurred? Is it satisfactory? What isperformance against abilities?

35

(iv) How does administrative perform-ance measure up against the re-sources of the school?

A second fruitful approach, again in-volving an analytical technique mayemerge from a detailed interpretation ofsub-parts of an evaluative instrument.A profile of performance may shcw im-balances which are masked if the totalperformance only is examined.

The principle of cooperation in andcommitment to the evaluation processhas been suggested throughout. In theinterpretation and judgment phase theneed is even more apparent if productiveconsequences are to emerge. The wholeeffort is wasted and frustrating if themaximum possible effort is not put intoestablishing new directions where need-ed in the school's operations or if a massof information stays on the shelf.

Examples of Evaluation Projects

It is possible to give only a fewexamples here. The most fruitful formsof evaluative studies appear to be wherethe emphasis is on cooperative effortas has been suggested already. Some ofthese emerge as self-evaluation pro-jects and this concept can be developedfor evaluation by a school, by an indi-vidual teacher and by pupils. Indeed withrespect to pupils there Ts increasing recog-nition that to attain some of the most de-sirable learning outcomes and to catermore adequately within our resources forindividual differences, there must be in-creasing emphasis on self-instructionalmethods and materials. Self-evaluativetechniques are a logical consequence.Some examples of these are programmedlearning and the development materialsin Reading Laboratories and Science La-boratories published by the Science Re-search Associates. The Science Labora-tories illustrate also the possibility ofteaching and testing to different objec-tives classified by depth in intelle_ttualeffort but within the one class of pupils.

The above examples are narrower inscope and directed in the main at the con-tinuous evaluation closely associated withongoing teaching and learning. Neverthe-less this is important and has useful im-plications for wider evaluation projects.

On a wider basis attempts have beenmade in the publications already cited,

to define the areas which might be subjectto evaluation. For example the NationalStudy of Secondary School Evaluationdeals with the following:

(i) Philosophy and objectives(ii) School and community (data about

pupils, the community and com-munity agencies).

(iii) Program of studies (in general)(iv) Individual subject fields, e.g. mathe-

matics etc.(v) Supporting services (library, guid-

ance, etc.)

With respect to the process criteria re-lated to the instructional program thearticle by Neal already cited proposesthat five areas might be examined andprinciples from which criteria can be de-veloped are listed. The areas are:

(i) Nature of learning experiences(ii) Organization of learning experi-

ences(iii) Conditions of learning(iv) Learning materials(v) Learning climate

Some studies have been undertaken inAlberta on administrative aspects ofschools perhaps not aimed specificallyat evaluation but they could be used byan interested school staff. In particularthe report on the "Organizational ClimateDescription Questionnaire" is interestingmateria1.11

In addition a number of schools in Al-berta have undertaken self-evaluationprojects but unfortunately there havebeen few published reports. One that isavailable, however, is the study in theMedicine Hat Public School System.laThe system used a combination of self-evaluation and external evaluation andspent a year and a half developing aphilosophy, then an instrument for evalua-tion, finally collecting the data. The ex-ternal evaluation followed and then an-other year and a half was spent in inter-pretation and follow-up studies. The re-port indicates considerable satisfaction onthe part of teachers, greater understand-ing of objectives, strengths and weakness-es and challenging consequences in follow-up programs, inservice activities andteacher growth.

Conclusion

Adequate evaluation is an importantand necessary activity in our schools,

36

Without it we are groping in the dark,our objectives are distorted and we arein danger of being ineffectual. Ideally weshould be engaged in continuous evalua-tion of all phases of a school's activities.Possibly a cautious start in one area mightbe more appropriate in that we can de-velop rigour and competence before ex-tending into wider fields. Perhaps a use-ful first question might be: "How can weevaluate and improve our eva3uative pro-cedures?"

REFERENCES

1. For more detailed discussion see: Robinson,F. G., "Evaluation in Education," and W. D.Neal, "The Characteristics of a Good School,"in E. Miklos (ed.), Evaluation: An Administra-tion Function, (Edmonton: Department of Edu-cational Administration, University of Alberta,1964), pp. 1-27 and pp. 51-70.

2. Neal, Loc. cit.3. National Study of Secondary School Evalua-

tion, Evaluative Criteria, 1960 Edition, (Wash-ington, D.C.: The Study, 1960).

4. Alberta Teachers' Association AccreditationCommittee, Handbook for Self Evaluation ofSchools and School Systems, (Edmonton: ATA,1962).

37

5. Ebel , R. L., "Procedures for the Analysis ofClassroom Tests," Educational and Psycho-logical Measurement, 18: 221-240, 1958.

6. See for example: National Education Associa-tion, Profiles of Excellence Recommended Cri-teria for Evaluating the Quality of a LocalSchool System, (Washington, D.C.: NationalEducation Association, 1966).

7. p. 16.8. See for example:

Burton,W. N., R. B. Kimball and R. L. Wing,Education for Effective Thinking, (New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1960), pp. 439-444,and E. R. Smith and R. W. Tyler, Appraisingand Recording Student Progress, (New York:Harper, 1942) Chapters 4 and 5. (Deals withthe Eight Year Study-one of the most signifi-cant and most neglected studies in education.)

9. A full discussion of some of these is given invarious sections of: National society for theStudy of Education, The Measurement of Under-standing, Forty-Fifth Yearbook, Pt. 1 (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1946).

10. For example:Halpin, A. W. and D. B. Crofts, The Organi-zational Climate of Schools, (Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago, Midwest Administrative Center,1963).

11. Andrews, J. H. "School Organizational Cli-mate: Some Validity Studies," Canadian Edu-cation and Research Digest, 5: 317-334, (De-cember, 1965).

12. 0. P. Larson, "Self Evaluation as an Approachto Professional Growth and School Improve-ment," in E. Miklos (ed.), op. cit. pp. 71-92.

Teachers: Employees or Professionals?D. A. MacKAY

The question embodied in the title ofthis paper is only part of a larger ques-tion, namely, what is the role of theteacher? This is, of course, an extremelydifficult question to answer especially asone recognizes that the teacher role in aprovince like this one is really an amalgamof many sets of expectations as to what ateacher should be and do. There are legaldefinitions of teacher duties and responsi-bilities to be found in the School Act andin various other enactments of provincialand local governing bodies. There are thecode of ethics and standards of profes-sional conduct of the teachers' organiza-tion; there are the skills and competen-cies which teacher education institutionsdemand of their graduates; there are theexpectations for teacher behavior in theminds of pupils, parents, school boardmembers, administrators, and membersof the general public. Surely an attemptto strike a single definition which willaccurately reflect all of these sources is amost difficult task. Nevertheless, if thosewho are concerned with teacher behavioras they play this difficult role do notattempt to understand it, only troublewill result.

In order to narrow the scope of thisparticular paper, only some of those ele-ments of the teacher's role which aremost affected by what a school adminis-trator does will be considered. To thisend, teacher behavior in the classroom andschool will be the focus of attention. Ele-ments in the teacher role which have todo with his legal rights, his status in so-ciety and so on will receive at most pass-ing mention.

In order to raise some of the issueswhich surround and perhaps define thequestion about teacher roles, a typologyof teachers will be presented. Then, somerequirements which an organization mustmake of its members will be identified.What might be called the "conflict hy-pothesis" will be stated and briefly exam-ined; finally, some problems associatedwith the whole business of staff improve-ment and the principal's contribution tothis purpose will be discussed. The basicpurpose of this paper will be to provideadministrators with the possibility of in-

--)

°

creasing their insight into just what theteaching job is.

A Typology of Teachers

It must be noted that the so-called ty-pology of teachers identified here does notpurport to be the definitive theoretical an-alysis of the teacher role. It is, rather, aset of perspectives on the teacher; thatis, a number of different ways of lookingat teachers or of classifying them andtheir activities in order to better under-str.nd them. Since there are many differ-ent ways of analysing the job or the roleof the teacher, this analysis will give onlya sampling of the various models, typolo-gies, and so on, which might be used. Infact, only four such perspectives will beused here. They are: (1) teacher"stances", (2) specialist or generalist,(3) personality types, and (4) profes-sional or employee.

Teacher stances. The analysis of teach-er stances has been carried out by re-search workers at Michigan State 'Uni-versity, particularly Corman and Olin-stead.' As part of a teacher education pro-gram, some sixty-four elementary schoolteachers were followed through the firstthree years of their careers. A battery oftests was administered to them at the be-ginning and end of the research program.The basic data were obtained through anumber of depth interviews which werecarried out over the three year span. Whatthe researchers sought from this datacollection was the point of View developed,by each teacher, about their relations withpupils, teachers, and administrators. Onthe basis of their analysis, Corman andOlmstead identified seven patterns ofteacher attitude into which the sample ofteachers could be classified. These pat-terns, or categories, or stances provide arather useful means of thinking about thekinds of teachers who may be found onthe staffs of schools in any Canadianprovince. They are as follows:(1) The Child Focusers. This type of

teacher was highly committed to theindividual pupil. Other teachers andadministrators were seen to be ofminor importance in comparison withthe pupi].When conflict arose, these

39

teachers were ready to serve as de-fence attornies.

(2) The Pragmatists. These were the "or-ganization men" who temperedtheir concern for the child with apractical regard for the demands ofthe organization. These teachers wereflexible in their response to the de-mands of the situation.

(3) The Task Focusers. For this group,the tasks of the curriculum were mostimportant. They saw the inculcationof traditional values as being an im-portant function of the school. Thecurriculum itself was seen, by thisgroup, to consist of "solid" and "soft"subjects ; the student body consistedof "good" and "bad" pupils.

(4) The Contented Conformists. Thesewere the technicians. Other teachersand the principal ranked high in im-portance for them ; teaching was seenas a job like any other one with itstechniques and its satisfactions.The Time Servers. They resembledthe Conformists, but were not par-ticularly happy to be teachers. Theywere fearful of authority and lived ina world of cliches and formulas asfar as their teaching performance wasconcerned. Order in the classroom,which made teaching less difficult,was held in high regard by membersof this group.

(6) The Ambivalents. These teachers be-haved much like child focusers, butwere continually troubled by conflictbetween what they felt they shoulddo and what they would be permittedto do. Deep cynicism pervaded thisgroup.

The Alientated. The main elementwhich members of this group had incommon was dissatisfaction withteaching. Only financial limitationskept them in teaching and active re-sistance to authority was a typicalresponse for them.

It should be noted that few significantdifferences among the groups existed onsuch variables as sex, age, marital status,and socio-economic background. Somepersonality variables did come through ascorrelates of membership in a particulargroup. For example, what Corman calls"feminine personality patterns" were as-sociated with membership in the Conform-

(5)

(7)

ist and Time Server groups.2 In terms ofacademic aptitude scores, Conformists hadthe lowest scores, while the Alienated hadthe highest. As far as academic achieve-ment was concerned, the Child Focuserswere highest, while the Alienated were inthe middle range, and the Conformists atthe bottom.

Probably the main point to be made ofthis analysis is that it was possible toidentify seven patterns or types of atti-tude, with the possibility of associated be-haviors, among members of a sample ofteachers. These teachers were much liketeachers anywhere in terms of such bio-graphical data as sex, age, aptitude, aca-demic preparation, and so on. Yet, asmembers of school staffs and as perform-ers of the job of teaching in the classroomthere were acute differences in theirapproach to teaching as represented inthese seven stances. For the school prin-cipal, this suggests the need for a ratherperceptive look at staff members. This isa rather obvious need for administratorsin any organization; perhaps what thisand the other analyses in this paper cando is suggest a greater degree of toleranceand acceptance of the differences amongteachers. Coupled with this tolerance maybe some administrative strategies whichwill make the best possible use of thestrengths and provide reasonable safe-guards against the weaknesses in perform-ance by staff members. More will be saidin this regard in the final section of thepaper.

Specialist or generalist. Another wayof categorizing teachers is as specialistsor generalists. While specialist teachershave been until very recently a feature ofsecondary schools only, there is growingsupport in the literature for an increaseddegree of specialization at all grade levels.The fact that this specialization tends notto have taken place in many school sys-tems is just one concrete indicator of therelatively low degree of school systemrationalization. In any case, there aresome specialists in the schools even thoughthe deployment of teachers in terms oftheir specialties is far from perfect. Sincethere are specialists, the process of edu-cation, that is the set of activities inwhich pupils are involved, is not a stan-dard entity from one school system to thenext. What a teacher does as a specialistin junior high school science is really quitedifferent from what the teacher of a self-

40

contained grade six classroom does. Notonly are the activities different, but thecompetencies required for the activitiesare different. In fact, one may suggestthat the specialist teacher presents an ad-ministrator with problems which aredifferent from those rising from a self-contained classroom, or generalist teachersituation. Some of the dimensions on whichspecialists and generalists differ, andwhich are relevant to the school adminis-trator are presented here in four maincategories with, in two cases, some sub-classes. Again, the attempt to identifysome of the elements in a typology ofteachers has guided this analysis. It is anincomplete analysis, but again is intendedmerely to widen the perspective of thosewho work with and must better under-stand teachers. The features consideredhere have to do with: (1) the academicpreparation of the teacher, (2) classroomteaching activities, (3) administrative re-lationships, and (4) persor,sW.y. Thesecategories and the sub-classes or dimen-sions within them are shown in Figure 1.The dimensions themselves require a gooddeal of elaboration which goes beyond thelimits of this particular paper. Most ofthem are self-explanatory; but a fewwords of description of each dimensionand the possible placement of the special-ist and generalist along the dimension willbe provided.

Scope of academic preparation is re-lated to the diversity, in terms of varietyof university courses, to which the teacherhas been exposed. Typically, the generalistteacher (if he has been properly placedin the school system) will have gonethrough a program of greater scope asdefined here. As far as intensity (whichis really the obverse of scope) of prepara-tion is concerned, the specialist will likelybe higher.

In terms of activities in the classroom,one important fact is that specialists willtypically be required or be fortunateenough (depending on one's viewpoint) torepeat some of their activities with diffe-rent classes. This is represented in Figure1 by the repetitiveness dimension. As faras work-load is concerned, there are im-plications here for administrators. Classedunder the heading of "administrative re-lationships" are three dimensions. Thecontrol of resources dimension is offeredas a suggestion that a group of specialistsin a particular field (e.g. "the math de-

partment") or an individual (e.g. "thePhys. Ed. instructor") will tend to acquirecontrol over physical and human resourcesbeyond those of the typical generalistclassroom teachers. One hesitates to usethe loaded term "empire building" in thisconnection; but consciously or not, thereis likely to be some increase in subunit orspecialist control over resources in com-parison with the control which is in thehands of the generalist teacher.(a) PREPARATION

L Sp0 SCOPELo Ge

INTENSITY

ACTIVITIESLo Ge Sp HiI------- REPETITIVENESS ® IADMISISTRATIVERELATIONSHIPSLa Ge CONTROL0 OF

RESOURCES

(b)

(c)

Ge Hi

Sp Hi0

Lo Sp

Lo Ge1_0

Sp Hi

Ge HiFUNGIBILITY

NEED Sp HiFOR QCOORDINATION

(d) PERSONALITYLo ORIENTATION Sp Ge Hi

TO --- 0-1PUPILS

Sp = SpecialistGe = Generalist

FIGURE 1DIMENSIONS OF TEACHER

SPECIALIZATION

Fungibility ref3rs to the degree towhich a staff member is able to fit into avariety of jobs. On this dimension, thegeneralist is, almost by definition, higherthan the specialist. There are implicationshere for placement and for replacing staffmembers. The need for coordination di-mension reflects the fact that specializa-tion brings with it a need for coordination.For administrators who are concernedwith supplying coordination, the presenceof specialists on a school staff has impor-tant implications. A whole host of activi-ties and functions stem from this require-ment for coordination ; the administratorwho fails to recognize the need is bound tohave trouble. Put in a homely way, theeasiest kind of school to administer is thecollection of "one-room schools under asingle roof," in comparison, say, with a

41

highly departmentalized comprehensiveschool.

As a small example of the sort of di-mensions which could be looked at underthe heading of personality features, oneattitude or a set of attitudes towardspupils has been singled out. One can sug-gest that on this basis, the specialist mayfeel the importance of his subject areatugging at his loyalties, and, that, althoughhe is "pro-pupil", he is not quite as pupil-centered as the generalist teacher is.

This analysis is based on speculationrather than upon any systematic set ofempirical findings. It is rooted in the tra-dition of speculation and research on or-ganizational behavior in schools and otherorganizations which is now available. Aswith the analysis of teacher stances, thisset of dimensions may highlight the im-portance of the specialist/generalist cate-gories as factors upon which school ad-ministrators must focus in their attemptsto understand what a teacher is.

Personality types. Rather than attempt-ing to open up a whole field of speculationabout teacher personalities, two pieces ofresearch which produced some interestingfacts will be discussed briefly. The first ofthese is the Von Fange study of person-ality types among administrators andteachers.3 Using the Myers-Briggs TypeInventory which is based on Carl Jung'stypology of personalities, he found someclustering of personality types among histeacher sample, and, of course, some ex-amples of almost every possible type iden-tified by his research technique. For ex-ample, the most common type, among bothmale and female teachers, was, what VonFange called, the "judging extravert" whois interested in things as they are ratherthan in future possibilities. Although thiswas a modal type, around which manyteachers clustered, there were other typesas well. An extraverted, perceptive type,interested in future possibilities, wasidentified. Here was, in Von Fange'swords, "the enthusiastic innovator whosees new possibilities, new ways of doingthings, or entirely new things that mightbe done."4

The second piece of research which canbe considered here was carried out byBrown in 19616 He subjected a sample ofstudent teachers to conditions of stressfulsupervision. The subjects had been testedby a battery of instruments which get at

various aspects of personality. When thestudent teachers were classified on thebasis of tests of neuroticism and anxiety,it was the most anxious and most neuroticgroup which suffered most from stressfulsupervision. As a matter of fact, the low-neurotic and low-anxiety group improvedtheir performance after stress had beenimposed. The point which emerges fromthis part of Brown's work is that differentpersonality types respond in differentways to one and the same brand of ad-ministrator behavior. Coupled with VonFange's findings, this indicates that teach-ers' personalities, even in those elementswhich are susceptible to measurement,differ markedly and that the response ofadministrators to these differing neerscan only occur when the differences havebeen accurately perceived.

Professional or employee. Finally, theanalysis implied in the title of this paperexamines teachers in terms of an em-ployee - professional dichotomy. Whetheror not this is really a dichotomy may beargued. If, as the literature suggests,professionalism is itself a multi-dimen-sional concept, then one surely can con-ceive of an organization member beingmore or less professional on one or moredimensions or variables. This notion hasin fact been embodied in the work of Cor-win.° It has also been used in some fairlyrecent research on the Canadian scene.For example, Hrynyk, in his study of pro-fessionalism among Alberta teachers,found variation on such dimensions as:an emphasis on knowledge, orientation toservice, orientation to the professionalorganization, colleague orientation, andautonomy.? In a study carried out inBritish Columbia, Robinson used a simi-lar approach to the examination of theprofessional person in a bureaucratic or-ganization and, like Corwin, suggeststhat professionalism is not an either-orsort of thing but really consists of a clus-ter of characteristics which are more orless descriptive of a role or of a person.8One can go back to the question about anemployee - professional dichotomy and,on the basis of this emerging research tra-dition, say that teachers are likely to beneither pure type professionals nor puretype employees of the non-professionalsort. All of this adds up to the conclusionthat a typology containing "professionals"and "non-professionals" is not really ade-quate. What one can see is a set of dimen-sions of professionalism along which mem-

42

hers of any organization can be placed.Moreover, there are dynamics of changeand development associated with thisapproach which suggests that teachers,for example, may become more or lessprofrsTonal with the passage of time andefillcomiinnt changes in themselves andtheir environment. The fact that Ilrynykand the other researchers found differ-ences among teachers, that the Albertadata are quite different from the B.C. data,!luggests that "professionalism" as itapplies to teachers is a cultural or sub-cultural phenorneron rather than an ab-Ftelute classification term.

There is reason to argue on the basis ofthe research cited here that teachers inthis province generally hold attitudeswhich may be described as highly profes-sional. This set of attitudes includes somewhich are of relevance to administratorbehavior. To Lake just one such attitude

"the orientation towards teacher au-tonomy in the classroom" if teachersheld this as a norm for their behavior,then school administrators must be cog-nizant of this norm and take account ofit in their own behavior. In this regard,ilrynyk found that administrators typi-(.:Al)y 1..eld this aspect of professionalismin lower regard than did teachers. While:Ldministrators may not want what theymight call "too much" teacher autonomy,they will have to recognize teacher viewson this question, and respond in a mean-inrful fashion.

In summary, one may argue that, incomparison with employees of other com-pleY. organizations such as factories, de-fl:,rtment stores, government services, and!bc: te:.Lchers probably have attitudeswhich can ite called profesional. Theyrri4y not be as profcssonal in their atti-tndvo :0; are members of the "traditional"7,1t.fcw .;ensi ,.t)c..11 as. medicine and late; but',Ley :tvc "fai7ly" profe.k.ienal.

proftN.Nicinalistn includes notthr .vvc3cly drc31:it rci nolioriS :ibc)Ut.

rv.jrc. 1.() thr cY;c111 :aih,r.rncr nrctdr 4-1 tic nird for :in

reY,:4-)re jir:()Mot3g-r as adc,c-:,;or);-r1:11..ing., the ,,chop)

1 act as if be.,,.c }kr!. ri cif di-o:rttt!c111 ?"16/-e, A lOrtleV.etc`, cif ,:,11 t111.1` :1N:1 Art org..if-ii::11'!on

1A-:,-mt. act tit.1-1.,Jvc ANc 1-1:C

Firti%.1itIC412. C ft 11.Z.

Not only their behavior on a day-to-daybasis; but the kind of organization theyhelp to establish will be Eaccessful only in-sofar as it takes account of this profes-sionalism.

Organizational Requirements

One must not look at the relationship ofteachers to the school organization as aone-way thing. Concomitant with the sur-vival and goal-achievement of an organi-zation are certain requirements or de-mands which must be met. Among theseare the need for some predictability andcontrol of the behavior of members. Un-less the organization exists solely for thebenefit of its own members some outputcriteria must be applied. It is at this pointthat the possibility of conflict will emerge.The problem may become one of adminis-tering an organization so as to achievegoals and still meet the demands of indi-viduals for their own satisfaction. In thefour analyses presented in this paper, theemphasis was upon the many ways inwhich teachers and their roles can differ.It was perhaps an attempt to sell the ideathat the "individual differences" cliche isas applicable to teachers as it is to pupils,The analyses suggested that, although allof the differences must be recognized,some of them are more relevant to the or-ganization and administration of theschool than the others. It is clear, for ex-ample, that how teachers feel about au-tonomy in the classroom has significantimplications for the supervisory functionsof principals and other administrators.That is why one tends to focus upon theprofessionalism syndrome in attacking theproblem. But it is equally clear that how:t teacher responds to criticism is anotherimportant, attribute of which administra-tors must take account. The personality ofthe teacher is, thus, seen to be important.Again, it was argued that the specialist-generalist dimensions, particularly thosewhich impinged on the organization andadministration of the school, deserved con-

Tho "taliCoS" identified byCortmin urderhned the need for1 clirr:iiee of different performance levels

ring

lituivvIcqlge of ill) of I-)-;1-.e ()IfreretIc,pe'r(10 for

critical 1,1 Ilypothei;1*."

The Conflict Hypothesis

In simple terms, there are, at least,three possibilities as far as individual-organization conflict is concerned.9 First,conflict may be inherent in the very exis-tence of human organizations. This is theview implicit in popularized sociologicalworks like The Organization, Man or innovels such as Executive Suite, The Manin the Gray Flannel Suit, and so on. It isalso the view held by those who might beclassified as anti-administration and whoappear to be present in fairly large num-bers in all types of organizations, In theblue-collar or khaki-collar worlds this setof attitudes is usually forthrightly des-cribed. The same kind of view in moreaugust circles may masquerade as aca-demic freedom or something of the sort.The question which must be raised is towhat extent the conflict is inherent be-cause of man's attempts to control his fel-lows? A second point of view is that thereis no real conflict at all. This is the "happyfamily" approach to organizational be-havior. It may be an accurate descriptionfor a religious organization or the localsymphony society; but its applicability toa school organization is probabilistic. Athird viewpoint is that there is some con-flict; but that not all conflict is inherent.Some of it results from the particular wayin which the members and/or those whoadminister the organization respond tothe duality of needs described above.Since, as this view suggests, some conflictis the result of specific behavior, then adifferent set of responses should affect thelevel of conflict. This view, that conflict ismitigated rather than inherent, leavesroom for maneuvering by the administra-tor. If one does not adopt this view, thereis little that one can do with his situation.He becomes either a pollyanna or a defeat-ist and talks too much about the unique-ness of every situation, the "impossibilityof changing human nature," and looks forsweeping solutions (if indeed he recog-nizes problems) such as a complete changein staff. a different job for himself, or anovernight and complete shift in organi-zational structure. The point of viewoffered here is that these grand-scale solu-tions are neither adequate nor possible.

Stsff improvement an.1Omit:4460ns! Adjustment

What is more likely to be effective isthe kind of insightful analysis of teachers

44

which has been thepaper. With the setsented here a schoolbe able to identifytrouble before it occu

main theme of thisof perspectives pre-administrator mightpossible sources of

rs.Since some of the problems stem from

the duality of organizational needs andindividual teacher roles an approachwhich implies this duality is likely to bethe best one. In order to suggest what thisapproach does not include, it would seemuseful to discuss two other possibleapproaches to the same set of problems.

One approach is to change the teachersomehow so that his behavior is in har-mony with the organization's require-ments. The word which probably sums upthis approach is manipulation. Of course,manipulation has long been discredited inthe literature of school administration; buta critical analysis of much writing, es-pecially of the exhortative type, lends sup-port to the argument that manipulation,or, put in more acceptable terms, the "staffimprovement" approach is still with us.This is not to say that improvement in thetechnical competencies of staff membersis not a goal for administrators; it doessuggest that much of the talk about good"staff relations," the "group dynamics"approach to problem-solving, and so on, isreally symptomatic of a "change theteacher" approach. In this stereotypicalview, a good staff is one wherein the mem-bers "fit in well," are well "oriented", andso on. The organizational structure doesnot change, the teachers are merely tail-ored, in a painless way, to fit the organi-zation. One should be careful in talkingabout "staff improvement", not to fall intothe trap of assuming that change in staffmembers' behavior is a possible, a desir-able, or an adequate solution.

A second approach, and equally ex-treme, is to attempt to remake the organi-zation in the image preferred by its mem-bers. This may be, for want of a betterterm, called the Anti-Procrustean ap-proach. Instead of making the victim fitthe bed, tear it apart and rebuild it to fitthe victim, in this case the organizationmember. This, and one is being facetioushere, may also be called the "democraticapprOach to tiecisionninking."

What one wishes to avoid are both ofthese (est reme apprctchcs. Obviously

neither the individuals nor the organiza-tion are completely susceptible to change.One therefore should not behave nor eventalk as if they are. Certainly adjustmentsand modifications can occur on both sides.But there are inherent limits on the adapt-ability of both the organizational structureand its members.

What may be a realistic and usefulapproach is to look for points of congru-ence between organizational demands andindividual needs. For example, both theindividual and the organization can beseen as desiring some measure of predic-tability. For the organization, this maymean long-term stability; for the indi-vidual, this is translated into the magicword "security." Again, in 1., technical or-ganization where skills are required bythe rational organization, if staff membershold professional views, they too will seetechnical expertise and competence as de-sirable features. Again, the organizationaldemands reinforce rather than conflictwith individual professional needs.

Where demands are not so reconcil-able, even on paper, some kind of com-pensatory mechanisms should be built in.Most obvious is an exchange systemwhereby staff members are paid (inmonetary or other terms) enough to re-duce their dissatisfaction with some fea-tures of organizational life. This time,the teacher is seen not just as a profes-sional person with his own special likesand dislikes, personality whims, and soon, but as a complex creature some ofwhose motivations stem from economicor physical factors. Working conditions,and so on, are no doubt an important con-sideration for school administrators in-cluding principals. While the tradition ofresearch in administration has tended toreduce one's reliance on economic motiva-tion alone, it is one of the factors whichcan be manipulated and negotiated andwhich perhaps has important effects uponconflict situations.

In summary, this non-extremist ap-pproach (in typical Canadian fashion, itis a middle-of-the-road approach) takesaccount of differences among teachers. Itrecognizes that there are some inherentsources of conflict; but that there are alsoways in which organization demands andindividual needs coincide. Further, itsuggests that there are ways of compen-sating for sources of conflict so as to miti-

gate rather than remove them. It may becalled "pra7matism" or, more accurately,"realism"; in any case, as a way of view-ing the teacher in the organization, itseems to be a most defensible approach.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted, as its maingoal, to emphasize the fact that teachersare different from one another in manyways. Four analyses were used to exempli-fy some of the dimensions on whichteachers differ. In each case it was notedthat certain differences are highly rele-vant to the organization and administra-tion of schools. The fact that differencesexist was related to the need which or-ganizations have for predictability andcontrol of members.

Finally, the nature of individual-or-ganization conflict was superficially ex-amined and some commentary on thesuitability of various approaches to theconflict problem was offered. The hope isthat the analyses provided here will in-crease the awareness of administrators asto the complexity of the human organiza-tions in which they work, and that theproposed approach, if no adequate in it-self, will at least suggest a point of viewfrom which to attack the problem.

45

REFERENCES

1. B. R. Corman. "On Working With Teachers."Address delivered at 1967 C.E.A. Short Coursefor School Superintendents (mimeo.). See alsoB. R. Corman and A. G. Olmsted, The Intern-ship in the Preparation of Elementary SchoolTeachers. (E. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan StateUniversity, 1984).

2. Corman, op cit., p. 6.

3. E. A. Von Fange. "Implications for School Ad-ministration of the Personality Structure of Edu-cational Personnel." (Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, University of Alberta, 1961). See alsoE. A. Von Fange, "Principals and Personality,"The Canadian Administrator, Vol. II, No. 4(January, 1963), pp. 13-18.

4. Von Fangc, op. cit. 1963, p. 15.

5. A. F. Brown, "Teaching Under Stress," TheCanadian Administrator, Vol. I, No. 6 (March,1980), pp. 25-311

6. R. C. Corwin, "The Development of an Instru-ment for Examining Staff Conflicts in the PublicSchools." (Columbus Ohio: Ohio State Univer-sity, 1983) (mimeo.).

7. N. P. Hrynyk, "Correlates of Professional RoleOrientation in Teaching." (Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Alberta, 1966).See also N. P. Hrynyk and E. Miklos, "Profes-sional Role Orientations of Administrators," TheCanadian Administrator, Vol. VI, No. 6 (March,1967), pp. 21-24.

8. N. Robinson, "A Study of the Professional RoleOrientations of Teachers and Principals anti

46

Their Relationship to Bureaucratic Characteris-tics of School Organizations." (Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Alberta,1966).

9. For a fuller discussion of this point, see D. A.MacKay, "Using Professional Talent in a SchoolOrganization," Canadian Education and Re-search Digest, Vol. VI, No. 4 (December, 1966),pp. 342-352.

is The Principal A Leader?D. A. MacKAY

If one keeps in mind the complexnature of a school organization, complexbecause of the diversity among the humanelements as well as because of technicalcomplexity itself, it ought to be clear thatthe role of the principal is likely to be alsohighly complex. This complexity of theprincipal's job stems from the multiplicityof tasks which he has to perform and fromthe fluidity or dynamism of the situationin which he works. Of course the prac-titioner can attempt to simplify his job by"freezing" the situation into a predictableand rigid structure, or, at least, put it intoslow-motion so that he can respond, in amore leisurely cay, to the demands of thejob.

Throughout the literature of adminis-tration there is a constant theme whichemerges from or is used to unite all thecommentary about the many tasks andaspects of the administrator's job ; thiscommon theme is summed up in the al-most mystical word "leadership." Thisthing "leadership," if indeed it is a validconcept at all, is urged upon us as thesine qua non for those who would be ad-ministrators. In education, one reads andhears a great deal about "instructionalleaders" who are usually seen to be a cutor two above mere administrators orsupervisors. In fact, one begins to specu-late as to whether the "leader" is somekind of transmuted administrator, who,in some unknown way, has won the recog-nition and willing acceptance of his fol-lowers. Of all the positions in education towhich the term "leader" has been applied,the name of the principal, like Abou BenAdam's, seems to lead all the rest.

Rather than assuming that the princi-pal is or should be the "leader" in hisschool, this paper shall proceed from thepremise that this is a debatable question.In order to throw some light on the ques-tion, a number of problems will be dis-cussed. First, the question as to whetheradministrator behavior really makes anydifference will be raised and discussed.Perhaps the assumption that administra-tion makes a difference is the one thatmust be carefully examined by princi-pals. Then, some of the concepts and theo-retical formulations regarding leader be-havior will be briefly presented. Researchfindings, many of which are fairly widely

known, will be used to indicate the rele-vance of leader behavior to certain fea-tures of school operation. Some specula-tion regarding the true nature of theserelationships will be presented; finally,some special issues which flow from thenature of school organizations and theirimplications for the principal as a leaderwill be identified.

Does Administration Make a Difference?

One of the assumptions underlying theestablishment of administrative positions,and which obviously motivates those whooperate various training programs for ad-ministrators, is that what administratorsdo has some impact on the school. As hasbeen said many times before, the form ofthis assumed impact is twofold. First, ad-ministration is assumed to have someeffect on achievement of organizationgoals. Second, it is assumed that adminis-tration affects the well-being of the orga-nization. The terms which have emergedto describe this dual impact are "goal-achievement" and "group maintenance."These have proven to be fruitful conceptsin the analysis of organizational needs andadministrative behavior. Implied in theliterature is a set of relationships amongadministrator behavior, goal-achievement,and group maintenance. Before summingup what these relationships might be, itwould be useful to elaborate briefly uponeach of the terms in the relationship.

When one speaks of "administrator be-havior," one is obviously emphasizing thatwhat the administrator does more thanwhat he thinks or says is important. Ofcourse, only a limited set of behaviorswithin the whole set of his behavior is ofconcern here. What matters are thosebehaviors as an administrator rather thanas a teacher, a citizen, a Rotarian, or anyof the other roles which a particular ad-ministrator might play. In order to limitadministrator behavior in a way whichis relevant to the operation of an organi-zation, social scientish! have developed theconcepts of "initiating structure," and"consideration" as descriptions of be-havioral patterns which pertain, respec-tively, to goal-achievement and groupmaintenance. So, out of all the possibleaspects of administrator behavior, twowhich have emerged as significant, are

47

these. While it is not the purpose of thispaper to suggest that these two factorsare the only important ones, they will beused to help illustrate some of the rela-tionships, conclusions, and speculationswhich may throw light on the basic ques-tions regarding the principal as a leader.

"Goal-achievement" in the school set-ting is a difficult thing to define ; if it isdifficult on a coliceptual level, it is evenmore difficult at the empirical level whenquantification may become important.Schools obviously have goals set for themby society and by those who control andwork in them. Statements of goals whichare found in the literature range fromhighly general things such as "inculcatingthe cultural heritage" down to specifics(and this is a real example) like "to learnhow to sharpen a pencil." Attempts tomeasure the goal-achievement of schoolshave typically fallen into two categories:(1) the study of long-term outcomes, and,(2) the study of short-term outcomes.Studies in the first category have lookedat such indicators as the effect whichschooling has upon the earning power ofits graduates during their working lives,or the effect that investment in schoolingduring one time period has upon some eco-nomic indicator (e.g. G.N.P.) at a futuretime. Studies of the second type have beenmuch more common and have typicallyused indicators like achievement testscores, university success, retention rates,and so on, as measures of goal achieve-ment. Everyone knows that these typesof measures do not adequately provide anevaluation of the school's productivity orgoal-achievement. Implicit in them is theassumption of a further connection be-tween these fairly "hard" indicators andthe intangible goals which the school mayhave. At the root of the analysis of theleader behavior of school administratorsis this whole set of assumptions that goal-achievement (in all its meanings) is some-how affected by what the administratordoes.

More will be said about this assumptionlater ; for the moment, the "group main-tenance" term should be examined. Thisconcept includes, as the term, itself sug-gests, the notion of survival and "health"of the organization; it refers to elementslike stability of membership, satisfaction,morale, a high degree of motivation, co-hesiveness, climate, and, in part, any oneof a dozen terms which are seen as real,

or, at least, semantic indicators of an or-ganization's well-being.

The relationships which may be positedamong these three terms are illustratedin Figure 1.

Administrator Behavior

Goal Achievement Group Mainteuaneu

Figure 1*Relaticnship of Administrator Behavior

to Outcomes

The basic assumption under discussionhere is that what the administrator doeshas an impact on each of these "outcomes."

This may be viewed as a direct, twofoldrelationship. Or, it may he broken do',,nso that a particular piece of behavior bythe administrator affects only one or theother of these outcomes. This, in fact, iswhat is implied analytically by the xe-searchers who have worked with the vari-ous versions of the Leader Behavior Des-cription Questionnaire. Also implicit inthe figure, and in the set of hypotheticalrelationships which it depicts, is an indi-rect or two-stage relationship wherein ad-ministrator behavior affects some ele-ment of group-maintenance (e.g. morale)which in turn has an effect upon goal-achievement. This latter relationship is theone at which writers, who emphasize themotivational function of the administra-tor, are getting. There are other relation-ships, at least, other directions to be foundin the figure. These may be neglected inthis paper in order to move to a discus-sion which is more pertinent to the par-ticular topic under review.

To provide a partial answer to the ques-tion regarding the importance of adminis-tration, one narrow band within the spec-trum of possible indicators of goal-achievement has been chosen here. Thisis the achievement-test score which was

° "Outcomes" in this figure is used to describe theresults of administrator behavior, which includes theorganization's goals as such, and also, the adminis-trative "goal" or "outcome", group maintenance,

48

identified above as merely one indicatorof over-all goal achievement. In a studycompleted in 1963, Greenfield conducteda systems analysis of a sample of Albertaschools.i He selected, on a random basis,a sample of school districts; then, withineach district, he selected a sample ofschools ; within each school, he next se-lected a sample of grade nine classes. Thiskind of sample enabled him to takeaccount, in a systematic way, of differ-ences in achievement which could be at-tributed to differences between systems,between schools, and between classes. Forall the pupils in the selected classes, heobtained the Alberta Department of Edu-cation grade nine examination results. Theanalysis which he used to obtain informa-tion about probable sources ," .;.,:ferencesin achievement took ac...ount of pupildifferences in aptitude and socio-economicstatus. In Table I the results of one partof Greenfield's analysis are shown.

The analysis used to obtain these figuresenables the researcher to say what percent of variance in the pupil achievementscores is attributable to differences be-tween classes, schools, or districts. To takejust one of the subject areas reported onin the table, in grade nine mathematics63.27% of the variation in the scores wasattributable to differences among the in-dividual pupils. Aptitudes as measured bythe S.C.A.T. scores was an important con-tributor to this high percentage. What aremore important for the question at issuein this paper are the differences in mathscores which resulted from differencesamong the classes, schools, and districts.These, together, accounted for 36.73 percent of the variance. Each one of the pos-sible sources accounted for a statisticallysignificant portion of the variance inmathematics marks. Similarly, in everycase reported in this table, the differenceswhich resulted from the pupils being in acertain classroom, or a certain school, orin a certain district were statistically sig-nificant. These data reported by Green-field are presented again in a slightlydifferent way, in Table IL In this case, thevariation in scores which was clue to pupildifferences has been left out of the calcu-lation and the figures in Table II showwhat per cent of the total between groupvariance is attributable to each of thethree sources. This further analysis of thedata was done in order to emphasize theapplicability of Greenfield's findings to the

topic of this paper. For the sake of anexample, the language score may be ex-amined. Some 49 per cent of variation wasdue to differences between classes; 14 percent was attributable to between schooldifferences, while 36 per cent stemmedfrom differences between districts. It isthese latter two figures which provide thetentative answer. If one can argue that"administration" including administratorbehavior is one component of the diffe-rences between schools and between dist-ricts, then administration is one of thethings which made a difference on thisvery concrete piece of evidence about goal-achievement. As far as school principalsare concerned, the 14 per cent figure isthe one which matters. Although it is nota large percentage it was statistically sig-nificant, and, from that viewpoint, didmatter.

In a rather long and winding way, someevidence has therefore been producedwhich suggests that the relationship be-tween "administrator behavior" and"goal-achievement" is probable. Implicitin this finding of Greenfield is the possi-bility that what made the schools differentfrom one another, in a way which affectedpupil achievement, was something aboutits "climate" or "health" or its level ofgroup-maintenance.

An Analysis of Administrator Behavior

Assuming, for the sake of this discus-sion, that research such as that reportedabove, and one's hopeful assessment ofreality, tend to support the notion that ad-ministrator behavior really matters, itwould seem in order to describe the analy-sis of administrator behavior to whichreference has already been made.

Leader behavior defined. In the researchtradition from which this paper draws,"leader behavior" is usually used to des-cribe what the formally appointed (orelected) leader of a complex, formal or-ganization does in the performance of hisrole. At the same time, the literature isreplete with references to so-called "lead-ership acts" which may be performed byany member of the organization and whichmake a contribution to or affect the dualoutcome of achievement and maintenance.In the discussion which is to follow, thefirst or narrow definition will be used.

49

TA

BL

E I

GR

EE

NFI

EL

D'S

AN

AL

YSI

S O

F V

AR

IAN

CE

(N

= 2

,069

) *

Sour

ce o

f V

aria

tion

Subj

ects

Eng

lish

Lit.

Eng

lish

Lan

g.So

cial

St.

Mat

h.Sc

ienc

e

Res

idua

l (w

ithin

)63

.17%

65.7

2%66

.33%

63.2

7%69

.38%

Tot

al b

etw

een

36.8

3%34

.28%

33.6

7%36

.73%

30.6

2%B

etw

een

Cla

sses

17.2

2%16

.90%

18.3

8%14

.29%

18.1

1%B

etw

een

Scho

ols

6.31

%4.

82%

4.79

%6.

90%

4.05

%B

etw

een

Dis

tric

ts13

.30%

12.5

6%10

.50%

15.5

4%8.

46%

* A

dapt

ed f

rom

Gre

enfi

eld,

op.

cit.

Tab

leX

IV,

p. 1

38.

TA

BL

E I

I

SOU

RC

ES

OF

BE

TW

EE

N S

UB

-SY

STE

M V

AR

IAN

CE

*

Subj

ects

Sour

ces

of V

aria

tion

Eng

lish

Lit.

Eng

lish

Lan

g.So

cial

St.

Mat

h.Sc

ienc

e

Bet

wee

n C

lass

es46

.76%

49.2

9%54

.59%

38.9

1%59

.14%

Bet

wee

n Sc

hool

s17

.13%

14.0

6%14

.23%

18.7

9%13

.23%

Bet

wee

n D

istr

icts

36.1

1%36

.64%

31.1

8%42

.30%

27.6

3%

* T

hese

fig

ures

are

obt

aine

d by

div

idin

g th

e pe

rcen

tage

s in

the

appr

opri

ate

----

- pa

rts

of T

able

I b

y th

e to

tal v

aria

nce

acco

unte

d fo

r be

twee

n gr

oups

.

Later in the paper, in the discussion of theimportance of the "group" in a school, thesecond definition will also be employed.

Theories about leaders. To lay thegroundwork for the discussion of the be-havior of the formal leader, a thumbnailsketch of the main schools of thought onleader behavior should be useful. Thetraits theory suggests that leaders havecertain characteristics which mark themout from other men and make it likelythat they can or will be leaders in avariety of situations. The usual lists oftraits include everything from intelligenceand integrity to height and health, notomitting zest and zip. The Great Man hy-pothesis which has enjoyed much supportamong some historians and biographershas been woven into the traits theory. In-evitably, the great political leader showed"signs" of his potential even as a smallboy. In other words, he had the traitswhich were needed by and predictive of asuccessful leadership role. All of thismakes some good common sense; unfor-tunately, the empirical research based onthis "theory" has failed to provide sup-port for it. Counter to the notion thatleadership is a kind of cluster of traitswhich indicate universal capabilities onthe part of their possessor, the so-calledsEuationist theory was developed. Itemphasized the different requirements ofdifferent kinds of organizations andgroups in terms of the qualities requiredof their leaders. A good situationist in theU.S. Republican party, for example, wouldnever have picked General Eisenhower forpresident. Luckily for the party, theAmerican electorate were themselves notadherents to the situationist theory ofleadership. While the situa donist viewtends to mitigate the weaknesses of thetraits theory it has major weakness itself.Carried even part way to a logical ex-treme, the situationist demands an unique-ly qualified leader for each organization.The problem of training leaders or oftransferring them from one position toanother then begins to outweigh the sup-posed advantage of having a tailor-madeleader. It even becomes difficult to talkabout leader behavior in a general waybecause the uniqueness of each situationmakes generalization impossible.

A third approach and one which relatesto the relationships discussed in Figure 1,

is variously known as the structural-functionalist approach or the "theory ofsocial role." Here the emphasis is not uponwhat qualities the leader should have, norsolely upon the requirements of a specificsituation; but upon the general functionalrequirements which all organizations haveand upon which the behavior (i.e. whatthe leader does rather than what he is) ofthe leader may have some effects. Thesegeneral functions are the two identifiedearlier, namely, goal-achievement andgroup-maintenance. The leader behaviorsassociated with these have been groupedconceptually (and empirically) under theheadings initiation of structure, and con-sideration. The first refers to leader be-havior which pertains to goal- accomplish-ment; the second refers to leader behaviorrelated to group-maintenance. This lastformulation which emphasizes leader be-havior as functional to an organizationhas proven to be a useful way of examin-ing what goes on in organizations and isalso useful in discussing, with adminis-trators, their approach to the job.

Some research on leader behavior. Re-search into leader behavior has stemmedlargely from the Ohio State studies of theforties and fifties. From their work camethe Leader Behavior Description Ques-tionnaire in its various forms and thebasic research in this area was carried outby members of the same rather largeteam of social scientists. Perhaps thename best known in education is AndrewHalpin who has been influential as a com-municator of this particular research tra-dition.* In this paper only a small sampleof the existing studies will be reported.To set the stage for this review, it is neces-sary to give an adequate definition of theterms used and to describe a frameworkfor analyzing or classifying leader be-havior. The term "Initiating Structure inInteraction" is used to describe behavior,by a formal leader, which delineates therelationships between himself and mem-bers of the work-group, and establisheswell-defined patterns of organization,channels of communication, and methodsof procedure. Consideration, as a dimen-sion of leader behavior, refers to beha-

° For a thorough analysis of the research traditionon leader behavior, see T. B. Greenfield, "Researchon the Behavior of Educational Leaders: Critiqueof a Tradition." Paper read at A.E.R.A., New York,1987. (Mimeo.)

51

vior indicative of friendship, mutual trust,respect, and warmth in the relationshipbetween the leader and members of hisstaff.2

When the thirty item LBDQ is used ona research sample, each leader (e.g. eachschool principal) whose behavior is des-cribed by his staff members is assigned ascore on each of the two dimensions. Forany given sample of leaders, the scores oneach dimension may usefully be dicho-tomized into those above and below themean score, or into "high" and "low"scores. Such a dichotomy is artificial, ofcourse, because the scores are really on acontinuum. But as an aid to thinking aboutgeneral "types" of behavior, they servesome purpose. It is important, while us-ing these aids, to keep in the mind thereality of the range and distribution ofscores which underlies a general analysisof this kind.

In Figure 2, the typology of leader be-havior is shown. The subdivision of eachof the two LBDQ dimensions produces afourfold table. In quadrant I are those be-havioral types which are high on both di-mensions. These are the "effective" or"strong" leader types. In quadrant II isthe type who emphasizes structure; butapparently neglects consideration. He isonly partly an effective leader; but maybe useful in certain types of organizationsor at certain stages of organizational life.He may be, in a military setting, the effec-tive peace-time drill master. In public ad-ministration, he is close to being the clas-sic bureaucrat who lives (and dies) by thebook. In quadrant IV is the type who,while being highly considerate, does notestablish a well-defined organization. Putin other terms, he is the idiographic lead-er type as opposed to the nomothetie typein quadrant II. Finally, in quadrant III isthe type who has low scores on both di-mensions. He is neither a "good organizer"nor considerate of his staff. As a stereo-type he is a veritable Colonel Klink oftelevision fame.

With these four general types in mind,it will be possible to refer now to thestudies which form part of the importantresearch tradition mentioned above.

The U.S. studies. Halpin summarizesthe results of the basic work on leader be-havior in education as follows:

1. Both dimensions are fundamental toleader behavior and the L.B.D.Q. is auseful device for measuring them.

2. Effective leader behavior requires highperformance on both dimensions.

3. Superiors and subordinates tend toevaluate the desirability of each di-mension in opposite ways. Superiorsare more concerned with InitiatingStructure, while subordinates empha-size the importance of Considerationas an "ideal" for their leaders.

4. Changes in attitudes of group mem-bers and changes in group charac-teristics are apparently affected byleader behavior. High scores on eachdimension are associated with favor-able group attitudes and characteris-tics.

5. There is only a slight positive rela-tionship between the way leaders, be-lieve they should behave and the waythey are described as behaving.3

HiIn

tatngStructre

Lo

Martinet

II

Effective

I

Chaos

III

Pollyanna

I17

ConsiderationFigure 2

Types of Leader Behavior

Hi

Some Canadian studies. The contribu-tion to this research tradition made byCanadian (chiefly Alberta) researchers

52

has been highly significant. To what extentthese findings have been disseminated topractitioners is a moot point; but there isa fairly abundant literature which is di-rectly or indirectly based on these studies.Therefore, one presumes that their im-pact on the knowledge of practitioners hasbeen fairly significant. To mention a fewof the studies will lay the groundwork fora bit of speculation about the import ofthis work and of its significance to thepractitioner. Keeler found that highscores on both dimensions were associat-ed with a high level of pupil performance.4At the same time, there was little evi-dence of relationship between leader be-havior and staff morale as he had definedit. In an earlier study, IlIcBeath found thatthe leader behavior of classroom teachers(as reported by pupils and others) wassignificantly related to their rated effec-tiveness.5 Again, high scores on both di-mensions were associated with highereffectiveness ratings. A related study byGreenfield used scores on grade nine ex-aminations as the criterion measure and,again, both dimensions were significantlyrelated to "pupil growth."° Fast's studyof teacher satisfaction showed that whenteachers saw their principals as scoringhigh on both dimensions, they (the teach-ers) were highly satisfied with the school.'Finally, Stewart's study of principals inAustralia showed that those who wererated as more effective by superinten-dents scored high on both dimensions.8Interestingly enough, superintendentsemphasized the Initiating Structure di-mension while teachers emphasized bothdimensions.

Some industrial studies. Some apprecia-tion of the complexity of the relationshipsdeScribed above may be gained from anexamination of one or two of the findingsfrom studies carried out in industrial or-ganizations. These are reported by Dubinand,, in fact, much of the discussion whichfollows relies on the basic insights whichDubin and his co-workers have provided .°Rather than talk about correlation co-efficients in numerical terms, the rela-tions .discovered in the industrial studiesare depicted in Figure 3: (a), (b), and(e)..10

GRIEVANCERATE

(a)

GRIEVANCERATE

(b)

GRIEVANCERATE

(c)

LS.

Cons.

Low Cone.

Medium Cone.

High Cone.

Figure 3Relation of Leader Behavior to

Grievance Rate

is.

In these particular studies, the criterionused was employee's grievance rate. Ahigh grievance rate was obviously seen asan indicator of "poor" relationships, whilea low rate was thought to be symtomaticof "good" or, at least, "smooth" leader-ship. The curve in Figure 3 (a) shows thathigh scores on the Initiating Structure di-mension were associated with a high griev-ance rate. Similarly lower scores on theI.S. dimension were associated with lowgrievance rates. As leaders emphasizedorganization, there was apparently a nega-tive kind of effect upon employee satis-faction with conditions. As shown inFigure 3 (b) high scores on Consideration

53

were associated with low grievance rates,indicating that employees reacted favor-ably to considerate behavior by supervi-sors. These two findings coincide withthose described earlier in this paper. Aslightly more refined analysis of the samedata resulted in the relationships shownin Figure 3 (b). This time, three conditionsor eases were established on the basis ofthe consideration score. These were thelow, medium, and high considerationcases. When all the leaders whose scoreson consideration were low were examined,it was found that higher scores on initiat-ing structure were associated with lowergrievance rates. But, when the scores ofleaders who were "high" in considerationwere analyzed, it was found that an in-crease in Initiating Structure brought anincrease in grievance rates. The same re-lationship was found among those leaderswho were classed as "medium" in con-sideration. The conclusion to be drawnfrom these findings is that one should notlook at the simple two variable relation-ships; but should take account of the inter-action between and among complex setsof variables.

A critique. Further to this line ofthought, two different interpretations ofone set of data are pictured in Figure 4.The research tradition on leader behaviorseems to conclude that certain criteriasuch as productivity, morale, social struc-ture, and the like, are associated, in alinear way, with scores on the LBDQ orits derivatives. The use of correlationalanalysis and its basis in the fitting of alinear model to bivariate relationships in-evitably leads to this straight line solu-tion. On the diagram, the solid line indi-cates this sort of interpretation. Simplyput, "more" Initiating Structure or"more" Consideration lead to high scoreson whatever criterion is used. Conversely,low, leader behavior scores are associatedwith low criteria scores. Thus, if one in-terprets the Keeler findings, for example,in this way, one will say that a little con-sideration produces low pupil achieve-ment, a little more consideration producesmediocre pupil performance, and a highdegree, of consideration is likely to pro-duce high pupil performance. If one wereto extrapolate beyond this linear interpre-tation, one would adopt a "more themerrier" approach to administration andlook for really top level achievement frompupils in schools where the principal is

a super-considerate type. What is said ofthis dimension of leader behavior is applic-able to initiating structure as well; what

Criteria

Curvilinear Interpretatian

IE--- Linear Interpreraatioet

LeaderBehavior

Figure 4Possible Relationships Between Leader

Behavior and a Criterion

is inferred regarding pupil achievementis applicable to the various other criteriasuch as teacher satisfaction, rated effec-tiveness, and so on. But, and this is aquestion which emerges from Dubin's an-alysis, what if the linear interpretation isriot true. What if, for example, the rela-tionship is curvilinear in nature? In thesame Figure 4, the broken line indicatesone such curvilinear relationship. It isthe familiar (to social scientists) S curve.Let us suppose that such a curve is theone best fitting a set of data. What itshows is that a slight increase in one ofthe leader behavior dimensions results inonly a slight concomitant increase in cri-terion score; but at a certain point, a littlebit more of consideration, or structure, orwhatever, results in a. dramatic increase:in the criterion score. At still anotherpoint, there is a levelling off so that in-creases in leader performance have littleor no effect upon criterion scores. This in-terpretation suggests that "a little con-sideration goes a long way," that the re-lationships are more subtle than thoseassumed by the linear interpretation, andthat practitioners who would be guidedby this research tradition would do wellto take account of these possible suble-ties. As a major weakness in some of theexisting research, the lack of adequateexamination of these relationships is sig-nificant. Interestingly enough, Stewart didcheck for curvilinearity in his data and

54

found that the relationships he reportedwere essentially linear in nature. Thisthen is a problem for researchers; but itmay be useful as a conceptual tool, to lookat leader behavior in terms of these twodifferent interpretations.

When school principals learn that con-sideration is a "good thing" they may alsoask themselves "how much is needed" and,as this discussion indicates, they haveevery right to ask this question. There isperhaps a range of behavior within whichthe principal's performance as a leaderwill be adequate while below the lowerlimit of this range he will be inadequate.Performance above and beyond the upperlimits will be alright; but will really addnothing essential to an already adequateperformance.

If the "true" nature of relationshipsbetween leader behavior and various cri-teria of goal achievement and group main-tenance is as intricate as suggested here,the implications for the behavior of prac-titioners are manifold. For the sake ofargument, one may assume that the rela-tionships are intricate and subtle and thentalk about a realistic approach to the lead-er behavior of school principals.

A Realist's View

First of all, it is important to note thatjust one position in school organizationsis being dealt with here. Nothing that isargued here necessarily applies to centraloffice or other senior executive positionsin school systems. Furthermore, the posi-tion of principal is, itself, far from beinga standardized one. Differences in size andtype of school, differences in the organiza-tional framework of the school system,and in the social environment of the schoolare some of the factors which make thisposition such a varied one. Therefore,what is said here is general in the sensethat it treats all principalships as if theywere identical, yet specific, in that itfocuses only upon the principal and notupon any of the other administrative po-sitions in education.

At the outset, it should be stressed thatthis so-called "realist's view" is that theschool principal is only one, albeit a sig-nificant one, of a large number of per-sons involved in the operation of a schoolsystem. While, as has been suggested

earlier in this paper, administration doeshave an impact upon certain outcomes ofthe school's operation, the principal's con-tribution to this has not been adequatelydefined. All we know at the moment isthat principals seem to affect what goeson in their schools. Much of what we relyon has a common sense rather than asc ientific or a research basis. Principalsare continually being urged to be instruc-tional leaders, curriculum developers, andso on; what might be a more realisticview would suggest that the principal canonly do a limited number of things andthat he ought to examine his own jobperformance with a proper set of priori-ties in mind. To draw upon an old armycliche there are things which he must do,things which he should do, and anothercategory of things which he could do. Inthis scheme of things, the school princi-pal would make the fundamental contri-butions which his and no other positionin the system can supply. Then, after allthe basic functions have been served, hecan move to the should and could cate-gories.

The contention of the realist view ofthe principal as a leader is that leader ac-tivities or behavior fall into the should docategory. In other words, in spite of themany references to leadership and theneed for strong leaders in schools whichone finds in the exhortative writing inadministration, the point of view heldhere is that there are other things whichshould enjoy a higher priority. Why thisposition is taken and why it is called arealistic position requires some explana-tion. So much is expected of leaders andthe relationships, as already indicatedsurrounding leader performance are socomplex, that really superior human be-ings seem to be required for leadershippositions. The pool of candidates for theposition of school principal is of an es-pecially limited type; the numbers pos-sessing the capabilities required for evena mediocre level of performance may bequite small. Moreover, so little is knownabout the development of educationalleaders that one tends to be discouraged.When one is faced with a supply-demandproblem in personnel administration,there are several alternatives to be fol-lowed. These can be applied independent-ly or jointly to obtain a solution or, atleast, a modus vivendi. The alternativesinclude: finding the right persons to meetthe job requirements (this is the ideal

55

solution), developing the incumbents orwould-be incumbents so as to make themcompetent (this is the staff developmentapproach), or reorganizing the operationso as to require different capabilities forthe position-holder (this is the realistposition). For example, when one cannotobtain the services of a fluent Frenchteacher, one buys a language lab in orderto make the teacher's job in oral languagea different one, one that requires different(or "less") competency from the teacher.This is done in order to recognize the de-mands of the situation. In the selection,appointment, and direction of adminis-trators, less attention may be paid to thecompetency gap between available per-sons and job requirements. The possibilitythat this neglect will occur is greater whenthe position is as vaguely defined, in termsof recognized criteria for success, as theschool principalship. While the position isnot, and should not be, a standardized in-terchangeable thing from one setting toanother, there are surely basic fundamen-tal competencies which ought to reside inthis position. If one says that every prin-cipal must be a full-blown leader, one isneglecting the competency gap. One is,moreover, establishing misleading criteriafor evaluating the principal's perform-ance, and establishing unrealistic goalsfor in-service administrator training pro-grams of various sorts. No one, of course,says this sort of thing. But this view maywell be implicit in an overemphasis onleader behavior.

What may save the day as far as thisrather discouraging picture is concernedis a careful definition and limitation of theprincipal's role in terms of its "leader-ship" aspects. One recognizes that therehas been a good deal of research on the"role of the principal," however, becauseof the particular sociological theory basewhich has been most widely used, the re-search tradition has focussed upon roleexpectations. What emerges is a realisticpicture in terms of what people have inmind when they think about the prin-cipal's job; but it is, unfortunately, notnecessarily a rational analysis of whatthe job should be in an ideal or quasi-ideal sense.

On the other hand, one finds prescrip-.tive statements of what the job of theprincipal should be. School boards andsome senior administrators seem to beprone to offering this sort of thing. The

point is that attempts to lay down onpaper what the principal's job is are le-gitimate responses to the needs of operat-ing a complex organization. School boardswant to have some criteria which theycan apply in making decisions about theprincipalship. Senior administrators wantto know how they can usefully employtheir principals as part of the schoolsystem's control and decision-makingmechanism. Most of all, the principalsthemselves, and teachers on their staffs,want to know where the principal's jobbegins and ends.

In the face of this "felt need" amongpractitioners, the contribution of the re-searchers has not been too helpful. Onereason for this inadequacy is that it hasbeen necessary to find out what the situa-tion now is before designing approacheswhich are more scientifically or technic-ally based. Some writers have, of course,leaped over the obstacles and been readywith recipes for the administrator. In theconcluding sections of this paper, therewill be a tendency to become more pre-scriptive than is usually the case and tooffer some exhortative argument about thepoint of view which principals shouldadopt toward leadership. Since the sug-gestions offered here will deal with a pointof view rather than with the operationaldetails of behavior, the recipe-bookapproach may be a little less dangerousthan usual.

What Kind of a Leader Should He Be?

First, it should be said that leadershipis obviously related to authority. In fact,the kind of authority upon which a per-son relies is probably one of the best in-dicators of his over-all leadership style.The classic analysis of authority suggeststhat there are, at least, four sources ortypes of authority : (1) traditional au-thority based on the conventions andcustoms which have developed in a sub-culture or organization over the years;this is really descriptive of how willingthe members have become to accept au-thority; (2) legal authority based onthe written rules and job specifications ofthe organization and/or its governingbodies; (3) personal authority basedon the respect which a particular personis able to command by the virtue of hisown behavior and traits; in extremeforms, this is sometimes called chatisout;and (4) professional authority based

56

on competence and knowledge of the tech-nology in which the organization is en-gaged.

If, as was proposed above, leadership isclosely related to authority, one can lookat the principal, as a leader, in terms ofthese types of sources of authority. Clear-ly, the principal has one important thinggoing for him. He is, after all, the formalleader of the school and enjoys all thepower and authority conferred on thatposition by legislative decision. Moreover,he has at his disposal the power which hasaccrued to the position as it has been filledby various of his predecessors. In theminds of the teachers on his staff are setsof viewpoints (or "expectations") abouthis authority. This set of expectations willtend to either augment or lessen his effec-tive legal authority. His personal "char-isma" and his professional competence asa teacher, and as an administrator willalso add to or subtract from the sum totalof his authority.

Therefore, it is important to note thatany legal statement of the principal'sauthority is not, in itself, sufficient. How-ever, as suggested above, it is a start.What principals ought to do is find outwhat their formal position is and thenmeet this rather minimal requirement. Inorder to do this, they will have to committhemselves rather fully to the organiza-tion and its goals. For them, as adminis-trators, the dual goals of administrationdescribed earlier (goal achievement andgroup maintenance) will have to be im-portant. In other words, to expect thattechnical competence is enough is to seeleadership as a manipulative skill whichcan be turned on or off as the situationrequires. As shocking as it may seem,what is being suggested here is that theprincipal must be an "organization man"in the best sense of the term. He must seehimself as an administrator rather thanas merely a head teacher. For him, themajor audience should be his staff mem-bers rather than the pupils. Through thestaff and its activities, he can make a con-tribution to the pupils.

While openly accepting the formalposition of leader which goes with thetitle, the principal would do well to recog-nize that legal authority is limited. Infact, one could argue that whatever au-thority the principal had over teachers isgradually shrinking. However, it has notyet completely disappeared and if all

principals accepted the responsibilitiesand authority still residing in the position,a significant increase in their "leadership"status would have occurred.

One of the notions which social psy-chology has contributed to the study ofleader behavior is that, in any humangroup, there are likely to be several lead-ers. In fact, leadership acts may be carriedout, at different times, by almost anymember of L, group. In a school staff, theremay be teachers who play the leader rolemany, many times. A principal who failsto recognize this is in trouble; moreover,failure to encourage these "other leaders"will limit the effectiveness of the organi-zation and make his own job an impos-sible one.

Linked with the acceptance of authorityand responsibility, and recognition of theother leaders who are likely to be avail-able in a school, should be an authenticityof behavior. This simply means that youcan't fool people for very long by goingthrough the motions of democratic deci-sion-making, good "human relations," andthe rest. There is no known way for anon-leader to dupe his followers into ac-cepting him as a leader for any extensivetime period.

Underlying this limited view of leader-ship is the further notion that the prin-cipal can contribute to the operation of aschool by serving as what has tradition-ally been called a "functionary." That is,he facilitates the activities of staff mem-bers and pupils. Answering the phone andthe mail, keeping records, allocating timeand space, and obtaining material andhuman resources become important asmeans and not merely nuisances for thewould-be statesman-educator.

What is being said here is that noteveryone can be a leader in the best senseof the term; but one can learn to servethe organization by using the authority,the access to resources, and the all-im-portant access to channels of communica-tion, in order to facilitate and improvethe operation of the school. This is not tosay that some or many school principalswill not display the behavior of "real"leaders ; however, it does say that thepresent state of affairs suggests a morelimited view of the minimum require-ments for the principal's performance. Ifhe is a "leader," all well and good ; if not,let him contribute in a functional way to

57

the school's operation using his authority to the organization; then adopt anwith pupils, parents, and so on, to n- approach which openly illustrates yourcrease the effectiveness of his colleagues. view of how a school leader should behave.

Conclusion

In this paper, it has been argued thatdifferences in goal accomplishments byschools are partly attributable to differ-ences in "administration". Included in thesources of difference are probable differ-ences in the leader behavior of schoolprincipals. The main approaches to thestudy of leader behavior were identifiedand briefly described. Some of the re-search tradition in this field was summar-ized and certain speculations about the in-terpretation of the research findings weremade.

As the main point of the paper, it wasargued that not all school principals canbe leaders in the full sense of the term.Therefore, a rather limited view of theprincipal's role was set forth. Thisstressed the importance of accepting andusing the authority which goes with theposition, of recognizing and encouragingleadership acts from other staff members,of behaving authentically, and of develop-ing a commitment to the organization asits servant rather than as its high statusleader.

For practitioners, the argument simplysays : Evalr ate your own position interms of your capabilities as well as interms of the strengths inherent in theposition itself. Estimate the level of com-mitment which you are prepared to make

58

REFERENCES

1. T. B. Greenfield, "Systems Analysis in Educa-tion: A Factor Analysis and Analysis of Vari-ance of Pupil Achievement," (unpublished doc-toral dissertation, University of Alberta, 1963).

2. A. W. Halpin, Theory and Research in Ad-ministration, (New York: The Macmillan Cc.,1966), pp. 81-130.

3. Halpin, op. cit., pp. 96-99.

4. B. T. Keeler, "Dimensions of the Leader Be-havior of Principals, Staff Morale and Produc-tivity," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Alberta, 1961).

5. A. G. McBeath, "Teacher Leader Behavior andits Relation to Teacher Effectiveness," (Unpub-lished M.Ed. thesis, University of Alberta, 1959).

6. T. B. Greenfield, "Teacher Leader Behaviorand its Relation to Effectiveness as Measured byPupil Growth," (unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Uni-versity of Alberta, 1961).

7. R. G. Fast, "Leader Behavior of Principals as itRelates to Teacher Satisfaction," (unpublishedM.Ed. thesis, University of Alberta, 1964).

8. A. N. Stewart, "The Leader Behavior of Ele-mentary School Principals in Western AustralianSchools and its Relationship to Effectiveness,"(unpu) blished M.Ed. thesis, University of Alberta,1966.

9. R. Dubin et al. Leadership and Productivity,(San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1965).

10. E. A. Fleishman and E. F. Harris, "Patterns ofLeadership Behavior Related to EmployeeGrievances and Turnover," Personnel Psy-chology, 15:45-53 (1962).

Students and School OrganizationD. FRIESEN

If the conceptual boundaries of theschool organization can be extended ;:oinclude student-clients as an integral partof the organization, a number of signifi..cant implications arise. The major as-sumption of this paper is that studentsare members of the school as an organi-zation. Using this basic launching pad itis not too difficult to illustrate a numberof significant relationships.

Schools are client-serving organizations,in a sense like churches or hospitals, butin other ways, as will be shown, quitedifferent. The major service of the schoolsis that of the moral and technical sociali-zation of the youthful members of society,to prepare them for adult status. The aimsare presumably achieved by training theclients in knowledge and skills, and insome manner imbuing them with the re-quired moral orientations. Within thisbroad context of preparing youth foradult status, schools set their more specificgoals.

A second assumption relates to the stu-dent-teacher relationship. A fundamentaldichotomy exists between student andstaff roles. This dichotomy and resultantconfrontation derives not only from thefact that education involves change andthus continually challenges the "equil-ibrium," but also from the roles the twogroups play in the school organization.The students are compelled to participate,receive no pay, and are in a client position.The teacher, on the other hand, is a mem-ber by choice, has pay incentives, andadopts a professional attitude.

The third assumption is that the schoolis a bureaucratic organization, at least toa degree. There is a functional division oflabor, a hierarchy of authority, an affec-tively neutral staff role, and an operationaccording to rules and regulations. Withinthis bureaucratic model the student asclient or member has very little controlof goals, practices, and organization. Eventhough he is the cause of the school's ex-istence, he has no voice in shaping itsoperations.

The Impact of School on the StudentThe goals of a school are prescribed. In

the typical school setting there exists a

set of expectations, whether explicit orimplicit, commonly considered the cur-riculum of instruction. These expectationsspell out the desired outcomes and thekinds of experiences to which both teach-ers and students must adhere. A con-sciously held goal leading to the plannedlearning situation exists before a class-room group comes into being. Usuallyflexibility is introduced only to improvisein regards to the immediate needs andinterests of the students ; education is itsown excuse for being. The student hasthus no real part in the goal formation ofhis organization. However, the goals ofthe students are also present in the schoolorganization, especially as they begin tomake associations with each other. Thismay lead the student gradually to becomepreoccupied with the problems of gettingalong with his peers, often to the detr-ment of identifying with his school goals.

Teachers form a ruling elite in theclassroom. Society has vested control andleadership of the classroom group with theteacher. This has removed the formalclassroom groups about. as far from de-mocracy as one can get. There are veryfew working groups in society in whichthese autocratic conditions are legitimizedto such a degree. Students have no con-trol over the selection of leader, they havevery limited recourse from the leadership,and they have no formal power over histenure as leader.

The impact of these countervailing andconstricting forces will be pursued in theremaining part of the paper. But beforeturning to that analysis it may proveworthwhile to examine one more charac-teristic that evolves as a result of the stu-dent life in school and out; this is the de-velopment of referent groups. Consider-able literature exists to show the impactof non-school organization influences onthe student. Parents, church groups, andrelatives are some of the more classicexamples. But more significant for ourdiscussion is the current literature onsocio-economic status groups and inform-al peer-groups. Table I illustrates the highdegree of relationship that exists betweenstudent academic aspiration and socio-economic status.1

59

The fact that the level of the socio-economic group from which a studentcomes, is highly related to his academicaspiration has significance for the schoolorganization much beyond that schoolswish to admit.

The powerful sway that students haveone over the other in their own society isreally common knowledge to a teacher,and is the subject of many a book. For

instance, Friesen found that popularitywas chosen over academic success andathletic ability as the most importantcharacteristic leading to satisfaction inhigh school.2 Coleman found that 43% ofthe students in his survey found "breakingwith a friend" most difficult to take.3 Anumber of studies support the generalconclusion that the high school student isprofoundly influenced by his peers.

TABLE ISTUDENT ACADEMIC ASPIRATION LEVEL

AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

ItemSocio- Economic Status

(Chi-Square)High Medium Low

Plans for higher EducationBoys: yes 84.4% 70.1% 37,1%

undecided 10.2 19.1 29.2no 5.3 10.7 33.3 .000no response 0.1 0.1 0.4

Girls: yes 86.8 64.0 31.2undecided 10.4 16.5 26.2no 2.8 19.5 42.3 .000no response 0.0 0.0 0.3

The approach in this paper is some-what haphazard, since the task attemptedis still limited by insufficient research andstudy. However, the first section exploresin some depth the nature of the studentin the school organization trying tosearch out some of those organizationalattributes primarily related with studentsas clients. The second section examinesthe way in which public schools adaptthemselves to the unselected and variedclients. The third section develops con-cepts relating to the organizational con-trol of students. This is followed by somequestions and implications ensuing out ofthe rather inadequate and cursory analy-sis.

Type of Client in the School Organization

Three characteristics of the students inthe school setting are significant for theschool organization. These characteristics

play havoc with T.;eatly stated and care-fully planned activities in many a system.

The first is best known and most fullyresearched. Great differences exist amongmembers of the school clients in relationto personality factors. The range of indi-vidual differences in achievement and inmotivation are so well known that theyhardly need mentioning. Yet the schoolorganizations, even though they have beenaware of these differences, have been un-able to cope effectively with them at theoperational level.

Differing sociological orientations pre-sent the second set of characteristics sig-nificant for the school situation. Table Ihas already shown the disparity in aca-demic aspiration related to different socialbackground. Table II reveals the per centof students in a special school for problemstudents in one large Canadian city com-ing from each of five socio-economicstrata.4

60

TABLE IIPER CENT STUDENTS COMING FROM

EACH SOCIO-ECONOMIC GROUP

Socio-Economic GroupLow LM M UM High Total

In Special School 34.5 23.2 23.2 15.5 3.6 100

In Total Population 15.8 17.4 34.6 17.5 14.8 100

Variations in the sociological back-ground of students, according to Havig-hurst have more relevancy to educationalpotentialities than even the existence ofpeer groups among stlidents.° Some of hisfindings lend support to the contentionthat the effects of teachers and educa,-tional programs can be discounted ccn-siderably, that the effects of student uponstudent are what matter, for the privilegedstudent functions as a role model for theunderprivileged student. Coleman in hiscurrent review of findings suggests thatthe socio-economic factor is the majorcause of differences that do exist.°

The third major characteristic of stu-dents in the school organization stemsfrom the type of organization that pre-vails in our educational systems. Carlsonhas labeled schools "domestic" service or-ganizations."' In a service organization asocial relation is established with the"objects" or work, who are at the sametime the clients, and motivation is fre-quently an important concern. In mostservice organizations an element of se-lection exists. Either the organization orthe client or both have control of selec-tion and admission. In general four typesof client-organization relationships arepossible as seen below.

SELECTIVITY IN CLIENT-ORGANIZATION RELATIONSHIPIN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

Client Control over OwnParticipation in Organization

OrganizationalControl overAdmission

Yes

No

Yes No

Type I

Type II

Type III

Type IV

Figure 1Types of Organizations

Most of the American organizationsare characteristic of Type I. As an ex-ample, the university has control overadmission and the student client has con-trol over his participation. Churchgroups, service clubs, and professionalorganizations are other examples. TypeII organizations must accept the clientwho, in turn, has free choice in participa-tion. It is probable that junior collegesfall into this category. The AmericanState universities are legally bound toaccept all state high school graduates

who are at least seventeen years old, andwho wish to enrol.

Apparently service organizations ofType III are exceedingly rare. Here theorganization has the right to select itsclients, who in turn are compelled to par-ticipate. The army has this type of or-ganization, but it can hardly be called aservice organization. Some church or-ganizations approached Type III in thatmen called for service were expected tofollow the call.

61

There are a number of service organiza-tions of Type IV; mental hospitals, reformschools, prisons and public school are ex-amples. The clients in these organizationsare members not by personal choice norhave they been selected by the organiza-tion. The present concern is withstudents in the school organization and,as a result, a few essential characteristicsrelated to the fact that public schools fallinto Type IV should be considered.

Since service organizations establisha social relationship with their clientsthey face a motivation problem. Thisproblem is obviously more pronounced inthe organization where the client is nota member by choice and where the orga-nization is forced to accept him. Prob-lems in motivation and control lead to anumber of organizational ramifications.

Carlson also finds it appropriate to callType IV organizations "domesticated."They are not "wild" as those in Type I,because(1) they do not compete for clients,(2) steady stream of clients is assured,(3) existence is guaranteed (they are

fed and cared for),(4) they are protected by society, and(5) the goals to which they are commit-

ted are imposed by external forces.8It is not difficult to envisage a number

of problems deriving from this "domes-ticated service" characteristic of theschool organization. Only one major prob-lem will be explored at this time. How dothe diverse students and the schools asorganizations adapt themselves to controltheir relationship when neither of thementers the relationship voluntarily?

Public School Mechanisms for Adaptingto Unselected Highly Variable Clients

School organizations have goals towhich they are committed and the achieve-ment of these goals is hampered by thepresence of these highly variable clientswho are present not by their own choice.Some sort of control of relationships isessential to prote.t teaching time by re-moving disruptive elements in order to"produce." It seems rational and efficientto channel teaching to those students forwhich the school is geared to provide mostservice. Those students who conform tothe school's procedures, who identify withthe school's goals, and who succeed, receive

preferential treatment. This is the firstadaptive mechanism that the school em-ploys. Schools do not treat all studentsalike whether h_ rades, withdrawal, tru-ancy, discipline, or in extra-curricular ac-tivities. A simple illustration will suffice.Over 49% of all public high school stu-dents in Edmonton did not participate ina single extra-curricular activity duringthe 1966-67 school year, while 12 per centparticipated in three or more.9

The second adaptation that school or-ganizations employ is the segregation ofstudents; this has received a somewhatnegative connotation in the literature ofyouth. Carlson and others have labeled ita "dumping ground." Since dumping doesnot occur into the academic area but in-variably to the vocational, it provides evi-dence as to the type of student the schooldesires to serve. There is an analogy tothese "special schools" or "specialcourses" in the "back wards" of mentalhospitals. The above is not a judgmentbut a mere example of school organiza-tions adapting themselves to their unse-lected, varied, and often uncommittedclients.

Of interest are the findings that linepositions in the school organizations tendto support the instructional goals, whilethe staff positions are less supportive ofthe formal goals and more conscious ofthe student needs. However, even herethere is growing evidence, as Corwin".points out, that guidance and counsellinghas substituted an institutional goal forits service goal, and has become more aprofessional tool supporting the goals ofthe school re selection and segregation.

Methods Students Use to Adapt Themselves

For organizations in general it can behypothesized that the member who issatisfied with his cognitive orientation,whose behavior is individually satisfyingwhile achieving the organization's goalswould tend to conform. If the above wouldnot prevail, he would tend to look for al-ternatives. March and Simon suggest thata person dissatisfied with his cognitiveorientations would resist the norms ofthe organization and would consider atleast three alternatives: (1) leave the or-ganization, (2) conform even if dissatis-fied, or (3) remain, yet seek personalsatisfactions without conforming." Figure2 presents a brief summary of an attemptto trace the adaptations of the varied

82

students to their mandatory service inthe "domesticated service" school organi-zation."

STUDENT ADAPTATIONSTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Receptive AdaptationSide-payment AdaptationSituational RetirementRebellious AdjustmentDrop-out Adaptation

StudentFigure 2

Adaptations and Types

The range of the student adaptation isall the way from complete acceptance tocomplete rejection of the school's goalsand program. Too frequently the focus isonly on the extremes when educators areconcerned with the fullest development ofthe cooperative students, and with thesocial and educational problems of thedrop-out. But for the school as an or-ganization which must deal with all clientsthe "in-between" groups are highly sig-nificant as they are potential disruptivefactors and potential failures for theschool. The in-between adaptation indi-cates that the student defines the schoolgoals and program in a way other thanthe school would define it. A brief look ateach type will be followed by implicationsfor control.

(1) The acceptor has successfullyidentified himself with the school's goalsand program. He finds satisfaction in thiscognitive orientation.

(2) The collaborator has developed aside-payments adaptation. He is lookingfor fringe benefits such as team sports,drama, or association with the oppositesex to obtain the satisfactions he desires.He puts up with school work so long asthese are available to him.

(3) The vegetator is physically presentbut not mentally involved. He may lookfor commitment to other goals. He is theone who resigns to attend school; no onebothers him there. In a sense he is likethe unemployed person going to themovies. As a result his behavior is model,yet his academic work leaves much to bedesired. This is that agreeable boy whoprefers to run errands for the teacher.He rejects what the school has to offer,but does not reject the school itself.

STUDENT"TYPES"AcceptorCollaboratorVegetatorAgitatorRejector

(4) The agitator has developed thatwell known rebellious adjustment. Thereis partial rejection of both the school andwhat it has to offer. This is the disrup-tive client, who continually tests thelimits of behavior. In his attempt to devi-ate short of dropping out, he developsthat game of wits to see how much hecan get away with.

(5) The rejector withdraws completelyfrom the school and drops out at the firstopportunity.

Reviewing this brief analysis of stu-dent adaptation to public schools it canbe seen that problems relevant to thedrop-out are not related to the rejectoronly; in fact, they are more closely as-sociated with the "in-between" types, whodo not find their satisfactions in schoolgoals. Of significance is the finding ofthe writer that 43 per cent of 10,019 stu-dents found academie achievement asmore satisfying in their school life thanathletics or popularity." Athletics waschosen by 12.5 per ceilt and popularity by44.5 per cent of the students.

The implications for "holding power"of schools will be discussed later, yet itmay be appropriate to raise the much de-bated hypothesis that the more "fringe"benefits a school makes available to thereluctant scholar, the greater will be itsholding power.

The fact that schools cannot selecttheir clients or shed them, and the factof personality and sociological variabil-ity of students, together with the varia-bility of adaptation of the student cf thepublic school and what it offers makes itimperative for the school to develop con-trol mechanisms. Organizational controlof students will be discussed briefly atthis time.

63

Organizational Control of Students

French and Raven have delineated fivebases of control leading to power and in-fluence.15 They are as follows:

(1) Reward Power ability to mediatebased on rewards.

(2) Coercive Power ability to mediatepunishment or sanction.

(3) Legitimate Power internalizedvalues of legitimate rights.

(4) Referent Power identification withothers.

(5) Expert Power special knowledge.

The authors indicate that certain con-sequences result from the reliance on anyone of the sources of power. According tothem referent power will have the broad-est range. Coercion results in decreasedattraction of client toward coercing agent,and high resistance. Reward results in in-creased attraction and low resistance.However, the more legitimate the coercionthe less will it produce resistance and de-creased attraction.

Etzioni classifies three types of controlin organizations.1° They are the following:

Types ofControl

Coercive

Remunerative

(1) Coercive power rests on the appli-cation or threat of applications of sanc-tions or punishment.

(2) Remunerative power is based onallocation of rewards.

(3) Normative power rests on alloca-tion and manipulation of symbolic re-wards and deprivations, the allocation ofesteem and prestige, the administrationof ritual, and the power which peers exer-cise over one another.

He illustrates that coercive power ismore alienating than the others, whilenormative power generates more commit-ment. Utilitarian power tends to developcalculative adaptation. Relating this theo-retical construct to the summary of stu-dent adaptations to the public school, wecould hypothesize that coercive powerleads to the rejector; remunerative powerleads to three "in-between" adaptationsof the collaborator, vegetator, and agi-tator types; while the normative powerleads to the acceptor, that is, to the com-mitted student.

Figure 3 shows the relationship of allthese forces in the interaction of the stu-dent in his school organization.

KINDS OF COMMITMENT(Involvement)

Alienative Calculative Moral

Rejector

AgitatorVegetatorCollaborator

Normative Acceptor

Figure 3Types of Control Related to

Types of Students

Two questions develop out of this theo-retical framework. Should schools developmore remunerative controls to keep morestudents in school even at the expense ofkeeping them calculative individuals? Ifso what types of remunerative controlsare available?

The second question is more significant.What in the nature of normative powerhas not been explored or used in schoolsystems to lead students towards corn-

mitment to school aims? What is thisnormative power? The first question willbe dealt with later. Here a brief analysiswill be made to throw light on the norma-tive control that can be made operative inschools.

There are two kinds of normativepower. One, the purely normative, isbased on esteem or prestige; the other isbased on social power, the social symbolsof love and acceptance. From the view-

64

point of the organization pure normativepower is more useful, since it can be useddirectly down the hierarchy. The socialpower is used more indirectly. When ateacher uses a class group to control adeviant student, he employs social power.

Most organizations employ all threemajor types of control but will emphasizeone. When two types of control are usedthey may tend to neutralize each other.Applying force, for instance, generatesalienation to the extent that normativepower is ineffective. This may be one ofthe reasons why counselling work withdrop-outs often fails to meet the objec-tives set.

In summary of this section, teacherscontrol the different types of studentsusing a few basic techniques, It is quitelikely that the normative means of con-trol need to be more fully developed andconsistently employed. This wou.16 meanthat the teacher develop esteem and pres-tige through all the elements of soundprofessional development, e3peCially in-cluding knowledge of his subjet matter,knowledge of the learning process, andknowledge of his clients. He &so needs toallocate acceptance and understanding inhis professional relations with the stu-dents. The school system, On the otherhand, needs to foster means consistentwith the approaches of the teachers tobuild up normative control which in turn

leads to greater commitment on the partof students.

Thoughts on the Student Society

Before summing up the essence of thispaper, it may be useful to examine a fewthoughts on the social power existing inthe student group in our high schools.How strong is the pressure emanatingfrom the high school society? An estimatemay be obtained from the research of thewr iter.17

From Table III it is clearly seen thatthe two major influences are parents andfriends, with friends receiving 46.9 percent of the choices. In the current Edmon-ton high school study 10,019 studentschose the following as most difficult totake: Parents' disapproval 47.2 percent; Teachers' disapproval 5.2 percent; and Breaking with a Friend 47.6per cent. Two conclusions of great sig-nificance to our study emerge. First theteacher does not appear as a significantfactor in the situation for social control.Second, the students' own peer groupseems most important for the utilizationof social control.

There is support here for Waller's argu-ment of 1932.13 Since the student societydevelops its own norms or subculture,which is off limits for school staffs, the

TABLE IIIPER ;;ENT OF STUDENTS WHO FIND

PARENTS' DISAPPROVAL, TEACHERS'DISAPPROVAL, OR BREAKING WITH A

FRIEND HARDEST TO TAKE

Boys Girls Total

Parents' Disapproval 44.8 47.2 45.9

Teachers' Disapproval 6.9 7.2 7.1

Breaking with a Friend 48.3 45.6 46.9

Number of Cases (987) (986) (1973)

relations between students and staffcentre on conflict and mutual hostility.The teachers form a "fighting group," atightly knit group struggling to maintainorder and motivation using formal, legaland professional authority. At times theymake efforts to penetrate the boundaries

65

of student groups by personal warmth.The students also develop "fightinggroups" to preserve their pattern of lifeand the conflict continues. Both teachersand administrators are at the same timeexposed to community pressures. Theycan thus enforce the standards legitimized

for the school by society. Thus from theadministrator to the teacher to the stu-dent flows a dominant authority which en-forces compliance.

Gordon and Coleman, in more recent re-search, have extended the concept of thealienated student in modern high schools."All three argued that modern schools hadintroduced rather extensive extra-cur-ricular activities for control. you willnotice that this would be a remunerativesort of control presumably developingthose "in between" motivated students.

Waller maintained that the extra-cur-ricular program was good for control,that it represented a co-optation of thestudent social structure and its leaders bythe staff. However, Coleman found thatthe extra-curricular program was dys-functional for academic achievement; itled to academic indifference. It is inte-resting to follow the unanticipated con-sequences of the extra-curricular programas postulated by Coleman. In depressingthe academic propensities of students itwould further alienate the students fromthe central goal of the school. Farther,the students through their programswould be able to co-opt important seg-ments of the teaching staff.

There could also be pressure from thestudent society for a teacher to forego hisaffectively neutral professional teacher'srole to use affective reinforcement. Herea real role conflict could develop, wherethe debureaucratization would lead to adeprofessionalization. The professional-client pattern weakened with this inter-action. The final problem envisaged byColeman was that as a result of the extra-curricular program modifications of thecurriculum would be dictated more byimmediate needs of students. No wonderthat Coleman asks school people to lookcritically at the formal structure and cur-riculum of the schools.

Brielty, this paper has examined theimpact of the school on students, the typesof clients in the school organization, themechanisms used by the school and thestudents as a reealt of the special natureof the school organization, the organiza-tional control of students, and a few cur-rent thoughts on the high school society.Taken together this panorama providessome insight into the nature of the stu-dent in the school organization. Severalimplications emanating out of the relation-

ship of students in the school and to theschool organization present themselves.

Implications

1. The Holding Power refers to thatself-discipline instilled in the youngsterto continue his education beyond the con-strained level. What role do the socialand athletic activities play in the modernhigh school? Are they organized towardsmeeting the immediate needs of the stu-dents in order to keep them participatingactively in school activities, or are theydysfunctional in that they further alien-ate the student from the school goals?

2. Personality Needs vary dramatic-ally among the different types of students.In the light of the diverse nature of theschool organization how does the schoolmeet the needs of the students in the vari-ous categories? What can be done for the"in-between" students, those who are notcommitted to the goals of the school, yetremain in school?

3. The Bases of Power used in theschool organization to control studentsvary significantly, and frequently haveunanticipated consequences. Which basesof power are used most frequently inschools? Which are most functional inleading towards school goals?

4. Socio-economic effects on the edu-cation of today's youth have implicationsfur school, especially in regards to thegoals and organizations. Are there waysin which the power of the peer-group canbe utilized as a base for motivation inschools? Should the "disadvantaged" beprovided with "role-models" from theMOr3 privileged? How can the self-con-cepts of youngsters coming from the"culturally deprived" groups be enhanced?

5. The Leader Image has been ascribedto the principal. If, as has been suggestedby some research, the teacher is not thesignificant factor in influencing theyoungster, does this mean that a greaterchallenge of leadership falls on the prin-cipal? Is it up to him i << work for thatorganization, to develop chat in-servicetraining, to establish that climate, and toprovide that "thrust" which will stimulateall types of students towards greatercommitment?

The leadership function, which usuallyfalls to the top levels of the administrativestructure or organizations, is critical. If

66

the school does not have clear goals andcannot develop a sense of identity, thereis little to be committed to and little tocommunicate. There is no reason why theschools cannot engage every member ofits organization to develop goals andidentity. The argume-it is that the productof the schools should improve if the mem-bers are in communic tion with each other,are committed, and re creative and flex-ible.

REM :',NCES

1. Friesen, David, "So le Characteristics of HighSchool Students him Three Socio-EconomicGroups," (unpublished paper on the OttawaStudy), p. 12.

2.. Friesen, David, "Academic-Athletic-PopularitySyndrome," (paper presented at the 1967C.C.R.E. sessions, Winnipeg), p.

3. Coleman, James, The Adolescent Society, (NewYork: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963), p. 5.

4. Friesen, David, taken from the Edmonton HighSchool Study Project still in progress.

5. Havighthst, Robert J, Education in Metrupoli-tan Areas, (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 196B).For a review see Harvard Educational Review,Vol. 37, No. 2 (Spring, 1967), pp. 316-319.

6. James S. Coleman, Coleman Report on Equalityof Education, USOE, 1967.

7. Carlson, Richard 0., "Environmental Constraintsand Organizational Consequences: The Public

School and Its Clients," in Behavioral Scienceand Educational Administration, ed. Daniel E.Griffiths (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1964), pp. 262-276.

8. Ibid., p, 264.9. Friesen, David, "Academic-Athletic-Popu/arity

Syndrome," op. cit., p. 13.10. Carlson, op. cit., p. 269.11. Corwin, Ronald G., A Sociology of Education

(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965),p. 201.

12. March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon, Or-ganizations (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1958).

13. Carlson, op. cit., p. 268-273, adapted by LorenDowney.

14. Friesen, op. cit., p. 11.15. French, John R. P. and Bertram Raven, "The

Bases of Social Power," in Studies in SocialPower, ed. Dorwin Cartwright, (Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan, 1959), pp. 150-167.

18. Etzioni Aruitai, Modern Organizations (Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964),pp. 59-61.

17. Friesen, David, "Value Climates in CanadianHigh Schools," The Canadian Administrator,Vol. VI, No. 1 (October, 1966).

18. Waller, Willard, The Sociology of Teaching,(New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1932).

19. For further discussion see Bidwell, Charles E.,"The School as a Formal Organization," inHandbook of Organizations, (Chicago: RandMcNally & Company, 1965), pp. 972-1022.

67

Principal and Administrative TeamJ. J. BERGEN

Introduction

It is the object of this paper to ex-amine some of the relationships of theprincipal with the superintendent, thecentral office staff, and with the schoolboard. What are these relationships, ofwhat significance are they, and what im-portant role does the principal play in re-lation to senior administrative personnel?

No attempt will be made here to elabo-rate on administrative theory per se oron organization structures or charts. Fora review of such the reader is referred tocomprehensive papers by Ennsi andSparby2 delivered at the Banff RegionalConference of School Administrators in1960. Further elaboration abounds in theliterature. This paper is restricted to anexamination of some of the working oroperational relationships among membersof the administrative team, with an em-phasis on the place of the principal on thisteam.

The Administrative Team

The administrative team for any schoolsystem consists of the school board andits appointed executive staff. For smallsystems the latter may consist of a prin-cipal only, or of a superintendent, a sec-retary-treasurer and a number of princi-pals. For large systems the executive staffmay include several assistant superinten-dents, directors, supervisors, coordinatorsand consultants a vast array of lineand staff personnel, supported by secre-tarial, clerical, and technical assistants.For most Alberta school systems the ad-ministrative team includes the divisionalsuperintendent appointed by the Depart-ment.

The number of administrative positionsapproved for Alberta's fifty-nine divisionsand counties in accordance with the Foun-dation Program, as of February, 1967,8can be summarized as follows :

Administrative Staff No. of SystemsRange in No.

of StaffSuperintendent only(appointed by Dept.) 25

Additional AssistantSuperintendent only 7 1

Assistant Superintendentand other staff 11 1-4

Other staff only 16 1-2

That is, only thirty-four of the fifty-nineunits had administrative instructionalstaff other than the superintendentappointed by the Department, who wasthe only executive officer in the othertwenty-five larger units. For such sys-

Administrative Staff

Superintendent onlySt. )erintendent andadditional StaffOther staff only

tems the only central office staff positionwould be the school board's secretary-treasurer.

The size of the administrative staff insmall urban public and separate schoolsystems is no more impressive:

No. of Systems

7

Rare in No.of Staff

1

Medium sized urban, or small city sys-tems namely Lethbridge, Medicine Hat,and Red Deer each had seven or eightinstructional positions which included asuperintendent. In contrast, Edmontonand Calgary public school systems hadfifty-three and sixty-five approved posi-tions respectively, and Edmonton and Cal-gary separate systems, twenty-six andseventeen positions respectively. How-ever, these numbers do not include manypositions assigned by the respective schoolboards with respect to business and schoolfacilities, which, for example, would addabout another dozen positions for the Ed-monton public school system alone.

The most frequently mentioned posi-tions in rural systems are supervisors ofelementary instruction, music, and guid-ance. Small urban systems appear toappoint reading consultants more fre-quently. Small city systems appoint super-visors or coordinators of physical educa-tion, music, art, guidance and French.Large city systems have directors, co-ordinators and consultants for most gene-ral areas of the educational program.

In most rural school systems of thisprovince, the superintendent, appointed bythe Department of Education, acts in anadvisory capacity to the school board, butgenerally carries out many of the board'sexecutive duties, formally or informallydelegated to him by the board, such as thesecuring and placement of teaching staff.Principals may communicate directly withthe superintendent in matters pertainingto the instructional program, with theboard's secretary-treasurer in order toobtain equipment and supplies, and withthe beard with respect to any matter.

In larger rural systems the board mayappoint an assistant superintendent andone or more supervisors or consultantteachers. Depending upon the arrange-ments set up by the board, the assistantsuperintendent coald be responsible to theboard only, or in part to the superinten-dent. Additional staff responsible to theassistant superintendent would act in anadvisory capacity to principals and teach-ers. Secretary-treasurers are generallydirectly responsible to the school board.This may not be ideal organization, but isindicative of what generally happens. Themultiple line-function to principals doessuggest that confusion of authority andresponsibility can result. The fact that

such arrangements do work fairly wellin most systems may be due to the quickflow of communication along inforMalchannels. This works reasonably well aslong as position incumbents are fairlyflexible in their expectations and exerciseof authority.

Small city systems usually have orga-nizational structures which are flat innature. Communication lines are not com-plicated. Relationships among personnelmay be quite informal, and much of thecommunication may follow informalchannels.

Larger city systems have much morecomplicated administrative structureswhich tend to be tall. The volume of ad-ministrative work is considerable. Res-ponsibilities must be very clearly definedLines of communication should be clearlydelineated. Though much of the communi-cation may follow informal rather thanformal channels, the smooth operation ofthe system is dependent upon the formalstructure, to which new incumbents ofpositions must be able to adjust withouttoo much delay or difficulty.

There is yet no magic formula whichregulates the number and kind of admini-strative staff required for school systemsof various sizes. The number and kind ofpositions will depend upon the goals of thesystem, its program, and the financialresources available to support the pro-gram. Increased knowledge and new de-mands placed upon schools force schoolsystems into accepting more tasks. Gene-ralist administrators, the superintendentand the principal, will tend to acquiremore specialized staff in areas of ad-ministration, in disciplines having rele-vance to school operation, and in contentspecialization.

Administrative Functions

A function may be defined as "thatwhich must be done to accomplish thepurposes of the organization."'

The school board, operating within theterms of reference set by provincial lawand sharing the responsibility for localeducation with the provincial authority,exercises legislative, executive and judi-cial functions. That is, it formulatespolicy, it executes policy, and it makesjudicial decisions in matters of conflictand controversy. However, a school board

7'0

can be most effective if it concentrates itsefforts upon policy-making, that is, set-ting the direction of and the goals for thedistrict educational enterprise. Therefore,a school board is most efficient and effec-tive when it delegates operational details,that is, the carrying out of its executivefunction, to an executive or administrativestaff.

The function of the superintendent isto act as the chief executive officer of theboard. He is a regulator of decision-mak-ing processes and helps the board to makeand administer policy. Specifically, thesuperintendent is involved in the improve-ment of educational opportunity, the pro-curing am: development of personnel, theprovision and maintenance of funds andfacilities, and the maintenance of effec-tive relationships with the communitywithin which the school system operates.

Essentially the principal is involved inthe same categories of general functionsas the superintendent. However, theprincipal's functions are much morespecific, and generally restricted to theachievement of the system's objectives forhis school.

It is the function of the assistant sup-erintendent to administer some part ofthe program for which the superintendentis generally responsible. Policies approvedby the school board must be translatedinto a program of action. The improve-ment of tl-e educational program, forexample, be spelled out in terms ofthe revision and development of the cur-riculum. she evaluation of instruction,etc. For large systems the task becomestoo monstrous for an assistant superin-tendent alone, so that lie in turn becomesan administrator of more specialized per-sonnel, who may be designated as direc-tors, coordinators, cr consultants, andwho in turn become responsible for theoperation of some part of the educationalprogram. For example a coordinator maybe in charge of the entire reading programin the elementary schools, whereas con-sultants or supervisors may work moredirectly in consultation with principalsand individual teachers. The title given toa position is not significant. The positionmight be designated more precisely by arole description rather than by a title.

The business administrator, whose chieffunction is the provision and maintenanceof funds and facilities, should (according

to most current writers) report directlyto the superintendent, and as such he per-forms as a specialist service staff officer.He works with principals, teachers, cus-todians and others in preparation of bud-get estimates.

Because certain instructional adminis-trators have more specialized knowledgethan principals, there is a tendency toplace them in line position. However,since such officers derive their real au-thority from technical knowledge, theirroles should be to educate rather than tocoerce, and to work cooperatively withschool principals who should maintainbasic responsibility for what goes on intheir buildings.

Administrative Relationships

Organization charts illustrate formalauthority structures and formal communi-cation channels. It is likely impossible tostructure formal lines of communicationso that these and no others will be fol-lowed, and so that these shall prove effec-tive and adequate at all times. Role incum-bents are people with individual charac-teristics which are not shed at the doorof an institution, but are brought into theorganization and are part of every trans-action between persons, whether theseformal or informal. If we look upon ailyorganization as a system, comparable, toa natural system, then those aspects ofthe organization which are functional will,be maintained, and those which are notwill suffer disuse, and will or should indue course be changed or be eliminated.The system, in some sense, spontaneouslydevelops channels of communication andways of handling situations which maynot have been part of the original formalplan. The more adequate the formal struc-ture is, the greater congruence there isbetween the formai and the informalthe less perfect the formal structure, themore conflict arises between role expecta-tions and role performance. Formal chan-nels of communication may be by-passedand informal lines followed which, in cer-tain situations, result in more effective andfaster goal-accomplishment.

In view of this, we can examine theprincipal's actual relationships with othermembers of the administrative team. Ina sense, the principal occupies a pivotalposition. He is in charge of his school.

Information flows upward to administra-71

tive staff through him, and downward tothe classroom teachers through him. Whatdecisions are made by those higher up inthe line depends in part on what the prin-cipal says, and how such decisions will betranslated into action in the school's pro-gram, again depends on him. Of all ad-ministrative positions, that of the prin-cipal is of crucial importance. Centraloffice staff and the superintendent, in asense, are facilitators for the principal,so that he can conduct a good school pro-gram.

In very large schools the principal's rolebecomes more that of a superintendent ofa system, coordinating administrativestaff under him, who in turn affect directlythe operation of the program as it isapplied to the learner. Here the principalcorrespondingly relies on the advice hereceives from department heads, co-ordinators, supervisors, and consultants.The extent to which the superintendent orthe principal must operate as a generalistdepends on the size of the system underconsideration, and the number and kindof administrative staff employed.

In at least one Alberta school divisionthe principals, or replostrtatives of theprincipals' association, regularly attendedboard meetings and were invited to placetheir recommendations before the board.In the Edmonton public school system fourzone associations of eleiilentary schoolprincipals meet periodically, as do juniorhigh and senior high principals as city-wide associations. Recommendations ofthese associations may be sent directly tothe superintendent, who may delegatethese to the appropriate staff officials foraction. Through this same channel recom-mendadons from principals may bebrought by the superintendent to theschool board meeting for the board's con-sideration. Principals do have channels-whereby, if not individually, at least col-lectively, they can bring urgent matters tothe attention of the superintendent andeven of the school board. Whether suchrecommendations are approved and trans-lated into action depends to a large extenton how well these are thought out and for-mulated, and whether an element of po-litical wisdom is evident by bringing thesebefore the central office staff or the be -1at an appropriate time.

If a request for a specific item tiesbefore the superintendent, its neer' mustbe well documented. Or if the s.perin-

tendent brings the same matter before theboard with his recommendation that thematter be approved, he may need thesupport of staff officers, and of principalsin case the matter is questioned. Thehandling of one such item at a large cityschool board meeting serves as an illus-tration. Under consideration was the in-stallation of natural gas outlets on stu-dents' desks of a physics laboratory at acost of nearly $3,000. Though the item hadbeen recommended and submitted throughthe superintendent's office, the boardasked for its justification. The superin-tendent motioned for an assistant super-intendent to provide the information, whoin turn referred to a vice-principal of theconcerned school. The vice-principal's ex-planation appeared weak. The boardturned down the item. It was learned thatthe vice-principal did not anticipate therequested explanation, and that in fact hewas not in charge of the science programin that school. The incident serves topoint out the need to be prepared to pro-vide the essential information, and to doso effectively for any item which comesbefore the board for approval. Everyprincipal, or his delegated substitute,should be prepared to provide adequatejustification for any request for hisschool. This opportunity can be availableat board meetings, both in small and largesystems. Here is one 'direct channelthrough which the principal can influencethe decision-making process which affectsthe operation of his school program.

Some Findings

In 1960 Toews made a study of the ac-tivity of the then existing fifty-one prin-cipals' associations in divisions and coun-ties.5 He found that the aims of ';.hese as-sociations were ranked in the followingorder: (1) coordination of the work ofprincipals; (2) providing some uniform-ity of school administration; (3) assist-ing the superintendent in the supervisionof instruction ; and, (4) advising the boardregarding educational policy. He foundthat thirty-nine of the associations weremaking policy recommendations to boards.When boards were asked to rank theeffectiveness of the associations, theyranked principals' policy recommendationstwelfth among sixteen items. Neverthe-less, they commented quite favorablyupon the effectiveness and usefulness ofthe work of the associations. On the otherhand, a panel of experts consisting of the

72

Chief Superintendent of Instruction, theDean of the Faculty of Education, TheHead cf the Department of EducationalAdministration, a professor of educationaladministration and a school superinten-dent, ranked the policy-making activity ofthe associations fifth in importance. Per-haps principals should have a good lookat their policy-making potential andmethods, so that these might be moreappealing to school boards.

A study by Sherk and Knill involving180 divisional and county school principalsin an area adjacent to Edmonton indi-cated that principals of smaller schoolsand relatively inexperienced principalsexpected independent action by the super-intendent. However, more of the princi-pals expected the superintendent to con.suit with them.

The study concluded that:The very considerable differences in

expectations and in perceptions held bycertain classifications of principals, andparticularly by the principals in smallerschools as compared with those in largeschool situations, indicate that thesuperintendent's behavior needs to beflexible and variable if he is to meet theexpectations of principals in differentcircumstances. The nature of the ex-pectations and perceptions suggeststhat incumbents are in various stagesof development.°

This may apply to urban as well .as torural principals.

Finlay and Reeves found that the schoolboards and school committees of Albertadivisions and counties expected superin-tendents to exercise independent actionin most instructional areas, to act underboard direction with respect to instruc-tional personnel, to assist in an advisorycapacity only in business matters, and toexercise no responsibility with respect tothe secretary-treasurer./ Inexperiencedboard 'members expected greater boardindependent action than experienced mem-bers. One may surmise that boards wouldnot be inclined to delegate greater res-ponsibility to principals than they do tosuperintendents.

In a study of the operation of the schoolboards and school committees of fifty-eight divisions and counties, as reportedby superintendents, Hastings found thatonly 19 per cent of the boards could beclassified as policy-makers who delegated

the executive function. On the other hand,97 per cent of the superintendents and 86per cent of the principals were reportedto be involved in policy development.°

Maertz observed school boards andschool committee meetings in a sample ofeight divisions and eight counties. Hefound that reference to handbooks wasrare and that a lack of well-formulatedpolicy was of little concern to the boards.The average board lacked policy govern-ing eight of thirty-five observed items,and most boards lacked adequate policyin five or more of seven action areas. Staffofficers lacked guidance and authority tomake decisions. Boards -made poor deci-sions due to a lack of information. Theywere generally involved in too much de-tail, which they confused with control ofthe educational system. Maertz observedthat boards of larger systems made morepolicy-type decisions, and fewer total de-cisions.°

In a study of forty-one school divisionsecretary-treasurers Hrynyk found thatthey reported a general lack of policy, andthat many of their decisions wereapproved by the board after they had beenmade.1° The areas of authority and res-ponsibility of the superintendent and thesecretary were poorly defined.

An American study regarding the prac-tices of school boards ;it districts havingsystems enrolling 1200 or more pupilsfound that problems relating to policywere most frequent, and reported by one-third of all boards." One-fifth of theboards reported board-superintendent re-lationship problems due to a need to dis-tinguish clearly between board functionsand administrative responsibilities.

A Study of Functional Interrelationships

Recently a doctoral study by Brown in-volved the examination of the functionalinterrelationships as perceived by 195supervisors and administrators in variouspositions in eleven Ohio city school sys-tems.12 One of his observations was that"Subordinate position holders had diffi-culty in perceiving the extent or limits ofresponsibility delegated them." This maynot be so much a difficulty for principals,who may see everything that happens intheir schools as part of their responsibili-6.es. However, difficulty is more likely tooccur among central office staff, particu-larly if their roles are not well defined.

73

A second observation was that "Staffpersonnel operate as line officials in fun-ctional aspects of their responsibilities."Coordinators and consultants with respectto special subject areas may appear bothto teachers and principals as having aline authority function.

A third observation was that "Multiplesupervision exists without undue strainon organizing harmony," and a fourththat "Individual accountability to a singlesuperior is not an inviolate principle.Multiple supervision operates successfullyamong professionally oriented personnel,particularly if there is not an overlappingof functions being supervised. Problemsoccur in dual supervision when both haveregard for the same or identical matters."Operationally, there may be several linesof authority extending to the principal'sschool. Three principals of elementaryschools in the Edmonton public school sys-tem were asked from whom they receiveddirection and to whom they reported.Their replies appeared to be in accordancewith Brown's finding. From whom a di-rective might come depended on thenature of the issue, and to whom theywould report or communicate also depend-ed upon the issue at hand. Though itappeared from the organization chart thatprincipals might be responsible to anassistant superintendent, this was theposition with which they communicatedmost infrequently.

Brown's fifth observation was that"Participation on part of the staff in thedevelopment of operational policies andwith opportunity to influence outcome ofpolicy formulation makes the authorityrole in carrying out policy of much lessimportance." It could be said that if apolicy is in part the result of the prin-cipal's participation and an outcome ofhis requests, it could not matter to himfrom which staff position the formal di-rective indicating the implementation ofthat policy might come.

At this point it might be added thatprincipals need to be aware of the import-ance of good perception in inter-personalcommunication. In a recent study Foskettand Wolcott found that elementary prin-cipals had some difficulty in perceiving theexpectations held for them by superinten-dents and school boards.13 Enns statedthat "The soundness of the decisions (byadministrators) depends very largelyupon the adequacy of the decision maker's

perception of the situation and the manyvariables involved.""

Some Implications

Though 'policy-making may be the for-mal prerogative of specified positions, theprincipal can develop skill in influencingthe outcome of policy-decisions whichaffect the operation of his school program.Since he is closer to the scene of imple-menting the school program than arecentral office administrative staff, he canexercise the power of first-hand opera-tional kr owledge.

The principal should be aware of themany channels of communication, bothformal and informal, and develop politicalwisdom in sensing which channels can bemost useful to him at any given time forany specific issue.

The principal should question theadequacy of his own perception of com-munications he receives from centraloffice staff. On the other hand, he shouldexamine with great care his own com-munications, whether these be requests,or submissions of information, andattempt to sense what the perception ofthe receiver of his communications mightbe. Thought and care given to communi-cations received and those remitted shouldprovide for more effective and efficientinter-personal relationships between theprincipal and the central office staff, thesuperintendent, and the school board.

74

REFERENCES

1. F. Enns, "Some Characteristics of Good StaffOrganization." In Administrative Staff Organi-zation in Urban School Systems. University ofAlberta: Division of Educational Administra-tion, 1960, pp. 1-16.

2. H. T. Sparby, ''The Administrative Staff in aGrowing School System." In Administrative StaffOrganization in Urban School Systems, op. cit.,pp. 59-75.

3. Alberta Department of Education.4. Daniel E. Griffiths, et al, Organizing Schools for

Effective Education (Danville, Illinois: TheInterstate Printers & Publishers, Inc. 1962),p. 151.

5. Henry Toews, "Principals' Associations in Al-berta Divisions and Counties," Protects in Cana-dian School Administration, University of Al-berta, Division of Educational Administration,1960.

6. H. Sherk and W. D. Knill, "The Role of theAlberta Superintendent," "The Alberta Journalof Educational Research, 11:2 (June, 1965),pp. 96-101.

7. J. H. Finlay and A. W. Reeves, "The Surrin-tendent's Role as seen by School Boards,' TheAlberta Journal of Educational Research, 7:2(June, 1961), pp. 74-80.

8. Irving Hastings, "A Study of the Operation ofSchool Boards in the Large Rural School Unitsin Alberta" (unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Uni-versity of Alberta, 1966), pp. 112-114.

9. S. G. Maertz, "An Analysis of School BoardDecisions in Selected Alberta Divisions andCounties" (unpublished M.Ed. thesis, Univer-sity of Alberta, 1966), pp. 102-131.

10. Nicholas P. Hrynyk, "Descriptive Survey ofSchool Division Secretary-Treasurers" (unpub-lished M.Ed. thesis, University of Alberta, 1962),pp. 106407.

11. Alpheus L. White, Local School Boards: Orga-nization and Practices (Washington: Office ofEducation, 1962), pp. 81-85.

12. F. H. Brown, "Functional Interrelationships asPerceived by Supervisors and Administrators inVarious Positions in Selected Northeastern OhioSchool Systems" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, TheOhio State University, 1964, in Educational Ab-tracts, XXV, p. 956).

13. John M. Foskett and Harry F. Wolcott, "Self-Images and Community Images of the Elemen-tary School Principal," Educational Administra-tion Quarterly, 3:2 (Spring, 1967), pp. 162-182.

14. F. Enns, "Perception in the Study of Adminis-tration," .71'; Canadian Administrator, 5:6(March, 1966), pp. 23-26.

Variations in the PrincipalshipE. MIKLOS

What tasks, activities, and functionsshould individuals in various administra-tive positions attempt to perform to en-sure the effective operation of schools andschool systems? This question continuesto attract the attention of both practi-tioners and students in the field of educa-tional administration. Seminars, confer-ences, workshops, and research activitieshave focused on the roles of school boards,secretary-treasurers, and superintendents;the principalship has also received con-siderable attention, perhaps as much asthe other three combined. One mightassume that it should be possible to cometo some agreement about the nature andcharacter of each of these positions, toarrive at a job description that could beagreed upon, and, in a general way, thiswould seem possible. However, the in-creasing complexity and changing natureof education together with the organiza-tion which is devised to cope with itseems to require that we redefine posi-tions, re-allocate functions, and decideupon new responsibilities which are inharmony with the total educational pic-ture. The purpose of this paper is to ana-lyze some of the basic considerations invarious views of the principalship and tosuggest how some specific questions aboutthe role and functions of principals relateto these basic conceptions.

Before it is possible to deal with specificquestions about the principalship it seemsnecessary to develop first some thoughtsabout the nature of administration in edu-cation and about the general role of theprincipal as an administrator. This willbe followed by a consideration of someviews of school systems as organizationsand an analysis of two possible views ofteachers. The logical implications of theseviews for the role of the principal will beelaborated. Finally, a number of specificquestions will be considered against thebackground of the earlier development.

Administration in Education

A question which is far more basicthan one of the functions of specific ad-ministrative personnel concerns the needfor various administrators in education.It is not uncommon to hear the suggestionthat education could be carried on with-out principals, or superintendents, orschool boards at certain times these

suggestions are proposed more seriouslythan at others, usually by individuals whosee their own positions as indispensableand the question is not altogether ridicu-lous. it would certainly be possible tothink of carrying on some form of educa-tion in which there would be far feweradministrative positions than we havenow. One might point to the provision ofsuch services as legal and medical whichappear to have need for fewer adminis-trators. Admittedly, the structure of edu-cation would have to be far different fromwhat it is today if we were to reduce thenumber of administrators by a significantnumber. This is so because we seem tohave made the decision that educationshould be provided on a large scale, thatit should be organized in some manner,that it should be subject to varying de-grees of control and coordination. Thatis, it has been decided to carry on educa-tion as an organized rather than as a hap-hazard, chance, or individual type ofoperation. As soon as there exists a desireto carry on a series or set of activities de-signed to achieve certain purposes in acoordinated manner, there is a need foran organizational or administrative struc-ture. This administrative structure be-comes apparent in the form of variousadministrative positions which are cre-ated: school boards, superintendents, con-sultants and coordinators, principals andothers as well. These administrators, re-gardless of what specific position theyoccupy, are engaged in three major ad-ministrative activities to varying degrees:

(1) determining, discerning, or decid-ing upon what the purposes or ob-jectives of the educational systemShall be.

(2) determining the means, outliningthe tasks, and assigning the ac-tivities which must be carried outto achieve those purposes.

(3) coordinating, directing and leadingthe efforts of those persons engagedin the activities to assure the effec-tive operation of the system.

School boards are obviously concernedwith the first of these functions: deter-mining the overall., policies which will in-dicate the direction or the particular formof the education of pupils in a particularschool district. Boards must then also con-cern themselves with the personnel and

ie")i. 77"..1

with thF physical facilities which will bereqoiled to achieve those purposes.S;aperintendents are involved in identify-ing, discerning, and recommending ap-propriate objectives, in determining whatwill have to be done to achieve those ob-jectives and in coordinating the activitiesof personnel engaged in the work requiredto achieve the objectives.

School boards and superintendents aregenerally concerned with the operation ofa total school system; one of the signifi-cant parts of that system is the individualschool. In the sense that the school is adistinguishable administrative unit, theprincipal of the school finds himself in-volved in the administrative activitiesmentioned above for his particular school.For example, he must discern specific ob-jectives in relation to the education ofpupils in a particular school within theframework provided at the school systemlevel, he attempts to organize his schoolby assigning and allocating teachers andpupils in such a way that the educationalobjectives can be achieved, and he leadsand coordinates the ongoing activities ofthe school. Frequently, these general ac-tivities are discussed in the form of morespecific functions of principals such asattempting to improve the educationalprogram, developing personnel in theschool, working with the community, andmanaging the school. As long as we carryon the discussion at the general level ofthese functions we are not likely to en-counter any problems ; it is when we be-gin to consider some of the more specificquestions of how and to what extent aprincipal becomes involved in each of thesefunctions or activities that differences be-gin to arise. The following section of thispaper attempts to identify basic sourcesof these differences.

Conceptions of School System and Teacher

In attempting to define the tasks andactivities associated with various posi-tions there is a tendency to take as a modelthe practices in another kind of organiza-tion: school boards are likened to boardsof directors, superintendents to personswith similar titles in business, principalsto managers of branch offices or to man-agers of departments. At times this is anunfortunate comparison because of theassumption that these other organizationsare the same as school systems and thatteachers are like the personnel employedin other types of organizations. This

78

assumption is likely to be invalid in manyinstances and may result in confusedthinking about the roles of particular ad-ministrators in education; there is a needto develop role conceptions which are inharmony with the characteristics of theorganization and its personnel.

Although there are many basic simi-larities, the organizational nature ofschools and school systems does differfrom that of other types of organization;the character of the organization alsodiffers from school district to school dis-trict as well as from school to school. Allschool systems have basically the sameobjectives and those within a certain geo-graphical area operate under the samelegal or formal structure. Yet becausethere are differences in the situations, inthe problems which they encounter, anddifferences in the people who staff them,school systems may also develop uniquecharacteristics which result in significantdifferences. For purposes of discussiontwo rather extreme types of school sys-tems will be described and later the des-criptions will be linked with the concep-tion of the principalship which might bedeveloped in each.

School System Type 'A'

One possible trend in the developmentof a school system is an emphasis on ahigh degree of centralized control and theemergence of positions and procedureswhich will facilitate the exercise of thatcontrol. In a school system such as thisthere is a tendency for school boards tointerpret their legal powers literally andto exercise the fullest amount of controlwhich they possibly can ; the superinten-dent and the other central office personnelare looked upon as agents in achieving thiscontrol and considerable emphasis isplaced on the adherence to formal, legalauthority which these individuals mayhave in the exercise of their duties.

There is also an emphasis on making de-cisions centrally, at the higher levels inthe organization. Policies become spelledout in considerable detail, and there is anemphasis on adherence to the policieswhich are established. Decisions about thenature of school programs, the organiza-tion and the content of courses, the natureof subject matter to be presented and thesequence and pace of the presentation aredecided upon centrally for the total schoolsystem. These policies and decisions are

initially set down in the form of handbooks,guidebooks, resource units, And directivesfrom the higher administrative levels. Inshort, an attempt is made to control mostof the details of the operation of the edu-cational system.

In order to ensure that practice is inamoral with prescribed procedures, use ismade of various means for checking andreporting on practice. This becomes mani-fest in the amount of paperwork requiredto supply the school and its personnel withspecific:Aims concerning details of opera-tion and in the Amount of paperwork re-quied to report back to the central officeadministrators on the details of the opera-tion of the educational system. There maybe reports on progress, school organiza-tion, reaulis of system-wide tests, arcs soforts:. Forthee activity would involv losef:hcc)ting on Wirit is taking place in lass-room instruction how well are teacherswrformiag, is progress comparable withthat in other echoola and claasrooms? Ifthere is a prefcrsnee for face-to-face dis-aassioas in the sesatem there may be manyreetinga of the superintendent, central(arka persennel, and principals for theparsioae of receiving communications andtlaacasasiaas ccyora inatien.

In ri:tunmary, the nature of this type ofseam) symarn might be described as beingClijtviny c(olltracli with emphasis on;1,ara'-ifsaess many of the details of theoperatior of indivalaal aehoels and class-roorria, ;tad including emphasis on the

and formal .tructure which makesthe dreisiens and exerciaes the control. It.is, Already evident that there wold het.rnic! very definite demands on principalsee this, type: of achool system; this Will be-eases im,re evident, after we examine somealtersialives in the form of another type ofsstaaa ayatana

School Sworn Typo

Its this Iy v,. of system there is much lessertiph:-..014,A on the le:gores described foraasaaa ?,astern Type 'A'. namely, leas ent-ahasis en e.rn'tnilize.A (kc.f.Mon and con-trel, Ti is cacK, net tlic;411 111.31 there is anyless dc-irc for an elfeet educational sys-taai: it mcAn$ only that the organizationalxppmt.ticlic$ :)re, quite differen!. Instead ofocth,ing on determining ninny of the de-

ttols operation and expecting rigid ad-lirrrrice ho thefw, there is an attempt toallow for flexibility ard to depend to :1

much greater extent oo the decisions. that

can be made in individual schools andclassrooms. Although broad policies areset out, there is much less emphasis onaiming for similarity or uniformity in theapplication of these policies, The scope ofthe policies is such that the rules and regu-lations which emerge from them can varyand yet be in accord with the policies.There is an expectation that individualsat lower levels will be able to arrive atmore effective decisions than those whichmight be determined at higher adminis-trative levels.

The presence of the legal and formalframework which supports the educa-tional system is not nearly as evident asit is in sonic other system. Although legaland formal powers are recognized andadlieeed to, this is accomplished in Lullrecognition of the freedom which is pos-sible. There is limited emphasis on thehierarchical and formal nature of author-ity which the various administrative levelsexercise over the lower levels.

There could be a fair amount of activityin such areas as deciding upon school pro-grams and developing resource materials1however, the use of these would be muchmore clearly presented as er,tional, assuggestions and resources rather than s..sprescriptions for practice. In fact, the useof the materials which have been devel-oped as if they were prescriptive mighteven be discouraged. The expectation andpractice would be that individual schoolsand classrooms must be able to adapt pro-grams, courses and procedures so thatthey "make sense" for a particular situa-tion. Since many details are left to thedecision at school and classroom lea e.i, itis not surprising that there is consider-able variation in actual practice:, thisvariation is not a source of concern to theschool system.

Under this type of organization there isless need for checking procedures thatare part of the more rigid and prescrip-tive type of organization. Since the de-tails of operation are not subject to con-trol, the interest is focused more upon thzobjectives which are being selected andthe extat to which the objectives are be-ing achieved. This can be of a more gene-ral nature than would be the case if pro-cedural details were the center of interest.The variation in practice also reduces theneed for coordinating activities sincethese arc limited to the areas in whichcoordination is essential. Furthermore,

79

there is far less emphasis on written re-ports and on formal supervisory visits topersonnel which result in such reports.

These two views of school systems canlead to discussions of the role of the prin-cipal in two ways. First, if these areapproximations of some actual variationsin school systems, it is clear that the de-mands made upon principals in one typewill be quite different from the demandsin the other type. In the highly structured,more or less rigid school system the prin-cipal will be forced into becoming involvedin control; in the more flexible type ofschool system organization he is placedin a position of having to make many moredecisions about the operation of his schooland the activities which take place withinit. The same interpretation holds if welook upon these as being two different con-ceptions of desirable school system orga-nization. Those who favor type 'A' wouldsee quite a different role for the principalthan would those who favor a type '13' ora much less rigid, more flexible, decentra-lized form of organization.

These differences will become muchmore evident if we consider also variationsin the views of teachers which might beheld by members of the organization. Inthe same way as we can find variations inconceptions of what is the desirable formof school system organization there arealso variations in what is considered to bethe prevailing characteristic of teachers,or, differences in what teachers are like.This is particularly significant becausemany of the activities of a principal in-volve working closely with teachers. Theconception one has of "the teacher" islikely to be closely related to the concep-tion which one has of "the principal."Again, two possible views of teachers willbe presented for purposes of discussion.

View of Teachers "A"

One possible view of teachers is that asa group they are becoming increasingly"professional." The term "professional"may not be a good one to use because ithas various possible interpretations anda general vagueness. Here is it being usedin the sense that teachers appear to havea greater understanding of the basis ofteaching, are becoming more highly skilledin performing their teaching, and perhapsare becoming more committed to perform-ing effectively as teachers than at any timeprevious. Tit's general view of teachers

also sees them as much more competent,willing, and ready to make decisions abouttheir teaching decisions about thenature of what it is that various pupilsshould be taught and how they should betaught even though this is still within theframework which might be set down bythe school system. That is, it is assumedthat teachers have an understanding ofthe development of the learner, a know-ledge of the structure of that which is tobe learned, the ability to diagnose theneeds of the learner, and the ability toapply the appropriate procedures. Be-cause teachers are able to do this there isno need to prescribe, to set out the detailsof what must be done, and no need forclose supervision. Not only is there noneed for close supervision, there may evenbe decreasing effectiveness if there is anattempt to prescribe for and to controlthe teacher in many areas of teaching per-formance.

The view could also be extended to in-clude teachers who as yet do not have thecharacteristics mentioned above in thatthey might be viewed as having the poten-tial to develop in that direction. Further-more, it might be held that teachers willdevelop in this direction only if they areaccorded treatment which stimulates themto move in the direction of development asprofessionals. Consequently, instead ofapplying prescriptions, instead of outlin-ing the details of what they should bedoing in their teaching, they must bechallenged and guided by providing themwith more opportunities for individudinitiative, opportunities for individual de-cisions, and opportunities for professionalgrowth.

Basically, this view of the teacher seeshim as an individual who must have con-siderable scope for discretion and action,as one who is capable or has the potentialfor performing effectively without a highdegree of control and direction. In thisgeneral description there is already somehint of the implications for the role of theprincipal which will become even moreapparent as the contrasting view is pre-sented.

View of Teachers "B"

Another possible view of teachers seesthem as much less capable or willing touse individual skill and judgment in mak-ing decisions about their work. It is as-sumed that teachers are not able to de-

so

cide what is best for a particular class interms of the material or process of in-struction; it is assumed that these mustbe decided for them. There is a feelingthat if many of the regulations, restric-tions and controls which surround teach-ers were removed education of pupilswould deteriorate. Some may hold thateventually teachers should have greaterautonomy in their work but that for thetime being it is necessary to exercise con-siderable direction and guidance. In fact,the number who need this direction, guid-ance, and supervisicn still far outnumberthose who do not require it.

In contrast to the "professional" viewof the teacher this might be identified asan "employee" view. The main element inthe conception would appear to be thatteachers are employed to perform a par-ticular job, that they mast become fami-liar with the way in which they are ex-pected to do this, and that they must besupervised closely to ensure that they doperform the job. As a further contrastthere is also the assumption that teacherswork best under these conditions and thatthey do not react negatively to the con-ditions under which they are expected towork.

Since principals do spend a major por-tion of their time in working with teach-ers in une activity or another, it shouldbe clear that the conception which one hasof teachers will influence what one expectsof the principal or, on the other hand,that the characteristics of the teacherswith whom a principal works will influ-ence the nature of the relationship.

Variations in Principal Rolo

The major purpose of this developmentis to indicate how ideas about the natureof school systems as organizations andthe nature of teachers modifies definitionsof the role of a principal. To facilitatecommunication from this point on the twotypes of school systems described earlierwill be classed as the "highly structured"and "Aexible"; similarly, teacher concep-tions will be classed as being either "pro-fessional" or "employee." A combinationof school system view and view of teacherresults in four possibilities which wouldbe related to the four possible variationsin the role of the principal as suggestedby the following figure:

Conception of School System

le

r"'"

0FL'

13

Employee

Professional

HighlyStructured Flexible

Manager Director

Mediator Leader

In an attempt to obtain descriptive labels,the four variations have been designatedas manager, director, mediator, and lead-er roles. A brief elaboration on each ofthese may clarify the differences amongthem.

In a highly structured school systemwhere there is an emphasis on centralizedcontrol, where teachers are viewed as em-ployees who are in need of a high degreeof control, where there is an emphasis onprescription, on checking, and on report-ing back to higher levels, the role of prin-cipals will tend to be defined as that of"managers." That is, principals will tend

-------.-------

to be viewed as links in the highly formalnetwork of communication; the mainfunctions will be defined as receiving com-munications from higher levels in theschool system, interpreting these com-munications, conveying information toteachers, assisting them with carrying outthe prescriptions, and reporting backagain to the higher levels.

Although there may be some possibili-ties for adapting and modifying the In-structional program, it is quite likely thatthis will be lost in the general conceptionof the job. Principals in this type of situa-tion will be seen more as individuals whoarc responsible for making certain thatschools operate and that instruction is

81

carried out in the pre-determined manner;the emphasis on administrative detail re-quired to keep schools operating as deter-mined will preclude many of the other ac-tivities that are associated with the role.In relationship to teachers in the school,the principal will be seen as having aformal and legal authority which placeshim considerably above teachers in thestructure of the system.

Principals as Directors

Under a situation where the school sys-tem is not as highly structured but muchmore flexible and decentralized, wherethere is much greater opportunity forvariations at the level of the school andclassroom, but where teachers are stillviewed as "employees," a logical outcomewould be a "director" concept of the prin-cipalship. That is, the principal is seenas exercising the direction and controlwhich teachers require, but he does notexercise control under the close directionof higher levels in the school system. Thesystem has become decentralized andpower has been dispersed to some extentbut it has not filtered down to teachers;it remains at the lesci of the principal.The principal is viewed as exercising muchgreater control on his own initiative thanis the case in the highly structured schoolsystem; he "directs" and "leads" in ahighly formal sense.

Principals as Mediators

The logical outcome of a view whichsees teachers as professionals within ahighly structured and rigid frameworkis a "mediator" concept of the principal.The demands which the highly structuredsystem makes of its personnel are incom-patible with the inclinations of those sameindividuals; the principal is seen as medi-ating the organizational demands and in-dividual tendencies. On the one hand, heis forced to make certain that the de-mands from higher levels are met at sonicacceptable point, that rules, regulations,and decisions are carried out te at leastsome extent.. On the other hand, he mustcreate possibilities within this rigid struc-ture for opportunities to exercise the pro-fessional discretion which teachers wouldseem to require. Ile mediates in the senseof playing clown the organizational de-mantis rind facilitating the cre.ative teach-ing which iti difficult to achieve within arestricUve structure.

The basic problem or conflict in thissituation is between the teacher and theschool system; in actual pract:s.$) the con-flict resolves itself into the principalattempting to satisfy the demands of theschool system on the one hand and of theteacher on the other. Which of the two hefavors, if he favors either, will no doubtdepend upon his own inclinations as wellas upon the strength of the two forces.

Principals as Leaders

The "leader" concept of the principal ismost consistent with a flexible school sys-tem structure and a view of the teacheras a professional. The nature of the or-gan;.-ssLional structure is such that thereare possibilities for variations in the pro-grams and practices carried out withinthe school; principals and teachers havethe scope for making school level deci-sions, for trying out new ideas, for modi-fying their practice. At the same time,professionally-oriented teachers are readyto undertake the kinds of developmentswhich are possible; they have the sopa-bilities or potential for ,.sing the auton-omy which they have for developing im-proved practice. In such a situation it iFpossible to conceive of the principal as aleader of professional person!, as onewho work.0 with a group of professionalsin deciding upon objectives. and means,in coordinating the work of the group, infacilitating their activities, and in plan-ning further improvements and develop-ments.

The leader concept of the principalappears to recognize that what shouldemerge from the operation of a school istr-Nre than just the sum of the individualexfort of teachers in their classrooms. Al-though all teachers might be viewed ashighly competent, the leader concept im-plies that there is a need to work with thegroup for the effective utilization of nilof their skills.

Actual and Ideal Roles

Identification of four possible einplia-ses in the role of principal raises thefurther question of which role do prin-cipals tend to emphasize and which em-phasis (night. to be given both now rIncl inthe f:itere. To des! with the first of these,it. is tplii.0 possible that, different princi-pals emphasize different conceptions of

the role; in practice some may be morelike the leader mentioned, others mightbe emphasizing aspects of the role whichwould class them as manegers, mediators,or directors. The particular emphasis willdepend upon the particular coiceptionwhich the individual has of what theprincipalship ought to be an there isprobably a good deal et variation amongprincipals some, nc doubt, see them-selves more as managers ratl-.er than asleaders. Another source of variationwould be in the nature of the situation:size of school or school system might re-sult in principals emphasizing one of theserather than another. The two factorsmentioned above would also be operative;if principal's practice is consistent withthe development mentioned here, somemight be emphasizing the mediator rolebecause they find themselves workingwith professional teachers in a highlystructured situation, others might bedirectors, imposing their own control anddirection on a group of teachers whoeither do not have the skills or are notgiven the opportunity to exercise profes-sional autonomy. One further obviouspossibility is that principals have to per-form various aspects of all of these rolesAA many even vary their approachesfrom year to year and from persons topersons. To the extent that a principalfinds himself in a highly structured situa-tion working with teachers who nre notprepared to the degree that it SUT'S pos-sible to view teachers as professionals hebecomes a mediator. and so forth.

No doubt, those who are familiar withthe approaches which a number of prin-cipals take teward their work will befamiliar also with the possible setriations.The variatiors should not be as discon-("ening as the. lack of coneruence of theemphasis in behavior with reality. Prin-cipale who attempt to perform asleaders" of professional persons inhighly structured organisations withteachers who have not ecquired thecharacteristics of professionals will be infor some difficulty SA will those whoassume the role as "managers" withtenchers who have :twinsl professionalcharacteristics. lt, is clear that ettentionehould he focused on an appropriate em-phasis rather than on one emphasis Le theexclusion of all others; however, this isnot. to soegest that, we shonld not look for-ward to future deselopmente.

83

Although it has been recognized that tosome extens, a principal must be manager,mediator, and perhaps even director,there is little doubt that the future roleshould be that of leader of the teachers inthe school This would oem to be themost suitable relationship when we con-sider the type of teachers and the typeof teaching which would seem to be themost desirable. Flexibility in the organi-zation of school systems would also SCCITIto be desirable in order that the varia-tions in practice at the level of the school,and the utilization of all skills of eacherswould be possible. There are many signsthat teachers are moving in the "right"direction (or if they are not, they s'aouldbe, and forces for this will becomestronger) ; at the same time there is lessevidence that school systems are becom-ing more flexible and that there are pos-sibilities, for teachers and principals tomake significant modifications in whatthey can do in the school. As the struc-ture of the school system becomes morecomplex, there are pressures for princi-pals to assume a managerial role whichis incompatible with the characteristicsof the teaching staff and with the pres-sures from them. The result is probablyforeleg the principal into the role of medi-ator, a theme which in current hi the dis-cussions of this position. It is clear that ifprincipals are to perform the role of lead-er with a minimum of expenditure ofenergy on mediating, that the necessityfor a flexible, more decentralized type ofschool system will have to be recognizedby those who structure school systems.At. the same time, principals must ,:n111011-trite that they understand the leader

corcept and that they are prepared andable to perform the role of educationallesier in the school. Principals may alsohok.e to give further thought, to the ad-vissbility of looking upon teachers as pro-fessional persons and not as employmwhose skills and nbilities are inferior totheir oval.

Rotationthip to Spot-111c Problems

Tlic earlier sections of this wiper sug-gested that the overall Conception of theprincipalship would aid in clarifying. dits-oms'ons; of it number of specific prob-lems. Those to be outlined nre for illus-tretiee purposes rind may serve to suggestsimilar nnalyses.

To Rato or Not to Rata?

Should principals visit classrooms regu-larly for the purpose of observing teachingand writing formal reports to be sub-mitted to the school board and/or superin-tendent? Those who favor this practicewould probably hold a "manager" con-cept of the principal's role while thosewho oppose it probably view the role asbeing more of a "leader". Formal evalua-tion is one of the demands that is likelyto come in a highly structured schoolsystem where teachers are viewed as em-ployees and not as professionals. It is ademand which is ircompatible with theemerging characteristics of teachers andone which is highly time consuming con-sidering the other possible activities inwhich principals could engage to improveeducation in the school. Although there isno doubt that information on performanceof teachers is desirable, it is questionablewhether the preparation of detailed re-ports resulting from formal visits hasany beneficial effects at all, let alone havebenefits which outweigh the ill effects.

Teacher or Administrators?

Where should the principal's mainloyalty lie: with teachers or with the ad-ministration? There is no doubt that theprincipalship is an administrative posi-tion; yet it is questionable whether itshould be considered a "management" posi-tion. To some extent principals find them-selves between the higher administrativelevels (school boards) and teachers; theymust be able to communicate and workwith both. However, since principals ofmost schools must be able to work closelywith teachers, in they must be able tolead arid to help, there seems little doubtbut that they must be oriented more toteachers than to the higher administra-tivs levels. To move even further awayfrom a colleague-professional relation-s:sip would probably reduce the effective-ness of the principal in several aspectsof his role.

Requisite Skills

The problem of what Akilis a principalshould have is important to those whomost select, principals; requisite skills willterain depend upon the major conceptionof the role or what the principal is ex-pected to do. If it 13 agreed thst he 31101.11t1

84

be a leader, it is evident that he must becompetent in general areas of education,that he must be able to assist teachers,that he must be able to work with groupsof teachers in identifying purposes andmeans for achieving those purposes andso forth. A principal should have addi-tional administrative skills including anunderstanding of the functions of ad-ministrators particularly of principals,an understanding of the characteristics ofschools as organizations, and the abilityto work with professionals and to de-velop an effective educational unit of hisschool.

The total conception of the role of aprincipal in relation to specific skills mightalso be of assistance to principals who areseeking to improve their own perform-ance. The first logical step in attemptingto develop skills would seem to be a con-sideration of the desired outcomes. Prin-cipals in general might give furtherthought to the skills which they must haveor acquire in order to give the leader em-phasis to their role; those who have res-ponsibilities for identifying and selectingprincipals should give thought to theskills which they are seeking and howthese might be identified or developed.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to relatedifferent conceptions of the principalshipand differences in the approaches takenby those who occupy positions as princi-pals to differences in fact or in concep-tions or the school system as an organiza-tion and conceptions of the teacher. Fourpossible emphases in the role of principalemerged from combining highly struc-tured and flexible school system organiza-tion with professional and employee viewsof teachers; these were manager, director,mediator and leader. Although there maybe a basis for suggesting the desirabilityof any of the four emphases, it was pro-posed that the leader concept is mostappropriate in terms of the desirablecharacteristics of the school system orschool and desirable teacher characteris-tics. This might require modified attitudestoward both school system organizationand teschens if the leader emphasis 13 tobe appropriate and realistic. A limitednumber of specific problems were raisedfor the purposes of demonstrating the

value of considering such specific prob-lems within a broader framework and inrelation to other relevant factors. Thevalue of the framework is also testedthrough the analysis of specific problems;

it is hoped that discussion of additionalspecific problems will find the frame-work proposed here to be useful to atleast some extent.

85

APPENDIXL POLICY COMMITTEE

R. E. REES (Chairman) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONN. P. HRYNYK ALBERTA TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONE. M. ERICKSON ALBERTA SCHOOL INSPECTORS' ASSOCIATIONM. E. LAZERTE ALBERTA SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATIONA. W. REEVES FACULTY OF EDUCATIONH. J. HALL COUNCIL ON SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIONE. MIKLOS (Secretary) DIRECTOR OF LEADERSHIP COURSE

II. ADVISERSH. T. COUTTS DEAN, FACULTY OF EDUCATIONJ. W. GILLES DIRECTOR OF SUMMER SESSIONT. C. WEIDENHAMER GENERAL SECRETARY, ALBERTA

SCHOOL TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION

III. COURSE PARTICIPANTSMr. John BakerMr. Russell BatemanMr. C. S. BowdenMr. Gary BertrandMr. Terrance BressanuttiMr. Al!.!.x BoykoMrs. Inez CastletonMr. Percy CollinsMr, Peter DyckMr, Kenneth East lickSister Mary EllMr. Neil FentonMr. John FranklinMiss Anne HagueMr. Leslie RainerMr. L. W. HarperMrs. Rosella HermanMr. Walter HewkoMr. Alois HiebertMr. Murray HokeMr. Hilton HolmesMr. Arthur JohnsonMr. A. 0. JorgensenMr. John KeastMr. Kenneth KellyMr. Harry KleparchukMr, Robert KoepMr. Harry KuharchukMr. Armand LaingMr. Robert LugerMr. Robert MacDonaldMrs. Jean MartinMr. Clayton Mills

Calgary School DistrictFoothills School DivisionRocky Mountain School DivisionCounty of VulcanCalgary R.C. Separate School DistrictCounty of St. PaulCalgary School DistrictCounty of Red DeerSaskatchewan Teachers' FederationCounty of BeaverWetaskiwin R.C. Separate School DistrictCounty of Mountain ViewCalgary School DistrictGalway R.C. Separate School DistrictNeutral Hills School DivisionCalgary School DistrictMedicine Hat School DivisionEdmonton Public School DistrictEdmonton R.C. Separate School DistrictCounty of Forty MileKi llam School DivisionWetaskiwin School DistrictAlberta Teachers' AssociationEdson School DivisionCalgary R.C. Separate School DistrictEdmonton Public School DistrictLethbridge R.C. Separate School DistrictRed Deer Public School DistrictBonnyville School DistrictFairview School DivisionCounty of LeducCounty of PonokaRed Deer Public School District/ 87

Mr. E. A. MorrisonMr. John MuzykaMr. John MyroonMr. Marcel NormandeauMr. Baldev ParmarMr. Donald PattersonMr. Granville PatonMr. Michael PawliukMr. Paul PonichFather J. M. RegnierMr. Theodore RempelMr. Andrew RogalskyMr. Rudolph SafroniukMr. Marcel SchayesMr. John SkakunMr. Jack StaceyMr. David SteerMr. Elder StellerMr. Adam SwabbMr. Wesley TaylorMr. Gordon ThorsellMr. Paul VaessenMr. J. R. WatersMr. Orest Watsyk

Lethbridge School DistrictWest lock School DivisionCounty of ThorhildEdmonton R.C. Separate School DistrictHigh Prairie School DivisionCounty of LethbridgeGrande Prairie School DistrictCounty of Two HillsCounty of AthabascaDepartment of Indian AffairsEdmonton Public School DistrictCounty of MinburnBiggin Hill School DistrictThibault R.C. Public School DistrictCounty of StrathconaNorthland School DivisionFort Vermilion School DivisionCounty of Lac St. AnneLamont School DivisionWainright School DivisionCounty of LacombeMedicine Hat R.C. Separate School Dist,County of Grande PrairieDepartment of Indian Affairs and

Northern Development

88