Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An evaluation of current procedures for selecting elementary school principals in certain urban areas… Ellis, John Franklin 1961

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1961_A8 E5 E9.pdf [ 5.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106229.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106229-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106229-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106229-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106229-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106229-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106229-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106229-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106229.ris

Full Text

AN EVALUATION OP CURRENT PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN.CERTAIN URBAN AREAS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by JOHN FRANKLIN ELLIS B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1950 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF • MASTER OF' ARTS in the College of Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, MAY, 1961 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree tha t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y . a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives* It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of E d u c a t i o n  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada. . Date May , 196l 1 ABSTRACT This study sought, to compare procedures used by school d i s t r i c t s i n the s e l e c t i o n of elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . . Twenty-one c r i t e r i a deemed r e l e v a n t t o school d i s t r i c t . s e l e c t i o n procedures were developed a f t e r an extensive review of the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e . Each c r i -t e r i o n was placed i n one of four c a t e g o r i e s . These were: recruitment and ..screening; •recommendations, ratings,'.and p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blank's; paper and p e n c i l t e s t s ; and i n t e r v i e w s . . A comparison was then made'between these c r i t e r i a and the a c t u a l p r a c t i c e of s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s -i n four urban school d i s t r i c t s of B r i t i s h Columbia. . I n order to make the comparison.it was necessary to determine as completely, as p o s s i b l e the s e l e c t i o n proced-ures used.in.the d i s t r i c t s under ' i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The r e q u i r e d data was gathered by i n t e r v i e w i n g ,the school. superintendents'concerned. An .interview form was devised f o r .'this purpose and contained questions, r e q u i r i n g s hort, p r e c i s e responses, together w i t h questions r e q u i r i n g an expression of opinion or an explanation of p r a c t i c e . Two.interviews, the f i r s t q u i t e b r i e f and.the second considerably longer, were held w i t h the superintendent of each d i s t r i c t . The i n t e r v i e w e r assured the superintendents that t h e i r d e s i r e f o r anonymity would be f u l l y respected. I t was then necessary to compare.the procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s in.each d i s t r i c t as i n d i c a t e d by the data c o l l e c t e d , w i t h the c r i t e r i a a lready e s t a b l i s h e d . This comparison was f a c i l i t a t e d by d e v i s i n g an appropriate r a t i n g s c a l e . Using t h i s s c a l e . i t was p o s s i b l e t o . increase- the r e l i a b i l i t y pf the r a t i n g assigned to ; each d i s t r i c t ' s procedures i n respect of each c r i t e r i o n . Pour general conclusions were advanced on the b a s i s of the data considered and t h e . s p e c i f i c conclusions reached. F i r s t l y , procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s d i f f e r e d c o nsiderably between school d i s t r i c t s . '"Secondly, a l l s e l e c t i o n procedures examined were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a high degree of s u b j e c t i v i t y : no evidence was found of the use of o b j e c t i v e measures of the competencies of candidates other t h a n . i n . l e n g t h and type . of p r o f e s s i o n a l experience and i n academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . T h i r d l y , there seemed .to ..have been very l i t t l e attempt to define the competencies r e q u i r e d in.the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . F i n a l l y , a f t e r an i n t e n s i v e examination of the data it.was concluded t h a t . c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between s e l e c t i o n procedures i n the f o u r urban school d i s t r i c t s and c r i t e r i a developed from the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e . -•On the b a s i s of the study.and i t s conclusions, seven recommendations f o r improving school d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e i n s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s were advanced. These were as f o l l o w s : school d i s t r i c t s should attempt to define the c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t they expect in.elementary school p r i n c i p a l s ; school d i s t r i c t s should examine and., where p o s s i b l e , improve the s e l e c t i o n techniques that they now use; school d i s t r i c t s should attempt to.reduce s u b j e c t i v i t y i n e v a l u a t i n g .candidates; school- d i s t r i c t s should experiment w i t h d i f f e r e n t s e l e c t i o n procedures than they p r e s e n t l y use; school d i s t r i c t s should consider c a r e f u l l y the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n c l u d i n g an o b j e c t i v e measure i n . t h e s e l e c t i o n process school d i s t r i c t s should s c r u t i n i z e the e f f e c t s of l a y choice of p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel; school d i s t r i c t s should view s e l e c t i o n as a continuous process•rather than as a problem that a r i s e s from time - to.time. TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PAGE I . THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED . . . . . -1 The Problem - 2 Statement of the problem . . . 2 Importance of the problem 2 Statement of Hypothesis 3 D e f i n i t i o n , of Terms • 4 Elementary school ' . 4 P r i n c i p a l 4 The p r i n c i p a l as leader . 4 S e l e c t i o n procedure 4 Plan of 'the Study. . 5 . I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Comments on the Adequacy of Present Methods S e l e c t i o n -8 D e s c r i p t i o n s of E x i s t i n g S e l e c t i o n Procedures . 11 Attempts Made at Improving S e l e c t i o n 13 I I I . CRITERIA APPROPRIATE TO PROGRAMMES OF SELECTION . 16 Some Examples of Leadership S e l e c t i o n Programmes 1J Some Examples of Specific•Techniques Used as Part of a Leadership S e l e c t i o n Programme. . . 21 Recruitment and. screening 21 Recommendations, r a t i n g s , p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blanks . 25 CHAPTER PAGE Paper-arid-pencil t e s t s 29 Interviews 31 IV. METHOD OP PROCEDURE AND LIMITATIONS OP THE STUDY. 38 Method of Procedure 38 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 41 V.- THE ..COLLECTING AND PROCESSING OF DATA . . . . . . . 42 C o l l e c t i n g the Data 42 The f i r s t i n t e r v i e w 42 The second i n t e r v i e w . 43 Interview follow-up . ... ... . 44 L e t t e r of thanks 44 Processing the Data . . ...... 44 V I . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . ...... .... '47 S p e c i f i c Conclusions . ' 4 7 Recruitment and screening . . . . . . . ... ... ..- 47 Recommendations, r a t i n g s and personal-h i s t o r y blanks 56 Paper-and-pencil.tests . . . . 6 l Interviews 6.4 General Conclusions and Acceptance of Hypothesis 69 Recommendations 70 Suggestions f o r ' F u r t h e r Study . . . . . . . . .. 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY '. . 74 APPENDIX . . .. 78 L I S T OF TABLES T a b l e PAGE I . R e c r u i t m e n t and S c r e e n i n g of. A p p l i c a n t s f o r the .= E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p — - R a t i n g * . o f .-Practice*-.In Four'Urban S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s A g a i n s t ^ * <. <~ E m p i r i c a l l y D e r i v e d . C r i t e r i a .. . . , -. ,. r 49 I I . Recommendations, R a t i n g s , , - . a n d - P e r s o n a l s h i s t o r y B l a n k s o f A p p l i c a n t s for.- the«Elementary • - -P r i n c i p a l s h i p — R a t i n g ' o f P r a c t i c e i n Four • Urban. S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s - A g a i n s t * E m p i r i c a l l y •. , D e r i v e d C r i t e r i a '. ', . » . , . ••.- . -. .. - 5 8 I I I - . Paper and P e n c i l T e s t s of A p p l i c a n t s f o r . the E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l s h i p — R a t i n g of P r a c t i c e . . ... i n Four Urban S c h o o l D i s t r i c t s , A g a i n s t - . E m p i r i c a l l y D e r i v e d C r i t e r i a 62 IV. I n t e r v i e w s of Applicants-,-for t h e E l e m e n t a r y • P r i n c i p a l s h i p — R a t i n g of P r a c t i c e i n : Four .... .,- ... Urban S c h o o l • D i s t r i c t s . . , A g a i n s t , E m p i r i c a l l y . . . -D e r i v e d C r i t e r i a . . . . . . 66 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The w r i t e r i s deeply indebted to Dr. Kenneth P. Argue, Mr. Robert Heywood, Dr. Denis C •• Smith,. and Dr. Harry .L.: S t e i n for-,, t h e i r advice, encouragement and' support . so'gener-ously given during .the course.of t h i s study. Gratitude i s a l s o expressed .to those superintendents of B r i t i s h Columbia school d i s t r i c t s , without whose kind cooperation t h i s study would not have been p o s s i b l e . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OP TERMS USED Elementary school education i s an a c t i v i t y of high p r i o r i t y i n our s o c i e t y . I t i n v o l v e s i n i t s programme a l a r g e r p o r t i o n of the po p u l a t i o n than does any other segment of p u b l i c education. I t r e q u i r e s and receives a s i g n i f i c a n t share of the communal purse. A c c o r d i n g l y , s o c i e t y should expect e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e operation .of elementary schools. . The elementary school p r i n c i p a l occupies, a uniquely s t r a t e g i c p o s i t i o n i n f u l f i l l i n g such ex p e c t a t i o n s . He i s i n a pos i t i o n - to m o b i l i z e the human and m a t e r i a l resources of the school. I f the le a d e r s h i p he exe r t s i s strong and e f f e c t i v e , human and m a t e r i a l wastage i s held t o a minimum. I f h i s l e a d e r s h i p i s weak and i n e f f e c t u a l , s o c i e t y ' s i n v e s t -ment y i e l d s a poor r e t u r n . Furthermore, i f improvements i n education are to be made, i t i s the elementary school p r i n c i -p a l who must bear much of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e i r accomplishment Complementary to the p r i n c i p a l ' s r o l e , the r o l e of the classroom teacher i s of undoubted importance i n the educational E l s b r e e , W.S. and H.J. McNally, Elementary"School  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Su p e r v i s i o n , Second E d i t i o n , New York: The American Book Co., 1959, p. 59. 1 2 scheme of things f o r - i t i s l a r g e l y in the classroom that the function of the school i s accomplished. However, i t i s generally accepted that the leadership, guidance, and i n s p i r -ation of a good p r i n c i p a l can have a b e n e f i c i a l effect on the classroom a c t i v i t i e s of the teachers who work with him. Conversely, the a c t i v i t i e s of a poor p r i n c i p a l can do much to discourage, d i s t r e s s , and i n h i b i t the e f f o r t s of his s t a f f . Accordingly, only those persons of the utmost competence should be appointed as p r i n c i p a l s . 1. THE•PROBLEM Statement of the Problem. It i s the purpose of thi s study ( l ) to determine the procedures u t i l i z e d by certain school d i s t r i c t s In sele c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s ; (2) to compare such current practices with leadership selection procedures as advocated by personnel experts i n business, industry,, government,, the armed forces, and educational administration; and (3) to suggest modifications of techniques f o r selecting p r i n c i p a l s in the l i g h t of the findings of ( l ) and ( 2 ) . Importance of the problem. The present public and professional concern about education carries with i t the obvious need to re-evaluate and reappraise a l l aspects of the school system. Curricular offerings, methods of in s t r u c t i o n , q u a l i t y of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l force and school finance in turn 3 must be made subjects of c a r e f u l study. No l e s s important than these i s the q u a l i t y of the edu c a t i o n a l personnel whose f u n c t i o n i t i s to provide leader-ship w i t h i n the school. Even w i t h a cu r r i c u l u m of the highest order, the l a t e s t i n proven teaching techniques, a competent' teaching f o r c e , and s u f f i c i e n t funds, i t s t i l l remains f o r •someone t o i n i t i a t e and coordinate e f f e c t i v e group a c t i o n . The elementary school p r i n c i p a l i s such a person. The recent Chant Royal Commission on Education sug-gests the importance of the p r i n c i p a l s h i p when i t says: The Commission recommends that the greatest care be taken by school boards t o ensure that the best persons a v a i l a b l e are appointed as p r i n c i p a l s . 2 I t f o l l o w s , t h e r e f o r e , that those charged w i t h the re s -p o n s i b i l i t y f o r choosing elementary school p r i n c i p a l s should use"the best p o s s i b l e s e l e c t i o n procedures. The degrees to which t h i s i s being done i s the subject of the present study. I I . STATEMENT OP HYPOTHESIS As a b a s i s f o r study i n t h i s t h e s i s the f o l l o w i n g hypothesis i s stated:.the school d i s t r i c t s to be i n v e s t i g a t e d •are not . u t i l i z i n g procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s that are i n close agreement w i t h c r i t e r i a c u r r e n t l y recommended i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e of educational • and business a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . • Province' of B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Royal Com- mission on Education, V i c t o r i a : Queen 1s P r i n t e r , I960, p. 163. 4 III." DEFINITION OF TERMS The term Elementary School as used i n t h i s study w i l l be taken to mean any combination of grades from kindergarten to grade eight. (School units organized as junior high schools, elementary senior high schools, elementary junior high schools, and superior schools w i l l be omitted.) Principal, w i l l be defined as follows: The administrative head and professional leader.of a school d i v i s i o n or unit, such as ... (an) elementary school; a highly specialized, f u l l - t i m e administrative o f f i c e r in large public school systems, but usually carrying a teaching load In small ones; i n public education usually subordinate to a.superintendent of schools.5 The p r i n c i p a l as a_ leader, suggested by Good in the e a r l i e r quotation, i s a r e l a t i v e l y new concept and perhaps 6 needs further d e f i n i t i o n . Hicks and Jameson .suggest that h i s t o r i c a l l y the elementary school p r i n c i p a l ' s functions were conceived narrowly as being exclusively c l e r i c a l and administrative in nature. More recently, however, school o f f i c i a l s , including p r i n c i p a l s , have come, to the view that •^National Education Association, The Elementary School  P r i n c i p a l s h i p , Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the Department - of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s , Washington:. National Education Association, 1958, p. 221. 4 Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manual of the School Law and  Rules of the Council of Public Instruction, V i c t o r i a : Queen's "Printer, 1958, p. 6. 5 •' ' ^Good, Carter V., ed. ,• Dictionary of Education, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1945, p. 307. 6 Hicks, W.V., and M.C. Jameson, The Elementary School P r i n c i - p a l at Work, Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1957, p. 302. the p r o v i s i o n of l e a d e r s h i p i s probably the p r i n c i p a l ' s most 7 important f u n c t i o n . S e l e c t i o n Procedures w i l l be understood to mean the.step or steps taken by s e n i o r / e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c i a l s and school boards i n r e c r u i t i n g .candidates and choosing a person-who i s t o f u n c t i o n as p r i n c i p a l . In t h i s study, emphasis w i l l be given to the mechanics of the process, not to the v a l i d i t y of the judgements made w i t h i n . t h e process of s e l e c t i o n . • IV." PLAN OF THE STUDY "Chapter I I of t h i s study w i l l review the l i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t to the problem of s e l e c t i n g leaders i n education. Such a review, w i l l provide background h e l p f u l i n the e s t a b l i s h -ment of c r i t e r i a r e l e v a n t to procedures f o r • s e l e c t i n g elemen-t a r y school' p r i n c i p a l s . . Chapter I I I w i l l attempt to develop these c r i t e r i a . Chapter IV w i l l o u t l i n e the method of pro-cedure, and i n d i c a t e l i m i t a t i o n s of the study. Chapter V w i l l deal w i t h the c o l l e c t i o n and processing of data. . Chapter <VI w i l l present the conclusions of the study and any recommendations that may be advanced. 'Newsom, N.W., and P.P. Mickelson, "The Role of the P r i n c i p a l i n the Modern Elementary School," Elem. School -J o u r n a l , 50:21, Sept. 1949. CHAPTER II REVIEW.OP THE LITERATURE The elementary school p r i n c l p a l s h i p as i t i s known today represents a r e l a t i v e l y new administrative development. Although the p r i n c i p a l i s s t i l l a teacher,, classroom teaching does not now usually occupy a major portion of his work day. For example, although he works with children he probably spends more time conferring with and a s s i s t i n g teachers, custodians, school board o f f i c i a l s , parents, and the general p u b l i c . Therefore, although he i s a member of the teaching profession, his duties d i f f e r e n t i a t e him from a classroom teacher. In short, the duties of today 1s p r i n c i p a l d i f f e r greatly from those of his counterpart of f i f t y years ago. (The assumption i s made herein, no evidence having been found to the contrary, that the position.of the elementary school p r i n c i p a l in Canada i s e s s e n t i a l l y similar to the p a r a l l e l p o s i t i o n in the United States.) Accordingly, as with any recently developed profession, standards of job performances, vocational t r a i n i n g , and pro-fe s s i o n a l selection are constantly being revised and upgraded. A l l over North America, increasing attention i s being given to the elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p by the principals'themselves, by other groups of administrators and by professors of o Hicks and Jameson, op_. c i t . , p. 3 0 2 . 6 educational a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I l l u s t r a t i o n s of such a c t i v i t y are to be found i n the p u b l i c a t i o n s of the f o l l o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s : The B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers F e d e r a t i o n , ^ The Department of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s of the N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 0 and the Department of Elementary School P r i n -c i p a l s of the Michigan Education A s s o c i a t i o n . 1 1 Hicks and 12 Jameson and the T h i r t y - E i g h t h Yearbook of the Department of 13 Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s ^ give comprehensive l i s t i n g of a c t i v i t i e s and or g a n i z a t i o n s whose prime concern i s to increase the p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . The concern of t h i s present study, however, i s w i t h one phase of the elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p , namely; s e l e c t i o n f o r the p o s i t i o n . In t h i s regard, e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e has r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e to say. I t would appear that there has been much more a t t e n t i o n given to the performance and competence of the i n d i v i d u a l a f t e r he got the job, than to the s e l e c t i o n of the right.man i n the f i r s t p l a c e . B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers Federation, 1958 P r i n c i p a l s '  Questionnaire, Supervision P r a c t i c e s Committee, Vancouver: The Federation, 1958. 1 0N.E.A., The Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s h i p , op. c i t . , 259 PP. 1 1 M i c h i g a n Education A s s o c i a t i o n , Standards of Elementary  School P r i n c i p a l s of Michigan, Department of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s , - Lansing: The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1953, 35 PP. i p Hicks and Jameson, op_. c i t . , Chapter 14. "^N.E.A., The Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s h i p , op. c i t . , . Chapter 11. 8 The p a r t of l i t e r a t u r e r e l e v a n t to the procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s , . and school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s generally,. seems to f a l l i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s . F i r s t l y , miscellaneous comments are o f f e r e d on the adequacy of present methods of choosing the s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a n t . Secondly, s e v e r a l normative stud i e s attempt to define e x i s t i n g p r a c t i c e . T h i r d l y , c e r t a i n authors describe various attempts at improving the s e l e c t i o n process. Comments on the adequacy of present methods of s e l e c t i o n . The opinion that procedures .of s e l e c t i o n may be l e s s than ade-quate i s voiced by s e v e r a l w r i t e r s . Campbell, f o r i n s t a n c e , provides t h i s c a r i c a t u r e of how an a d m i n i s t r a t o r i s chosen.. ... he i s interviewed by one or more persons, and he i s asked to submit c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y data, l e t t e r s of recommendation from q u a l i f i e d persons, and a t r a n s c r i p t of academic c r e d i t s . I f he makes a f a i r l y good impression i n h i s i n t e r v i e w , i f he has s e l e c t e d h i s l e t t e r w r i t e r s w i s e l y , and i f h i s academic marks are not h o p e l e s s l y low, he stands a good chance of being ... employed i n the p o s i t i o n . 1 4 Weber comments more e x p l i c i t l y on the dangers a r i s i n g from loose s e l e c t i o n procedures i n education. Out of procedures of t h i s k i n d grow the e v i l s of p o l i t i c a l f a v o r i t i s m , employment through personal f r i e n d s h i p , employment of persons who w i l l "play b a l l " w i t h school a u t h o r i t i e s . Out of these p r a c t i c e s grows the n o t i o n that who a p r o s p e c t i v e teacher knows i s more important than what he knows or whether he knows how to teach c h i l d r e n ... most teachers i n schools have never heard of c a r e f u l l y p r e p a r i n g s p e c i f i c a t i o n s Campbell, Roald F. and R.T. Gregg, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e  Behaviour i n Education, New York:.Harper and Bros., 1957, p. 414. 9 f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l employees. Small wonder that.many teachers speculate whether teaching i s a p r o f e s s i o n or j u s t another branch of the open labour market.15 A f u r t h e r question as to the adequacy of s e l e c t i o n i s r a i s e d by Peatherstone when he re p o r t s t h a t : ... a m a j o r i t y of the candidates f o r p r i n c i p a l s h i p s i n Ohio c i t i e s are s e l e c t e d on the s u b j e c t i v e judgment of the superintendent, without the use of o b j e c t i v e data other than c o l l e g e c r e d e n t i a l s and without c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the opinions of other p r o f e s s i o n a l persons.lo The p o t e n t i a l . d a n g e r of v e s t i n g such power i n superin-tendents i s i n d i c a t e d by a research study r e c e n t l y completed at Stanford U n i v e r s i t y . This study suggests that there are school superintendents who have "closed minds" and make promotional d e c i s i o n s on,the b a s i s of almost instantaneous 17 snap judgements and meager impressions. A f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n that promotions may be granted on other than an adequate b a s i s i s suggested i n a study r e c e n t l y conducted f o r the Chant Royal Commission on Education i n B r i t i s h Columbia. In response to the question "What f a c t o r s other than t r a i n i n g and experience might, i n your o p i n i o n , 1 8 i n f l u e n c e promotion t o a p r i n c i p a l s h i p ? " some p r i n c i p a l s 15 ~l\Teber, Clarence A., Personnel Problems of School  A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , New York: • McGraw H i l l , 1 9 5 4 , p. 3 9 . "^Featherstone, R.L., " S e l e c t i o n .of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s i n Ohio C i t i e s , " E d u c a t i o n a l Research B u l l e t i n , 3 4 : 1 5 3 - 1 5 7 , September 1 9 5 5 , p . 156. • " ^ B r i n e r , Conrad "The Superintendent and the S e l e c t i o n of Subordinate A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , " A d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1 Notebook, V o l . V I I I , No. 6, February I 9 6 0 , p. 3.. l^O'Brien, P a t r i c k Barney, A Survey of the P o s i t i o n of  the P r i n c i p a l and Vice P r i n c i p a l i n B r i t i s h Columbia Schools, unpubl. M.A. Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 9 5 9 , item 2 3 , . chapter 4. 10 i n d i c a t e d that " i n f l u e n c e " might p l a y a p a r t . One can only guess at the numbers of candidates i n a s e l e c t i o n race who would s t a t e " i n f l u e n c e " as a-.ma j o r - c o n d i t i o n f o r being s u c c e s s f u l . 'Another w r i t e r comments on the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of adequate s e l e c t i o n p o l i c i e s and any shortage of l e a d e r s h i p t a l e n t . ... the shortage of educational leaders i s due more , to the l a c k of sound s e l e c t i o n p o l i c i e s and procedures than t o a shortage of a v a i l a b l e l e a d e r s h i p material.19 The l i t e r a t u r e suggests a l s o that p r i n c i p l e s upon which the s e l e c t i v e process i s b u i l t may be f a u l t y . Two f r e q u e n t l y used c r i t e r i a i n p a r t i c u l a r come i n f o r some c r i t i c i s m . These are: l e n g t h of teaching experience, and teaching success. The inference i s not that these are f a c t o r s unworthy of con-s i d e r a t i o n i n choosing a p r i n c i p a l , but r a t h e r that i f these are the sole or main c r i t e r i a used, they are l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y . The c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e r s i n school systems have been sev e r e l y c r i t i c i s e d f o r appointing to t h i s important p o s i t i o n ( p r i n c i p a l ) non-progressive i n d i v i d u a l s whose c h i e f q u a l i f i c a t i o n was long exper-ience i n teaching.20 9Hadley, W.J., "The S e l e c t i o n of School P r i n c i p a l s , " . American School Board J o u r n a l , V o l . GXXV, J u l y 1952, p. 25. • Jacobsen, Paul B., W.C. Reavis and J.D. Logsdon, The E f f e c t i v e School P r i n c i p a l , , Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e -H a l l , 1956, p. 10. 1 1 I t i s past time that the p r o f e s s i o n learned, that the p r i n c i p a l s h i p i s a p r o f e s s i o n i n i t s own r i g h t and. should, not he regarded as a reward f o r years of .successful teaching.21 I t would appear, then,, that the view of the p r i n c i p a l -ship as a .sinecure to be granted to a f a i t h f u l servant does not represent enlightened p r a c t i c e . That these f a c t o r s of len g t h and q u a l i t y of teaching s e r v i c e are :among the most r e a d i l y and f r e q u e n t l y considered aspects of a candidate's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , might w e l l i n d i c a t e that - e x i s t i n g selection.procedures do not provide o p p o r t u n i t i e s to evaluate other l e s s t a n g i b l e but more i m p o r t a n t . q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . D e s c r i p t i o n s of e x i s t i n g s e l e c t i o n procedures. The l i t e r a t u r e provides accounts of a.number of surveys of pro-cedures i n the s e l e c t i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel. Peatherstone, i n surveying the p r i n c i p a l s h i p i n Ohio, requested superintendents to respond to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . On the b a s i s of the r e p l i e s r e c e i v e d , he concluded that most c i t i e s had some appropriate p o l i c i e s regarding - s e l e c t i o n , some had a d e f i n i t e programme, but only four c i t i e s had a w e l l 2 2 d e f i n e d programme i n s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . He b e l i e v e d , f o l l o w i n g h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , that most appointments are made on the s u b j e c t i v e judgements of superintendents w i t h but l i t t l e regard to o b j e c t i v e data. 2 1 S h o r e s , J.H., H.J. Otto and A.A. Sandin, "Schools of Education Provide," N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l . 3 2 : 1 3 - 1 8 , May 1 9 5 3 , p. 14. 2 2 Peatherstone, op. c i t . . , p. 1 5 3 . 23 Greene ^ studied the means employed i n choosing p r i n c i -p a l s i n l a r g e c i t i e s (250,000 p o p u l a t i o n and o v e r ) . He r e p o r t s that the i n t e r v i e w i s the most widely used s i n g l e device w i t h i n the s e l e c t i o n process, hut that techniques of i n t e r v i e w i n g need to be narrowed and c l a r i f i e d to increase t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y . He a l s o r e p o r t s that -one-third of the c i t i e s have no c l e a r l y 24 d e f i n e d procedures f o r e v a l u a t i n g the t a l e n t s of a p p l i c a n t s . In short, h i s f i n d i n g s seem l a r g e l y i n agreement w i t h those of Peatherstone. 25 A t h i r d survey, ^ r e l a t i n g t o procedures f o l l o w e d i n making s e l e c t i o n among candidates f o r promotion, requested 425 urban school d i s t r i c t s t o respond to the question."What pro-cedure i s f o l l o w e d i n making s e l e c t i o n among candidates f o r promotion?" Of the 4 1 9 . d i s t r i c t s responding,. only 166 i n d i c a t e d that they had a . " d e f i n i t e p l a n . " The remaining 253 d i s t r i c t s s t a t e d that promotions were made w i t h "No standard procedure; i n f o r m a l and i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s . " I t seems p o s s i b l e , from 26 examining the t a b l e s of responses, that d e f i n i t e s e l e c t i o n 2^Greene, J.E., "How Do Large C i t i e s S e l e c t P r i n c i p a l s ? " N a t i o n a l Elementary P r i n c i p a l , .34:33-36, . May 1955. 24 -^ I b i d . , p. 3 5 . ^ A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and the .Research D i v i s i o n of the N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , A p p r a i s a l and Promotion procedures i n Urban School D i s t r i c t s  1955-56, C i r c u l a r No. 8, Washington: N a t i o n a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n , September 1956, 56 pp. 2 6 I b i d . , pp. 37-56. !3 procedures, are a f u n c t i o n of school d i s t r i c t s i z e . In 1958, the Research D i v i s i o n of the N a t i o n a l Education 27 A s s o c i a t i o n f o l l o w e d up the study j u s t r e f e r r e d t o . School d i s t r i c t s which had i n d i c a t e d d e f i n i t e p o l i c i e s .and procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel were i n v i t e d to give d e t a i l s of t h e i r programmes. B r i e f summary statements were made of the s i x t y - e i g h t r e p l i e s . However, no attempt was made to gather or code data on a uniform b a s i s . A c c o r d i n g l y, although the d e s c r i p t i o n s provided are i n t e r e s t i n g , the study y i e l d s very l i t t l e i n the way of d i s c r e t e data. Some conclusions are .obvious a f t e r examining the surveys of s e l e c t i o n methods. F i r s t , a.majority of school d i s t r i c t s apparently have no d e f i n i t e p l a n f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . Second, among those d i s t r i c t s that c l a i m to have d e f i n i t e mechanical processes f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s , , wide . v a r i a t i o n s e x i s t . T h i r d , i t i s unreasonable to presume that a l l pro-cedures,- even those described as " w e l l defined", y i e l d the same chances of an appropriate choice of candidate. That i s , some must he b e t t e r than others. Attempts made at improving s e l e c t i o n procedures. The remainder of the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e deals w i t h d e s c r i p t i o n s • 'American A s s o c i a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and the Research D i v i s i o n . o f . t h e National. Education A s s o c i a t i o n , P o l i c i e s and.Procedures i n the Se l e c t i o n • o f • P e r s o n n e l f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P o s i t i o n s , C i r c u l a r No. 6, 1958,' Washington, N.E.A., J u l . 1958, 23 pp. 14 of practice that suggest miscellaneous ways of improving the chances of successful choice. One a r t i c l e , , f o r example, des-cribes the establishment - and functioning of a selection com-mittee consisting of three teachers, four administrators and 28 2 Q a s o c i a l case worker.. Another a r t i c l e " suggests that an id e a l selection consists of two administrative l i n e o f f i c e r s , three administrative s t a f f o f f i c e r s , and three outstanding elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . S t i l l another writer suggests that a selection committee be elected from among teachers, 30 parents,, and board members. The value of the. foregoing journal a r t i c l e s i s mainly that they i l l u s t r a t e ways of deal-31 ing with Briner's^ objection that too much power i s often vested i n one person during the process of sel e c t i o n . In summary,, a review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t i n g to the selection of personnel for posts, i n educational administration leads, the reader to make the following observations: 1. A minority of school d i s t r i c t s i n the United States has d e f i n i t e procedures f o r selecting p r i n c i p a l s . 2. The wide v a r i a t i o n i n selection techniques suggests the complexity of the selection process. 0 Grover, E.C., "Teachers Help Choose a P r i n c i p a l , " School Executive, 73:50-51, August 1954. 2^Templeton, A., "Yonkers System of- Selecting Prin-c i p a l s , " School Executive, 71:61, June 1952,. ^°Read, L.F., "Appointing a P r i n c i p a l , " American School  Board Journal 139:14-15, -July 1959. .• •. . "31 ~" Briner, op. c i t . , p. 3. J • • ' 3. The i n a b i l i t y or u n w i l l i n g n e s s of a. m a j o r i t y of school-d i s t r i c t s to make s e l e c t i o n more o b j e c t i v e stands in-marked con t r a s t .to the i n c r e a s i n g use of o b j e c t i v e measures i n other e d u c a t i o n a l areas. 4'. The apparent f a i l u r e of boards to evaluate s e l e c t i o n procedures i n the l i g h t . o f the r e s u l t s they y i e l d appears anomalous. 5 . The apparent f a i l u r e of boards to adapt research f i n d i n g s i n l e a d e r s h i p s e l e c t i o n i n business,. industry,.-the armed f o r c e s , and government,, t o the educational context i s not co n s i s t e n t w i t h p r o g r e s s i v e educational management. 6. There seems to be no widespread concern w i t h the problem of s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . Improvements i n s e l e c t i o n techniques,, where suggested,, seem mainly concerned w i t h i n v o l v -i n g more people i n the job of choosing. 7. Few s p e c i f i c techniques w i t h i n the s e l e c t i o n process seem to have been the object of close s c r u t i n y i n educational c i r c l e s . CHAPTER II I CRITERIA APPROPRIATE TO PROGRAMMES OF SELECTION The problem of selecting e f f e c t i v e leaders i s not pe c u l i a r to school systems. Business, industry, the c i v i l service and the armed forces a l l have to face the problem of choosing one man to lead others. Many of these agencies invest large sums i n the search f o r leadership t a l e n t . Most of them have, a personnel department,, one of whose functions It i s to i d e n t i f y and nominate to management such individuals as exhibit p o t e n t i a l i t i e s f o r leadership desired in a . s p e c i f i c context. Smaller business firms r e t a i n the services of per-sonnel consultants to a s s i s t i n choosing management.or super-visory s t a f f . The search f o r p o t e n t i a l leaders i s conducted aggres-s i v e l y i n business and industry because i t i s recognized that '32 poor leadership can and does r e s u l t i n business f a i l u r e . Corporations besiege college placement o f f i c e s each spring, vying with one another f o r the most l i k e l y graduates. Out-standing u n i v e r s i t y seniors often f i n d themselves courted by representatives of several companies. The competition f o r talent p e r s i s t s even a f t e r the f i r s t job appointment. Inducements, f i n a n c i a l and otherwise,, are offered to.men of proven.ability in an attempt to entice them from one employer Royal Bank of Canada, "Some Uses .of Experience., " Monthly Letter, v o l . 3 8 , No. 5,"" May. 19577" P.'2. to another. This awareness of the need f o r sound l e a d e r s h i p and the w i l l i n g n e s s t o expend energy and resource to obtain i t , appears to be more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of other agencies than i t i s of schools and school boards. The expl a n a t i o n of t h i s s i t u a t i o n would seem t o l i e , not i n the assumption that l e a d e r s h i p i s l e s s important i n schools than elsewhere,•• but r a t h e r i n the f a c t t h a t other'agencies are more concerned about t h e i r .leader-ship than are the schools. Accordingly, i t might be approp-r i a t e t o review some of the programmes and techniques employed to choose non-school l e a d e r s . Some examples of l e a d e r s h i p s e l e c t i o n programmes. 33 Freeman and T a y l o r - ^ describe i n considerable d e t a i l the pro-cedures used by the German High Command to s e l e c t o f f i c e r s f o r the Nazi army. I t was f e l t .that a major cause of the G e : t , m a n defeat i n World War I was the f a i l u r e t o p i c k o f f i c e r s on more s o l i d grounds than f a m i l y background, appearance,.and p o i s e . Accordingly,.- the Germans r e d e f i n e d " o f f i c e r " as a person who could "achieve o b j e c t i v e s under s t r e s s , i n s p i r e others- to cooperative e f f o r t , and take the i n i t i a t i v e f o r a c t i o n 34 .spontaneously." -'-'Freeman, G.L., and E.K. Taylor,. How t o P i c k Leaders, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1950, pp. 168-173. I b i d . , p. 168. • 18 In order to choose such people, army psychologists attempted to bring "personality-in-action before judges f o r s c i e n t i f i c analysis and report ...."^ In a two-day t r i a l act, a board of six trained examiners appraised the performance of candidates i n situations designed to permit q u a l i t i e s of resourcefulness, energy,- s t a b i l i t y , s o c i a l adaptiveness, and i n t e l l i g e n c e to emerge. The circumstances of many of the tests were such as to s t r i p the veneer from the candidate and to expose him divested .of his Sunday manners. • Strangely enough, .- the Germans seem to have f a i l e d to appreciate f u l l y the basic concepts of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y ' i n t e s t i n g . There seems to be l i t t l e evidence of evaluation of success of the o f f i c e r s selected by the process. In ,short,'Freeman and Taylor believed that a b r i l l i a n t l y conceived, r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t way of selecting leaders achieved less than i t s f u l l p o t e n t i a l under the combined pressures exerted by inadequate validity'checks, over-emphasis on-qualitative appraisals,•and war-time emergency. Despite the shortcomings indicated, the German leadership - selection procedure seems to have influenced o f f i c e r selection •37 :38 programmes i n England^' and the United States. Although • 3 3 I b i d . , p. 169. 3°Ibid., p. 173. -37Garfor th , - F.I. de l a P., "War Office Selection Boards," Occupational Psychology, V o l . 19, 1945, PP• 96-1,08. 38]y[urray, H.A. and D. McKinnon, • "Assessment of O.S.S. Personnel," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 10, 1946, pp. 76-8O. German, B r i t i s h , and American methods i n choosing o f f i c e r s v a r i e d , c e r t a i n elements were common to a l l . F i r s t .of a l l , a team approach t o . s e l e c t i o n was u t i l i z e d , thereby decreasing the chances of one r a t e r ' s bias a f f e c t i n g the choice. Secondly, a sincere attempt was made to minimize outside i n f l u e n c e s of a personal or p o l i t i c a l nature. T h i r d l y , a l l three programmes set a broad base f o r s e l e c t i o n w i t h no one t e s t or hurdle making or breaking the candidate. F o u r t h l y , each included appropriate s i t u a t i o n a l t e s t s designed t o determine how a man would a c t u a l l y behave under given circumstances and not merely to f i n d out how he thought he would behave. F i n a l l y , each team of examiners was s p e c i a l l y t r a i n e d f o r i t s job. A United States C i v i l Service Commission p u b l i c a t i o n suggests some i n g r e d i e n t s of a programme f o r s e l e c t i n g leaders." This pamphlet, which presumably r e f l e c t s o f f i c i a l views, makes sev e r a l suggestions i n l i n e w i t h the army o f f i c e r s e l e c t i o n programmes r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r . Among the recommendations o f f e r e d are the f o l l o w i n g : s e l e c t i o n programme should contain a number of hurdles; s e l e c t i o n programmes should involve a team of s e l e c t o r s ; s i t u a t i o n a l t e s t s should be used; o b j e c t i v e measures where appropriate should be used; and s u b j e c t i v e measures, where necessary, should be improved i n respect of r e l i a b i l i t y . 3 9 ^Mandall, M.M., and S a l l y N. Greenberg, S e l e c t i n g  Supervisors, United States C i v i l Service Commission, Washington:.. Gov't. P r i n t i n g - o f f i c e , 1 9 5 6 , 5 3 PP. 20 Manson and Freeman rep o r t on a procedure f o r s e l e c t i n g ten business l e a d e r s h i p • t r a i n e e s from a f i e l d of 223 candi-40 dates. In t h i s case a l s o , an attempt was made to Increase o b j e c t i v i t y and reduce s u b j e c t i v i t y of judgement. The candi-date passed through a s e r i e s of s e l e c t i o n devices which were designed to e l i m i n a t e the u n f i t and r e t a i n the f i t . The f i n a l choice of the ten s u c c e s s f u l candidates was made from a reduced f i e l d of t w e n t y - f i v e . The programme as o u t l i n e d by the authors s t r e s s e d the f o l l o w i n g : the use of m u l t i p l e hurdles, c o n s i s t e n t treatment f o r a l l candidates, o b j e c t i v e judgement,-and the team approach to s e l e c t i o n . Although the foregoing references represent only a small p o r t i o n of the a v a i l a b l e l i t e r a t u r e , they seem to i n d i c a t e some important emphases that d i f f e r from p a r a l l e l educational w r i t i n g s . 1. The programme of s e l e c t i o n should c o n s i s t of severa l devices. 2 . I t should be as o b j e c t i v e as p o s s i b l e . 3 . Subjective evaluations should be a p p l i e d u n i -formly to a l l candidates. 4. The r e l i a b i l i t y of s u b j e c t i v e r a t i n g s should be improved. ^Manson, - G.E. and G.L. Freeman, "A Technique f o r Ev a l u a t i n g Assembled Evidence - of P o t e n t i a l Leadership A b i l i t y , " E d ucational and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, V o l . 4 , 1944, pp.21-33. 21 Some examples o f s p e c i f i c - t e c h n i q u e s used as p a r t o f a_ l e a d e r s h i p s e l e c t i o n programme. The purpose o f the p r e c e d i n g . s e c t i o n was t o c o n s i d e r a number of s e l e c t i o n programmes i n t h e i r ' t o t a l f o rm. The purpose now i s t o c o n s i d e r • v a r i o u s elements or t e c h n i q u e s w i t h i n a t o t a l programme wh i c h might form h u r d l e s a p p r o p r i a t e t o the t a s k of c h o o s i n g e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s . 1. R e c r u i t m e n t and S c r e e n i n g . "No m a t t e r how c a r e f u l l y the course i s p l a n n e d , a r a c e can do no more than p i c k t h e b e s t r u n n e r on the t r a c k . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t would seem o n l y common sense t o a t t r a c t as l a r g e and as a b l e a s t a r t i n g f i e l d o f c a n d i d a t e s as i s p o s s i b l e . What then a re some of the p r i n c i p l e s t h a t can be a p p l i e d t o g i v e r e a s o n a b l e a s s u r a n c e of q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of a p p l i c a n t ? An o b v i o u s source of c a n d i d a t e s f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p i s t he p e r s o n n e l of s c h o o l d i s t r i c t c o ncerned. I t appears t h a t p r o m o t i o n w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y 42 common. One s t u d y , f o r example, r e p o r t e d t h a t s e v e n t y -f i v e p e r cent o f s c h o o l systems i n c i t i e s .over 3 0 , 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n g i v e p r e f e r e n c e t o l o c a l p e r s o n n e l and o n l y one i • 43 d i s t r i c t out of t h e 425 r e p o r t i n g , f a v o u r e d o u t s i d e r s . 41 Freeman and T a y l o r , op. c i t . , p. 75. 42 H a r r i s , C h e s t e r , Ed., E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l  R e s e a r c h , T h i r d E d i t i o n , New York: The M a c M i l l a n Co., I960, P. 423. 43"if You're I n t e r e s t e d i n S e l e c t i o n P o l i c i e s , " N a t i o n a l E l e m e n t a r y P r i n c i p a l , A p r i l 1959, P. 55. 22 However, i t would seem unwise to state an i n f l e x i b l e rule that promotions be only from within a school system. If the job opportunity attracts s u f f i c i e n t competent l o c a l applicants who have had a chance to prepare themselves for the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , then such a p o l i c y might be invoked. Nevertheless, i t would seem unwise to close the door 44 irrevocably on an outside applicant of exceptional merit. A commonsense view of t h i s problem Is stated by Hadley when he says: While the p r i n c i p a l s h i p should not be considered a reward for members of the l o c a l school system, neither should they be denied the right of receiving such promotion.^5 In order to ensure that selection can be made from among a number of candidates, i t would seem reasonable that the l o c a l school board inform i t s s t a f f of the impending appointment. Such n o t i f i c a t i o n might take the form of a superintendent's b u l l e t i n , provided that a l l s t a f f members have ready access to such communications. In addition, l i k e l y candidates who for some reason might be reticent i n applying should be encouraged by p r i n c i p a l s and other l i n e o f f i c e r s to make applicat i o n . If few applications are forthcoming from l o c a l sources or i f the quality of the applicants i s less than hoped for, Michelson, Peter P., and K.H. Hansen, Elementary  School Administration, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956, p. 305. Hadley, op_. c i t . , p. 25. 23 the school board should e n e r g e t i c a l l y s o l i c i t more candidates by means of newspaper or j o u r n a l advertisements and other e t h i c a l procedures. In t h i s regard, school boards should not overlook teachers who are undertaking advanced t r a i n i n g at c o l l e g e s of education. An i n t e g r a l p a r t of recruitment i s the p u b l i c l y expressed statement of job s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . A screen to e l i m i n a t e the obviously u n f i t serves two purposes. F i r s t , i t saves adminis-t r a t i v e time i n d e a l i n g w i t h i l l - e q u i p p e d a p p l i c a n t s . Second, i t tends to encourage q u a l i f i e d I n d i v i d u a l s who might not apply i f standards f o r the p o s i t i o n seemed unimportant.. Care should be taken, however, to see that the i n i t i a l screening does not become a r t i f i c i a l simply to hold down the number of a p p l i c a n t s . I t would be unwise, f o r instance, to s p e c i f y that a candidate should be a graduate of a s p e c i f i c u n i v e r s i t y when a u n i v e r s i t y degree i s the q u a l i f i -c a t i o n sought. S i m i l a r l y , lengthy teaching experience might be considered an a r t i f i c i a l screening device because, as Campbell p o i n t s out, there i s some v i r t u e i n i d e n t i f y i n g 46 candidates i n t h e i r f i r s t f i v e or ten years of teaching. Examples of r e a l i s t i c screening would be the f o l l o w -i n g : a t t a i n i n g a s p e c i f i e d l e v e l of academic attainment, h o l d i n g a current c r e d e n t i a l f o r the elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p , Campbell, Roald F., "Research and the s e l e c t i o n and pr e p a r a t i o n of School A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , " E d u c a t i o n a l Research  B u l l e t i n , XXXV, Feb. 1956, p. 33. 24 gaining a spec i f i e d minimum of teaching experience, completing a sequence of job-training experiences. Prom the foregoing discussion of the twin problems of r e c r u i t i n g and. screening, certain p r i n c i p l e s emerge which can be used as a background against which to evaluate t h i s aspect of the selection programme i n any school d i s t r i c t . These are now stated i n summary form. 1. Several competent candidates should be considered for each p o s i t i o n . Selection r a t i o should be 47 approximately ten to one. 2. Local candidates should be given preference,if a l l factors are equal or nearly so. 3. Local d i s t r i c t s should assume i n i t i a t i v e i n establishing p r e - p r i n c i p a l t r a i n i n g to provide a reservoir of leadership ta l e n t . 4. A l l interested and q u a l i f i e d personnel should have an opportunity to apply. 5. If outside applicants are sought, attempts should be made to advertise widely and vigorously. 6. An i n i t i a l screening should be provided to eliminate those deemed to be u n f i t . 7. The screening device' should not contain a r t i f i c i a l p rescriptions whose sole purpose i s to keep down the number of applicants. ^ T a y l o r , H.C., and J . J . Russell, "The Relationship of V a l i d i t y Coefficients to Selection," Journal of Applied  Psychology, V o l . 23, 1959, p. 565. 2 . Recommendations, ratings, and personal-history  blanks. A selection programme generally gives an opportunity for considering the opinions of other people r e l a t i v e to the candidate's competencies as well as for considering each applicant's submission of personal data. Devices commonly used are l e t t e r s of recommendation, ratings by superiors, and the candidate's personal-history blank. Several perti n -ent observations can be made concerning each of these. a) Letters of recommendation.• There seems to be l i t t l e evidence of the value of these as a means of selec t i o n . One study, for instance, points out that i n 258 l e t t e r s of recommendation examined, there was no rela t i o n s h i p between statements made and other available, objective evidence. There would seem to be some obvious explanations of the situation just mentioned. F i r s t l y , writers of such l e t t e r s f i n d i t easier to write a favourable rather than an unfavourable l e t t e r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f the candidate has access to i t . Secondly, the point of view of the various persons giving opinions may not be consistently relevant. To i l l u s t r a t e , the perspective of the bank manager i s quite d i f f e r e n t from that .of the clergyman. Accordingly, ; i f Campbell and Gregg,. op. c i t . , p. 4 1 5 . (See also Morrisett, Lloyd N.,,Letters of Recommendation, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1 9 3 5 , 205 PP.) 26 outside recommendations are to be sought, s e v e r a l cautions should be observed i n order to improve t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y . F i r s t l y , correspondence between the w r i t e r and the employer should be d i r e c t and c o n f i d e n t i a l . Secondly, an attempt should be made to standardize responses by using a r a t i n g s c a l e . An e x c e l l e n t i l l u s t r a t i o n of such a scale i s provided by 49 Freeman. ^ F i n a l l y , i f recommendations are going to be used at a l l , they should be t r e a t e d w i t h considerable c a u t i o n . "There i s some l o g i c i n assuming that only the negative statement has any s i g n i f i c a n c e . " - ^ Whether g r a t u i t o u s l y o f f e r e d or r e l u c t a n t l y obtained, l e t t e r s of recommendation.usually share the common human f r a i l t y to give a guy. a break, e s p e c i a l l y when i t does you no harm.51 b) Ratings by s u p e r i o r s . School boards commonly r e q u i r e the submission of recent superintendent's and p r i n c i p a l ' s r e p o r t s as a means of o b t a i n i n g an informed e v a l u a t i o n of a candidate. Such r a t i n g s are open to many of the same objections mentioned i n the preceding s e c t i o n . They often f a i l to r e f l e c t a con-s i s t e n t p o i n t of view among r a t e r s . Furthermore, the r a t i n g s provided are f r e q u e n t l y r e l e v a n t only to the candidate's classroom performance and not to.aspects of h i s a c t i v i t i e s that ^Freeman and Taylor, op_. c i t . , pp. 128-130. -^Campbell and Gregg, op_. c i t . , p. 415. ^ Freeman and Taylor, op_. c i t . , p.126. 27 might have more pertinence to his leadership a b i l i t y as a p r i n c i p a l . Accordingly, i t would seem appropriate to suggest that ratings from the candidate's superiors should be as object-ive and applicable as possible. This might be achieved by using a rating form so designed as to have relevance to the competencies desired i n an elementary school p r i n c i p a l . Cer-t a i n l y , informal, word-of-mouth evaluations should be given l i t t l e consideration as should the opinions,.either•oral or written, of raters whose past opinions have shown l i t t l e evidence of discrimination. c). Personal-history blanks. Most job applicants are required to f i l l out a form which i s designed to gather together much of the routine data the employer thinks i s neces-sary. Pew of these blanks, however, have been designed with any thought of using them as predictive instruments. Rather, t h e i r originators look upon them as containers to hold a great many odds and ends of information that the applicant can provide. L i t t l e thought seems to be given to making personal history blanks genuinely useful or manageable. An example of a well designed, properly balanced personal history blank i s the one devised by the L i f e Insurance Agency Management Association in the United States. This form was developed with the support and cooperation of seventy member agencies, i s in i t s tenth r e v i s i o n and has a v a l i d i t y c o e f f i c i e n t 2 8 52 of +0.40. I t contains only nine items but these are items which have the highest r e l a t i o n s h i p to success i n s e l l i n g l i f e insurance. The emphasis has been i n p r o v i d i n g an instrument that possesses some p r e d i c t i v e value r a t h e r than.one that gathers information with no p a r t i c u l a r p l a n i n mind. Perhaps school boards should s c r u t i n i z e t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n forms w i t h a view to i n c r e a s i n g t h e i r u s e f u l n e s s . I r r e l e v a n t items should be discarded and. others which might have p r e d i c t i v e •53 value should be added. Prom the foregoing d i s c u s s i o n of recommendations, r a t i n g s , and a p p l i c a t i o n forms, some u s e f u l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s that can be used to evaluate appropriate aspects of s e l e c t i o n programmes i n school systems emerge. These are: -'1. L e t t e r s of recommendation are' o f - l i t t l e value except as p o s s i b l e negative s e l e c t o r s . 2. Recommendations, i f used, should be sought by the employer d i r e c t l y and held i n s t r i c t confidence by him. 3. Ratings and/or recommendations should be submitted on standard forms. 4. Information supplied should be considered i n terms of the q u a l i t y ' o f i t s source. 5 2 I b i d . , pp. 1 2 1 - 2 . -^Morphet, E.L. and R.L. Johns and P.L. R e l l e r , E d ucational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : Concepts, P r a c t i c e s and Issues, Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1 9 5 9 , P- 8 3 . "~ 5..Several ratings and/or recommendations are probably preferable to one or two. 6. The personal-history blank should be regarded as a selection instrument. 3.. Paper-and-pencil t e s t s . Various kinds of written tests, standardized and otherwise, are employed in selecting 54 school administrators in the United States. In a thoughtful review of current practice i n t h i s regard, Campbell concludes that the v a l i d i t y a n d . r e l i a b i l i t y of such tests i s somewhat•less than spectacular.-^ Many.of them can be "thrown" i n the desired d i r e c t i o n . S t i l l others have doubtful relevance for the job s i t u a t i o n under consideration. - Accordingly, i t would seem wise, at t h i s time, to regard paper and p e n c i l tests more as a means of • "rejecting those who may not reasonably be expected to succeed than i n predicting the degree of success . i f the applicant 56 passes the minimum requirements...."^ Despite the foregoing,- a case might be made for including some appropriate standardized tests within the selection 57 process. Graff and Kimbrough^' report that the M i l l e r -^Featherstone, op_. c i t . , p. 154. 5 5Campbell and Graff, op_. c i t . , pp. 4o8-4l4. 56 ^ Cleeton, Glen U., and Charles ¥. Mason, Executive  A b i l i t y , Its Discovery and Development, Yellow Springs: Antioch Press, 194b, p. 199. 5?Graff, Orin B. and Ralph B. Kimbrough, "What We Have Learned About Selection," Phi Delta Kappan, Vo l . 37, Apr. 1956, pp. 294-6. Analogies and the Watson-Glasser C r i t i c a l Thinking Appraisal can d i f f e r e n t i a t e between high and low groups of students i n terms of behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s considered to d i s t i n g u i s h •between .effective and i n e f f e c t i v e administrative behaviour. The use of these or other i n t e l l i g e n c e tests would seem to be j u s t i f i e d on .the basis that: It i s d i f f i c u l t to conceive of inspired leadership coming from an administrator who i s unable'to keep pace with his f a c u l t y in.problem solving, conceptual s k i l l s , and c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g . 5 ° S i m i l a r l y , the candidate's l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l , both oral and 59 written,.might be evaluated in some standardized fashion. The inc l u s i o n of a few such devices might help to convince the s t a f f that the board's procedure in selecting elementary school p r i n c i p a l s was reasonably objective. The following generalizations could be used to a s s i s t i n evaluating • school d i s t r i c t practice i n using paper-arid-pencil tests f o r selecting p r i n c i p a l s . . 1. Written tests should be considered as negative selectors and should have a f a i r l y low cut-off score. 2 . Tests used should be appropriate to the job function of the p r i n c i p a l . 5 Campbell and Gregg, op_. c i t . , p. 411. "^Horton, B . J r . , "Study of the Problems of Beginning P r i n c i p a l s as a Basis for.Improvement of the Program fo r the "Education of P r i n c i p a l s at ..".Appalachian State Teachers College," Education Administration and Supervision, V o l . 4 4 , Sep. ' 5 8 , p. 2 6 9 . '. 31 3. Test r e s u l t s • that might have been . thrown .in a desired, d i r e c t i o n . s h o u l d be c a r e f u l l y s c r u t i n i z e d . 4. Interviews. "The o r a l i n t e r v i e w . i s probably the most wid e l y used s e l e c t i o n device i n the world. The i n d i -v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w i n which the employer 'or h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s meet and appraise the candidate i s so much a pa r t of 'employment p r a c t i c e as t o be accepted as an i n t e g r a l part, of selection".- -Despite i t s widespread use, however, the v a l i d i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w . i s not un i f o r m l y h i g h . ^ 1 A f t e r f i n d i n g a n e g l i g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n t e r v i e w . r a t i n g s and subsequent success, The Harvard School of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n aban-- 6 2 doned the i n t e r v i e w as a means of s e l e c t i n g a p p l i c a n t s . S i m i l a r l y , Bingham and Moore produce s t a r t l i n g evidence of the u n r e l i a b i l i t y of the i n t e r v i e w i n . s e l e c t i n g salesmen under a given set of c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ^ Then, too, the continued b e l i e f of many people that f a c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are r e l a t e d to character and p e r s o n a l i t y gives a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n of why in t e r v i e w s are su b j e c t . t o e r r o r . ^°Mandall and Greenberg, op_. c i t . , p. 17. 6 1 , . , Loc. c i t . 62 Campbell and Gregg, op_. c i t . , p. 416. -^Bingham, Walter Van Dyke and Bruce V. Moore, How.to Interview, New York: Harper and Bros.,. 1941, p. 101. 32 Interviews are j u s t i f i e d only when designed to e l i c i t and appraise p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o le a d e r s h i p success. The i n t e r v i e w that wanders a i m l e s s l y w h i l e a personal preference i s being formed has no place i n a sound program of l e a d e r s h i p s e l e c t i o n . 6 4 The o r a l i n t e r v i e w i s apparently a wid e l y used procedure 65 f o r s e l e c t i n g school p r i n c i p a l s . ^  In the l i g h t of the precedin paragraphs i t would seem u s e f u l t o attempt t o narrow.the margin of e r r o r which can b e d e v i l the use of t h i s technique. How can the i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w , as a means of s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i -p a l s , be improved? In the f i r s t p l a c e , the i n t e r v i e w should'have c l a r i t y of purpose. Greene's i n v e s t i g a t i o n s l e d him to suggest that many in t e r v i e w s conducted by school a u t h o r i t i e s l a c k s p e c i f i c i t y and . d i r e c t i o n . ^ .He a l s o r e p o r t s that fewer than h a l f of the d i s t r i c t s he queried made a job a n a l y s i s the b a s i s of se l e c -67 t i o n . • ' Such f a i l i n g s i n d i c a t e that i n t e r v i e w e r s do not r e a l i z e t h a t s k i l f u l i n t e r v i e w i n g can d i s c l o s e i n f o r m a t i o n about the candidate's a t t i t u d e s , f e e l i n g s and customary b e h a v i o u r ^ ; and f u r t h e r , that they have not made a c a r e f u l 64 Taylor and Freeman, op_. c i t . , p. 150. 6 5 p o l i c i e s and Procedures in . t h e S e l e c t i o n of Personnel  f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P o s i t i o n s , op. c i t . , p. 3 . * * 66oreen, op. c i t . , p. 34. 6 7 i b i d . , p. 33 . ^Bingham and Moore, op_. c i t . , p. 248. 33 job- study t o determine e x a c t l y what a t t i t u d e s , f e e l i n g s , and behaviours they are l o o k i n g f o r . I t would seem to f o l l o w that •interviewers should r e a l i z e what kinds of data the i n t e r v i e w can provide, and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , what, kinds of data they must obtai n i n order to make a wise choice from among the candidates. I t should be pointed out i n passing t h a t job s p e c i f i -c a t i o n s and expectations w i l l d i f f e r somewhat from school d i s t r i c t to school d i s t r i c t . Nevertheless, although there may be some v a r i a t i o n s i n l e a d e r s h i p q u a l i t i e s deemed d e s i r a b l e by d i f f e r e n t school boards, a l l w i l l be searching f o r ' p r i n c i p a l s w i t h 6 9 t e c h n i c a l , human and conceptual s k i l l s . ^ I t i s t o the problem of uncovering p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to these s k i l l s t h at the i n t e r v i e w e r must address h i m s e l f . Secondly, the i n t e r v i e w should have a s t r u c t u r e or p l a n . I f the i n t e r v i e w . p u r p o r t s t o assess p e r s o n a l i t y , i t should be. so designed as t o allow p e r t i n e n t v e r b a l or 'behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the candidate to emerge. Whitaker sug-gests t h a t a l i s t of c a r e f u l l y designed questions can be used to do t h i s . He proceeds to give examples of p o t e n t i a l l y u s e f u l questions. " I f you were- o f f e r e d the .position of p r i n -c i p a l , how would you prepare y o u r s e l f In the next three months? How would, you-handle a parent's s e r i o u s c r i t i c i s m of 6 9 A n d r e w s , J.H.M. e d i t . , Chap. 10, R.F. Campbell, " S e l e c t i o n and P r e p a r a t i o n of School P r i n c i p a l s , " The A l b e r t a  School P r i n c i p a l 1959, Edmonton::Leadership Course f o r School P r i n c i p a l s , F a c u l t y of Ed., U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , 1959, p. 142. 34 a. teacher, when you..know the c r i t i c i s m i s j u s t i f i e d ? " ^ A t h i r d suggestion for improving the oral interview as a selection device would be. to make i t uniform for a l l candidates. Greene's investigation indicates that only 39$ 71 of the school systems he surveyed attempted t h i s . Although research on the question of interview uniformity i s limited, i t would seem reasonable to say that interview evaluations made on a.common basis would be more r e l i a b l e than ratings made from situations with no .elements i n common. In .this regard, a well-designed evaluation form could conceivably increase the r e l i a b i l i t y of the interview by providing a com-mon focus for the interviewers. An interview s u f f i c i e n t l y structured-to give an opportunity for comparative.judgement and s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e to allow for the uniqueness of each candidate would seem to provide a desirable synthesis. A fourth aspect of interviewing that should be sc r u t i n i z e d i s the competency of the interviewer. (The Interviewer) has his prejudices, his personal l i k e s and d i s l i k e s , his pride of opinion, his fondness, perhaps, for a hypothesis he would l i k e to prove. Dur-ing the interview.he may grow impatient or'take offense. Most d i f f i c u l t to overcome i s his natural tendency to hear and record whatever harmonizes with his own expectations, while f a i l i n g to notice counter-indications and exceptions . 7 2 ' 7 0 w h i t a k e r , W.E., "How the Committee Chose a New P r i n c i p a l , " School Executive, 73:78-81, Mar. 1954, p. 80 . 7 1 ( "Bingham and Moore, ,op_. c i t . , p. 251 "Greene, op_. c i t y , p. 34. 72, .35 Greene reports that only f i f t y per cent of interviewers i n his 73 sample had received s p e c i f l c • t r a i n i n g ;in interviewing. As a consequence,, i t . . i s probable that many of them f a i l e d to recognize the selection interview.as e s s e n t i a l l y - a test of personality. S t i l l others would f a i l to d i s t i n g u i s h between a man's stated intentions and his ultimate actions. On the basis of the foregoing i t seems f a i r to suggest that i n t e r -viewers who are not widely s k i l l e d i n educational personnel matters should receive some assistance i n improving :their a b i l i t y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n .a .selection interview. A f i n a l question should be considered. How.many people should interview the candidate? B r i n e r ( s e e footnote 17).adduces evidence to substantiate his claim that superin-tendents frequently appoint subordinates- on the basis of meager impressions and f a u l t y stereotypes. Featherstone (see footnote 16) deplores the tendency for many superinten-dents to appoint p r i n c i p a l s on the basis of their.own subjective judgements and without considering the opinions of other competent people. The p o s s i b i l i t y of f a u l t y selection could well be lessened by using the pooled opinions of a committee of interviewers. The " i d e a l " committee has been e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y described in.various places in l i t e r a t u r e . Fragmentary experience and lack of data are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the recommendations offered by the writers i n the f i e l d . ^Greene, op_. c i t . , p. 34. 1 Nevertheless, certain tentative proposal can be offered as to the size, composition, and function of such a committee. F i r s t , i t should not be unwieldy i n s i z e : probably f i v e members i s the maximum required. Secondly, because of the multidimensional nature of the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , committee members .should be representative of d i f f e r e n t viewpoints within the educational scene. Thirdly, the members should .know what they are looking f o r and how to f i n d i t . F i n a l l y , members should be able to state opinions f r e e l y despite the obvious and ultimate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the superintendent and school board. The following general statements derived from the foregoing discussion .can be used to evaluate selection i n t e r -views used i n school d i s t r i c t s . 1..The main purpose of the interview should be to uncover personality variables associated with success i n .the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . 2. The interview should have a structure, possibly involving prepared question. Planning should be f l e x i b l e enough to allow pursuit of p r o f i t a b l e l i n e s of inquiry. 3. Form and content of interview should be similar f o r candidates being considered. 4. Interviewers should understand interviewing and education. 5. A panel of interviewers should be used. In the preceding s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter, f o u r aspects of s e l e c t i o n procedures have been considered. These are: recruitment and screeningj recommendations, r a t i n g s , and p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blanks; w r i t t e n t e s t s ; and i n t e r v i e w s . I t . i s not suggested that these are the only devices t h a t can be used f o r choosing p r i n c i p a l s . However, an examination of the l i t e r a t u r e suggested that they were the most frequently.used 74 s e l e c t i o n procedures. ' P o l i c i e s and Procedures i n the S e l e c t i o n of Personnel f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P o s i t i o n s , . op_. c i t . , pp. 1-21. CHAPTER IV METHOD .OP PROCEDURE AND.LIMITATIONS.OP THE.STUDY I . METHOD OP PROCEDURE Ev a l u a t i o n of • human.institutions i s always a complex process p a r t l y because of wide v a r i a t i o n s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . In a d d i t i o n , e x t e r n a l pressures a f f e c t the i n t e r n a l f u n c t i o n i n g of a group and pressures from w i t h i n , modify the processes of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . Furthermore, complicated i n t e r -personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s exert a st r o n g . i n f l u e n c e on .group prog-r e s s . A c c o r d i n g l y , one could say w i t h some c e r t a i n t y , that the f u n c t i o n i n g of a school board would be d i f f i c u l t to analyse and evaluate. There are two obvious methods.of i n v e s t i g a t i n g a school d i s t r i c t : s procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . One would be to ask a great.many school superintendents how they choose p r i n c i p a l s . Do they a d v e r t i s e ? Do they appoint;from w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t ? Do they i n t e r v i e w a l l a p p l i c a n t s ? and so.on. Such an , i n v e s t i g a t i o n would i n d i c a t e a broad average of p r a c t i c e . School d i s t r i c t s could then be cat e g o r i z e d b y . s i z e or type, and procedures w i t h i n c a t e g o r i e s could be coded and analyzed. A second method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n would be t o consider more thoroughly the procedures used i n a smaller number of 38 39 d i s t r i c t s . A-study, r e l a t i v e l y , g r e a t e r • i n depth, might y i e l d insights that the shallower one could not. This second method of investigation i n depth was chosen. It was decided to evaluate procedures f o r selecting elementary school p r i n c i p a l s i n four urban areas in B r i t i s h Columbia. Such a sample Was considered desirable because i t was r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous. Each school d i s t r i c t was urban •or e s s e n t i a l l y so. Each was large enough to have a sizable teaching s t a f f from which to draw applicants for promotion. Each:had i t s own superintendent who held r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for only the one d i s t r i c t . Each had a majority of schools In excess of four rooms. This factor avoided the problem<of the "head-teacher" type of p r i n c i p a l mentioned e a r l i e r . As a means of gathering data i n t h i s situation,•the 7 5 interview.had certain advantages over a...questionnaire. ^ In the f i r s t place, some required data was confidential i n nature. The respondent would not. l i k e l y advance such information without personal assurances as to the manner in which i t .would be used. Secondly, the interview provided an .opportunity to follow.leads and clues provided by the interviewee. This was deemed useful i n investigating a problem of some complexity. Thirdly, the interviewer was '-^ Good, Carter jV., and-Douglas E. Scates, Methods . of  Research, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954, p. 637. 4o able to provide additional information about ,a question-that did.not exactly f i t the context being investigated. In short, the interview.provided an opportunity,to explore the differences as .well as to compare the s i m i l a r i t i e s of procedures i n . school d i s t r i c t s . Accordingly, an interview form was prepared. Care was .taken.to ,devise questions that would bear upon the c r i t e r i a developed i n Chapter I I I . (See Appendices C and D.) The p r i n c i p l e s enunciated by Good and Scates' were thoroughly considered. Questions requiring;short, precise responses were used along with questions requiring an expression of opinion or an explanation of p r a c t i c e . The form of the interview was then examined by three members of the Faculty and College of Education. Following-t h i s examination,. i t was administered to .three junior adminis-tr a t o r s from the d i s t r i c t s under - consideration. Several weaknesses were i d e n t i f i e d and corrected. F i n a l l y , the revised interview form (Appendix B)was administered to four superintendents of school d i s t r i c t s . Assurances of anonymity were given and for t h i s reason the school d i s t r i c t s are not s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d herein. Questions were answered with*candour and opinions were expressed with frankness. Such a reception added consider-ably to the insights derived from the interviews. 76ibid., Chapter 6 ctd. "Questionnaire Inquiries and Interviews," pp. 604-645. 41 I I . LIMITATIONS OP THE STUDY The s i z e and type of sample used i n t h i s study cast some doubt on the v a l i d i t y of wider a p p l i c a t i o n of the recommendations o f f e r e d i n Chapter VI. This l i m i t a t i o n i s f u l l y acknowledged and admitted. Nevertheless, the method of the study and the f i n d i n g s provide, at l e a s t a u s e f u l s t a r t i n g place f o r e v a l u a t i n g s e l e c t i o n procedures i n other school d i s t r i c t s . Only i n instances of reasonable c e r t a i n t y has the v a l i d i t y of s e l e c t i o n been questioned. No l i s t i n g of f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r s h i p success appears h e r e i n . Rather, the c h i e f concern has been to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of the s e l e c t i o n process. In other words, a f t e r a board had decided what i t meant by the "best" candidate, t h i s study sought to determine h i s chances of being s e l e c t e d . CHAPTER V THE COLLECTING AND PROCESSING OP DATA I. COLLECTING THE DATA As was mentioned i n the previous chapter, data f o r t h i s study were c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g the superintendents of the school d i s t r i c t s being considered. Two i n t e r v i e w s were he l d w i t h each superintendent. The f i r s t i n t e r v i e w was approximately t h i r t y minutes long. During t h i s time, the i n t e r v i e w e r sought t o achieve f o u r o b j e c t i v e s . F i r s t l y , he explained the nature and s i g n i -f i c a n c e of the p r o j e c t . Secondly, he s t a t e d that anonymity of response, i f d e s i r e d , would be f u l l y respected. T h i r d l y , he asked i f the superintendent would be prepared t o discus s f r a n k l y , the s e l e c t i o n procedures i n h i s d i s t r i c t . F i n a l l y , he discussed w i t h the superintendent the general nature of the school d i s t r i c t ' s method of s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . The four o b j e c t i v e s of the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w were f u l l y achieved i n each i n s t a n c e . A l l superintendents evinced i n t e r e s t i n the p r o j e c t . A l l seemed to appreciate the assur-ances of anonymity that were given: indeed, some i m p l i e d that without such assurances they would have t o be l e s s than f r a n k i n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s . A l l i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s to cooperate f u l l y w i t h the i n v e s t i g a t o r and a c c o r d i n g l y made 42 43 arrangements f o r the subsequent i n t e r v i e w . A l l superintendents provided some general background to the problem of s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s i n t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s and•thus enabled the i n t e r v i e w e r ' t o prepare f o r the subsequent i n t e r v i e w . The second i n t e r v i e w was considerably longer than the f i r s t . I t v a r i e d i n l e n g t h from one and one-quarter•hours to two and one-half hours, depending on the superintendent. During ;this time,, the i n t e r v i e w - q u e s t i o n n a i r e form (Appendix B) was completed. In .addition, cues provided by the superintendent were f u l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d . These two means, together w i t h the p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w provided a reasonably complete p i c t u r e of s e l e c t i o n procedures w i t h i n each school d i s t r i c t . The w r i t e r suggests that the data c o l l e c t e d be given considerable credence f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t l y , a l l superintendents recognized the problem of s e l e c t i o n as a s i g n i f i c a n t and d i f f i c u l t one. Secondly,.they were u n i -formly f r a n k i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . T h i r d l y , they a l l o t t e d a generous amount of t h e i r time t o answering and d i s c u s s i n g questions. F o u r t h l y , the i n v e s t i g a t o r was able t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r the uniqueness of each s i t u a t i o n because of the p r e l i m i n a r y i n t e r v i e w . And f i n a l l y , the i n t e r v i e w - q u e s t i o n n a i r e form, • though not without i t s f a u l t s , proved to be a u s e f u l instrument f o r g u i d i n g d i s c u s s i o n towards a .consideration of the c r i t e r i a being •evaluated. After each interview, the writer immediately reviewed the data he had transcribed, and added to i t from the more general impressions and information that the superintendent had provided. In t h i s way i t was possible to illuminate c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c responses that, had been given during the interview; i t was also possible to i d e n t i f y certain.incon-s i s t e n c i e s of practice that might not have been obvious from a scrutiny of 'the completed questionnaire. In short,; the follow-up procedure just described added materially to the value of the interview. It also j u s t i f i e d the. use of the interview as a method of gathering data•relating to complex organizational functionings. A l e t t e r of thanks (Appendix G),was sent to each super-intendent following the second interview. I I . PROCESSING THE DATA The data co l l e c t e d i n t h i s • study was processed and i s • here presented i n a manner designed to achieve three objectives: f i r s t l y , the data must be useful to those who may be i n t e r -ested i n the present problem; secondly, the presentation of data must provide the means of acceptance or r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis which was set out early i n the study; t h i r d l y , the presentation of data must preserve the anonymity of the i n d i v i d u a l school d i s t r i c t . Accordingly, a r a t i n g of " l " , "2", " 3 " or-"4" was assigned to the practice i n each school district..In respect of each c r i t e r i o n t h a t had been derived from the l i t e r a t u r e . A r a t i n g o f , n l " i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n the considered judgement of the r a t e r , the c r i t e r i o n and the school d i s t r i c t ' s proced-ures r e l a t e d t o the c r i t e r i o n were i n close agreement. A r a t i n g . o f / " 2 " i n d i c a t e d that the c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e were somewhat i n agreement. A r a t i n g of "3" i n d i c a t e d that the c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e d i f f e r e d w i d e l y . A r a t i n g of " 4 " i n d i c a t e d that the c r i t e r i o n d i d not apply.to procedures i n the school d i s t r i c t and t h a t , a c c o r d i n g l y , no comparison could be made. F i n a l l y , a f t e r a l l r a t i n g had been completed, r a t i n g s were assembled i n t a b u l a r form and they are presented i n Chapter V I . A considerable element of s u b j e c t i v i t y was i n v o l v e d i n r a t i n g each c r i t e r i o n . This was unavoidable f o r two reasons. F i r s t of a l l , the procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i -p a l s proved to be decidedly complex i n a l l d i s t r i c t s . I n t e r -p l a y of s e v e r a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s was always i n v o l v e d . Secondly, procedures d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y from d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t . This f a c t o r increased the d i f f i c u l t y of r a t i n g a given c r i t e r i o n on a uniform b a s i s f o r a l l d i s t r i c t s . In order to decrease s u b j e c t i v i t y and improve r e l i a b i -l i t y of r a t i n g , a "Rating Scale f o r Determining Extent to .which Stated S e l e c t i o n Procedures Agree w i t h C r i t e r i a " (Appendix E) was developed. This device proved d i s t i n c t l y h e l p f u l i n decreasing e r r o r s of s u b j e c t i v e judgement. I t 46 i should be added here that the r a t i n g scale makes t h i s present study capable of reasonably accurate r e p l i c a t i o n — a p o s s i b i l i t y that i s not always present i n a.study of t h i s type. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I.; SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS The conclusions of t h i s study are d i r e c t e d t o the school d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d . No suggestion i s made that the conclusions are widely a p p l i c a b l e . Nevertheless, the w r i t e r b e l i e v e s that they provide a u s e f u l means of examining p r a c t i c e i n . s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s i n other urban school d i s t r i c t s . Furthermore, they provide a : h e l p f u l framework f o r f u t u r e and more extensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of t h i s problem. I t should be pointed out that up t o the present, no formal 77 attempt has been made i n Canada 1 1 to evaluate school d i s t r i c t procedures i n s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s . Recruitment and Screening. Table I compares r e c r u i t -ment and screening p r a c t i c e s , as determined, w i t h c r i t e r i a developed i n Chapter I I I . Each d i s t r i c t has been assigned a r a t i n g f o r each c r i t e r i o n , i n accordance w i t h the "Key t o Ratings Assigned" which appears below Table I . The "Rating Scale f o r Determining Extent t o which Stated S e l e c t i o n Procedures Agree w i t h C r i t e r i a " (Appendix E) was u t i l i z e d i n the r a t i n g process. ^ L e t t e r from C P . C o l l i n s , Research O f f i c e r , Canadian Education A s s o c i a t i o n , to John F. E l l i s , dated March 1 , , 1 9 6 1 . 47 48 C r i t e r i o n 1--Several competent candidates should be considered f o r each p o s i t i o n . S e l e c t i o n r a t i o should be approximately ten t o one. The data c o l l e c t e d i n d i c a t e q u i t e c o n c l u s i v e l y that the school d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d experience no shortage of a p p l i c a n t s f o r elementary school p r i n c i p a l s h i p s . Even i n the d i s t r i c t r e p o r t i n g the smallest number 'of a p p l i c a n t s , there was a s e l e c t i o n r a t i o of twenty t o one. Furthermore, a l l superintendents b e l i e v e d t h a t at l e a s t f i v e of the c a n d i d a t e s — i n some cases many more—would.have made good p r i n c i p a l s . Although the superintendents 1 d e f i n i t i o n s of•"good" or "competent" might r e q u i r e f u r t h e r delineation.,:.-, i t seems f a i r ' t o conclude that any f a i l u r e to s e l e c t able p r i n c i p a l s does not r e s u l t from a shortage of a p p l i c a n t s f o r the p o s i t i o n . C r i t e r i o n 2--Local candidates should be given p r e f e r -ence i f a l l f a c t o r s are equal or n e a r l y so. A l l superintendents' agreed th a t promotions to the p r i n c i p a l s h i p , g e n e r a l l y , should come from w i t h i n . l o c a l ranks. Among - t h e i r reasons f o r ' t h i s p r a c t i c e were the f o l l o w i n g : . i n c e n t i v e s improve s t a f f 'morale; a p p l i c a n t s from outside the d i s t r i c t , though they may be recommended i n glowing terms,. have not proven themselves under l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s ; . i t i s e a s i e r ' t o make an accurate a p p r a i s a l of an 49 TABLE I RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING OP APPLICANTS FOR'THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALSHIP-—RATING OF PRACTICE. IN FOUR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AGAINST EMPIRICALLY DERIVED CRITERIA C r i t e r i o n Rating 2 3 4 xxxx XX XX XXX X 1. Several competent candidates should xxxx be considered.for each p o s i t i o n . Selection r a t i o should be approx-imately ten.to one. 2. Local candidates should "be given preference i f a l l factors are equal or nearly so. 3. Local d i s t r i c t s should assume i n i t -i a t i v e i n establishing, p r e - p r i n c i p a l t r a i n i n g to provide a reservoir of •leadership t a l e n t . 4. A l l interested and q u a l i f i e d personnel should have an opportunity to apply. 5. I f outside applicants are sought, x xxx attempts should be made to advertise widely and vigorously. 6. An i n i t i a l screening • should be pro- x xx x vided to eliminate those deemed to be u n f i t . 7. The screen should not contain a r t i - xxxx f i c i a l p rescriptions whose sole pur-pose i s to keep down the number of applicants. Key to Ratings Assigned: 1. C r i t e r i o n and practice are i n close agreement. 2. Criterion'and practice are somewhat in agreement. 3. C r i t e r i o n and practice d i f f e r widely. 4. C r i t e r i o n does not apply to procedures i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ; no comparison can be made. 50 i n d i v i d u a l a f t e r a reasonably lengthy period of observation; and, as one superintendent put i t , "Our p o l i c y i s to hire good teachers and help them grow prof e s s i o n a l l y . " Despite the foregoing, three of the superintendents i stated that i f an applicant from outside the d i s t r i c t appeared to be superior to l o c a l candidates, he would be seriously considered for promotion. The superintendent who dissented from t h i s view indicated that such an applicant, although he would not be appointed p r i n c i p a l immediately, would l i k e l y receive a promotion.within two or-three years. On the basis of the foregoing,, i t may be concluded that promotion within the l o c a l d i s t r i c t i s accepted p o l i c y . There Is l i t t l e to indicate, however, that t h i s p o l i c y - i s applied r i g i d l y or b l i n d l y . C r i t e r i o n 3--Local d i s t r i c t s should assume i n i t i a t i v e in e stablishing pre-principalship t r a i n i n g to provide a reservoir•of leadership ta l e n t . A l l superintendents indicated some awareness of the need for the l o c a l d i s t r i c t to a s s i s t i n developing future p r i n c i p a l s . Although there seems to be l i t t l e unanimity as to how t h i s should be done,.the procedures that are used f a l l into three categories. F i r s t , l i k e l y prospects are provided with a v a r i e t y of job experiences. This may take the form of working at a number of different, jobs within the school system, such as: head teacher, f i r s t . a s s i s t a n t , 51 senior assistant, consultant, special counsellor, vice-p r i n c i p a l , and so.forth. On the other•hand,.it may take the form of performing the same functions under'different circum-stances. The regular rotation of v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s would i l l u s t r a t e such p r a c t i c e . A second category of pre-principalship t r a i n i n g might he described as informal, in-service t r a i n i n g . Attending •meetings c a l l e d by the superintendent, attending p r i n c i p a l s 1 or v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s 1 meetings are examples of t h i s type of preparation. * A t h i r d procedure used to t r a i n prospective p r i n c i p a l s i s the provision of formal courses in.administration and supervision. Only one d i s t r i c t reported using t h i s procedure. A number of conclusions seem j u s t i f i e d on the basis of the data collected i n four d i s t r i c t s . F i r s t l y , the extent of p r e - p r i n c i p a l training•that was observed, seems to be related to size of d i s t r i c t . That i s , smaller d i s t r i c t s do not provide the v a r i e t i e s of experience that larger d i s t r i c t s •provide. Secondly, although some d i s t r i c t s provide d i f f e r e n t job environments f o r prospective p r i n c i p a l s , none has devised a reasonably precise sequence of experiences deemed desirable for a future p r i n c i p a l . Thirdly, attempts at•in-service t r a i n i n g seem somewhat perfunctory. Most.superintendents recognize the inadequacy • of the once or • twicer-yearly meetings 5 2 t h a t . t h e y hold w i t h the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s . F i n a l l y , none of the d i s t r i c t s has u t i l i z e d f u l l y the resources of the u n i v e r s i t y i n t r a i n i n g f u t u r e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . In summary, two of the four d i s t r i c t s have succeeded i n developing • s i z a b l e r e s e r v o i r s of p o t e n t i a l l e a d e r s h i p t a l e n t ; two have made some attempts i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n ; a l l could have done a more e f f e c t i v e job. C r i t e r i o n 4--A11 i n t e r e s t e d and q u a l i f i e d personnel should have an opportunity t o apply. I f a school d i s t r i c t i s t o make the best choices of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel, i t must have the best p o s s i b l e candidates t o choose from. No matter 1 how.carefully a s e l e c t i o n procedure i s devised and executed, i t can do no more than.to choose the best a p p l i c a n t . A c c o r d i n g l y , i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h i s c r i t e r i o n as compared w i t h p r a c t i c e i n school d i s t r i c t s , the i n v e s t i g a t o r sought to determine i f there were f a c t o r s w i t h i n the s e l e c t i o n process t h a t had the e f f e c t of exc l u d i n g from c o n s i d e r a t i o n any i n d i v i d u a l s .who might reasonably be expected to perform e f f e c t i v e l y as p r i n c i p a l s . The w r i t e r p o s t u l a t e d two groups of p o t e n t i a l candi-dates who might be overlooked. The f i r s t would c o n s i s t of • l o c a l s t a f f members who, f o r one reason or another, might be h e s i t a n t i n ap p l y i n g . The second group would c o n s i s t of teachers or p r i n c i p a l s from outside the d i s t r i c t who b e l i e v e that l o c a l promotional p o l i c i e s make i t p o i n t l e s s f o r them to apply. 53 A l l superintendents i n d i c a t e d that attempts were made continuously to i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l leaders w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t , and to encourage them to prepare and apply f o r promotion. School p r i n c i p a l s appeared to p l a y a,key r o l e i n t h i s endeavour, although other a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel were a l s o concerned w i t h the problem. The energy w i t h which t h i s t a l e n t search was,conducted was d i f f i c u l t t o determine. The w r i t e r gained the impression, however, that d i s t r i c t s were by no means uniform i n t h e i r d e s i r e to canvass a l l sources of p o t e n t i a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . This impression r e c e i v e s some support from the r a t i n g s assigned C r i t e r i o n 3, Table I . Only one of the f o u r d i s t r i c t s i n v i t e s a p p l i c a t i o n s from outside the l o c a l d i s t r i c t . Two of the three other d i s t r i c t s i n d i c a t e d that they would permit o u t s i d e r s to apply. One d i s t r i c t . w i l l not accept a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a p r i n c i p a l s h i p from persons outside the l o c a l d i s t r i c t . C e r t a i n conclusions are j u s t i f i e d on the b a s i s of the data c o l l e c t e d . I t i s u n l i k e l y that s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of • l o c a l s t a f f members who show a d m i n i s t r a t i v e promise are overlooked f o r promotion. I t i s u n l i k e l y that an - outstanding a p p l i c a n t from outside the d i s t r i c t would f a i l to r e c e i v e s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r promotion.In three of the four d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d . In the f o u r t h d i s t r i c t , such an . i n d i v i d u a l would l i k e l y r e c e i v e r a p i d promotion through the teaching ranks. In summary, there i s l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n .that 54 promising candidates w i l l be overlooked i n . t h e s e l e c t i o n process. C r i t e r i o n 5--If outside a p p l i c a n t s are sought, attempts should be made to a d v e r t i s e w i d e l y and v i g o r o u s l y . As i s i n d i c a t e d i n Table I , only one of the four d i s t r i c t s a d v e r t i s e s outside.'its own boundaries f o r p r i n c i -p a l s . In the case of the most r e c e n t l y considered promotion, the d i s t r i c t placed an advertisement f o r one day-in each of two la r g e c i t y d a i l y newspapers. Seven a p p l i c a t i o n s were r e c e i v e d from outside the d i s t r i c t . The d i s t r i c t ' s d e s i r e f o r outside a p p l i c a n t s presumably i n d i c a t e d some concern w i t h the q u a l i t y of l o c a l candidates. I t may be concluded, on the b a s i s of the r e s u l t s achieved, that the method of a d v e r t i s i n g was not s u f f i c i e n t l y - e n e r g e t i c . . C r i t e r i o n 6--An i n i t i a l screening should be provided to e l i m i n a t e those deemed to be u n f i t . Attempts were made, during t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , to determine what s p e c i f i c requirements f o r -the p r i n c i p a l s h i p e x i s t e d i n .school d i s t r i c t s . I t was p o s t u l a t e d that unless some standards were present and were wid e l y known by the s t a f f , .there would be numbers of a p p l i c a n t s who stood only a remote chance f o r promotion, and that such a p p l i c a n t s would decrease the time a v a i l a b l e f o r o f f i c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of b e t t e r q u a l i f i e d persons. 55 . There appeared.to be c o n s i d e r a b l e . v a r i a t i o n between d i s t r i c t s regarding requirements f o r the elementary p r i n -c i p a l s h i p . This probably r e s u l t e d from the superintendents 1 awareness of the absence of p r e c i s e p r e d i c t o r s of adminis-t r a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Three d i s t r i c t s , n e vertheless, had e s t a b l i s h e d c e r t a i n minimum standards.- In the other d i s t r i c t , .the superintendent b e l i e v e d t h a t i n order t o get the "best" man, s p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r - t h e job had t o be extremely, f l e x i b l e . Two of the four d i s t r i c t s had published statements of the, l o c a l requirements f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . a n d had made the statement a v a i l a b l e to s t a f f . One of these was couched.in r a t h e r broad terms and contained few s p e c i f i c s . The other •was more d e f i n i t e and was l e s s of a policy.statement that the former. In the t h i r d d i s t r i c t , requirements f o r prom-o t i o n were apparently known to most s t a f f but were not publ-i s h e d . In the f o u r t h d i s t r i c t , i t appeared .doubtful that any a p p l i c a n t would have a c l e a r idea of the d i s t r i c t ' s requirements f o r • t h e p r i n c i p a l s h i p . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t may be concluded t h a t three of the f o u r school d i s t r i c t s are f o r c e d t o consider some a p p l i -cants who have only a remote chance f o r promotion. One of t h e s e . d i s t r i c t s i s l i k e l y t o have a considerable number of p o o r l y q u a l i f i e d candidates. I t may a l s o be concluded that the presence of even a few, p r e c i s e c r i t e r i a would m a t e r i a l l y improve the e f f i c i e n c y of the s e l e c t i o n process. . C r i t e r i o n . 7—The screen should...not contain a r t i f i c i a l p r e s c r i p t i o n s whose sole purpose i s to keep-down the number of a p p l i c a n t s . As has been i n d i c a t e d , superintendents experience con-s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . : i n e s t a b l i s h i n g , requirements f o r the .elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p . There appears, to be a commendable attempt to avoid . s e t t i n g standards that.are.not reasonably d e f e n s i b l e , at l e a s t f o r t h e . l o c a l s i t u a t i o n . In t h i s regard, the l a r g e s t of the d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d has r e s i s t e d what might be a normal i n c l i n a t i o n to reduce an almost unmanageable number of a p p l i c a n t s by t h e . i m p o s i t i o n of some a r b i t r a r y .standard. I t i s reasonable t o conclude, t h e r e f o r e , . t h a t although some s p e c i f i c promotional requirements may be. questioned, there i s no evidence of any school d i s t r i c t reducing the number -of a p p l i c a n t s f o r p r i n c i p a l s h i p s by imposing a r b i t r a r y or a r t i f i c i a l standards. Recommendations, Ratings,. and P e r s o n a l - H i s t o r y Blanks. Table I I compares school d i s t r i c t use of recommendations, r a t i n g s , and p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blanks w i t h c r i t e r i a l developed i n Chapter I I I . Each d i s t r i c t has been.rated on each c r i t e r i o n . C r i t e r i o n 1 - - L e t t e r s of recommendation are of l i t t l e value except as p o s s i b l e negative s e l e c t o r s . None of the four • d i s t r i c t s r e q u i r e s a p p l i c a n t s f o r •the elementary p r i n c i p a l s h i p to submit l e t t e r s of re f e r e n c e . I t appears that superintendents have l i t t l e f a i t h i n t h i s means of e v a l u a t i n g candidates. As one superintendent asked the i n v e s t i g a t o r , "Have you ever seen a p o o r - l e t t e r of reference?" The conclusion i s obvious: superintendents doubt both the v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of l e t t e r s of recommendation. C r i t e r i o n . 2-r-Recommendations, i f used, should be sought by the employer and held i n s t r i c t confidence by him. None of the school d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d r e q u i r e s candidates to f u r n i s h names of persons who might provide character•or other i n f o r m a t i o n . Superintendents seem to p r e f e r gathering i n f o r m a t i o n through p r o f e s s i o n a l channels and on t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . I t may be concluded that superintendents have l i t t l e f a i t h i n the v a l i d i t y of the opinions of non-educators when . i t comes t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of competencies r e q u i r e d i n a school p r i n c i p a l . C r i t e r i o n 3 — R a t i n g s and/or recommendations should be submitted on standard forms. A l l d i s t r i c t s attempt by one means or another to gather i n f o r m a t i o n regarding the a b i l i t i e s of pr o s p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s . In three d i s t r i c t s , the p r i n c i p a l s r e p o r t r e g u l -a r l y on the work of any a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel assigned to them. These r e p o r t s , which are i n e f f e c t r a t i n g s , are made • i n the form of remarks appended to eva l u a t i o n s of teaching a b i l i t y . In a f o u r t h d i s t r i c t , the superintendent f r e q u e n t l y 58 TABLE I I RECOMMENDATIONS, RATINGS, AND PERSONAL-HISTORY BLANKS OP APPLICANTS FOR THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALSHIP--RATING OF PRACTICE IN FOUR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AGAINST EMPIRICALLY DERIVED CRITERIA Rating 1 2 3 1 . L e t t e r s of recommendation are of l i t t l e value except as p o s s i b l e negative s e l e c t o r s . 2 . Recommendations,. i f used, should be sought by the employer d i r e c t l y and held i n s t r i c t confidence by him. 3 . Ratings and/or recommendations should be submitted on standard forms. 4 . Information s u p p l i e d should be considered i n terms of the qual-i t y of i t s source. 5. Several r a t i n g s and/or recom-mendations are u s u a l l y p r e f e r a b l e to one or two. 6. The p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blank should be regarded as a s e l e c t i o n instrument. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx X X X X xxxx Key t o Ratings Assigned: 1 . C r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e are i n close agreement. 2 . C r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e are somewhat i n agreement, 3 . ' C r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e d i f f e r w i d e l y . 4 . C r i t e r i o n does not apply to procedures i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ; no comparison can be made. 59 discusses w i t h the p r i n c i p a l the manner i n which j u n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel are d i s c h a r g i n g t h e i r d u t i e s . No w r i t t e n r e p o r t s on.such matters are r e q u i r e d i n . t h i s d i s t r i c t . In at l e a s t two d i s t r i c t s , the superintendent holds lengthy, i n f o r m a l d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h the p r i n c i p a l s of candi-dates who are being considered s e r i o u s l y f o r promotion. On the- b a s i s . o f the foregoing c e r t a i n conclusions can be advanced. F i r s t l y , w r i t t e n records or r a t i n g s on pros-p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s appear to l a c k s p e c i f i c i t y and d i r e c t i o n and t h e i r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y should be questioned. Secondly, v e r b a l r e p o r t s or r a t i n g s appear t o be i n f o r m a l . Their v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y w i l l l i k e l y be r e l a t e d t o • the competency of the i n d i v i d u a l superintendent. C r i t e r i o n 4 --Information supplied^ should be considered in.terms of the q u a l i t y of i t s source. The r a t i n g s of candidates t h a t are considered by the superintendents, g e n e r a l l y are submitted by school p r i n c i p a l s i n the l o c a l d i s t r i c t . I t must be assumed that a superintend-ent w i l l recognize l e v e l s of r a t i n g a b i l i t y among h i s p r i n c i p a l s . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t might be concluded t h a t , i n consider-i n g the r a t i n g s of candidates, superintendents w i l l l i k e l y make allowances f o r the q u a l i t y of the r a t e r ' s judgement. C r i t e r i o n 5--Several r a t i n g s and/or recommendations are u s u a l l y p r e f e r a b l e t o one or two. 60 In three of the four d i s t r i c t s considered i n t h i s study, l o c a l candidates for promotion may conceivably have been observed by and reported on by only one p r i n c i p a l . In the remaining d i s t r i c t , junior administrative personnel are rotated regularly, and hence are observed by and reported on by a number of p r i n c i p a l s . As has been indicated i n discussing C r i t e r i o n 3, rat-ings offered by administrators may not have a common reference point. Accordingly, several ratings of a subordinate by several p r i n c i p a l s w i l l probably provide a more complete picture of the man:s c a p a b i l i t i e s than w i l l several ratings of the same person made by one p r i n c i p a l . It may be concluded, therefore, that on the basis of ratings provided, the superintendent in one of the d i s t r i c t s w i l l gain a better-rounded impression of candidates than w i l l the superintendents i n the other -three d i s t r i c t s . C r i t e r i o n 6—The personal-history blank should be regarded as a selection instrument.. A l l .four d i s t r i c t s require applicants f o r an elemen-tary p r i n c i p a l s h i p to f i l e an application form. Three d i s t r i c t s use mimeographed sheets for t h i s purpose, although one of the d i s t r i c t s contemplates the use of Keysort cards. The fourth d i s t r i c t i s already using Keysort application cards. 61 A l l d i s t r i c t s require basic data concerning teaching experience, c e r t i f i c a t i o n , academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , and experience i n other kinds of work. Some seek knowledge of community a c t i v i t i e s and experience i n other kinds of work. Some contain open-ended items which ask, i n e f f e c t , "Why should you be appointed p r i n c i p a l ? " Some seek information that,apparently, i s not considered i n the selection process. A l l d i s t r i c t s appear to use the same form for any supervisory or administrative p o s i t i o n , whether i t be primary consultant or elementary p r i n c i p a l . Accordingly, i t may be concluded that "Application for Promotion" forms r e f l e c t , once more, the apparent absence of predictors of effectiveness i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . A l l forms gather some information that i s considered i n the selection process. None of them seems to be regarded as a reasonably precise selection instrument. Paper and Pencil Tests. Table I I I compares the use that school d i s t r i c t s make of written tests, with c r i t e r i a developed in Chapter I I I . C r i t e r i o n 1—Written tests should be considered as negative selectors and should have a f a i r l y low cut-off score. As Table I I I indicates, no comparison of school d i s t r i c t practice with C r i t e r i o n 1 can be made. Written tests are not used in any of the d i s t r i c t s f o r at least 62 TABLE I I I PAPER AND PENCIL TESTS OF APPLICANTS FOR THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALSHIP--RATING OF PRACTICE' IN FOUR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AGAINST EMPIRICALLY DERIVED CRITERIA Rating C r i t e r i o n ; : 1 2 3 4 1. Written tests should be considered xxxx as negative selectors and should have a f a i r l y low cut-off score. 2. Tests should be appropriate to the xxxx job function of the p r i n c i p a l . 3. Test r e s u l t s that might have been xxxx thrown i n a desired d i r e c t i o n should be c a r e f u l l y s c r u t i n i z e d . Key to Ratings Assigned: 1. C r i t e r i o n and practice are i n close agreement. 2. C r i t e r i o n and practice are somewhat, in agreement. 3. C r i t e r i o n and practice d i f f e r widely. 4. C r i t e r i o n does not apply to procedures i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ; no comparison can be made. two reasons. F i r s t of a l l , , a superintendents doubt the relevance of such instruments. Secondly,, superintendents seem to b e l i e v e that observation and r a t i n g provide n e a r l y a l l the i n f o r m a t i o n about candidates that a - t e s t or t e s t b a t t e r y could p r o v i d e . I t may be concluded that superintendents have not been convinced that w r i t t e n t e s t s are e i t h e r u s e f u l or necessary i n s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . C r i t e r i o n 2 — T e s t s should be appropriate to the job f u n c t i o n of'the p r i n c i p a l . This c r i t e r i o n , as w e l l as the former, cannot be com-pared .with school d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e because no t e s t s are used. . Superintendents appear.to b e l i e v e that there i s no need f o r ' t e s t s . Further,>they seem to b e l i e v e that even i f t e s t s were a v a i l a b l e , , they would probably measure only a small p a r t of'the candidate's a b i l i t i e s . I t may be concluded that superintendents do not b e l i e v e t h a t t e s t s capable of p r e d i c t i n g success i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p are a v a i l a b l e . C r i t e r i o n 3—Test r e s u l t s that might have been thrown In a d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n should be c a r e f u l l y s c r u t i n i z e d . This c r i t e r i o n cannot be compared w i t h p r a c t i c e , because w r i t t e n t e s t s are not used. Tests are not used now, and there appears to be no i n d i c a t i o n that they w i l l be used i n the near f u t u r e . 64 I n t e r v i e w s . Table 1 7 compares the use of i n t e r v i e w s i n s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s w i t h c r i t e r i a developed i n Chapter I I I . C r i t e r i o n 1—The main purpose of the i n t e r v i e w should be t o uncover p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h success i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . Three of the f o u r - d i s t r i c t s that were i n v e s t i g a t e d , use i n t e r v i e w s as an important p a r t of t h e i r procedure f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s . In the other d i s t r i c t , the s e l e c t i o n interview, i s not considered necessary. The purposes f o r which i n t e r v i e w s are used seem to vary w i d e l y . In one d i s t r i c t , f o r example, the i n t e r v i e w i s intended.to examine the f o l l o w i n g aspects of each candidate: h i s philosophy of education,.- h i s p e r s o n a l i t y , h i s knowledge of c u r r i c u l u m matters, h i s v e r b a l f a c i l i t y , h i s r e a c t i o n to s t r e s s , and h i s appearance and manners. Another d i s t r i c t examines a l l the preceding, except r e a c t i o n to s t r e s s , p l u s the f o l l o w i n g : h i s knowledge of school law, h i s hobbies and i n t e r e s t s , and h i s motivations i n becoming a. p r i n c i p a l . The t h i r d d i s t r i c t uses i n t e r v i e w s , apparently to convince the candidate that the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and experience noted on h i s a p p l i c a t i o n form have been i n t e r p r e t e d c o r r e c t l y . In the f i r s t . t w o d i s t r i c t s c i t e d above, i t seems u n l i k e l y that.the number of o b j e c t i v e s sought can be achieved. In the case of the t h i r d d i s t r i c t , the expressed 65 purpose of the interview.seems somewhat t r i v i a l . I t . i s f a i r to conclude that the f u n c t i o n of the s e l e c t i o n i n t e r v i e w i s not c l e a r l y understood. C r i t e r i o n 2--The in t e r v i e w . s h o u l d have a s t r u c t u r e , p o s s i b l y i n v o l v i n g prepared questions. Planning should be f l e x i b l e enough to allow p u r s u i t of p r o f i t a b l e l i n e s of i n q u i r y . I t was p o s t u l a t e d that the e f f e c t i v e s e l e c t i o n i n t e r -view, would be n e i t h e r i n f l e x i b l e , nor f r e e - f l o w i n g ; i n i t s execution. Accordingly, a r a t i n g o f , n l " on t h i s c r i t e r i o n was intended to i n d i c a t e a p o s i t i o n approximately midway between the extremes of r i g i d . s t r u c t u r e and no s t r u c t u r e . In one of the d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d , questions from a prepared l i s t are put to each candidate. Questions do not appear to deviate from t h i s l i s t . Interviewers record t h e i r • impressions of the candidate on a r a t i n g s c a l e . In another d i s t r i c t , the content of each i n t e r v i e w i s com-parable f o r each candidate. No r a t i n g scale i s used, how-ever, and the expressed purposes of the i n t e r v i e w are r a t h e r broad. In t h e ' t h i r d d i s t r i c t that uses i n t e r v i e w s , the s t r u c t u r e of most i n t e r v i e w s i s i d e n t i c a l , but In cer-t a i n instances,, there i s d e v i a t i o n from t y p i c a l procedure. I t may be concluded that school d i s t r i c t s experience some d i f f i c u l t y i n e f f e c t i n g a balance between .rigid.and . f l e x i b l e s t r u c t u r i n g of i n t e r v i e w s . This conclusion i s 6 6 TABLE IV INTERVIEWS OF APPLICANTS FOR THE .ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALSHIP— RATING-OF PRACTICE IN FOUR URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AGAINST EMPIRICALLY DERIVED CRITERIA C r i t e r i o n Kating 1 2 3 4 The main purpose of the i n t e r v i e w should be.to unc'over p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h success in.the' p r i n c i p a l s h i p . . X XX X 2. The i n t e r v i e w should have a s t r u c -t u r e , p o s s i b l y i n v o l v i n g prepared questions. Planning should, be f l e x i b l e enough t o allo w p u r s u i t of p r o f i t a b l e l i n e s of i n q u i r y . XXX X 3. Form and content of the i n t e r v i e w .should be s i m i l a r f o r candidates being considered. XX X X 4. Interviewers should understand i n t e r v i e w i n g and education. XX X X 5. A panel of i n t e r v i e w e r s should XXX X be used. Key to Ratings Assigned: 1. C r i t e r i o n . a n d p r a c t i c e a r e . i n close agreement. 2. C r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e are somewhat i n agreement. 3. C r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e d i f f e r w i d e l y . 4. C r i t e r i o n does not apply to procedures i n .t h i s d i s t r i c t ; no comparisons can be made. 67 supported,. and-in .part explained by the conclusions of C r i t e r i o n .1 i n t h i s s e c t i o n . C r i t e r i o n 3-^-Form and content of the i n t e r v i e w should be s i m i l a r f o r candidates being considered. The candidates i n .each of 'the three d i s t r i c t s r e c e i v e eq u i v a l e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n during i n t e r v i e w s . In one d i s -t r i c t , > f o r • inst a n c e , a l l i n t e r v i e w s are approximately t h i r t y minutes long, and comparable questions are asked of each candidate. A n o t h e r • d i s t r i c t r e s t r i c t s the l e n g t h of the i n t e r v i e w "to f i f t e e n minutes, .• and: questions from a prepared l i s t are asked of each candidate. In the t h i r d , d i s t r i c t , the-form and content of most, i n t e r v i e w s are i d e n t i c a l , but in.a.few cases, a longer i n t e r v i e w may r e s u l t from the d e s i r e of the I n t e r v i e w i n g panel t o " b e t t e r understand.a candidate's q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . On the b a s i s of the f o r e g o i n g , : i t may be concluded that i n t e r v i e w r a t i n g s of candidates i n each d i s t r i c t are assigned on t h e . b a s i s of comparable i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n s . C r i t e r i o n 4—>Interviewers should understand i n t e r v i e w -i n g and education. The v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of t he.interview.as a s e l e c t i o n device i s r e l a t e d t o the a b i l i t y of the i n t e r - r viewer to make sound judgements. This a b i l i t y , i n t u r n , i s probably r e l a t e d to s e v e r a l f a c t o r s ' i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g : experience i n , i n t e r v i e w i n g , the purpose of the i n t e r v i e w , 68 the extent ef preparation for the interview, the knowledge pf what to look f o r in ,interviewing, and the interviewer's understanding of his own prejudices. In- two of the d i s t r i c t s , school trustees act as the interviewing panel. In one of these d i s t r i c t s , the super-intendent provides guidance to interviewers. He provides a verbal description of the educational and personal competen-cies being sought.in the candidates. He prepares a r a t i n g scale f o r interviewers to use and he also prepares questions which r e l a t e to the r a t i n g scale. In another d i s t r i c t , the trustees apparently receive no d i r e c t guidance from t h e i r superintendent. In the t h i r d d i s t r i c t , the interviewing panel consists of experienced school administrators. They apparently use no r a t i n g scale, and seem to attempt to achieve a large number of objectives i n the course pf the interview. • On the basis of the foregoing, i t may be concluded that none of the panels of interviewers i s f u l l y conversant with both the problems of Interviewing and the competencies required i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . C r i t e r i o n 5--A panel of interviewers should be used. A panel of interviewers conducts the selection i n t e r -view i n each of the three d i s t r i c t s using t h i s device. In one case, the interviewing board consists of administrative o f f i c i a l s of the school d i s t r i c t . In the other two i t consists of the board of school trustees. The superintendent 69 i s present at interviews i n . a l l d i s t r i c t s , although his function varies. In two d i s t r i c t s he i s chairman of the hearing: In.the other, he i s a consultant. It appears u n l i k e l y , therefore, that interview ratings r e f l e c t the bias of any one i n d i v i d u a l . II." GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND ACCEPTANCE OP HYPOTHESIS Certain conclusions of a more general nature seem warranted on the basis of the data that has been, consid-ered. F i r s t of a l l , i t i s apparent that selection proced-ures d i f f e r considerably between d i s t r i c t s . At f i r s t glance, several d i s t r i c t s seem to have a number of procedures i n common. However, on closer examination, considerable var-iati o n s i n practice emerge. It i s improbable that four •widely d i f f e r i n g ways of selecting elementary school p r i n -c i p a l s can be equally successful. Secondly, a l l selection procedures examined are char-acterized by a high degree of s u b j e c t i v i t y . No evidence was found of the use of objective measures of the competencies of candidates except, of course, i n length and type of pro-f e s s i o n a l experience and i n academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Furthermore, there seems to have been v e r y . l i t t l e attempt to reduce the element of s u b j e c t i v i t y where subjective measures are required. F i n a l l y , there seems to have been very l i t t l e attempt to define the competencies required i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . I t i s undoubtedly, d i f f i c u l t , i f not impossible, t o formulate such a . d e f i n i t i o n a t . t h i s time. Even p r e d i c t o r s of e f f e c t -iveness i n teaching seem conspicuously l a c k i n g . Neverthe-l e s s , p r o f e s s i o n a l educators should be searching d i l i g e n t l y f o r the answer, and even .for p a r t i a l answers,, to the problem A l l superintendents agree that i t i s important to •choose the "best" candidates a v a i l a b l e to-be elementary p r i n c i p a l s . I t i s u p o n . t h e • d e f i n i t i o n o f • t h i s word "best" that the problem of s e l e c t i o n hinges. The•lack of p r e c i s i o n .i n s e l e c t i o n procedures.in the d i s t r i c t s i n v e s t i g a t e d , i n d i c a t e s that the "best" person f o r the job . i s p r e s e n t l y undefined. U n t i l he i s , s e l e c t i o n of elementary, school p r i n c i p a l s w i l l continue to be based,.in considerable mea-sure, on i n t u i t i o n and stereotypes. A c c o r d i n g l y , on the b a s i s of the-data c o l l e c t e d and considered, the n u l l hypothesis, as s t a t e d . i n Chapter I , . i s accepted. I I I . RECOMMENDATIONS The f o l l o w i n g are recommendations for•improving school d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e . i n s e l e c t i n g elementary.school p r i n c i p a l s . They are advanced a f t e r a thorough e v a l u a t i o n of the data c o l l e c t e d , and a f t e r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the re l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e . 1. School d i s t r i c t s should attempt.to define the c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t they expect i n elementary school p r i n c i p a l 71 Campbell (see footnote 69) suggests that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e q u i r e t e c h n i c a l , human, and•conceptual s k i l l s . Even a r e l a t i v e l y simple d e f i n i t i o n . such as t h i s would provide greater focus t o the s e l e c t i o n process. 2. S c h o o l ' d i s t r i c t s should examine and, where pos-s i b l e , improve the s e l e c t i o n . t e c h n i q u e s t h a t they use. The i n t e r v i e w , f o r example, i s sometimes expected to pro-vide i n f o r m a t i o n that can b e t t e r be obtained i n other ways. The p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blank, f o r example, might be improved i n i t s usefulness by applying the c r i t e r i a developed as a r e s u l t of recommendation 1. 3 . School d i s t r i c t s should attempt t o decrease s u b j e c t i v i t y - i n . e v a l u a t i n g candidates. Ratings of adminis-t r a t i v e behaviour provided by p r i n c i p a l s , f o r example, might be improved by the use of a r a t i n g form. (See Appendix P.) 4 . School d i s t r i c t s should experiment w i t h d i f f e r e n t s e l e c t i o n procedures than they p r e s e n t l y u t i l i z e . Peer r a t i n g s and group i n t e r v i e w s are.examples of inexpensive procedures that might p r o f i t a b l y be examined. 5. School d i s t r i c t s should.consider c a r e f u l l y the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n c l u d i n g an o b j e c t i v e measure i n the s e l e c t i o n process. A t t e s t of v e r b a l f a c i l i t y or of c r i t i c a l t h i n k i n g a b i l i t y would seem to possess face v a l i d i t y . E f f e c t s on s t a f f morale.should be c a r e f u l l y considered. 72 6. School d i s t r i c t s should s c r u t i n i z e the e f f e c t s of l a y choice of p r o f e s s i o n a l personnel. Although the l e g a l p r e r o g a t i v e s of school t r u s t e e s must be. recognized,.-the choice of elementary school p r i n c i p a l s should be on a sound p r o f e s s i o n a l b a s i s . 7 . School d i s t r i c t s should v i e w . s e l e c t i o n as a continuous process rather•than .as a problem that a r i s e s when a vacancy must.be f i l l e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , superintendents should.devise a sequence of experiences f o r prospective p r i n c i p a l s . A reasonable b a s i s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g such a pla n .would be found.in a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s k i l l s enunciated by Campbell i n recommendation 1 . IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The present study has b a r e l y scratched the surface of an.extremely complex problem. As a r e s u l t , a multitude of questions remain .unanswered and could w e l l be the object of f u r t h e r • i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Are the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study - c o n s i s t e n t w i t h school d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e i n other -urban areas of B r i t i s h Columbia? or of Canada? Do procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i -p a l s of 'high schools d i f f e r from those f o r s e l e c t i n g elementary school p r i n c i p a l s ? Do procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g p r i n c i p a l s i n . r u r a l .or s e m i - r u r a l areas d i f f e r • m a t e r i a l l y from those used i n urban areas? What i s the r o l e of the d i s t r i c t superintendent i n the s e l e c t i o n . o f p r i n c i p a l s ? What are some of the s t a f f morale problems a s s o c i a t e d . w i t h the choosing of p r i n c i p a l s ? Could u n i v e r s i t y , or other p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r s o n n e l , . p r o f i t a b l y a s s i s t i n .the s e l e c t i o n process? .. .The foregoing i l l u s t r a t e a number of questions that are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d . t o t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Other problems such as the f o l l o w i n g s t i l l . r e q u i r e i l l u m i n a t i o n : personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e a d e r s h i p , the dynamics of-school.board f u n c t i o n , p r e d i c t o r s of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s , the t r a i n i n g of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . These suggestions f o r f u r t h e r study serve to i n d i c a t e the tremendous gaps that e x i s t i n p r o f e s s i o n a l knowledge regarding school a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I t i s . hoped that t h i s study w i l l act as a.stimulus to other researchers to f i l l i n some of these gaps. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A.' BOOKS Bingham, Walter Van Dyke and Bruce V. Moore, How to Interview, New York: Harper and.-Bros., 1941. • Campbell, Roald. P., and. Gregg, R. T., Administration Behaviour  i n Education, New York: Harper and Bros., 1957. Cleetor, Glen U., and Charles W. Mason, Executive A b i l i t y , Its Discovery and Development, Yellow Springs: Antioch Press,.1946. Elsbree, W. S., and H. J. McNally, Elementary School Adminis- t r a t i o n .and Supervision, Second E d i t i o n , New York: The American Book Co., 1959. Freeman, , G. L., and E. K.•Taylor, How to Pick Leaders, New York: Funk and Wagnalls Co., 1950. Good, Carter V., and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of Research, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954. Hicks, W.V. and M.C. Jameson, The Elementary School P r i n c i p a l .at Work. Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1957. Jacobson, Paul B., W.C. Reavis, and J.D. Logsdon, The  E f f e c t i v e School P r i n c i p a l , Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1956. Michelson, Peter P. and K.H. Hansen, Elementary School  Administration, New.York: McGraw-Hill, 1957. Morphet, E. L., R. L. Johns, and F.L. Reller, Educational .Administration: Concepts, Practices and Issues, Englewood C l i f f s : Prentice-Hall, 1959. Morrisett, Lloyd N., Letters of Recommendation, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935. Weber, Clarence A., Personnel Problems of School Adminis- t r a t o r s , New York: McGraw-Hill,1954. 7 4 75 B. PUBLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT,•LEARNED SOCIETIES, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS American Association of School Administrators and. the Research D i v i s i o n of the National Education Association, Appraisal and Promotion Procedures i n Urban School  D i s t r i c t s 1955-5o, C i r c u l a r No.. 8 . Washington: National Education Association, September, -1956. American Association .of .School Administrators and the Research D i v i s i o n of 'the National Education Association, P o l i c i e s and Procedures In the Selection of Personnel  for Administrative Positions^ C i r c u l a r No. .6. Washing-ton: National Education Association, July, 1958. Campbell, Roald F., "Selection and Preparation of School P r i n c i p a l s , " The Alberta School P r i n c i p a l 1959:,v J.H.M. Andrews"^ (ed.), Edmonton: Leadership Course for School P r i n c i p a l s , Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, 1959, Chapter '10. Mandall, M.M. and S a l l y N. Greenberg, Selecting Supervisors, United States C i v i l Service Commission, Washington: Government Pr i n t i n g Office, 1956. Michigan Education Association, Standards f o r 'Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s of Michigan, Department of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s , Lansing: The Association, 1953. National Education Association, The Elementary School  P r i n c i p a l s h i p, Thirty-seventh Yearbook of the Department of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s , Washing-ton: National Education'Association,.1 9 5 8 . Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Manual of the School Law.and  Rules of the Council of Public. Instruction, V i c t o r i a ; - Queen's Printer, 1958. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Report of the Royal Com- mission on Education, V i c t o r i a : Queen's Printer, • •: I 9 6 0 . Royal Bank of Canada, "Some Uses of Experience," Monthly Letter, V o l . 38, No. 5, May 1957. 76 OV PERIODICALS Briner, Conrad, "The Superintendent and the Selection of Subordinate Administrators," Administrators' Notebook, Vo l . VIII, No. 6, February, 19~blT. Campbell, Roald F., "Research and the Selection and Pre-paration of School Administrators," Educational,,Research  B u l l e t i n , V o l . XXXV, February, 1956, 29-33x. Featherstone, R.L., "Selection of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s i n Ohio C i t i e s , " Educational Research B u l l e t i n , ,34: 153-157, September, 1955~ Garforth, F.I. de l a P., "War Office Selection"• Boards," Occupational Psychology, 19: 96-IO8, 1945. Graff, Orin B. and Ralph B. Klmbrough, "What-We Have Learned About Selection," Phi Delta Kappan, 37: 294-96; A p r i l , 1956. Greene, J . E., "How Do Large C i t i e s Select P r i n c i p a l s ? " National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , 34: 33-36, May, 1955. Grover, E.C., "Teachers Help Choose a P r i n c i p a l , " School "Executive, 73: 50-51, August, 1954. Hadley, W. J., "The Selection of School P r i n c i p a l s , " American School Board Journal, 125: 25-26, July 1952. Horton,-B. J r . , "Study of the Problems of Beginning P r i n c i p a l s as a Basis for Improvement of the Program for the Education of Pr i n c i p a l s at Appalachian State Teachers College," Educational Administration and  Supervision, 44: 261-271, September, 1958. "If You're Interested i n Selection P o l i c i e s , " . National  Elementary P r i n c i p a l , 38: 5 5 - 5 7 ,-April 1959. Manson, G.E., and G.L. Freeman, "A Technique for Evaluating Assembled Evidence of Potential•Leadership A b i l i t y , " Educational and Psychological Measurement, 4: 21-33, 1944. Murray, H.A., and D. McKinnon, "Assessment of O.S.S. Per-sonnel," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 10: 76-80, 1946. 77 Newsom, N.W., and P.P. Michelson, "The'Role of the P r i n c i p a l In.the Modern Elementary School," Elementary School  Journal, 50: 20-27, September, 1949. Read, L.P., "Appointing a P r i n c i p a l , " American.School Board  Journal, 139; : 14-15, July, 1959., Shares, J.H., H.J. Otto,, and A.A. Sandin, "Schools of Edu-cation Provide-, ". National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , 32: 13-18, May 1953. Taylor, H.C., and J. J . Russell,•"The Relationships of V a l i -d i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s to Selection," Journal -of Applied  Psychology, V o l . 2 3 , , 1 9 5 9 . Templeton, .A., "Yqnkers System of Selecting P r i n c i p a l s , " School Executive, 71: 6 l , June 1952. Whitaker, W.E., "How The Committee Chose a New P r i n c i p a l , " School Executive, 73: 78-81,- March, 1954. D. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS B r i t i s h Columbia Teachers Federation, 1958 P r i n c i p a l s 1 .Questionnaire, Supervision Practices Committee, Vancouver:: The Federation (mimeographed) O'Brien, Patrick Barney, A"Survey 'of the Position of the  P r i n c i p a l and Vice P r i n c i p a l i n B r i t i s h Columbia  Schools, Unpublished M.A.. Thesis, University of B r i -t i s h Columbia,'Vancouver, 1959. E ; S T A N D A R D R E F E R E N C E S Good, Carter V., (ed.), Dictionary of Education, New-York: McGraw-Hill, 1945. Harris, Chester, (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Third Edition,. New York: The McMillan Co., I960. APPENDIX 7 8 APPENDIX A CRITERIA SUITABLE IN.APPRAISING PROCEDURES FOR SELECTING SCHOOL PRINCIPALS I. , RECRUITMENT AND SCREENING 1. Several competent candidates should be considered for 'each p o s i t i o n . Selection r a t i o should be approxi-mately ten .to one. 2. Local candidates should be given preference i f a l l factors are equal or nearly so. 3. Local d i s t r i c t s should assume i n i t i a t i v e i n est-abli s h i n g p r e - p r i n c i p a l training.to provide a reservoir of leadership ta l e n t . 4. A l l interested and q u a l i f i e d personnel should have an opportunity to apply. 5. I f outside applicants are sought, attempts should be made to advertise widely and vigorously. 6. An . i n i t i a l screening should be provided to eliminate those deemed to be u n f i t . 7 . The screen should not contain a r t i f i c i a l prescrip-tions whose sole purpose i s to keep down the number -of applicants. I I . RECOMMENDATIONS, RATINGS, AND PERSONAL-HISTORY BLANKS 1. Letters of recommendation are of T i t t l e value except as possible negative selectors. 2. Recommendations,. i f used,- should be sought by the employer d i r e c t l y and held In s t r i c t confidence by him. 3. Ratings and/or recommendations should be submitted on standard forms. 4. Information supplied should be considered in.terms of the quality of i t s source. 5. Several ratings and/or recommendations are prefer-able to one or two. 6. The personal hi s t o r y blank should be regarded as a selection.instrument. 79 APPENDIX A (continued) I I I . PAPER AND PENCIL TESTS 1. Written tests should he considered as negative selectors and should have a f a i r l y low cut-off score. 2 . Tests used should he appropriate to the job function of the p r i n c i p a l . 3. Test r e s u l t s that might have been thrown in a.de-si r e d d i r e c t i o n should be c a r e f u l l y s c r u t i n i z e d . IV..INTERVIEWS 1. The main purpose of the interview should be to uncover personality variables associated with success i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . 2 . The interview should have a structure, possibly involving prepared questions. Planning should be f l e x i b l e enough to allow pursuit of p r o f i t a b l e l i n e s of inquiry. 3. Form and content of interview.should be similar for candidates being considered. 4. Interviewers should understand interviewing and education. 5. A panel of interviewers should be used. 80 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING SELECTION PROCEDURES Sec t i o n I . -- Recruitment and Screening 1. When was the most recent appointment, made to an elementary school p r i n c i p a l s h i p i n your - d i s t r i c t ? . (Future responses i n t h i s q u estionnaire should be focussed on the appointment(s) mentioned i n question 1.) .2. How many a p p l i c a n t s were there f o r the p o s i t i o n ? 3. Would 4 or-5 of the a p p l i c a n t s have made • s a t i s f a c t o r y p r i n c i p a l s ? 4. Did the l o c a l s t a f f -know a p o s i t i o n was open? 5. I f "no"/why? 6. What means are used t o inform s t a f f of . promotional o p p o r t u n i t i e s ? 7. How many, a p p l i c a n t s were there from outside your d i s t r i c t ? _ _ 8. I f "none", why? 9. Were o u t s i d e r s i n v i t e d t o apply? 10. I f ' " n o " , why? ' 11. I f "Yes" what means were used to i n v i t e them? 12. Is i t your p o l i c y to a c t i v e l y encourage present s t a f f to apply? 13. I f ' " y e s " , how i s t h i s done? 14. Is the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s h i p a.-ma j o r source of candidates? 15. What other p o s i t i o n s are important sources of candidates? 16. Are any of the v i c e ? p r i n c i p a l 1 s f u n c t i o n s speci^-f l c a l l y designated by the c e n t r a l o f f i c e ? 17., I f '"yes", what are these? Comments on any of the above questions. 8 1 1 8 . Do p r i n c i p a l s i n your d i s t r i c t g e n e r a l l y provide a v a r i e t y of job experiences f o r the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ? 1 9 . How oft e n does a p r i n c i p a l submit w r i t t e n r e p o r t s on h i s v i c e - p r i n c i p a l ? (Reports s p e c i f i c t o f u n c t i o n of v.p.) 2 0 . In your d i s t r i c t , i s s p e c i a l t r a i n i n g provided f o r pr o s p e c t i v e p r i n c i p a l s ? 2 1 . I f ' " y e s " , t o whom does i t apply and what form does i t take? 2 2 . Is i t your p o l i c y to " r o t a t e " v i c e - p r i n c i p a l s ? 2 3 . What are the minimum q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r ' t h e p r i n c i p a l -ship i n terms of the f o l l o w i n g ? a) Degree b c d e f .g h i j k 1 I n s t i t u t i o n g r a n t i n g degree General f i e l d of study S p e c i a l courses r e q u i r e d Length of s e r v i c e Type(s) of school taught i n A d m i n i s t r a t i v e experience Other experience Age "  Sex • Rat i o female to male p r i n c i p a l s Other requirements Are the above 1 1 requirements known by s t a f f ? Comments on any of the above questions. 82 24. (To be answered by t h o s e w i t h a f f i r m a t i v e answers t o 7 and/or 9) Assuming a l l f a c t o r s e q u a l o r n e a r l y so, would the l o c a l a p p l i c a n t r e c e i v e p r e f e r e n c e o ver the o u t s i d e one? 25. .(To be answered by tho s e w i t h n e g a t i v e answers t o 7 and/or 9) Assuming t h a t an e x p e r i e n c e d p r i n c i p a l f r om o u t s i d e y o u r d i s t r i c t a p p l i e d f o r a p r i n c i p a l s h i p ; and assum-i n g t h a t h i s academic, p r o f e s s i o n a l , and p e r s o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r t h a n t h o s e of l o c a l a p p l i c a n t s , how would you d e a l w i t h h i s a p p l i c a t i o n ? . Comments on e i t h e r of the above q u e s t i o n s . S e c t i o n I I - - Recommendations, R a t i n g s , and P e r s o n a l - H i s t o r y B l a n k ; I.' How many l e t t e r s of recommendation must a c a n d i d a t e submit? 2. Who r e a d s t h e s e ? 3. How many names pf p e o p l e must'be o f f e r e d as r e f e r e n c e s ? 4. Must t h e s e names be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of any s p e c i f i c . v o c a t i o n ? 5. Which v o c a t i o n ( s ) ? 6. How do you o b t a i n t h e o p i n i o n s of the p e o p l e mentioned i n #4? t e l e p h o n e v i s i t l e t t e r r e q u e s t e d f orm t o . be f i l l e d i n 7. What k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n do'you t r y t o g a t h e r f r o m them? 8. D o . a p p l i c a n t s f i l l i n a p r o m o t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n form? 9. May t h i s i n v e s t i g a t o r have a copy of' t h e f o r m used? 10. Are r e p o r t s on.the c a n d i d a t e ' s t e a c h i n g competence sought? 11. Why.? ' Comments on any of the q u e s t i o n s i n S e c t i o n I I . 83 Section I I I - - Written Tests 1. Are candidates required to write special tests? 2. If "yes", what tests are used? • 3. I f "no", why are written.tests not used? 4. To which of the following uses do you put. test results? a) To provide a rank order of candidates. b) To select high-scoring candidates c) To i d e n t i f y low-scoring candidates. Comments on any of the questions i n Section I I I . Section I V — Interviews 1. Are a l l applicants interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y . 2. I f "yes", by whom? ' 3. Are some applicants interviewed i n d i v i d u a l l y ? 4. ' If "yes", by whom? ' ; ' 5. If 1 i s "no" and 3 i s "yes", how.and by whom were the -remaining applicants excepted from the interview? .6.. If no interviews, why? • 7. Are the questions asked i n the interview, exactly the same f o r a l l applicants? 8. Are the questions asked i n the interview, s i m i l a r f o r a l l applicants? Comments on any of the above questions i n Section IV. 84 9. Interviews are conducted for several purposes. Indicate which are important purposes to interviewers i n your d i s t r i c t . Please choose as many or as few as you wish. •a b c d e f .8 h To determine candidate's philosophy of education To determine candidate's knowledge of school law and d i s t r i c t administrative procedures. To assess candidate's personality. To determine candidate's knowledge of school matters, (curriculum, methods, etc.) To assess candidate's verbal f a c i l i t y . To determine candidate's reaction to stress. To assess candidate's appearance, manners, etc. To ascertain, candidate's hobbies, interests, and other personal data. To determine candidate's motivations in becoming a p r i n c i p a l . Other. ' ' 10. How.long i s the usual interview? 5 min. 10 min. 15 min. 20 min. 30 min. longer varies widely 11.. Have a l l interviewers had experience i n interviewing? _ 12. Which of the following is/are done before the interview? a) . Questions are prepared. __ b) Questions assigned to s p e c i f i c interviews. _ c) Candidate's personal data, i s considered. _ d) .Structure or flow of interview i s decided. _ e) Type of candidate being sought i s defined. _ f) Kinds of.information being sought are determined. _ g) Problems of interviewing are considered. _ Comments on any of the above questions. APPENDIX C COVERAGE OF ' CRITERIA BY -QUESTIONS C r i t e r i a Questions which bear-most. d i r e c t l y on t h i s c r i t e r i a  Section I 1 sec - . 1 - 2 , 3 ,4, 1 0 . , 1 2 , sec. IV-1 2 sec. 1 - 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 1 0 , 2 4 , 2 5 3 s e c . 1 - 6 , 8 , 1 0 , 1 2 - 2 3 4 s e c . 1 - 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 3 5 sec. 1 - 9 , 1 0 , 1 1 6 s e c . 1 - 2 3 , sec.IV - 5 7 s e c . 1 - 2 3 , sec.IV - 5 Section I I 1 sec. 1 1 - 1 , 2 2 s e c . I I - 1 , 2 , 3 , 6 . 3 • s e c . 1 1 - 6 , 7 , 1 0 , 1-19 4 s e c . I I - 4 , 5 , 1 0 5 s e c . I I - 1 , 3 6 s e c . I I - 8 , 9 Section I I I 1 s e c . I l l - 4 2 s e c . I l l - 2 3 s e c . 1 1 1 - 2 , 3 , 4 Section IV 1 sec.IV-6 -9, 1 1 2 s e c . 1 7 - 7 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 2 3 s e c . I V - 7 , 8 , 1 0 . 4 s e c . I V - 2 , 4 , 9 , 1 1 , 1 2 5 sec. I V - 2 , 4 , 5 , H - 1 ^ 3 , 7 APPENDIX D RELEVANCY OP QUESTIONS,TO SPECIFIC CRITERIA Number of .C r i t e r i a d i r e c t l y C r i t e r i a which may Question relevant to t h i s be relevant to th i s - question question  Section I 1 2 s e c . I - 1 sec. 1 - 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 3 s e c . I r l sec. 1 - 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 4 sec.1-2 sec. I - 1 , 4 5 sec. 1-2 sec. I - 1 , 4 6 sec.1-2 ,3 sec . 1-1 ,4 7 sec. I - 4 sec. I - 1 , 2 8 sec. I - 4 sec. 1-1,2 9 " sec. 1-1,4 s e c . I - 2 , 3 , 5 10 sec . 1-1 ,4 sec. 1 - 2 , 3 , 5 i l sec. I - 5 -12 sec . 1 - 3 , 4 sec. I - 1 , 2 13 sec. 1-3,4 sec.1-1 ,2 14 sec. I - 3 sec. 1-2 sec. I - 3 sec. 1-2 16- sec. 1-3 sec. 1-2 17 sec; I - 3 sec. I - 2 18 , sec. I - 3 sec. I - 2 , sec. I I -19 sec. I - 3 s e c . I - 2 , s e c . I I - 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 20. . sec. 1-3 21 sec. I - 3 sec. I - 2 22 sec. 1-3 sec . 1 -1 ,2 , s e c . I I - 2 , 5 23 sec . 1 - 6 , 7 24 sec. 1-2 25 sec. 1-2 RELEVANCY OF QUESTIONS (continued) Section I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Section I I I 1 2 3 ,4 . Section IV 1 2 3 4 5 6 "7 8 9 lo-l l 12 sec.11-1 ,2 ,5 sec.II - 3 sec.II- 1 , 2 sec.II-2 , 5 sec.II-4 sec.II-4 sec. 11-2,3 sec.II - 3 sec-.II-2,4 sec.II-6 , sec.I-6 , 7 sec.11-6, sec.1-7 sec.11-3,4 sec.111-2,3 s e c . I l l - 3 sec. 111-1,3 sec. 1-6 sec.IV - 4 , 5 sec. 1-6 sec.IV - 4 , 5 sec. 1-6,7 sec .1-1 ,5 sec.IV - 2 , 3 sec.IV - 2 , 3 sec.IV - 1 , 4 sec.IV-3 sec.IV-4 sec.IVr-4 sec.IV-2 sec.IV-1,2 sec.IV-5 88 APPENDIX E Rating Scale f o r Determining Extent .to which Stated- Selection Procedures Agree with -Criteria R a t i n g s - - l - - C r i t e r i o n and practice i n close agreement, — 2 - - C r i t e r i o n . a n d practice somewhat i n agreement. -- 3 - - C r i t e r i o n and practice d i f f e r widely. - - 4 - - C r i t e r i o n does not apply to procedures i n t h i s d i s t r i c t ; no comparison can be made. Section I--Recruitment and Screening C r i t e r i o n l--,Several competent' candidates should be considered for each p o s i t i o n . Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - approximately TO applicants or more. - four-or f i v e of the applicants were of high qu a l i t y . - at least two of the following were true. - l o c a l s t a f f knew of pending appointment. - outsiders permitted to apply. - outsiders i n v i t e d to apply, l o c a l s t a f f encouraged to apply. - l o c a l d i s t r i c t encourages p r e - p r i n c i p a l t r a i n i n g . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - less than 10 applicants. - very few of good qu a l i t y . - less than 10 applicants combined with-two or-more o f — -- l o c a l s t a f f not adequately informed of opening. - outsiders not permitted to apply. - outsiders not i n v i t e d to apply. - l o c a l s t a f f not encouraged to apply. - no encouragement of p r e - p r l n c i p a l t r a i n i n g . Comments--Rating C r i t e r i o n 2 — L o c a l applicants should he given preference i f a l l factors are equal or nearly so. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - superintendent says t h i s s i t u a t i o n applies. - practice agrees with c r i t e r i o n 1. - a l l interested and q u a l i f i e d l o c a l s t a f f had opportunity to apply. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - superintendent prefers outsiders. - no n o t i f i c a t i o n of vacancy given to l o c a l s t a f f , -"personal" i n v i t a t i o n s to apply extended to outsiders. - l i t t l e : : ' encouragement given l o c a l s t a f f to prepare themselves f o r promotion. Comments:--Rating- C r i t e r i o n 2--C r i t e r i o n 3 — L o c a l d i s t r i c t s should assume i n i t i a t i v e i n estab-l i s h i n g p r e - p r i n c i p a l t r a i n i n g to provide a reservoir-of leadership t a l e n t . Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - l o c a l s t a f f informed of promotional opportunities. - preference f o r - l o c a l applicants i s Indicated. - l o c a l s t a f f encouraged to apply f o r promotions. - some sequence of promotions i s indicated. - l o c a l s t a f f given opportunity for varied experience. - in-service t r a i n i n g provided for po t e n t i a l p r i n c i p a l s , s p e c i a l courses, meetings with superintendent, etc.) - q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for the p r i n c i p a l s h i p are stated p u b l i c l y Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - s t a f f not informed of promotional opportunities nor encouraged to apply. - preference expressed f o r outsiders. "Personal" i n v i t a t i o n s to apply are given to outsiders. 90 - no sequence of promotions. - l o c a l s t a f f has no qpportunity for varied experience. - no in-service t r a i n i n g provided for p o t e n t i a l p r i n c i p a l s . - q u a l i f i c a t i o n s for•the p r i n c i p a l s h i p are not stated. Comments--Rating--Criterion 3-- ; C r i t e r i o n 4 - - A l l interested and q u a l i f i e d personnel should have an opportunity to apply. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of applicants. .(Will vary with size of d i s t r i c t . ) - outsiders permitted to apply even though sizeable number ' O f-well-qualified l o c a l applicants. - outsiders i n v i t e d to apply i f there are r e l a t i v e l y few l o c a l applicants. - l o c a l s t a f f a c t i v e l y encouraged to apply f o r promotion. • Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - small number of applicants. - outsiders not permitted to apply. - Outsiders not i n v i t e d to apply (unless there are many, w e l l - q u a l i f i e d l o c a l applicants) - l o c a l s t a f f not a c t i v e l y encouraged to apply. Comments— Ra t i n g - r C r i t e r i o n 4 - -C r i t e r i o n 5 — I f outside applicants are sought, attempts should be made to advertise widely and vigourously. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - mass media, with wide c i r c u l a t i o n , are used. v professional channels are used to c i r c u l a t e the advertisement. .91 I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - advertisements regarding promotions r e c e i v e small c i r c u l a t i o n . - some o u t s i d e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y i n v i t e d to apply. Comment s - r -R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 5 " . C r i t e r i o n 6 — A n i n i t i a l screening should be provided to e l i m i n a t e those deemed-to.be u n f i t . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - c l e a r statement of requirements f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p i s provided i n s u f f i c i e n t l y p r e c i s e terms to act as a.^screening device. - not a l l a p p l i c a n t s proceed t o f i n a l stage of s e l e c t i o n process. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n .and p r a c t i c e do not.agree. - requirements f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p are not known by ' ' a l l a p p l i c a n t s . - no progr e s s i v e e l i m i n a t i o n of c a n d i d a t e s ^ — a l l a p p l i c a n t s proceed• through a l l stages of the s e l e c t i o n process. Comments-R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 6 — C r i t e r i o n 7—The screen should not contain a r t i f i c i a l p r e s c r i p -t i o n s whose.sole purpose i s t o keep down the number of a p p l i c a n t s . I n d i c a t i o n s that- c r i t e r i o n .and p r a c t i c e agree. - both male and female a p p l i c a n t s are considered. - no requirement f o r ' l o n g teaching experience (say, 20 or more years) - no a r b i t r a r y age b a r r i e r s . - no a d d i t i o n a l , p u r e l y a r b i t r a r y requirements of do u b t f u l v a l i d i t y . 92 I n d i c a t i o n s that c e i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree / - r e s t r i c t i o n s as to sex o f ' a p p l i c a n t . - long teaching experience i s r e q u i r e d . - a r b i t r a r y age b a r r i e r s are present. - a r b i t r a r y requirements of doub t f u l v a l i d i t y are present. Comme'nts--R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 7— Section II--Recommendations, Ratings, and Personal-.Hlstory Blanks C r i t e r i o n 1 — L e t t e r s of recommendation are of T i t t l e value except as p o s s i b l e negative s e l e c t o r s . . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. . - l e t t e r s are used only as negative s e l e c t o r s . - l e t t e r s are read by i n d i v i d u a l s who are aware of the attendant problems of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - l e t t e r s of recommendation are considered important. - l e t t e r s are read by i n d i v i d u a l s who may not be aware of the attendant problems, of v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . CommentST--R a t i n g - - C r i t e r i o n 1— C r i t e r i o n 2—Recommendations, i f used, should be sought by the employer d i r e c t l y and held i n s t r i c t confidence by him. I n d i c a t i o n s that " c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree.. - employer makes d i r e c t .contact w i t h the referee., - l e t t e r s or other communltcations d e a l t w i t h i n confidence. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - i n f o r m a l , hearsay evidence r e c e i v e s s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Comments— * R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 2 — .93 C r i t e r i o n 3--Ratings and recommendations should be submitted on standard forms. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - regular reports on the v i c e - p r i n c i p a l are submitted by the p r i n c i p a l . - reports are made on standard form, s p e c i f i c to future job function of a p r i n c i p a l . - standard form used f o r recommendations from persons outside the school d i s t r i c t . - superintendent's reports are used. - verbal ratings are sought on a standard basis. - Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - recommendations and ratings are s o l e l y on Informal, word of mouth basis. - no written reports s p e c i f i c a l l y directed to admin-i s t r a t i v e and supervisory competencies are used. Comments--R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 3--C r i t e r i o n 4—Information supplied should be considered i n terms of the qu a l i t y of i t s source. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - opinions are sought from people capable of making judgements on the competencies under consideration. - opinions of those who best know the candidate are given more weight than opinions of those who may be r e l a t i v e l y casual-acquantances of candidate. " indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. '- l i t t l e or no attempt to differentiate-, quality of opinion. Comments--Ra/ting—Criterion M~-94 C r i t e r i o n 5 - - S e v e r a l r a t i n g s and recommendations are g e n e r a l l y p r e f e r a b l e to one or two. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - opinions of s e v e r a l people are s o u g h t - - p r i n c i p a l s , d i r e c t o r s , superintendents. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - superintendent r e l i e s on h i s own, p o s s i b l y fragmentary knowledge of candidate. Comments--R a t i n g - - C r i t e r i o n , 5 - -C r i t e r i o n 6—The" p e r s o n a l - h i s t o r y blank should be regarded as a s e l e c t i o n instrument. i n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - undue leng t h of form i s avoided. - only i n f o r m a t i o n l i k e l y to be used I s c o l l e c t e d . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - lengthy form i s used. - informa t i o n of. doubtful value i s .c o l l e c t e d . Comments— R a t i n g - - C r i t e r i o n 6--_ Section i l l — P a p e r and P e n c i l Tests C r i t e r i o n 1 — W r i t t e n t e s t s should be considered as negative s e l e c t o r s and should have a f a i r l y low c u t - o f f score. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - t e s t s are used to i d e n t i f y low s c o r i n g a p p l i c a n t s . - v a l i d i t y of t e s t s i s f u l l y considered b y . a u t h o r i t i e s . I n d i c a t i o n s t h a t . c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - t e s t s are used to i d e n t i f y h i g h - s c o r i n g candidates. - rank order i s considered important.-Comment s — R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n ! - -95 C r i t e r i o n 2 — T e s t s used should be appropriate to the job function of the p r i n c i p a l . Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. r- tests used are deemed v a l i d f o r the s p e c i f i c purpose intended. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - tests are of questionable v a l i d i t y . Comments--Rating--Criterion 2 — C r i t e r i o n 3--Test r e s u l t s that can be thrown i n a desired d i r e c t i o n should be c a r e f u l l y scrutinized. indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - tests are used to i d e n t i f y low-scoring candidates. - r e l i a b i l i t y of tests i s f u l l y considered. Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice do not agree. - rank order of candidates i s used i n selection. - problems of test r e l i a b i l i t y are not f u l l y • considered. Comments— R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 3 — Section'IV--Interviews C r i t e r i o n 1--The main purpose of the Interview should be to uncover personality variables associated with success i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . Indications that c r i t e r i o n and practice agree. - interviews are used mainly to assess the candidates' p e r s o n a l i t i e s . - interviews are planned but permit investigation of profitable l i n e s of inquiry. - interviewers understand the requirements for the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . - interviewers have had experience i n interviewing. 96 I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n . a n d p r a c t i c e - d o not agree. - purpose of the i n t e r v i e w i s broad. - i n t e r v i e w has no c l e a r p l a n — a p p e a r s to wander. - Interviewers have no c l e a r idea of the requirements f o r the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . - i n t e r v i e w e r s have had l i t t l e or no experience i n ,i n t e r v i e w i n g . Comments^— R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 1--C r i t e r i o n 2 — T h e . i n t e r v i e w should have a s t r u c t u r e , p o s s i b l y i n v o l v i n g prepared questions. Planning should be f l e x i b l e enough to allow p u r s u i t of p r o f i t a b l e l i n e s of i n q u i r y . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - i n t e r v i e w i s s i m i l a r i n content and dur a t i o n f o r a l l candidates. - some questions are prepared before the i n t e r v i e w . - personal data of candidates i s considered before the i n t e r v i e w . - r a t i n g scale i s used by i n t e r v i e w e r s . I n d i c a t i o n s t h a t c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not agree. - Interview i s r i g i d l y s t r u c t u r e d . - i n t e r v i e w has no s t r u c t u r e . -- l i t t l e or no planning i s done before the i n t e r v i e w . - r a t i n g scale i s not used by i n t e r v i e w e r s . Comments—. R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 2.--— " C r i t e r i o n 3—'-Form and content of i n t e r v i e w should be s i m i l a r f o r candidatesbeing considered. Rating form may be used. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - questions asked are comparable f o r a l l candidates. - l e n g t h of i n t e r v i e w s i s reasonably uniform. - r a t i n g form i s used by i n t e r v i e w e r s . 97 I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not, agree. - content of the i n t e r v i e w s v a r i e s w i d e l y . - l e n g t h of i n t e r v i e w s v a r i e s w i d e l y . -r no r a t i n g form i s used by i n t e r v i e w e r s . Comments— R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 3--Criterion"4--Interviewers should understand i n t e r v i e w i n g and education. I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - i n t e r v i e w e r s are experienced school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . - purposes of the i n t e r v i e w are c l e a r and not too broad. - i n t e r v i e w e r s know what they are l o o k i n g f o r . I n d i c a t i o n s that c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e do not.agree. - i n t e r v i e w e r s have had l i t t l e e x perience.in i n t e r v i e w i n g . - i n t e r v i e w e r s have l i t t l e knowledge of what q u a l i t i e s are r e q u i r e d i n the p r i n c i p a l s h i p . f •- purposes of and problems i n i n t e r v i e w i n g are not f u l l y appreciated. , Comments-r-R a t i n g — C r i t e r i o n 4— C r i t e r i o n 5--A panel' of in t e r v i e w e r s . s h o u l d be used. .Indications t h a t . c r i t e r i o n and p r a c t i c e agree. - s e v e r a l i n t e r v i e w e r s are present, or, f a i l i n g t h i s — - wide gathering of 'opinions as to candidates' a b i l i t i e s . ' 98 Indicatings that c r i t e r i o n -and practice do not agree. - only one interviewer i s present. - l i t t l e or no attempt i s made to gather the opinions of other competent i n d i v i d u a l s . Comments— Rating--Criterion 5-*- • . . 99 APPENDIX P Request f o r C o n f i d e n t i a l Report on The above mentioned person has a p p l i e d f o r the p o s i t i o n of Elementary School P r i n c i p a l i n t h i s school d i s t r i c t . We are anxious to have your f r a n k opinion of h i s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n . Your statements w i l l be held i n the s t r i c t e s t ~ c o n f i d e n c e . As you w i l l r e a d i l y r e a l i z e , i t i s important that we choose the best p o s s i b l e candidate f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n . A poor .choice could r e s u l t ; i n harm to c h i l d r e n , i n the lowered e f f i c i e n c y of f e l l o w workers, ahd i n , d i s t r e s s f o r the person chosen. Accordingly, we s o l i c i t your best judge-ment of t h i s man. The scale below i s designed to enable you.to record your e v a l u a t i o n i n .as o b j e c t i v e a form as p o s s i b l e . I t would prove h e l p f u l i f you could record on the back, instances of the candidate's hebaviour t h a t "support your estimate. 1. Some men have d i s t i n c t t a l e n t s f o r l e a d e r s h i p . They are :looked up, t o by t h e i r f e l l o w s and are expected t o take the lead In any e n t e r p r i s e that may be s t a r t e d . At the other extreme are people who are content t o be f o l l o w e r s and are never asked.to head up any s o r t of e n t e r p r i s e . In between these extremes f a l l persons of v a r y i n g degress of l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t y . Based on your observation, how would 1 0 0 you estimate t h i s i n d i v i d u a l ? .(Check one) __. Outstanding as a lea d e r . __.Is very often a,leader. .Average. Is i n c l i n e d to f o l l o w r a t h e r 'than t o l e a d . . Is d e f i n i t e l y a f o l l o w e r . 2 . Some people arouse the greatest confidence i n others. They are regarded as•trustworthy i n any s i t u a t i o n . People have great respect f o r t h e i r i n t e g r i t y . The oppo-s i t e extreme i s the wholly u n t r u s t w o r t h y . i n d i v i d u a l who i s known not t o be r e l i a b l e , and i s never depended upon. Con-s i d e r t h i s man as you know.him and as he i s known by repute. Give an estimate o f ' h i s r e l i a b i l i t y i n comparison w i t h h i s f e l l o w s . .(Check one) .Is most h i g h l y respected and t r u s t e d . . Has a good r e p u t a t i o n f o r d e p e n d a b i l i t y . Is as r e l i a b l e as most people. Is f r e q u e n t l y found to be not dependable. Reputation f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i s not good. 3 . Some people are capable of ga i n i n g the respect of c h i l d r e n . They understand childhood problems and are always able t o handle c h i l d r e n .wisely, c o n s i s t e n t l y , and e f f e c t i v e l y . At the other extreme are people who seem incapable of winning the respect of c h i l d r e n . They do not 1 0 1 seem t o understand c h i l d r e n ' s problems, they are often i n t o l e r a n t , and they o f t e n seem unable t o handle c h i l d -ren wisely^, c o n s i s t e n t l y , and e f f e c t i v e l y . Consider•this man as you know.him and give an estimate of h i s a b i l i t y t o deal e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h c h i l d r e n . .(Check one) • Outstandingly e f f e c t i v e ; c h i l d r e n l i k e and respect him. _ Deals very e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h c h i l d r e n . Average; as good as most people. Frequently has d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e a l i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n . Unsuccessful i n h i s handling of c h i l d r e n ; ' o f t e n unwise, i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r • i n t o l e r a n t . APPENDIX G March 14th, 1 9 6 1 Mr. .............IV.'.'.]'.'., Superintendent of Schools, ,~B. C . Dear Mr : Thank you very•much ; f o r the interview that you' granted me recently. The information that you provided concerning the selection of elementary school p r i n c i p a l s has proved very h e l p f u l in my investigations. Again, many thanks. Yours sincerely, John F. E l l i s 

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106229/manifest

Comment

Related Items