UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The influence of principals in art program promotion in Newfoundland secondary schools Manuel, Ann Marie 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8 M36.pdf [ 4.05MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054859.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054859-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054859-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054859-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054859-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054859-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054859-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054859-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054859.ris

Full Text

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPALS IN ART PROGRAM PROMOTION IN NEWFOUNDLAND SECONDARY SCHOOLS by A N N MARIE M A N U E L A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DECREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Visual and Performing Arts in Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A April 1988 ® Ann Marie Manuel , 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Visual and Performing Arts in Education The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V 6 T 1 W 5 Date: April 1988 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to determine, from principals' viewpoints, why art courses have or have not been offered in Newfoundland secondary schools. The underlying premise of the study is that if the reasons for non-implementation of secondary art programs are to be assessed, information needs to be collected on the extent to which relevant factors and groups actually influence the administrators in the process of art program adoption. The study employed an ex post facto research design using survey research procedures. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire which was administered to two hundred and fifty one secondary school principals in Newfoundland. The results of the study show that the principal is a key person influencing the decision making process involved in art program adoption. The unavailability of a trained teacher, the availability of funds and the principal's attitude toward the art program are the three factors with greatest influence in this decision making process. The findings also show that the adoption of art programs has been slowed by problems inherent in rural education. These problems are compounded by the structure of Newfoundland's denominational education system. Implications of these results for policy development and evaluation are discussed and suggestions for further research are outlined. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i Acknowledgements vii I. The Problem 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Statement of the Problem 4 C. Research Questions 5 D. Definition of Terms ~. 6 E. Design of the Study 7 F. Limitations 8 II. Review of the Literature 9 A. The Principal 9 B. The Principal and Art Education 12 C. Secondary Art Education in Newfoundland 16 III. Conduct of the Study 21 A. Research Questions 21 B. The Pilot Study 22 1. Sample 22 2. Instrumentation 23 3. Data Collection 23 C. The Final Study 24 1. Sample 24 2. Instrumentation 24 3. Data Collection 25 D. Data Analysis 26 IV. Findings 28 A. Description of the Sample 28 1. Representativeness of the Sample 28 2. Demographic Information on the Principal 33 3. Summary 38 B. The Principal 39 1. Summary 47 C. Art Program Adopt ion 47 1. Summary 59 D. The Importance of Art in the Curriculum 61 1. Summary 65 V. Discussion 66 A. The Principal 66 B. Art Program Adopt ion 70 C. The Importance of Art in the Curriculum 77 VI. Summary and Conclusions 81 A. Restatement of the Problem and Research Questions 81 ii B. Summary of the Findings 84 1. Influence of the Principal in Curriculum Decision Making .. 84 2. Art Program Adoption 84 3. The Importance of Art in the Curriculum 85 4. Denominationally Based Differences in the Findings 86 C. Conclusions 86 D. Policy Implications 88 E. Suggestions for Further Research 92 VII. References : _ 95 VIII. Appendix One .". 100 IX. Appendix Two TO7 X. Appendix Three 109 XI. Appendix Four m XII. Appendix Five 113 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Enrollment in Newfoundland Secondary Schools 29 2. Newfoundland Secondary Schools by Grade Level 30 3. Denominational Affiliation of the Schools 31 4. School Location by Region 32 5. School Location by Popoulation 33 6. Age of the Principals 34 7. Years of Experience as Principal . 35 8. Education Attainment of the Principals 36 9. Education Background: Art Instruction 37 10. Principals' Rating of Their Art Knowledge 38 11. Principals' Ratings of the Extent of Input Made by Individuals and Groups in Curriculum Decision Making 39 12. Principals' Ratings of the Extent of Input Made by Individuals and Croups in Curriculum Decision Making 40 iv 13. Principals' Involvement in Curriculum Decision Making 41 14. Principals' Ratings of Input in Curriculum Decision Making 42 15. Ratings of Input According to Denominational Affiliation 45 16. Input in Curriculum Decision Making According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program 46 17. Art Programs Offered According to the Denominational Affiliation of the School 48 18. Number of Years Art Courses Offered 49 19. Art Courses Offered 50 20. Why Art is Offered 51 21. Why Art is Not Offered 52 22. Mean Scores for Factors Influencing Art Program Adopt ion 53 23. Ratings of the Influence of Factors in Art Program Adopt ion 54 24. The Influence of Trained Teacher Availability Compared with the Influence of Other Factors in Art Program Adopt ion 55 25. Factors with Great Influence in Art Program Adopt ion 56 v 26. Other Factors Which May Influence Art Program Adopt ion 57 27. Denominational Differences in Ratings of Factors Which Influence Art Program Adopt ion 58 28. The Influence of Factors According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program 59 29. Art as an Opt ion or Required Course 61 30. Principals' Ratings of the Importance of Art 62 31. The Importance Placed on Art According to Denominational Affiliation ... 63 32. The Importance Placed on Art According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program 64 33. The Importance Placed on Art According to Principals' Previous Art Training 65 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1 would like to express my sincere appreciation for the support and guidance given by my advisor, Dr. Ron MacGregor, and committee members, Dr. James Gray and Dr. Frank Echols, ln addition to their guidance throughout the preparation of this thesis, each has helped to instill in me an attitude towards research which both renewed my curiosity and demanded scholarship. 1 am extremely grateful to the school principals who participated in this study. Thanks is also extended to Heather Moore , art consultant with the Newfoundland Department of Education, for her consistent interest in the thesis and the provision of information on the present status of art education in Newfoundland. I wish to express my deep appreciation to the family within the Art Education Department. It has been a privilege to experience this support system born of the constant good humour and care of the graduate students, faculty and staff members. Special thanks are extended to my family in Newfoundland and to my good friends, Rita Irwin, Raissa Cipywnyk and Doug Willms for their encouragement, belief in the work and in me. vii 1. THE P R O B L E M A. INTRODUCTION The present system of education in Newfoundland is a denominational one established in the mid nineteenth century (Rowe, 1964, p. 105). The uniqueness of the system lies in- the fact that educational control resides neither totally with the state nor the church in its many ecclesiastical forms. In a history of Newfoundland, Rowe (1952, p. 1) states In the final analysis the Provincial government controls education and votes the money which makes the system possible. This money is expended through the Department of Education where the major denominations are represented. Under each denominational representative district denominational boards, with considerable powers, implement the department's policy at the local level. Within the denominational system, art has historically held a low position. Of the arts, music stands alone in having a documented development. The considerable interest in the subject and the high aptitude shown by the participants has been attributed by historians to the large Irish population and the participation of many in evangelical religions (Rowe, 1964, p. 197). In contrast, although art or drawing has always been a part of the elementary curriculum, any popularity associated with the subject in the higher grades stemmed from its relative ease and acceptability as a subject for required public 1 examinations (Rowe, 1976, p. 201). Art was an "occupat ion" that kept students busy but required minimal teaching, supervision or home study. It was deemed an "extra" subject which could "compensate for a failure in a more difficult subject" (p. 202). While music held a solid position in syllabuses dating back to 1905, art took the form of mechanical drawing paired with Geometry (Council of Higher Education, 1905, p. 2). It therefore fell within a group of subjects usually labelled practical, observational or vocational, including First Aid, Nature Study and Woodwork. From these a student could choose what he or she wished to study. "Practical work of some kind with the fingers" was "preferred but not insisted upon" (Council of Higher Education, 1915, p. 10). According to Rowe (1976) several private art schools and studios were operated at different times during the early nineteen hundreds, with "very little permanent impact" (p. 202). The situation changed with the 1949 opening of the Newfoundland Academy of Art, which operated for twelve years. While the full extent of the impact of this school has had on art education in Newfoundland is difficult to assess, the growing interest in art in Newfoundland following 1949 can be attributed in part to the Academy's variety of programs, which reached a population beyond those in regular art classes. In 1952 growing interest in art took on a recognizable shape and direction with the provincial government's establishment of an annual Arts and Letters Competi t ion (Rowe, 1964, p. 199). However, the resulting development in art was contained withing the framework of the artistic community and not within Newfoundland schools. Although there was not any specified age limit for entry into this juried competit ion, response to the call for submissions usually came from adults in the community. Any student work which might have been submitted would have been competing against the work of adults. There was no concerted effort to include the work of children until the early 1980's with the establishment of the Junior Arts and Letters Competi t ion. In 1980 a Newfoundland and Labrador Task Force on the Arts in Education lamented the status of arts education in the secondary school. Prior to that time limitations of staffing, facilities and funding had been hypothesized as factors inhibiting program development. Also pinpointed was the lack of art courses designed for the non specialist teacher who lacked the preparation to effectively cope with the arts as part of the teaching load (p. 4). It appeared to the Task Force, however, that the availability of art at the secondary level could be attributed more to the level of commitment on the part of the school board or school administration, than any of the influences popularly held (p. 32). By way of responding to recommendations of the Task Force, the Department of Education attempted to build a support system to encourage the participation of more secondary schools. Teaching guides (under revision in 1987), specialist budgets, resource materials, summer courses and bursaries for teacher art training, inservice training and workshops have all been provided. Despite this, the number of secondary school art programs offered has risen slowly (H. Moore , personal communication, October 15, 1986) and in some cases (ie. Labrador West Catholic School Board) art programs have been dropped. 4 B. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The Newfoundland Secondary Visual Art Teaching Guide states that Art and Design should be available, as an option, to all high school students (Department of Education, 1977). At present it is not, as not all secondary schools offer an art program. In Newfoundland reference to the low status of art education frequently takes the form, not of reference to existing programs, but instead, to the lack of programs. Department of Education figures (1987, p. 83) list a total of three hundred and forty two secondary schools, and only twenty six secondary teachers teaching art one third time or more (p. 1). The magnitude of this discrepancy raises the question of why there are so few art programs. Since principals and superintendents are prime movers in the selection of courses and related curriculum matters, a possible explanation lies in the administrative process of program adoption. If the reasons for non-implementation are to be adequately assessed, information needs to be collected on the extent to which relevant factors and groups actually influence the administrators in this process. The problem is to determine, from the principals' viewpoints, why art courses have or have not been offered in Newfoundland secondary schools. A focus on the thoughts and opinions of the principal can provide insight into the extent to which the principal, other individuals and groups, and availability factors influence art program adoption. C. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of their participation, as compared to that of other individuals or groups, in curriculum decision making? 2. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the influence of specific factors, such as availability of a trained teacher, space and funds, on the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program? 3. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the importance of art education in relation to other school subjects? 4. Do the perceptions of the importance of art in relation to other subjects differ between principals with art training and principals without art training? The following are the researcher's propositions as they relate to these general research questions. 1. Newfoundland secondary school principals rate themselves as having a greater influence than all other individuals or groups, in curriculum decision making. 2. Newfoundland secondary school principals rate the availability of a trained teacher as the factor with the greatest influence in the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program. 3. Newfoundland secondary school principals rate art as less important than the academic subjects. 6 4. There will be a significant difference in the rating of the importance of art between principals with art training and those without art training. The research questions generate a number of subsidary questions which are stated in full in Chapter Three. D. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this study the following terms are defined and used as indicated here. Accredited Art Teacher - As defined by the Newfoundland Department of Education (Moore, 1986), this term refers to a secondary art teacher having ten or more courses at a university or college level. Art Program - This term refers to one course or more from the following: Art and Design 3200, Art and Design 2200, Art History 3202, Art 1200, Grade Nine Art, Grade Eight Art, Grade Seven Art. Curriculum Decision Making - This refers to involvement in making decisions at any level with any of the following: program initiation, planning, development, needs assessment, program adoption, evaluation. Decision making refers to "a process wherein an awareness of a problematic state of a system, influenced by information and values, leads to a choice being made between competing alternatives" (Lipham & Hoeh, 1974, p. 173). School Denomination - This term refers to the Catholic, Pentecostal, Seventh 7 Day Adventist and Integrated School Systems. Integrated School System - This term describes schools servicing religious denominations other than Catholic, Pentecostal or Seventh Day Adventist. United and Anglican denominations are predominant. Secondary School - This includes schools enrolling any or all of Grades 7, 8, 9 and/or Levels I, II, III. Levels I, II, III are a credit system corresponding to Grades 10, 11 and 12. E. DESIGN OF THE STUDY This study employed an ex post facto research design utilizing survey research procedures. The survey was conducted using a questionnaire. A copy of the instrument is included as Appendix 1. Initial contact with the respondents was made in a pilot study conducted in June 1987. The remainder of the population was contacted in September 1987 with a mailed questionnaire accompanied by a stamped, self addressed envelope and a covering letter requesting response within a three week period. Within this three week period a follow up letter and questionnaire were mailed to those principals who had not responded to the initial contact. After seven weeks a second followup letter was sent to the remainder of the sample who had not responded by that date. Copies of these letters appear as Appendices ll, III and IV. As part of the pilot study interviews were conducted with principals for the purpose of improving the survey instrument. During both the pilot and main study postal strikes interrupted the mail service which made it difficult to accurately determine the return rate following each letter. F. LIMITATIONS The following factors are limitations of this study. 1. The study deals with the perceptions and opinions of principals. These perceptions may be incorrect. 2. The findings represent 59% of the sample and as such may not be representative of the total population. 3. Specific factors believed to influence curriculum decision making were presented to the respondents. This may have resulted in the exclusion of other factors of equal or greater influence. 4. The use of rating scales and categories are likely to produce an unknown measurement error. II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In the review of the literature it was necessary to gather information from a number of bodies of research. These included research on the principal, sources of information on the processes of adoption, arts advocacy, policy shaping and the status of art education in Newfoundland. An attempt is made to synthesize the important elements of this research as it relates to the purpose of the study. The presentation of this information has been divided into three sections. They are The Principal, The Principal and Art Education, and Secondary Art Education in Newfoundland. A. THE PRINCIPAL It is only within the past decade that there has been any systematic research on what the principal actually does in the process of educational change (Fullan, 1982, p. 131). The resulting literature has furnished a multitude of descriptions of the principal, ranging from manager to instructional leader (De Bevoise, 1984; Ornstein, 1986). Information on each role label Has revolved around the authority bases held by the principal within the school. The various leadership roles and their relationships are plagued by definitional difficulties and conceptual fragmentation (Ornstein, p. 74) with little empirical support. Role ambiguity is reflected in the range of responses, from "no role" to "very active role", made by principals to questions regarding their participation in curriculum decision making (Bowes, et al., 1983, p. 21). A 1987 9 study (Brubaker & Simon, p. 74) revealed that amidst the mixed signals principals receive, sixty percent of principals categorize the majority of other principals as "General Managers". The literature demands the principal spend more time as an instructional leader, while at the same time it calls for the reconceptualization and reorganization of the leadership structure in schools (Rallis & Highsmith, 1987). Although the principalship is ill defined, it emerges as "the pivotal role in schoo l " (Keefe, 1987, p. 56). Although curriculum requirements are legislated by provincial governments, administration and regulation of these requirements runs in the direction of decentralization (Baxter, 1987). Although school based management is an idea rooted in the early 1970s, it is currently touted as the next needed education reform (Guthrie, 1986, p. 305). Its basis is in the belief of the individual school as a decision making unit within a larger system. Within this decision making unit it is not clear whether the principal is actually gaining more power in policy making decisions or whether the extent of the principal's existing power base is more clearly understood. It is clear, however, that curriculum planning and changes occur at the school level. Change is no longer viewed as "a matter of policy determination set at a level above the schoo l " (Tanner, 1987, p. 30). There is general agreement in the literature that the principal's "pivotal role" is one of influencing changes and implementing policy at the school level (Bowes, et al., 1983; Sloan, 1982; Rush, 1979). Sarich (1982, p. 2) identified the principal as the key person in determining curriculum needs and establishing a direction and philosophy. The principal is the key actor - whether that be initiating curriculum changes, or supporting the teachers who are talking about it. And once started, the principal is the one who will or will not keep the progam rolling: it is the principal who will establish whether an alternate course in school is a legitimate offering or a token offering, and thus establish an attitude that will have a bearing on its success or failure (Sarich, 1982, p. 11). Results of a 1983 study in Saskatchewan (Bowes, et al., p. 21) revealed that almost all of the principals interviewed "perceived their role as one of initiating, evaluating and monitoring curriculum implementation". Although there is agreement that the principal is crucial in influencing change at the school level (p. 14) much of this agreement centres around the principal's authority or interventionist behaviour regarding teacher implementation of curriculum. An Alberta study (Sloan, 1982) found that despite the widely held view that the administrator is responsible only for implementation, administrators have a major influence in the formation or policy shaping issues of curriculum decision making. Few studies report such a broad perspective on decision making. Although there have been many studies focussing on the control and influence of the principal within the school setting, there remains a need to establish the extent of the principal's influence in comparison to that of other individuals or groups within the school district hierarchy. 12 B. THE PRINCIPAL AND ART EDUCATION With specific focus on the principal in relation to art education, much of the available literature describes the principal as a person critical in the advocacy process for improvement of existing art programs (Joseph, 1975; Campbel l , 1979; Goldfarb, 1979; Houston, 1981; Cannon, 1984; Eisner, 1988). Reporting on the records of the 1976 Arts Advocacy Project, sponsored by the Alliance for Arts Education, Rush (1979, p. 4) notes that "many administrators attending the dialogues felt that the arts are important curricular areas and were reluctant to see their importance diminished". Despite this enthusiasm, the administrators participating in this project, which included elementary and secondary principals, expressed concern about "the lack of empirical evidence on which to show a benefit accruing to all pupils, not just art students, from exposure to the arts" (p. 4). In a study which surveyed secondary school principals in Virginia on their perceptions of the importance of arts education (Schumacher, 1980) over 92% of the respondents agreed with all the statements describing the goals and objectives of arts education. Their comments reflected the need for arts education. Sixty percent strongly agreed that arts education programs are suitable for all students K - 12. However, "more than 50% of the principal respondents anticipated various difficulties in implementing a comprehensive arts education program despite their support of such a program" (p. 99). These difficulties included obtaining and supporting trained personnel, developing local programs and convincing others considered important in program development that it is worthwhile. By far the greatest difficulty was funding and as one administrator noted, "the major issue today is how it (arts education) will help develop the basics - this is the key to funding an art program" (p. 100). in a survey of aesthetic attitudes of key school personnel, conducted by Central Midwestern Regional Educational Lab (Broudy, 1978), the researcher pointed out that even though in recent years there has been an increase in the concern of school personnel for aesthetic or arts education, the arts still maintain a vague and peripheral role in the curriculum. "Administrative and supervisory personnel can facilitate or inhibit the arts program by their attitude towards it" (p. 1). While there is evidence that most principals who were surveyed recognized the need for art education of some type, there is little evidence that indicates how much importance they place on art education in relation to other disciplines and how the need for art education is operationalized in the school. The positiveness expressed by administrators should ideally be reflected in the status of art education in our schools. The reality, which indicates a lack of equal access to art education, is related to the influence of external factors in Mahlman's (1980) statement that when those opinions are translated into actions by school boards and school administrators, within the context of political, economic and other forces affecting the schools, the picture is very different (p. 22). 14 This is echoed in a 1982 study (McNealy, p. 4) which attributed the precarious state- of art education to administrative whim, lack of public interest and economic fluctuations. Fullan (1982) reminds us that although there is a general assumption that specific educational changes are introduced in response to existing need, values and desirability, "this is not the way it always is or even usually operates" (p. 41). Acknowledging the lack of information on the actual adoption process (p. 51), Fullan identifies the following as the main factors associated with adoption of innovations (p. 41). 1. Existence and quality of innovation 2. Access to information 3. Advocacy from central administrators 4. Teacher pressure / support 5. Consultants and change agents 6. Community pressure / support / apathy / opposit ion 7. Availability of federal or other funds 8. New central legislation or policy (provincial) 9. Problem solving incentives for adoption (addressing specific needs) 10. Bureaucratic incentives for adoption These factors that may influence the process of adoption are by no means exhaustive. Regional and local differences unearth a host of other factors, such as availability of trained personnel and availability of space. There has been very little use made of this information in relation to the adoption of art education programs. An Alabama study (Hooks, 1980) identified factors such as accreditation, inservice and funding as well as specialists and consultants as instrumental in the facilitation of art education. However, no effort was made to gauge the extent of these influences. The ensuing recommendations focussed on elementary art education and the reiteration of existing ideas for action put forward by arts advocates (p. 131). While arts advocates have done much to improve the status of art education in our schools, critics (McNealy, 1982; Goldfarb, 1979) point out the need for advocacy with a sophisticated model based approach. Current advocacy processes involve public relations missions aimed at various board level administrators and the community in general. The efforts of these missions are centered on seeking improvement in existing programs and avoiding the power politics involved in establishing programs. Public relations efforts serve mainly as a vehicle for increased awareness and understanding and as such do not ensure a change in behaviour or policy (Hatfield, 1979, p. 14). To effect real change, consistent bemoaning of the status of art education should give way to identification of real leaders as opposed to presumed leaders in curriculum decision making (p. 14). The principal, as evident in the literature review, can be identified as one of these leaders. To date, there has not been any research which addresses the principal as a key person in the decision to adopt art programs. 16 C. SECONDARY ART EDUCATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND A 1967 Royal Commission on Education and Youth observed that Newfoundland had been slow and unsystematic in the integration of all of the arts in education. More than a decade later the Report of the Task Force on the Arts in Education (1980) illuminated the magnitude of what remains to be done in order to give the arts a secure place in the curriculum. A look at Newfoundland's social, economic and political history suggests a number of reasons why the arts have remained a low priority. "During the massive reorganization of the education system following Confederation, financial and policy priorities were directed towards survival issues" that saw an inevitable preoccupation with the construction and staffing of "the plant" (p. iv). According to the Task Force on the Arts in Education, it is only since the late 1970's that interest has shifted to the quality of survival (p. iv). Concern for the quality of survival has resulted in curriculum recommendations for the inclusion of the arts. The existing gap between the recommendations and the actual implementation at the elementary level has been attributed to administrator and teacher lack of arts experience and training. In addition there has been a lack of time and money. Arts education at the secondary level suffers a different malaise. The Task Force suggested that "in the secondary school, it is not wise to assume the same degree of commitment to the arts in education. Many secondary administrators suffer from the attitude that the arts (p. 13). While this report refers to the to assume, given current figures, that visual art education. are frills, unintellectual and unnecessary" status of arts education it is reasonable the same can be said specifically for Recent Department of Education figures (1986) show that although there are 607 schools in Newfoundland there are only 41 full time elementary and secondary art teachers. There are only twenty one accredited art teachers and two accredited art coordinators working in the province. The majority of the secondary art programs are offered in Central Newfoundland high schools despite the fact that the greatest concentration of population is on the East coast. Fewer Catholic School Boards offer art programs in their schools than do the Integrated School Boards (H. Moore, personal communication, October 23, 1986). While no explanation is offered for these differences, the regional quality of the discrepancies suggests that perhaps factors such as the priority placed on art in the curriculum as well as the availability of funds and staff have influenced the adoption of art programs. Until recently program development in art education has been slow. In August 1986 the Minister of Education authorized a revised teaching guide for Grades 7 to 9 Art, which is designed for the non specialist teacher. The senior high curriculum is currently (1988) under revision. In a brief presented to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador (1986) the Newfoundland Teachers Association identified existing needs in teacher training. According to the brief, currently (1986) in the province, training is not offered for Art and other areas that are considered specialized, such as French Immersion, Home Economics and Educational Psychology. The brief urged that residents of Newfoundland "be given the opportunity to train at the province's university and that a sufficient number of specialized teachers be educated within the province" (p. 11). This position is furthered by the statement that "it makes neither economic nor pedagogical sense to provide a surplus of teachers in traditional areas when there is a shortage of teachers in specialized areas" (p. 11). Department of Education guidelines (1977) stipulate at the senior high level a specialist must teach Art. However, teacher training in the fine arts or art education necessitates leaving the province. Many of these teachers do not return. The high turnover of art teachers within the province has caused problems in establishment and continuity of programs (p. 6). According to the Curriculum Guide, Art and Design 1200, 2200 and 3200, should be taught in a separate room with adequate facilities and for a minimum of 160 minutes a week. Art and Design 2200 and 3200 are designed for the general student who is evaluated, at the 3200 level, on a shared evaluation basis. This involves a 50% public examination. In 1978 only 257 students, representing 13 high schools, carried the program through to Grade Eleven by writing this examination (Department of Education, 1980, p. 32). Art 1200 is designed to "provide an introductory and basic experience in the visual arts for students in the senior secondary school where no specialist teacher is available" (Dept. of Education, 1981, p. 1). The introduction to the course description supports this purpose by commenting that, despite administrators' desire to include Art in their school programs, there has been little or no choice for the small school but to neglect art education because of limited access to specialist teachers (p. 1). Recommendations to make visual arts mandatory at the junior high level have been fol lowed through largely because of the publication of a report written by the Junior High Reorganization Committee (Department of Education, 1986). The report states that the cognitive characteristics of the junior high student have educational implications which require the provision of opportunities for the development of creativity and imagination. Art is viewed as a subject area conducive to this development (p. 22). To this end, a modular approach is advocated for the subjects labelled as Practical and Fine Arts, including Art, Home Economics, Industrial Arts and Music. The report speaks of these subjects as being difficult to include in the curriculum because they require special facilities and equipment in addition to training beyond the basic academics expected of all teachers. Therefore the modules are recommended to be designed as semester (half year) courses for three classes in a six day cycle. Each student would be required to complete, between Grades 7 to 9, two modules in each of the following: Art, Home Economics, Industrial Arts and Music (p. 82). These compulsory modules, as recommended, would be simple in content requiring minimal facilities and equipment. "They should not require a specialist teachers but, where available, the specialists should be able to provide a richer program" (p. 83). In particular, the Art modules are recommended to emphasize the making of Art with some opportunity for Art Criticism through the introduction of the work of "outstanding artists" (p. 53). Reactions to this report were solicited from a number of groups including all school boards and schools, the Newfoundland Teachers Association and its affiliated special interest councils, and Memorial University Faculty of Education. Recent criticisms have come from representatives of both the core subject areas and from the art educators (H. Moore, personal communication, February 15, 1988). The educators speaking on behalf of the entrenched traditional subjects, such as Mathematics and English, believe the report's recommendations for increased requirements in the Practical and Fine Arts, result in a diminishment of the time available for these core areas. The general reaction from art educators is a concern that the recommended time allotment for the Arts is not enough, with only one year of study guaranteed. The half year or semester proposal for "exploratory" experience in Art is seen as providing a license for schools to do less in terms of art education. An implementation committee is the next proposed step for this report. To this time there has not been any assessment of the immediate effect of the report. No effort has been made since 1980 to verify the existence or influence of specific factors that were hypothesized as impeding development in arts education. These reports from Task Forces, reviewing the status of arts education, remain as the only research on art education in Newfoundland. In summary, a focus on the principal as a pivotal person in the process of educational change can provide insight into the extent of the influence of internal and external forces on art program adoption. With a view to improvement, this would appear to be the logical starting point in understanding the plight of secondary art education in Newfoundland. 111. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY This chapter restates the research questions and states the subsidary questions. The pilot study, selection of the sample for the study, instrumentation and data collection procedures are described. A. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of their participation, as compared to that of other individuals or groups in the school system, in curriculum decision making? a. Do these perceptions vary according to denominational affiliation of the school? b. Do these perceptions vary according to presence or lack of an art program in the school? 2. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the influence of specific factors, such as availability of a trained teacher, space and funds, on the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program? a. Do these perceptions vary according to the denominational affiliation of the school? b. Do these perceptions vary according to the presence or lack of an art program in a school? 3. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the 21 importance of art education in relation to other school subjects? a. Do these perceptions vary according to the denominational affiliation of the school? b. Do these perceptions vary according to the presence or lack of an art program? 4. Do the perceptions of the importance of art in relation to other subjects differ between principals with art training and principals without art training? B. THE PILOT STUDY A pilot study was undertaken because it was necessary to ascertain whether perceptions developed by the researcher from a review of the literature were shared by principals. In addition, the pilot study afforded the opportunity to discover any additional perceptions that might be shared by other principals. Finally, through the pilot study the researcher could determine the need for refinement of the content and format of the questionnaire for the final study. 1. Sample Sixty Newfoundland secondary school principals comprised the sample for the pilot study. This number consisted of ten principals randomly selected from each of six geographical regions within the province. 2. Instrumentat ion The pilot questionnaire developed by the researcher consisted of twenty seven items divided into three categories. Section A requested background information. Section B required information on the principal's participation in curriculum decision making. Section C sought information on art program adoption. 3. Data Co l lec t ion The pilot questionnaire was administered in May 1987. Each questionnaire was accompanied by a covering letter and a stamped self addressed envelope. After two weeks the initial contact was fol lowed up with a second letter and copy of the questionnaire. Within seven weeks a third letter was mailed. Interruption in postal services occurred during the mail out of this final letter, which made it difficult to ascertain the return rates following each letter. Of the sixty questionnaires mailed, a total of thirty nine were returned by the specified deadline, for a response rate of sixty five percent. During June 1987 interviews were conducted with five principals for the purpose of cross checking the validity of the questionnaire. There was an attempt made to interview principals representing each denomination and geographical area. The interview schedule, designed by the researcher, fol lowed a similar format to the questionnaire but with a focus on open ended questions. This provided respondents the opportunity to elaborate with anecdotal material which, in addition to improving the validity of the instrument, provided a contextual framework for the responses. C. THE FINAL STUDY 1. Sample The final questionnaire surveyed two hundred and fifty one secondary school principals in Newfoundland, excluding the pilot study respondents. It was believed by the researcher that a total population survey would not exhaust available resources. Although the Department of Education school directory refers to a total of 342 secondary schools, the directory lists establish the total population at 311 schools. Of the 251 principals contacted, 162 are exclusively secondary school principals while 89 are principals of schools that are either All Grade, K-7, K-8, or K-9. 2. Instrumentat ion The final questionnaire remained the same in format and content as the pilot questionnaire. For clarity minor changes were made in two category headings. No changes were made to the instrument as a result of the five interviews. The six page questionnaire called for anonymous response to twenty seven questions divided into three categories. They are as follows: Section A: Background Information, Section B: The Role of the Principal and Section C: Art Program Adopt ion. Section A: Background Information required responses to twelve questions. Demographic information about the respondents was asked for, such as age, education and years experience as a principal. Information about the school and community was also sought, including student population, grades taught, denominational affiliation, geographical region and community size. Principals were also asked to rate their knowledge of Art on a Likert-type scale. Section B: The Role of the Principal asked one question on the respondents rating of their involvement in various aspects of curriculum decision making, as well as the involvement of other groups or individuals. Two open ended questions sought elaboration on the principals' involvement. Section C: Art Program Adopt ion consisted of twelve questions. Information was requested on the existence and extent of course offerings in art at individual schools. This was fol lowed by two open ended questions that sought to identify reasons for art programs being included or omitted in the program of studies. Respondents were asked to rate the influence of specific factors on the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program or course. Following this, one open ended question asked the principals to identify any factors they felt might have been omitted. Principals were then asked whether they thought junior and senior high art should be optional or required courses. The final portion requested principals to indicate how they viewed art, in terms of importance, in relation to other subject areas. 3. Data Co l lec t ion In September 1987 the final questionnaire was administered following the procedures used in the pilot study. Within a seven week period, the initial contact was fol lowed up with a second letter and copy of the questionnaire. Following a second interruption in postal services a third letter was mailed. The final letter was redrafted to acknowledge the postal strike by indicating the study was continuing despite the interruption in service. D. DATA ANALYSIS The data from the questionnaire were tested for significance using paired t-tests, grouped t-tests and oneway analysis of variance. Demographic data collected in Section A: Background Information provided a description of the sample. Frequencies and means were also used to present the ratings principals gave the importance of art in relation to other subjects, as well as ratings of input of groups in curriculum decision making and the influence of factors in program adoption. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences between the principals' ratings of their input in curriculum decision making and the ratings they assigned to the input of other groups and individuals. Data on the influence of specific factors on art program adoption were also analysed using this test. Grouped t-tests were also used to ascertain if there was a significant difference in these ratings depending on the presence or lack of an art program in the school . This test was also used to identify any significant differences between the ratings given to the importance of Art in relation to other subjects, in schools with art programs and in schools without art programs. Differences in these ratings between principals with art instruction and principals without art instruction were also tested for significance by this method. A oneway analysis of variance was necessary to test for any significant differences between any of these ratings when considering denominational affiliation of the school. Due to the small sample of Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems, the responses from these principals were collapsed to form one category rather than the original two. IV. FINDINGS The results of the survey are presented in the order of the research questions they answer and are therefore grouped under the headings of Description of the Sample, The Principal, Art Program Adopt ion and The Imporance of Art in the Curriculum. The information presented in this Chapter represents the findings of the final questionnaire and as such, does not include the pilot study. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 1. Representat iveness of the Sample The Department of Education Directory (1987) reports there are 342 Newfoundland secondary schools. However, a crosscheck with the addresses listed for the schools with Grades 7 to Level III revealed a total of 311 schools. Of this number, 60 principals were contacted for the pilot study. Of the remaining 251 principals contacted by mail, a total of 148 returned the completed questionnaire for a response rate of fifty nine percent. The 148 principals represent schools with secondary school populations ranging from 10 to 870 students. The data collected on student enrollment were collapsed to form nine categories; from category 1, with an enrollment of 100 or less, to category 9, schools with enrollment between 801 and 900. The highest percentage of respondents represented schools with enrollment of 100 and under (20.1%) and between 201 to 300 (20.1%). A total of 77.6% of the respondents represent small schools with enrollment of 400 students and under. This information corresponds with the Department of Education (1987) figures 28 on the population which indicate, as with this sample, the majority of Newfoundland secondary schools have populations numbering under 400. There are only 39 secondary schools with enrollment between 501 and 900. Information on the enrollment in Newfoundland secondary schools is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Enrollment in Newfoundland Secondary Schools Sample Population Enrollment N (%) N (%) 100 & under 28 (20.1) 73 (21.3) 101 - 200 24 (17.3) 67 (19.6) 201 - 300 28 (20.1) 64 (18.7) 301 - 400 28 (20.1) 54 (15.8) 401 - 500 15 (10.8) 45 (13.2) 501 - 600 07 (05.0) 14 (04.1) 601 - 700 05 (03.6) 10 (02.9) 701 - 800 02 (01.5) 06 (01.8) 801 - 900 02 (01.5) 09 (02.6) Total *139 (100.0) 342 (100.0) * 9 non responses to this question Forty seven percent of the principals who responded represent secondary schools with Grades 7 to Level 111 (Grade 12) or any portion of these junior and senior high grades. Junior high schools, Grades 7 - 9 or any portion of these grades, are the second highest represented group with a total of 39.9%. 30 Principals of the All Grade schools, which include K - Level III, total 13.5%. Table 2 lists the number of principals according to the grade levels taught in the school. Department of Education figures (1987) on school type do not have a separate category for the large number of elementary schools that have Grade 7 as part of their program. It is not clear whether they are grouped under the K - III category or K - 6. Therefore a comparison to the total population cannot be made with these grade levels. However, comparison with figures on Grades 7 - III do indicate reasonable representativeness of the sample. Table 2 Newfoundland Secondary Schools by Grade Level Sample Population Grade N (%) N (%) 7-III 69 (46.6) * ( * ) 7-9 59 (39.9) 125 (38.6) K-lll 20 (13.5) * ( * ) Total 148 (100.0) 342 (100.0) * Figures unavailable from the 1987 Department of Education Directory of Schools As shown in Table 3, of those who answered the question on denominational affiliation, 52.4% are principals in the Integrated system. Principals of Catholic schools are the next largest group (36%) and they are fol lowed by principals in the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems (including "Other") with 11.6%. This order of denominational affiliation corresponds proportionally to the order as indicated by figures from the Department of Education (1987). These figures show that of the total number of schools having a portion of or all of Grades 7 to Level III, 56% are in the Integrated system and 35.1% in the Catholic system. Table 3 Denominational Affiliation of the Schools Sample Population Denomination N (%) N (%) Integrated Catholic Pentecostal, Adventist 077 (52.4) 053 (36.0) 017 (11.6) 191 (55.8) 120 (35.1) 031 (09.1) Total *147 (100.0) 342 (100.0) * 1 non response to this question Of the principals who completed the questionnaire 41.5% represent schools located in Eastern Newfoundland, fol lowed by 20.4% in the Central region, 13.6% for Western Newfoundland and 12.2% in the Southern region. Comparison of these response rates to the population reveal over representation in Eastern Newfoundland and under representation of the population in Central and Northern Newfoundland. These figures can be seen in Table 4. Table 4 " School Location by Region Sample Population Region N (%) N (%) Eastern Central Western Southern Northern Labrador Total 61 (41.5) 30 (20.4) 20 (13.6) 18 (12.2) 08 (05.5) 10 (06.8) *147 (100.0) 112 (32.7) 89 (26.8) 44 (12.9) 41 (12.0) 35 (10.2) 21 (06.2) 342 (100.0) * 1 non response to this question It is worth noting that in Table 4, the figures which represent the population were acquired through tallies done by the researcher and are not figures provided by the Department of Education. Since the Department of Education Directory of Schools does not provide a geographical breakdown of secondary schools, it was necessary to gather the data based on the geographical divisions made by each denomination. A problem of accuracy may arise since 33 these divisions differ according to denomination. A copy of these district maps appear as Appendix V. The highest percentage (22.4%) of schools represented by the principals are located in towns with a population between 1000 and 2499. Eighteen percent are from towns with the population less than 1000. The third largest number of respondents (15.6%) represent schools in rural, unincorporated towns. Table 5 gives a complete breakdown of school location according to population. Table 5 School Location by Population Population N % rural 23 15.6 under 1,000 27 18.4 1,000 - 2,499 33 22.4 2,500 - 4,999 19 13.0 5,000 - 9,999 19 13.0 10,000 - 49,999 13 08.8 50,000 - 250,000 13 08.8 Total *147 100.0 * 1 non response to this question 2. Demographic information on the Principal In addition to collecting data on the schools represented, Section A of the questionnaire requested demographic information on the principal. Of the 133 principals who answered the question on age, the majority (46.6%) are between 41 and 50 years old. Thirty five percent are between 31 and 40 and 11% are between ages 51 and 59. Principals 30 years old and under total 7%. The range of ages given was from 26 to 59 years old. Table 6 shows the number of principals in each age category. Table 6 Age of the Principals Age N % 30 & under 09 06.8 31 - 40 47 35.3 41 - 50 62 46.6 51 - 59 15 11.3 Total •133 100.0 * 15 non responses to this question The highest percentage of respondents (51.3%) have held a principalship ten years or less, fol lowed by 29.9% with experience ranging from 11 to 20 years. Sixty-nine percent of the principals have been principal at their present school for ten years or less. Twenty-eight percent have been at the same school between 11 and 20 years. These findings are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Years of Experience as Principal As Principal At present school Years N (%) N (%) 10 & under 74 (51.3) 100 (68.9) 1 1 - 2 0 43 (29.9) 041 (28.3) 21 - 30 22 (15.3) 004 (02.8) 31 - 40 05 (03.5) 000 (00.0) Total *144 (100.0) *145 (100.0) * 4 and 3 non responses to these questions ln terms of education, the highest percentage of respondents (59.9%) hold a Masters degree. This is fol lowed by 22.4% who hold a Bachelor's degree. Some graduate work has been completed by 13.6% of the principals and 3% have begun doctoral work. The majority of responses were from principals who have not had any art instruction throughout their education (70.7%). Of the 43 (29.3%) principals who have had art instruction, 60.5% have had formal or university instruction while the remaining 39.5% have had instruction through recreational or community centre programs. These findings are detailed in Tables 8 and 9. Table 8 Education Attainment of the Principals Education N % Bachelor Degree 33 22.4 Some graduate work 20 13.6 Masters Degree 88 59.9 Some Doctoral work 05 03.4 Phd., EdD. 01 00.7 Total *147 100.0 * 1 non response to this question Table 9 Education Background: Art Instruction Art Instruction N % Type of N % Instruction Yes 43 29.3 University courses 26 60.5 Rec. & comm. centre courses 17 39.5 No 104 70.7 Total *147 100.0 * 1 non response to this question Principals were asked to rate their knowledge of art on a Likert type scale with ratings ranging from 1, Very Great, to 7, which meant no knowledge of art. Eighty one percent of the 143 principals who answered this question indicated that they considered their knowledge of art to be between "less than average" and "none" . Only 7% rated their knowledge as "more than average" to "great". A breakdown of these percentages and the frequencies is given in Table 10. Table 10 Principals' 'Ratings of their Art Knowledge Art Knowledge N % Very Great 00 00.0 Great 03 02.0 More than average 07 04.9 Average 17 11.9 Less than average 39 27.3 Little 37 25.9 None 40 28.0 Total *143 100.0 * 5 non responses to this question 3. Summary It is reasonable to assume from the data that the sample is, representative of the population. The majority of schools have a population of 400 students or less and are located in small towns of populations between 1000 and 2499. The largest percentage of responses represent schools located in Eastern Newfoundland where there is the largest concentration of population. Demographic information provided by respondents reveal that most principals are between the ages of 41 and 50 and have been a principal for ten years or less. Most principals have a Masters degree, however very few have had any art instruction. Correspondingly, most of the principals in the sample consider their knowledge of art to be anywhere from less than average to none at all. 39 B. THE PRINCIPAL Principals were asked to rate the extent of input various individuals and groups have in curriculum decision making. Responses were collected using a Likert type scale from which means were calculated. A rating of 1 indicates "extensive input", 2 is "above average", 3 is "average", 4 is "be low average" and 5 represents "no input". As seen in Table 11, the Department of Education is viewed by principals as having the highest level of input (Mean = 1.333), fol lowed by the principals themselves (Mean = 2.106) and superintendents (Mean = 2.224). Other staff members, with a mean score of 2.745, are perceived as having the next highest level of input, fol lowed by school board trustees, special interest groups, students, parents and home and school associations, respectively. Table 12 provides a percentage breakdown of the responses according to input categories. Principals' Ratings of the Extent of Input Made by Individuals and Groups in Curriculum Decision Making Table 11 Croup Mean Department of Education Principals Superintendents Other Staff School Board Trustees Special Interest Croups Students Parents Home & School Association 1.333 2.106 2.224 2.745 3.432 4.045 4.084 4.121 4.307 Table 12 Principals' Ratings of the Extent of Input Made by Individuals and Croups in Curriculum Decision Making Rating of the extent of input Above Below Extensive Average Average Average None Croup % % % % - % Dept. of Education 76.4 16.0 05.6 02.1 00.0 Principals 38.3 29.1 19.1 10.6 02.8 Superintendents 32.9 31.5 21.7 08.4 05.6 Staff 13.1 31.7 28.3 21.4 05.5 Trustees 06.8 22.0 18.2 27.3 25.8 Home & Sch Assoc. 00.7 03.6 10.7 34.3 50.7 Special Interest Grps 00.0 07.6 16.7 39.4 36.4 Students 00.0 03.5 18.2 44.8 33.6 Parents 00.0 03.5 14.2 48.9 33.3 An open ended question asked principals to elaborate on the ratings they gave themselves by indicating what their level of input in curriculum decision making entails. Responses reflected an ambiguity as to what principals perceive as their involvement, with answers ranging from "no involvement" to "final authority". Forty-nine percent of principals who responded saw themselves as implementors of Department of Education requirements. The second highest rated response was that of setting priorities in curriculum and planning (46.6%), fol lowed by deciding which courses are to be offered (43.2%) and assessing staff and 41 budget requirements (39.9%). Table 13 provides the frequencies and percentages for the responses given to this open ended question. Table 13 Principals' Involvement in Curriculum Decision Making Involvement N % Implementing Dept of Ed. requirements 72 48.6 Setting priorities, planning 69 46.6 Setting courses 64 43.2 Assessing budget requirements 59 39.9 Problem solving 23 15.5 Evaluation development 18 12.2 Final authority 17 11.5 Piloting programs 17 11.5 Very little involvement 15 10.1 Selling programs 10 06.8 Paired t-tests compared principals' ratings of their own level of input in curriculum decision making with their ratings of the extent of input made by all other groups and individuals. The differences between means were tested for significance and the results obtained indicate principals rate the extent of input in curriculum decision making made by the Department of Education (Mean= 1.3429) significantly higher than the rating of their own input (Mean = 2.1071). Although principals rate themselves as having slightly more input than than do the school board superintendents, the difference between the means is not a statistically significant one. Principals rate themselves as having significantly greater level of input in curriculum decision making than the remaining groups and individuals. Table 14 shows the means for each group as compared to principals and provides the level of significance of their differences. Table 14 Principals' Ratings of Input in Curriculum Decision Making Croup Mean S.D. t Probability' Principals 2.1014 1.059 -21.70 0.000 Students 4.0580 Principals 2.1000 0.841 -08.94 0.000 Other Staff 2.7357 Principals 2.1176 1.145 -20.30 0.000 ' Parents 4.1103 Principals 2.1406 1.412 -15.09 0.000 Special Interest Groups 4.0234 Principals 2.1111 1.245 -20.54 0.000 Home & School Assoc. 4.3111 Principals 2.1007 1.143 -01.41 0.161 Superintendents 2.2374 Principals 2.1008 1.631 -09.28 0.000 Trustees 3.4341 Principals 2.1071 1.457 06.21 0.000 Dept. of Ed. 1.3429 * significant at the .05 level Differences in the principals' ratings of the extent of input in curriculum decision making do exist based on the denominational affiliation of the school. The input made by the Department of Education is rated highest by the Catholic affiliated principals (Mean = 1.2200), fol lowed by the Integrated affiliated principals with a mean score of 1.3684. Principals of Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist schools give the lowest rating (Mean = 1.5294). Integrated school principals rate their own input higher (Mean —1.9459) than do the principals in the Catholic (Mean = 2.3469), Pentecostal and Adventist systems (Mean = 2.0000). Principals of Pentecostal and Adventist schools give a higher rating to the contribution of students, trustees, parents and home and school associations than do the principals of Catholic and Integrated schools. Of these denominational groups, only principals in the Pentecostal and Adventist systems rate the input of the school board superintendent (Mean = 1.8235) higher than their own input (Mean = 2.0000). A oneway analysis of variance was conducted on these ratings to determine if any statistically significant differences existed based on the denominational affiliation of the school. The results show that the extent of student input is rated significantly higher by principals representing schools in the Integrated system (Mean = 3.9474) as well as the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems (Mean = 3.7059), than by the Catholic affiliated principals (Mean = 4.4490). Principals of Integrated schools also rate the input of other teaching staff significantly higher (Mean = 2.6184) than do principals in the Catholic system (Mean = 3.0392). Pentecostal and Adventist school principals rate the input of parents significantly higher (Mean = 3.5882) than do the principals in the Integrated (Mean = 4.1216) and Catholic schools (Mean = 4.3265). Pentecostal and Adventist principals also rate the input of home and school associations significantly higher (Mean= 3.9375) than do the Catholic principals (Mean = 4.4510). When considering denominational affiliation, there is no significant difference in the way principals rate their own input in curriculum decision making. This is also the case in the ratings they assign to extent of input by the Department of Education, school board trustees, superintendents and special interest groups. Table 15 details the differences in these ratings based on the denomination of the school. Table 15 Ratings of Input According to Denominational Affiliation 45 Integrated Catholic Pent, Advent Group Mean Mean Mean Sig. Level Dept of Education 1.3684 1.2200 1.5294 none Principals 1.9459 2.3469 2.0000 none Superintendents 2.2133 2.3600 1.8235 none Other Staff 2.6184 3.0392 2.4706 * Trustees 3.4000 3.4681 3.3571 none Students 3.9474 4.4490 3.7059 * Special Interest Croups 4.0000 4.0420 4.0714 none Parents 4.1216 4.3265 3.5882 * Home & School Assoc. 4.3056 4.4510 3.9375 * * significantly different at the 0.05 level Low score = High input The principals' ratings of the input in curriculum decision making by various individuals and groups varies according to the presence or lack of an art program in the school. The responses indicate that in schools with art programs principals rate the input of all other groups and individuals, with the exception of other staff, higher than do the principals of schools without art programs. The biggest differences recorded are in the ratings they assign to their own input and the input of special interest groups. Both ratings of input are higher in schools with art programs than in schools without art programs. A grouped t-test was conducted to test for significant differences between these ratings. Although principals of schools with art programs do rate the extent of their input higher than do principals of schools without programs, the difference is not significant. As shown in Table 16, with regards to the input of students, other staff, parents, home and school associations, superintendents, trustees and the Department of Education, there is no statistically significant difference in these ratings based on the presence or lack of an art program. However, the rating principals' of schools with art programs gave to special interest groups is significantly higher than the rating given by principals of schools without art programs. Table 16 Input in Curriculum Decision Making According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program Art Offered No Art Croup Mean Mean t Probabilil Dept. of Education 1.2571 1.4054 -1.31 0.190 Principals 1.9851 2.2162 -1.23 0.221 Superintendents 2.2286 2.2192 0.05 0.962 Other Staff 2.7778 2.7123 0.36 0.722 Trustees 3.3382 3.5313 -0.87 0.384 Special Interest Groups 3.8696 4.2381 -2.35 0.019 Parents 4.0571 4.1831 -0.96 0.339 Students 4.0714 4.0959 -0.18 0.857 Home & School Assoc. 4.3000 4.3143 -0.10 0.922 * significant at the .05 level Low score = High input 1. Summary In summary, while principals perceive the Department of Education to have the highest degree of input in curriculum decision making, they see themselves as having a greater amount of input than all other groups and individuals, including superintendents. Although most of these differences are statistically significant, the difference between the ratings of their own input compared to their ratings of superintendents' input is not. Principals' involvement in curriculum decision making includes implementing Department of Education requirements as well as setting priorities, planning and setting courses. Significant differences which are denominationally based exist in the perception of the extent of input of students, other teaching staff, parents and home and school associations. Principals of schools with art programs rate the input of most groups and individuals, including themselves, higher than do the principals of schools without art programs. In particular, the rating principals assign the input of special interest groups is significantly higher in schools that do offer art as a course choice, as opposed to those schools that do not. C. ART PROGRAM ADOPTION Section C of the questionnaire requested information on the current state of art education in Newfoundland secondary schools. Of the 148 principals who responded to the questionnaire, 72 indicated their schools offer Art as a course choice. This represents 48.6% of the sample. In Table 17 responses to the question of whether or not Art is offered as a course choice in the school, 48 are presented according to the denominational groups represented. A Chi square test revealed that these differences are not statistically significant. Table 17 Art Programs Offered According to the Denominational Affiliation of the School Denomination of the school Integrated Catholic Pent. & Total Advent. Art Offered N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Yes 35 (23.8) 31 (21.1) 06 (04.1) 72 (49.0) No 42 (28.6) 22 (15.0) 11 (07.5) 75 (51.0) Of these 72 programs, 67.7% have been in operation for five years or less with 44.6% started within the last two years. Only 13 of these 72 programs (19.9%) have been in existence for ten years or more. Table 18 shows the number of years Art has been offered as a course choice in Newfoundland secondary schools. Table 18 Number of Years Art Courses Offered Years N % 01 12 18.5 02 17 26.2 03 07 10.8 04 03 04.6 05 05 07.7 06 03 04.6 07 05 07.7 10 05 07.7 12 02 03.1 13 01 01.5 14 01 01.5 15 01 01.5 20 02 03.1 27 01 01.5 Total *65 100 * 7 non responses to this question Of the 72 schools offering Art, 30.4% of them offer it at" the Grade 7 level, 29.7 % offer Grade 8 Art, and 27% offer Grade 9 Art. The findings show there are fewer art programs in place at the senior secondary level than at the junior high level. Of the senior level courses, Art 1200 is taught in 20.4%. of these schools, Art and Design 2200 is in 14.9%, Art and Design 3200 in 6.1% and Art History 3202 is represented in 2% of the schools with art programs. Frequencies of these course offerings can be seen in Table 19. Table 19 Art Courses Offered Course offered N % Grade 7 Art 45 30.4 Grade 8 Art 44 29.7 Grade 9 Art 40 27.0 Art 1200 30 20.4 Art & Design 2200 22 14.9 Art & Design 3200 09 06.1 Art History 3202 03 02.0 Through open ended questions principals were asked to provide reasons why Art has been included or excluded from their schools' course offerings. Of those schools offering Art, 27.7% of these principals cite the Department of Education requirements as their reason for its inclusion. Sixteen percent consider Art to be an important aspect of student development, while 14.9% view it as a means of fostering creativity and originality. These findings are shown in Table 20. Table 20 Why Art is Offered Reason N % Dept of Education requirements 41 27.7 Student development 24 16.2 Foster creativity 22 14.9 Student interest 17 11.5 Personal development 16 10.8 Available teacher 08 05.4 Another mode of expression 08 05.4 Exposure to aspects of Art 05 03.4 Easy credit 05 03.4 Available facilities 03 02.0 Increase school interest levels 02 01.4 As the findings in Table 21 show, of those 51.4% of schools that do not offer Art, the most common reason (27.7%) given for i ts exclusion is the lack of a qualified teacher. Ten percent view the lack of funds from school board and government as a prohibitive factor. Nine percent feel that, given the fact they are in small schools and with fewer teaching units, timetabling is a problem. Table 21 Why Art is Not Offered Reason N % No qualified teacher 41 27.7 Lack of money from board & govt 14 09.5 Small school - timetabling 13 08.8 Lack of facilities 11 07.4 Not enough teaching units 10 06.8 Low priority 09 06.1 Overcrowded curriculum 07 04.7 Low pupil interest 06 04.1 Low staff interest 03 02.0 No specific curriculum 01 00.7 Principals were asked to rate the extent of influence of factors on art program adoption. The frequency of responses were used to provide means which indicate the principals' overall rating of influence of these factors. Means closer to 1 in value indicate "greater influence" and means closer to 5 represent "no influence". Trained teacher availability is rated the highest (Mean = 1.698), with availability of funds as second (Mean = 2.239) and principals' attitudes (Mean = 2.478) toward the program in third place. These are fol lowed, in order of influence, by school board interest, availability of space, program quality, student interest, consultants' support, staff support, availability of media resources, incentives, parent support, special interest group pressure and the interest of home and school associations. Table 22 shows the means for each of these individuals or groups in the order of rated influence. A breakdown of these ratings by percentage of responses according to influence categories is provided in Table 23. Table 22 Mean Scores for Factors Influencing Art Program Adopt ion Factor Mean Teacher availability 1.698 Availability of funds 2.239 Principals' attitudes 2.478 School board interest 2.486 Availability of space 2.515 Program quality 2.542 Student interest 2.560 Consultants' support 2.676 Staff support 2.710 Media resources 3.000 Incentives 3.182 Parent support 3.533 Special Interest Crp pressure 4.091 Home & Sch Assoc. interest 4.095 * Low score = High influence Table 23 Ratings of Influence of Factors in Art Program Adopt ion Great Above Average Below None Average Average Factors % % % % % Teacher availability 58.3 Availability of funds 34.8 School board interest 26.8 Principals' attitude 25.7 Availability of space 25.7 Student interest 24.6 Consultants' support 20.6 Program quality 17.6 Staff support 13.8 Media resources 07.5 Incentives 03.8 Parent support 03.7 Home & sch assoc. interest 00.8 Special int grp pressure 00.0 23.7 11.5 02.9 03.6 32.6 15.9 07.2 09.4 28.3 23.9 11.6 09.4 33.1 19.9 10.3 11.0 31.6 19.9 11.0 11.8 26.9 24.6 15.7 08.2 31.6 22.1 11.0 14.7 39.7 25.2 06.1 11.5 34.1 29.0 13.8 09.4 25.6 35.3 22.6 09.0 22.7 38.6 21.2 13.6 09.6 35.6 31.9 19.3 02.4 24.6 31.0 41.3 06.1 20.5 31.8 41.7 The results of paired t-tests indicate that principals rate the influence of the trained teacher availability significantly higher than the influence of any other factor. These findings are shown in Table 24. Table 24 The Influence of Trained Teacher Availability Other Factors in Art Program Adopt ion Compared with the Influence of Factor Trained Teacher Factors Mean Mean t Probabilil Availability of funds 2.2190 1.7080 -04.20 0.000 Principals' attitude 2.4741 1.7111 -05.98 0.000 School board interest 2.4818 1.7007 -06.04 0.000 Availability of space 2.5111 1.7111 -06.58 0.000 Program quality 2.5231 1.7077 -06.63 0.000 Student interest 2.5489 1.7143 -06.42 0.000 Consultants' support 2.6741 1.6963 -07.46 0.000 Staff support 2.7153 1.7007 -08.79 0.000 Media resources 3.0000 1.7121 -11.00 0.000 Incentives 3.1832 1.6794 -12.30 0.000 Parent support 3.5373 17164 -16.18 0.000 Home & Sch assoc. pressure 4.0960 1.7280 -20.01 0.000 Special interest grp pressure 4.0992 1.7099 -20.42 0.000 * significant at the 0.05 level Low score = High influence When asked to choose three factors which hold the highest influence in art program adoption, 65.5% of the principals cited the availability of a trained teacher, fol lowed by 50.7% who listed the availability of funds. The third most frequently cited factor (32.4%) was the principals' attitudes toward the program. These figures can be seen in Table 25. Table 25 Factors with Great Influence in Art Program Adopt ion Factor N % Teacher availability Availability of funds Principals' attitude 97 75 48 65.5 50.7 32.4 An open ended question asked the principals to list any other factors, not already included, which may influence art program adoption. Although the response rate was low for this question (23%), of those responding, 50% stated that Art is not a priority with the Department of Education and school boards. Twenty-seven percent feel that the size of their school prohibits offering Art. Other principals (17.6%) think that Art and the high academic requirements are in competit ion for limited timetable space. Two principals (5.9%) suggested that career paths preclude taking Art courses in school. These findings, as presented in Table 26, are consistent with the responses principals made to the final open ended question which asked them to list the most important factors influencing art program adoption in schools today. Table 26 Other Factors Which May Influence Art Program Adopt ion Factor N % Not a priority with Dept. of Ed. 17 50.0 Small school size 09 26.5 High academic requirements compete for time 06 17.6 Career paths preclude Art 02 05.9 Total 34 100 Differences in the principals' ratings of the influence of these factors on art program adoption do exist based on the denominational affiliation of the school. Principals of Pentecostal and Adventist schools rate student interest, program quality, incentives, parent support, special interest group pressure and home and school association pressure higher than do the principals in the Integrated and Catholic systems. Catholic affiliated principals consider the availability of funds, the principals' attitudes toward the program, availability of space, school board interest and staff support as having a greater influence than do principals in the Integrated, Pentecostal and Adventist schools. A oneway analysis of variance was conducted to ascertain whether or not the denominational differences in these ratings are statistically significant. The results, as presented in Table 27, reveal that the only statistically significant difference is between the ratings of the influence of incentives (i.e. image of the school). Principals in the Pentecostal and Adventist systems rate this factor significantly higher than do the principals in the Integrated and Catholic systems. 58 Table 27 Denominational Differences in Ratings of Factors Which Influence Art Program Adopt ion Integrated Catholic Pent., Advent. Factor Mean Mean Mean Sig Teacher availabilty 1.6712 1.6800 1.9333 none Availability of funds 2.2877 2.1200 2.4286 none Student interest 2.5493 2.6939 2.2308 none Program quality 2.5634 2.5778 2.3571 none Principals' attitudes 2.6027 2.2917 2.4286 none Availability of space 2.6250 2.2400 2.9231 none School board interest 2.6438 2.2600 2.4286 none Consultants' support 2.7917 2.5714 2.5714 none Staff suppport 2.8767 2.4800 2.7143 none Media resources 2.8857 3.1667 3.0714 none Incentives 3.2676 3.2609 2.5714 * Parent support 3.5479 3.5532 3.4286 none Special interest grp pressure 4.0714 4.2128 3.7857 none Home & Sch assoc. pressure 4.0725 4.2045 3.9167 none * significant at the 0.05 level Low score = High influence Grouped t-tests were conducted to determine if there are any significant differences in these ratings, according to the presence or lack of an art program. The results, presented in Table 28, reveal that principals in schools with art programs rate the influence of their attitudes toward the art program, 59 program quality, consultants' support and school board interest as having significantly greater influence in art program adoption than do the principals of schools without art programs. Table 28 The Influence of Factors According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program Art Offered No Art Factor Mean Mean t Probability* Teacher availability 1.7941 1.6056 1.08 0.281 Principals' attitudes 2.1194 2.8261 -3.33 0.001 School board interest 2.2647 2.7000 -2.05 0.042 Funds 2.2985 2.1831 0.53 0.594 Program quality 2.3030 2.7846 -2.35 0.020 Student interest 2.3731 2.7463 -1.74 0.083 Consultants' support 2.4179 2.9275 -2.28 0.024 Space 2.4853 2.5441 -0.26 0.794 Staff support 2.5882 2.8286 -1.23 0.222 Incentives 3.0923 3.2687 -0.96 0.339 Media resources 3.1667 2.8358 1.79 0.075 Parent support 3.4925 3.5735 -0.46 0.649 Home & Sch assoc. interest 4.0000 4.1905 1.18 0.240 Special interest grp pressure 4.0781 4.1029 -0.15 0.879 * significant at the 0.05 level Low score = High influence 1. Summary Fewer than half of the schools included in the sample offer Art as a course choice. The majority of schools that do offer Art have done so only in the past two years and predominantly at the Junior high level. When asked why they include Art in the curriculum, principals indicate that it is because it is a Department of Education requirement. Principals of schools without art programs indicate one of the reasons they do not offer Art as a course choice is the unavailability of trained teachers. Among all the factors studied, the availability of a trained teacher is rated as having a significantly greater influence, than the influence of all other factors, in the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program. This is fol lowed closely by the availability of funds and by the principals' attitudes toward the art program. The influence of all of these factors does differ according to denominational affiliation of the school , with the the influence of incentives in art program adoption rated significantly higher by the Pentecostal and Adventist principals than by the Catholic and Integrated principals. In schools that offer art programs, principals see their own attitude toward the program as having a significantly higher influence in the decision to adopt the program than do the principals of schools without art programs. The support of the consultant, the interest of the school board and the quality of the program to be offered are also rated significantly higher in schools offering Art courses than in schools that do not. Other factors pinpointed as affecting program adoption were the lack of committment from the Department of Education and the school board as well as the effect of small school size. D. THE IMPORTANCE OF ART IN THE CURRICULUM In considering whether Art at the junior high level should be optional or required as part of the program of studies, 53.8% of the principals indicate they feel it should be optional. Of the remaining principals, 37.9% think Art should be required, while 8.3% remain undecided. At the senior high level, the majority of principals (88.9%) also think Art should be an option. Four percent think it should be required and 7% are undecided. Table 29 provides the frequencies for these responses. Table 29 Art as an Opt ion or Required Course Opt ion Required Undecided Level N (%) N (%) N (%) Junior high 078 (53.8) 55 (37.9) 12 (08.3) Senior high 128 (88.9) 06 (04.2) 10 (06.9) The majority of principals rate Art to be "not as important" as English (87.4%), Math (88.6%) and Science (83.2%). When comparing Art to Social Studies, 56.7%> of principals consider Art to be "not as important" while 42.6% perceive it to be equal. The majority of principals rate Art to be equal to Music (93.7%), Home Economics (85.4%) and Industrial Arts (84.0%). Fifty one percent perceive Art to be equal in importance to Computer Science, while 48% rate it as "not as important". Table 30 shows the frequencies and means for these responses. Table 30 Principals' Ratings of the Importance of Art Art is... More important Equal Not as important ...than N (%) N (%) N (%) English 02 (01.4) 016 (11.2) 125 (87.4) Science 01 (00.7) 023 (16.1) 119 (83.2) Math 02 (01.4) 014 (10.0) 124 (88.6) Social Studies 01 (00.7) 060 (42.6) 080 (56.7) Music 03 (02.1) 133 (93.7) 006 (04.2) Home Economics 11 (07.6) 123 (85.4) 010 (06.9) Industrial Arts 10 (06.8) 121 (84.0) 013 (09.0) Computer Science 01 (00.7) 073 (51.4) 065 (45.8) A oneway analysis of variance was conducted to reveal any significant differences in these ratings according to denominational affiliation of the "school. The results of the test, shown in Table 31, reveal that the Catholic affiliated principals rate Art significantly higher than do the Integrated principals when comparing its' importance to English. However, there are no other significant differences in the ratings. Table 31 The Importance Placed on Art According to Denominational Affiliation Art Integrated Catholic Pent., Advent. compared to Mean Mean Mean Music 3.0000 3.1200 3.0000 none Home Economics 3.0000 2.9615 3.0000 none Industrial Arts 3.0789 3.0385 2.8667 none Computer Science 3.7632 3.9412 4.0000 none Social Studies 4.1184 4.1200 4.2000 none Science 4.7763 4.5000 4.6000 none Math 4.8514 4.6078 4.7333 none English 4.8553 4.5385 4.7333 * * significant at the 0.05 level A grouped t-test tested for significant differences in these ratings given Art, according to the presence or lack of an art program in the school . Results show that principals of schools with art programs rate the importance of Art significantly higher than Music (Mean = 2.9429) than do principals of schools without art programs (Mean = 3.1389). However, as shown in Table 32, while the importance of Art was rated higher in comparison with other elective subjects in schools with art programs as opposed to those without programs, no other significant differences were found in the ratings. Table 32 The Importance Placed on Art According to the Presence or Lack of an Art Program Art Art Offered No Art English 4.7324 4.7260 0.05 0.961 Science 4.6197 4.6986 -0.59 0.558 Social Studies 4.1159 4.1507 -0.20 0.842 Math 4.7536 4.7500 0.03 0.977 Music 2.9429 3.1389 -2.36 0.020 Home Economics 2.8873 3.0822 -1.53 0.128 Industrial Arts 2.9155 3.1644 -1.88 0.062 Computer Science 3.7143 4.0000 -1.55 0.123 * significant at the 0.50 level A grouped t-test revealed that although principals who have had previous art instruction tend to give a higher rating to Art in relation to other subjects, than do those principals without art instruction, the differences in the ratings are not significant. The results of the group t-test are shown in Table 33. Table 33 The importance Placed on Art According to Previous Art Training Art Art Training No Art Training compared to Mean Mean t Probabilit Home Economics 2.8500 3.0396 -1.31 0.191 Industrial Arts 3.0500 3.0396 0.07 0.945 Music 3.0513 3.0400 0.12 0.907 Computer Science 3.9744 3.8400 0.64 0.522 Social Studies 3.9744 4.1900 -1.11 0.271 Science 4.4500 4.7327 -1.88 0.062 English 4.6000 4.7723 -1.18 0.241 Math 4.6923 4.7677 -0.52 0.604 * significant at the 0.05 level 1. Summary Most principals think Art should remain as an optional course at both the Junior and Senior high school levels. Art is generally viewed as less important than the academic subjects but equal in importance to the electives. Art is considered to be equal in importance to Computer Science. Principals of Catholic affiliated schools rate the importance of Art in relation to English higher than do principals of Integrated schools, however, Art is still seen as "not as important". Principals of schools with art programs rate Art higher than the other electives. In these schools, Art is viewed as significantly more important than Music. Principals with previous art instruction rate the importance of Art higher than those who have not had art training, however these differences are not statistically significant. V. DISCUSSION in this chapter the findings are discussed in the order they have been presented in Chapter 5 under the headings of The Principal, Art Program Adopt ion and The Importance of Art in the Curriculum. Comments made by principals during interviews conducted during the pilot study are used as contextual information supporting the findings under discussion. A. THE PRINCIPAL The power structure within the hierarchy of the education system places the Department of Education at the top, fol lowed by the local school boards and school principals, respectively. The findings of this study support this view of the Department of Education as the overriding body which provides guidelines and sets requirements. The principals consider themselves primarily as impiementors of these policies. However, the findings of this study also indicate that, in contrast to the usual line of authority, principals consider the extent of their input in curriculum decision making to be second only to the input made by the Department of Education. The extent of input made by the local school board superintendents is seen by the principals as slightly less than the input made by principals. The review of the literature suggests the principalship, although not clearly defined, is the pivotal authority within the school. The common belief is that the principals' power rests in the implementation of curriculum (Bowes, et al., 66 1983). While the results of this study confirm this authority base, information provided by the respondents in this study also supports the findings of Sloan (1982) which stated that administrators have a major influence in the formation or policy shaping issues of curriculum decision making. In addition to acting as implementors of the Department of Education policies, principals consider their authority base to include the determination of the courses to be offered in the school . One principal, articulating the power of the principal within the structure, said "the government is on top. The school board can impress and impose but it is the old 'put your money where your mouth is'. How much money are you prepared to give us to offer this program". This perception of the principal's power is also supported by the comment of another principal who said "I'm the one who makes the final decision as to what courses are offered, based on student interest and teacher interest and qualifications". Another principal indicated that "although school boards have an extensive amount of influence, through committees and meetings, principals can have a strong influence in curriculum decision and policy making". As evidenced in the results and these supporting comments, the principals' high rating of their input in curriculum decision making does not deny the existence of the power of the school board or the Department of Education. The findings reveal that through a variety of avenues, the input of the principal in curriculum decision making extends beyond the usual line of authority to include participation in policy making and shaping. There are no denominationally based differences in the way principals view the input made by the Department of Education. The view of the superintendents' level of input does differ, although not significantly, among principals representing the different denominations. Principals of the Pentecostal and Adventist schools align themselves with the usual perception of the line of authority. They perceive the superintendents to be second in the line of power, fol lowed closely by the principals themselves. The difference in these perceptions compared to the perceptions of Integrated and Catholic based principals can be attributed, in part, to the structural differences of the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems. Since these schools are fewer in number, they are governed centrally by one provincial school board as opposed to local school boards. This runs opposite to the decentralized structure of the Catholic and Integrated school boards. As central governing bodies, the Pentecostal and Adventist school boards present strong, unified voices, perhaps resulting in more control in curriculum decision making. Significant denominationally based differences, in the ratings of input made by groups and individuals in curriculum decision making, occur in the ratings of the input of other staff, students, parents and home and school associations. Principals in the Pentecostal and Adventist systems rate the extent of input made by home and school associations and parents higher than do the principals in the Integrated and Catholic systems. This also may be due to the fact that these two systems are governed by provincial school boards. In the absence of a local governing body or school board, which represents the community in general, individual parents and home and school associations would logically have a higher participation in curriculum decision making, if they should take that initiative. In no way does this input ensure the representation of the interests of the whole group, these schools serve. Nor does it ensure that equality of educational opportunities is an intrinsic goal. This makes the future status of art education vulnerable to the committment to it within the community, in addition to administrative whim. Integrated school principals rate the input of students and other teaching staff significantly higher than do Catholic principals. This apparent democratic involvement of other groups is considered, by principals, to be a result of historical differences in the development of the two boards. While the Integrated system serves a number of denominations, the Catholic system has been designed to serve only Catholics. The differences between the two systems are referred to in the following comment made by a Catholic principal. Within the Catholic system, for a good many years, by and large the parish priest ran the whole show because it was easier. Generally speaking, the Integrated school system had and probably still have a more enlightened type of board. Better informed, higher educated, higher social status, with a broader educated outlook on the education system. In schools with art programs, principals rate the influence of special interest groups significantly higher than do the principals of schools without art programs. One principal commented that "community pressure can be a big factor, especially if we decided to drop or change a course". In lieu of school board and principal committment, concentrated advocacy efforts from within the community can focus attention to specific problems and provide impetus for change. Although the input of special interest groups is significantly higher than that of other groups and individuals, it in no way operates independently of the input provided by these other groups. This is supported by the findings which reveal that in schools offering Art as a course choice, principals rate the input of all other groups and individuals in curriculum decision making higher than do the principals of schools without Art programs. B. ART PROGRAM ADOPTION Fewer than half of the schools represented in this study offer Art as a course choice. Most of the schools that do have art programs have established them within the last two years. It would appear that since most art programs are at the junior high school level, the increase has occurred within this level. Yet there has not been any Department of Education directed implementation of the recommendation to make Art mandatory at the junior high level. Despite this, it is reasonable to assume that anticipation of recommended changes has provided the motivation for school boards and principals to establish art programs. The government offered incentive for a school to offer Art courses is a philosophical one which groups the Art courses with other elective areas in order to provide students with exploratory experience in a range of subject areas. The goal is to enable students to make better informed decisions regarding course choices at the senior high school level. One principal, reflecting on the need to build Art programs up, starting at the junior high level, noted that "what happens in schools now is that when Art is offered in senior high, kids, not having been introduced to Art at all, don't know if they like it". The implication is that the lack of senior high Art courses offered can be attributed to ignorance on the part of high school students of what art study might entail. However, this provides only one possible explanation for the fact that the number of senior high Art courses is dramatically lower than the number of junior high programs. Of the senior high Art courses, Art 1200, which was designed for the generalist teacher, is most likely to be offered in schools. It is a course that does not require the hiring of a specialist teacher and can therefore be seen as a compromise in lieu of not offering Art and Design 2200 and 3200. Art History 3202, the newest of these senior courses, is offered as a course choice in the least number of schools. Generalist teachers who are intimidated by the Art and Design 2200 and 3200 courses would, in all l ikelihood, experience the same feeling when approaching the Art History course. Since there are few Art specialists teaching within the province it is reasonable to assume there are even fewer teachers who are adequately trained to teach the Art History 3202 course. Although there are no significant denominational differences in the number of schools that offer Art as a course choice, art education has historically waged an uphill battle which does have a denominational base. At one time, denominational differences played an important role in supporting Music, much to the detriment of art education. One principal remarked that It just seems to me, this island has assigned an importance to Music, not necessarily academic. The Nuns have a great tradition of having preserved the music culture in Newfoundland. The Salvation Army has a long tradition - the only instrumental music tradition in the province. I have no doubt there's a connection between religion as an institution and the progress of music education at the expense of art education. However, as another principal noted "the church, in 1987, for all intents and purposes, has no connection with 98% of the curriculum in schools". The lack of significant denominationally based differences in whether or not Art courses are offered in a school can be attributed to one principal's suggestion that "the Catholic schools are now in the midst of a catch up per iod". They are attempting to diminish the discrepancy in the number of art programs they offer as compared to the art programs in place in the Integrated schools. If indeed there has been a catch up period, it would appear to have been successful. While more than half of the Catholic schools and the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist schools offer Art courses, less than half of the Integrated schools offer art programs. Although this difference is not significant, it is interesting to note that Integrated school principals view themselves as having more input in curriculum decision making than do the Catholic, Pentecostal and Adventist principals, who rate themselves lower on this dimension. It would seem that the principal might be the best source of explanation for the slow development of secondary art education in the Integrated school system. When asked why they were able to include Art courses in the curriculum, most of the principals of schools with art programs said they were implementing Department of Education requirements. While these requirements may be motivation for some schools to adopt art programs, there is no Department of Education enforcement of the policy. Without Department of Education scrutiny, the requirements are more accurately recommendations. As such, they are left to survive local economic, social or political considerations with no guarantee for program adoption. Other reasons given for the inclusion of Art courses in the curriculum offerings were similiar to the objectives and goal statements found in the course descriptions. These include the study of Art courses for the fostering of creativity and for the development of the student. To some extent this question can be seen as having a social desirability factor. Principals may feel they should provide a response that is in line with the contribution the Department of Education says Art courses can make to secondary students' education. Of those principals in schools with art programs, very few said they were able to include Art courses in the curriculum offerings due to the availability of a trained teacher. However, lack of teacher availability was the most frequently given reason for not being able to include Art as a subject. Lack of funds provided by the school board and the provincial governement was the next commonly cited reason. It would appear that these reasons are used as an attempt to shift the blame for lack of art programs onto the Department of Education. The third reason given for being unable to include Art courses in the secondary school experience, was the problem of timetabling in a small school. A small school is seen as a prohibitive factor in creating course options simply because of the small student population. While the lack of facilities may pose a problem in a small school, by far the most immediate problem brought on by smaller student populations is that of finding a specialist teacher who can teach other subjects. Responses indicated that the only other option considered is the enlistment of a present staff member who may or may not have some art education background or experience. When principals were asked to select the three factors which have great influence in art program adoption, the availability of a trained teacher, funds and the principals' attitudes toward the program were chosen. Principals' attitudes toward the program were never included as a factor in the responses to the open ended questions. One possible reason for this discrepancy may be that principals are primarily concerned with the physical problems of funds and teacher availability. However, if one were to assume a broader perspective, the lack of these things may be considered a symptom of an underlying attitude toward art education. As one principal stated, "Let's face it. The principal's attitude can make or break a program. If he's not keen on it he's not going to make funds available; he's not going to be anxious to find space.". These findings support the speculations put forth by the 1980 Newfoundland Task Force on the Arts in Education, which suggested that arts education at the secondary level suffered from the lack of commitment from secondary school administrators. Principals indicated that they feel secondary art education has suffered because it has not been, nor is it now, a priority with the Department of Education. The efforts and incentives provided by the Department for the adoption of an art program do not include the financial provision for another teaching unit. Although the Department's policy dictates that Art courses have to be offered by a qualified teacher, the lack of provision for an extra teaching unit necessitates a compromise that holds no guarantee for art program implementation. The reality of the situation is summed up by one principal who said, " A lot of this is luck you know. If by chance we hired a teacher who happens to have the interest or inclination in this direction, he would have to teach something else.". Principals equate incentives for art program adoption with financial provisions made by both the school board and the Department of Education. This is confirmed by another principal's comment that "sometimes there's not much incentive to do something different. You're fighting an uphill battle the whole time. If the Department said 'we would like you to introduce the program and we'll give you a teacher' - done." . Important denominational differences exist in the ratings assigned to the influence of factors on the adoption of art programs. Just as the Pentecostal and Adventist school principals assign a high rating to the input of home and school associations and special interest groups in curriculum decision making, they similiarly perceive incentives, parent support and the pressure from these groups to have a great influence in the decision to adopt an art program. The significantly higher influence of incentives can be directly related to how the school serves the community. This is a consideration which inevitably results in the comparison of art education with music education. In the words of one Pentecostal school principal, Music seems more practical for public relations reasons but mostly because students are involved in something that carries over in the community. Art is at a traditional disadvantage. Music has always been considered first. In our particular area the emphasis on Music comes easily because of music in the church. Churches have made funds available for the purchase of instruments. I don't think they would do the same for art supplies. The incentives to adopt an art program play a crucial role in the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems. They are smaller systems that cater to a select few. As such, the inclusion of Art and Music programs, as well as other elective areas, acts as a drawing card for students who also have the opportunity to attend school in the Integrated system. Exclusion of these programs could possibly result in the choice of some students to attend schools within other denominational systems. In contrast to this, Catholic school principals consider the attitudes of the principal, school board interest in the program and the availability of space and funds to be higher in importance than do the principals representing the other denominations, ln the words of one Catholic principal, "Catholics tend to be more nuts and bolts. We' l l balance the books so there's no red lines. We haven't made that much progress.". The findings reveal that in schools that have art programs, principals rate the influence of their own attitudes toward the program, the school board interest, program quality and the consultants' support significantly higher than the influence of all other factors in the adoption process. This also confirms the suspicions of the 1980 Task Force on the Arts in Education, which suggested that the plight of secondary art education was related to administrative attitude and committment. This is also the sentiment echoed by Mahlman (1980) and McNealy (1982). It is clearly articulated by the results of this study which indicate that physical and financial considerations give way in significance in the adoption process to underlying administrative attitude and committment. This is epitomized in the statement by one principal that "there's always funds if you want them badly enough and you can always find space. The attitude of the principal is the biggest factor.". C. THE IMPORTANCE OF ART IN THE CURRICULUM Similar to Borsa's (1978) study, most principals felt Art should be an option. However, more principals responded that Art should be a required course at the junior high level than did so for Art at the senior high level. This difference in the importance assigned to Art courses at these two levels can be attributed, in part, to the recommendations made in the Report on the Junior High Reorganization. The belief put forth in the Report is that the inclusion of Art courses in the junior high curriculum affords the student the experience necessary to make better informed course selections at the senior high level. In anticipation of these future requirements, principals may have bought into this belief or used it as leverage to convince their school boards to adopt art programs. It remains to be seen if making junior high art a requirement will rectify the situation many students currently find themselves in. Due to the limited number of electives offered, Art courses often become compulsory, by default, if the student is not interested in Music, or if the student lacks the prerequisites for continuation in Music. This occurs especially at the Grade 7 level since no other electives are offered. This situation may very well determine the student's future course selections. In schools that have Art programs, principals rate the importance of Art much higher than all other elective subjects, including Music. It is reasonable to assume that the principals of schools that offer Art courses, view its inclusion in the curriculum as a positive experience, which lacks prerequisites and therefore has the potential to reach a higher number of the student population. Although the principals' previous experience with art education does make a difference in the ratings given Art in terms of importance in relation to other subjects, none of these differences is significant. The fact that principals may or may not have had previous instruction in Art does not affect the number of art programs offered, or the ratings principals assign to the factors affecting art program adoption. In considering the importance given Art in the curriculum, one principal 79 provided a response reminiscent of the rationales given for the inclusion of Art in the curriculum during the early 1900's. Commenting on both the past and present status of art education, the principal stated that People did Art as one of those things you do instead of Civics. Very little preparation is required before the exam. They think of Art as something you are born with. It's an inbuilt bias. The people who have it will improve. If you don't, you're not going to learn to draw. It doesn't have academic connotations. Another principal felt that the lack of secondary art programs was due to a failure by Newfoundland society to recognize the value of art education in the same way they have recognized the value of other disciplines. We think in terms of getting a job because we live in a rather rough and harsh environment. The reluctance to change is a result of strong status quo conservatism. We haven't been all that adventurous in bringing in new programs. We tend to stick to traditional subjects. The influence of traditional and more basic concerns, which are passed on through generations, has been addressed as a factor contributing to a lack of general public support for Art (Borsa, 1978). These comments, coupled with the questionnaire findings, indicate that there has been very little change in the perception of art education since the early 1900's. It is the belief of the Task Force on the Arts in Education (1980, p. iv) that since 1970 education interests have shifted from survival issues to the quality of survival. However, it would appear that the development of secondary school art education has escaped serious consideration on both levels of development. The progress made in the establishment of art education in Newfoundland secondary schools is summarized by the following comment made by a principal. I still think we're giving lip service to it. Absolute lip service. Non-existent at the high school level. We're only one step beyond turning over rocks and hoping something comes out from underneath. VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter presents an overview of the contents of Chapters 1 to 5. There is a restatement of the problem and research questions, fol lowed by a summary of the findings, conclusions drawn from these findings and their policy implications. The chapter concludes with recommendations for further research. A. RESTATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study was concerned with identifying factors that influence the decision making process involved in art program adoption in secondary schools. In this study, the principal is identified as the key actor in this decision making process. As discussed in Chapter 1, the central problem was to determine why there are so few art programs in Newfoundland secondary schools. It was felt by the researcher that the identification of factors which have a great influence in art program adoption may serve as a basis for change and improvement in the status of secondary art education in Newfoundland. For this reason, this study set out to determine, from the principals' viewpoints, information on three major points. Information was sought on the extent of principals' influence in curriculum decision making, the extent of influence of factors on art program adoption and the importance principals' assign to Art in relation to other subjects. 81 The following is a restatement of the research questions. 82 1. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of their / participation, as compared to the participation of other individuals or groups in the school system, in curriculum decision making? 2. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the influence of specific factors, such as the availability of a trained teacher, funds and space, on the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art program? 3. What are Newfoundland secondary school principals' perceptions of the importance of Art in relation to other school subjects? 4. Do the perceptions of the importance of Art in relation to other school subjects differ between principals with art training and principals without art training? Each of these questions generated a number of subsidary questions. These questions sought to determine if there were any differences in each of these perceptions based on the denominational affiliation of the school or based on the presence or lack of" an art program in the school. This study is ex post facto research using a questionnaire for data collection procedures in both a pilot and final study. A total of 311 principals were asked to complete the 27 item questionnaire: 60 principals in the pilot study and 251 principals in the sample. Interviews were conducted with five principals as part of the pilot study. Chapter 2 reviewed recent literature on the principal, the principal and art education, and secondary art education in Newfoundland. In the literature on the principalship, attention was focussed on the participation of the principal in curriculum decision making. With the exception of the work of Sloan (1982) most studies revealed the principal to be involved in school level implementation of previously set policies, ln contrast, Sloan found that administrators have a major influence in the formation or policy shaping issues of curriculum decision making. The available literature revealed a need to determine what this level of influence involves and the extent of this influence compared to the influence of other groups and individuals in the school district hierarchy. Recent research on the factors which influence program adoption illuminated the lack of research connecting this information to the status of art education in secondary schools. Existing studies focussed on art programs already in place. There has not been any consideration in the art education literature of the extent to which specific factors influence the adoption process. Particular attention to secondary art education in Newfoundland highlighted the lack of progress made in the development of art education. To date, there has not been any research completed that can offer insights into the reasons why there are so few art programs. Chapter 3 described the conduct of the study, detailing the administration of the questionnaire. Chapter 4 presented the findings of the study in the order of the research questions answered. A discussion of these results is found in Chapter 5. B. SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 1. Influence of the Principal in Curriculum Decision Making The results of this study indicate that principals perceive themselves to be very influential in curriculum making. They consider their degree of influence to be second to the influence of the Department of Education and slightly more than the influence of the school board superintendent. Principals view themselves both as implementors of Department of Education requirements and as power brokers in the process of determining course offerings in the school. These findings emphasize and reinforce the work of Sloan (1982). Within the usual power structure, this degree of influence is obtained through input on committees. It includes setting priorities and setting courses. 2. Art Program Adoption Results of this study indicate that fewer than half of Newfoundland secondary schools have art programs. Of the existing programs, the majority are at the junior high level. The availability of a trained teacher, the availability of funds and the principals' attitude towards an art program are viewed as the key factors influencing art program adoption. Although the availability of a teacher and the funds are seen as immediate roadblocks to program adoption, the principals' attitude can be seen as an underlying problem. While the influences of teacher availability and funding in the adoption process cannot be overlooked, they can be considered symptoms of the attitude of the principal. Through open ended questions, principals pinpointed the lack of committment on the part of the school boards and the Department of Education as a major factor inhibiting program promotion. Another frequently mentioned factor was small school size. The extensive influence of the principal in such matters as setting courses and the identification of the principals' attitude as a major factor in art program adoption, leads to one conclusion. That is, principals are key administrators in the decision to adopt or not to adopt art programs. 3. The Importance of Art in the Curriculum Most principals feel that Art should be an optional course at both the junior and senior high levels. Art is viewed as less important than the academic subjects such as English, Mathematics and Science. However, it is considered to be equal in importance to the other elective areas such as Music and Home Economics. Art was also seen as equal in importance to Computer Science and only slightly less important than Social Studies. Principals' previous art training did not significantly alter these results. However, principals with art training gave Art a higher rating when comparing its importance to English, Science and Mathematics. These findings provide insight into the attitude principals have toward art education, which has been pinpointed as a major influence in program adoption. 4. Denominat iona l ly Based Dif ferences in the Findings The results of this study showed that the perception of the influence of various groups and individuals in curriculum decision making varies according to the denominational affiliation of the school. Similiarly, there are denominationally based differences in the factors which are considered influential in art program adoption. However, there are no significant inequalities in the number of art programs offered according to each denominational system. This information dispels previous speculation that Catholic schools offer fewer programs than do Integrated schools. The findings show that, in proportion to the number of schools in each system, it is the Integrated system which has fewer art programs. Comments made by principals during interviews revealed the denominational differences in program development may be a result of some influence beyond religion in the institutionalized sense. Historical and traditional differences are perpetuated by the structure of the denominational system rather than by behaviour of the denominations themselves. C. CONCLUSIONS The following is a summary of the major conclusions that can be drawn based on the findings of this study. Although these conclusions are based on data from one province, they have a degree of generalizability to a larger population for a number of reasons. While the focus of the study revolves around the adoption process, the findings can be used to help explain the present state of existing programs. Consideration of the denominational education system's effect on art program adoption has produced findings that can be generalized to most rural areas of Canada, in addition to this, the responses on the extent of influence held by the principal in art curricular decision making, are sufficiently general to apply to subjects areas other than Art. 1. The recent increase in junior high art programs can be attributed to recommendations made in the Report by the Junior High Reorganization Committee. The increase may also be a result of the fact that the junior high art curriculum does not require a specialist teacher. 2. Principals are the key actors in the decision making process of art program adoption. 3. The input of special interest groups in curriculum decision making plays a significant role in the adoption of art programs. 4. The input of home and school associations and parents has a significant influence in the curriculum decision making process within the Pentecostal and Seventh Day Adventist systems. 5. Principals in the Integrated system can be targeted as a group who need immediate attention in any incentive or inservice programs designed to increase art program adoption. 6. The lack of secondary art programs is a reflection of the importance principals place on art in the curriculum. 7. Increased experience and training in visual arts can result in a higher rating given by principals to the importance of Art in relation to other subjects. 8. Principals view the availability of a trained teacher, funds and the attitude of the principal as the three key factors influencing art program adoption. 9. Principals equate the unavailability of a trained teacher and funds with the lack of committment from the school boards and the Department of Education. However, the results of this study support the belief that the lack of these things may be related to the principals' attitude toward art education. Principals who do not consider Art to be very important may use the perceived lack of commitment from the Department of Education as an excuse for the lack of art program adoption. 10. Incentives, such as financial support and the image of the school, can be used to significantly influence the adoption of art programs programs in each of the denominational systems. 11. The structure of the denominational education system has imposed constraints on the ability of small rural schools to offer Art as a course choice. D. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 1. The Newfoundland Department of Education needs to adopt the CSEA's (Canadian Society for Education through Art) national art education policy guidelines. Developed from a study by Baxter (1987), the national policy advocates "the need to formulate provincial and regional documents which clearly state the national policy position for art education". Any such document "could be employed as a position paper when regional and local districts are facing budgetary distress and as an important checklist for curriculum committees faced with the task of constructing new instructional materials" (p. 45). 2. Advocacy efforts in Art must be directed towards creating conditions for program adoption, as well as program planning. The review of the literature has shown that to date, the predominant focus of advocacy missions is the improvement of existing art programs. If the lack of secondary art programs in Newfoundland is to be remedied, advocates need to make a concerted effort to particpate in the politics of establishing programs. Although this study deals specifically with Newfoundland, it is likely that similar conditions exist in small, rural schools elsewhere in Canada. 3. Advocacy efforts should focus attention on the principal as one of the leaders in curriculum decision and policy making. Art advocates need to shift their attention from the usual figures in the hierarchy of authority in order to focus on the school principal. In a description of a national art education policy position for Canada, Baxter (1987, p. 45) identifies the principal as one of the pivotal people in policy formulation and implementation, whose support must be secured for art programs. This study has shown that the principal, from within this structure, has extensive influence in curriculum decision making. Advocacy efforts need to address the question of the principals' underlying attitudes toward art education. According to the results of this study, the principals' attitudes appear to magnify the physical problems of the availability of funds and space. Advocates also need to focus their attention, as well as the attention of those in power, on the influence of home and school associations, parents and special interest groups, such as local art groups. Baxter (p. 45) includes the enlistment of support from these and other groups as an advocacy approach in line with the national art education policy model. 4. There is a need for the adoption of a model for advocacy which addresses the politics of art program adoption as well as the improvement of existing programs. This model would need to move beyond the usual public relations missions to more accurately address the issue of educational opportunity. A decision making model adapted by MacGregor (1985, p. 44) includes the socio-political influences which need to be considered. The findings of this study support the structure of this model which acknowledges the interplay of the operational as well as the psychological environments in the decision making process. These environments include consideration of the historical framework and attitudes, beliefs and values which are basic to the decision making process. 5. Equality of educational opportunity should be the central issue in the Department of Education's incentives directed at improving the status of art education. The Department of Education makes repeated philosophical statements which stress the importance of art education and the necessity of affording all students the opportunity to experience it. The results of the study show that despite these statements, program adoption has been miminal. Saying so does not necessarily make it so. This study has shown that principals equate incentives to adopt art programs with the provision of financial support. If educational opportunity is a goal and not merely lipservice, the government needs to show its committment. This can be done by investing more money, over a long term, in support of art programs in the schools. 6. Government recommendations for the inclusion of art in the curriculum require a model for implementation. The present status of art education necessitates a different approach in the government's dissemination of information regarding the value of art education and recent program development. The Department of Education employs the services of one full time art consultant. It is the consultant's responsibility to liaise with art coordinators at the school board level. This is done upon invitation. However, since there there are so few art coordinators working within the province, the consultant usually provides inservice programs for teachers (H. Moore , personal communication, February 15, 1988). It is reasonable to assume that any information regarding program development and the value of art education remains at the consultant - teacher level. Educational leaders with the power to effect change are never directly reached by these efforts. Lack of coordinators can be seen as a serious impediment to the successful dissemination of information: another reason why the Department of Education needs to develop a model for implementation. 7. The present structure of the denominational education system requires examination of alternatives for art program adoption. The review of the literature has shown that the structure of the denominational education system has resulted in the division of the province into areas with a large number of small schools, sometimes with a replication of services. The findings of this study pinpoint the small school as a factor inhibiting the adoption of programs. It is unlikely there will be any immediate changes in the system that may alter this situation. Therefore it is essential for advocates and curriculum leaders to search for alternatives that can facilitate an increase in the number of art programs within these schools. One such alternative is the sharing of an art teacher between schools of differing denominations. Another alternative involves schools of varying denominations sharing the same space located either within one school or within the community at large. E. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH On the basis of the findings of this study, further research is recommended in the following areas. 1. As suggested by panel members participating in a study by Baxter (1987), there is a need for research which connects relevant non-art education research to art education in Canada. In particular, the body of research dealing with rural education has specific applications to Canadian art education. DeYoung (1987, p. 123) reported that almost two thirds of all American schools are located in rural areas and "face numerous staffing, expenditure and instructional problems frequently dissimiliar to those of metropolitan" areas. 2. There is a need for the evaluation of an implementation model for art education programs which takes into consideration the interplay of economic, social, geographical and political factors which affect the status of art education. 3. There is a need for the development and evaluation of an inservice program by the Department of Education that is sensitive to the present status of art education and the factors affecting this. Such a program should be geared for implementation directly at the school level, where the principal's support is to be actively sought. 4. It is necessary to assess the effects of the structure of the denominational education system on equality of educational opportunity. At present, criticisms aimed at the system take the form of financial considerations of the replication of services rather than the effect of the system on the quality of program and curriculum development. 5. Further empirical research which connects the influence various levels of administrators have in curriculum decision making to the status of art education is essential in order to understand and effect change in this process. 6. There is an immediate need for research which develops and evaluates viable program development alternatives for small schools in rural areas that wish to adopt an art program. 7. Ethnographic research, focussing on decision making processes involved in art education, is necessary to further the understanding of the influence of various administrators in this process. VII. REFERENCES Baxter, LR. (1987). A national art education policy for Canada. Canadian Review of Art Education Research, 14, 35-47. Borsa, J.M. (1978). The status of art education: Case studies. University of Alberta: unpublished Master's thesis. Bowes, D., Chomas, J., Hall, I., Illaszewicz, C , Loder, R., Shepherd, A., & Skaalid, B. (1983). Implementing curriculum: The role of the principal. Saskatchewan Education Administrator, 15(2), 13-26. Broudy, H.S. (1978). Survey of aesthetic attitudes of key school personnel. Central midwestern regional educational lab., Inc. St. Louis, M O . , 1-81. Brubaker, D.L. & Simon, L.H. (1987). How do principals view themselves, others? NASSP Bulletin, 71, 72-78. Campbel l , A. (1979). Reaching others through the arts. Art Education, 32, 24-25. Cannon, D.C. (1984). Response to A nation at risk from executive director, National art education association. NASSP Bulletin, 68(470), 15-17. Counci l of Higher Education (1905). Syllabus and regulations for the examinations of the council of higher education, Nfld. St. John's: J.W. Withers, King's Printer. 95 Counci l of Higher Education (1915). Syllabus and regulat ions for the examinat ions of the counc i l of higher educat ion, Nf ld . St. John's: J.W. Withers, King's Printer. De Bevoise, W. (1984). Synthesis of research on the principal as instructional leader. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 14-20. DeYoung, A. (1987). The status of American rural education research: An integrated review and commentary. Review of Educat ional Research, 57(2), 123-148. Eisner, E. (1988). The principal's role in arts education. Pr inc ipa l , 67(3), 6-9. Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educat ional change. Toronto: OISE Press. Coldfarb, R. (1979). The art and politics of arts advocacy. Art Educat ion, 32, 22-23. Guthrie, J.W. (1986). School based management: The next needed education reform. Ph i Delta Kappan, 68(4), 305-309. Hatfield, T. (1979). Publicity, publications and promotion: Making the most of what we have. Art Educat ion, 32, 14-17. Hooks, R.L. (1980). Identifying and veri fying factors faci l i tat ing art educat ion in the publ ic schools of Alabama between 1965 and 1978. University of Alabama: unpublished doctoral dissertation. Houston, P.D. (1981). Stalking the school administrator: Advocating the arts. Art Educat ion, 34(5), 18-19. Joseph, B. (1975). Political action for art education. Art Educat ion, 28(3), 34-35. Keefe, J.W. (1987). The critical questions of instructional leadership. NASSP Bul le t in , 71(498), 49-56. Lipham, J. and Hoeh, J.A. (1974). The pr inc ipa lsh ip: Foundat ions and funct ions. New York: Harper and Row. MacCregor, R. (1985). Policy making and policy changing. Canadian Review of Art Educat ion Research, 12, 39-47. Mahlman, J. (1980). The real issues in art education. Pr inc ipal , 60, 21-23. McNealy, E.C. (1982). The attitude behavior re lat ionship of school pr inc ipals. Ohio State University, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Moore , H. (1986). Statistics on art education programs in Newfoundland. Newfound land Department of Educat ion, Sept., 1-4. Newfoundland Department of Education (1980). C o m i n ' to our senses: The report of the Newfound land and Labrador task force on the arts in educat ion . St. John's. Newfoundland Department of Education (1981). Course descr ip t ion: Art 1200. St. John's: Department of Education, Division of Instruction. Newfoundland Department of Education (1982). Course descr ip t ion : Art and design 3200. St. John's: Department of Education, Division of Instruction. Newfoundland Department of Education (1982). Course descr ip t ion : Art and design 2200. St. John's: Department of Education, Division of Instruction. Newfoundland Department of Education (1987). Directory. St. John's: Department of Education. Newfoundland Department of Education (1986). The report of the jun ior high reorganizat ion commi t tee. St. John's: Department of Education, Division of Instruction. Newfoundland Department of Education (1977). Visual art teaching guide. St. John's. Newfoundland Teachers' Association (1986). Explor ing new pathways: A brief presented to the Government of Newfound land and Labrador. St. John's. Ornstein, A .C . (1986). Curriculum, instruction, and supervision - Their relationship and the role of the principal. NASSP Bu l le t in , 70(489), 74-81. Rallis, S.F. & Highsmith, M.G. (1987). The myth of the "great principal". Phi Del ta Kappan, 68(4), 300-304. Rowe, F.W. (1976). Educat ion and culture in Newfound land . Toronto: McCraw Hill. Rowe, F.W. (1952). The history of educat ion in Newfound land . Toronto: The Ryerson Press. Rowe, F.W. (1964). The deve lopment of educat ion in Newfound land . Toronto: The Ryerson Press. Tanner, D. (1987). Improving the curriculum - Guidelines for principals. NASSP Bul le t in , 71(498), 30-34. VIII. APPENDIX ONE The Questionnaire 100 102 5. Please indicate the geographical region of Newfoundland in which your school is located. [ ] 1. Northern Newfoundland [] 2. Southern Newfoundland [] 3. Western Newfoundland [] 4. Eastern Newfoundland [] 5. Central Newfoundland [] 6. Labrador 6. How long have you been a principal at your present school? Number of years: . •  7. Please indicate the total number of years you have been a principal. Number of years: 8. What year were you born? 9. What is the highest academic preparation or qualification you now have? [] 1. some university or college [ ] 2. Bachelors degree or equivalent [] 3. some graduate work [ ] 4. Masters degree or equivalent [ ] 5. some doctoral work [] 6. Ph .D . /Ed .D . 10. Have you ever had any art instruction? (see item 11 for clarification of art instruction) [] 1. Yes [] 2. No 11. If you answered YES to question 10 please indicate the type of art instruction you have had. [ ] 1. private lessons [ ] 2. informal (community centre, recreation) [ ] 3. formal (extension courses) [ ] 4. formal (university) [] 5. other 12. O n the basis of your experiences in art how would you rate your knowledge of art? Very Great Very Little 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SECTION B: THE ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL 103 13. ln your opinion, to what extent do the following groups or individuals usually share in the decision making about the curriculum in your school? (This includes setting courses, planning, development, evaluation development, etc..) On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 indicates Extensive Input and 5 indicates No Input. Extensive No Input Input 1 2 3 4 5 i. students 1 [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ii. other staff members [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] iii. parents iv. special interest groups,ie.sports or arts groups v. home and school association vi. principal vii. school board superintendent viii. school board trustees ix. provincial dept. of education 14. Please describe what your level of involvement in curriculum decision making entails. 15. Are there aspects of decision making that are important in your role as principal but are not covered by the categories in question 13? If YES. please describe. SECTION C: ART P R O G R A M A D O P T I O N 104 16. Does your school offer an art program (one or more courses)? [] 1. Yes [] 2.' No 17. If YES to question 16, how long has your school offered art as a course choice? 18. If Yes to question 16, please list the course(s) offered. 19. If your school does include art in the curriculum, what are the reasons? 20. If your school is unable to include art in the curriculum, what are the reasons? 105 21. Please indicate to what extent you feel the following factors influence the decision to adopt or not to adopt an art course. On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 indicates Great Influence and 5 indicates No Influence. Great Influence 1 2 3 4 i. availability of funds ii. quality of program iii. availability of space iv. availability of trained teacher v. availability of media resources.ie. slide tapes vi. student interest vii. teacher / staff support viii. parent support ix. special interest group pressure x. home and school association interest • xi. principals attitudes toward program xii. consultants support xiii. school board interest xiv. incentives, ie. image of school 22. Out of the fourteen factors listed in question 21, choose three factors which you feel have the most influence. i i . i i i . No Influence 5 23. Please list any other factors not listed in question 21 that might influence this decision. 24. Should art at the junior high level be an option or a required course? 106 [] 1. Option [ ] 2. Required [ ] 3. Undecided 25. Should art at the senior high level be an option or a required course? [] 1. Option [ ] 2. Required [ ] 3. Undecided 26. In terms of importance in the curriculum, how do you view art in relation to the following subjects? more equally not as Art is... important important important i. English [ ] [ ] [ J ii. Sciences [ ] [ ] [ ] iii. Social Studies [ ] [ ] [ ] iv. Mathematics [ ] [ ] [ ] v. Music [ ] [ ] [ ] vi. Home Economics [ ] [ ] [ ] vii. Industrial Arts [ ] [ ] [ ] viii. Computer Science [ ] [ ] [ ] 27. In your view, what are the most important factors influencing art curriculum adoption in schools? THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE Please return to: Ann Manuel, Art Education, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, 2125 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z5 IX. APPENDIX T W O The Cover Letter: Initial Contact 107 108 Visual and Performing Arts in Education THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education, 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z5 September 5, 1987 Dear Principal: I am a Newfoundland teacher currently engaged in graduate study in art education at the University of British Columbia. My research is on the role of the principal and factors that influence the adoption of art programs in Newfoundland secondary schools. In order to make my study a success I need your help. I would appreciate it if you would complete the enclosed questionnaire which is designed to provide information on your perceptions of influences on art curriculum adoption. Please be assured that your response will be kept confidential. No individual name or names of school districts are required. Your consent to participate in this study will be indicated by the completion of this questionnaire, however, you do have the right to refuse participation by not returning the questionnaire. The questionnaire is brief and can be completed within fifteen minutes. I realize that this is a very busy time in the school year but l do hope you find the time to complete and return this by September 30, 1987. A self addressed, stamped envelope is provided for this purpose. I am most willing to share the research results with you once I have completed the study. You need only to write to the address indicated on the questionnaire and request this information. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Ann Manuel Art Education X. APPENDIX THREE The First Follow Up Letter 109 Visual and Per forming Arts in Educat ion THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education, 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z5 September 30, 1987 Dear Principal: Aproximately three weeks ago a questionnaire concerning your role in curriculum decision making was sent to your school. The questionnaire is an integral part of a study which is being conducted exclusively with secondary school principals in Newfoundland. In order to acheive any meaningful results because of the relatively small sample size, it is critical that virtually all questionnaires be returned. Due to the anonymity of the responses I have no way of knowing whether you have already returned your questionnaire. If you have, I would like to thank you for your participation. However, if you have not already mailed the completed questionnaire I would encourage you to do so. I realize that this is a busy time of the school year and emphasize that it should take approximately fifteen minutes to complete the items. Should you require another questionnaire I have enclosed one for your convenience. Thank you for your support and cooperation. Sincerely, Ann Manuel Art Education XI. APPENDIX FOUR The Second Follow Up Letter 111 112 Visual and Performing Arts in Educat ion THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Faculty of Education, 2125 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z5 November 6, 1987 Dear Principal: Aproximately seven weeks ago a questionnaire concerning your role in curriculum decision making was sent to your school. This was followed four weeks later by a second copy of the questionnaire. The arrival of this may have been delayed by the recent postal strike. Despite the delay, the study is continuing and your help is needed. I realize and appreciate the many demands you have upon your time especially so early in the school year. However, since the sample size for this project is small it is important that all questionnaires be returned. I encourage you to take the fifteen minutes needed to complete and return the form. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Best wishes for a great school year! Sincerely, Ann Manuel Art Education XII. APPENDIX FIVE School District Divisions 113 Map of Integrated School Districts 114 Map of Catholic Schoo l Districts 115 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054859/manifest

Comment

Related Items