• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of the literature
 Presentation and analysis of the...
 Summary, conclusions, and...
 Appendices
 Reference notes
 References
 Biographical sketch














Group Title: locus of formal decision making in selected school systems
Title: The locus of formal decision making in selected school systems
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099088/00001
 Material Information
Title: The locus of formal decision making in selected school systems relative to the operation of an instructional program provided by an outside agency
Physical Description: x, 136 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Pfleger, James W., 1931-
Publication Date: 1982
Copyright Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: School management and organization -- Decision making   ( lcsh )
Performance contracts in education   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 134-135.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by James W. Pfleger.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099088
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000339607
oclc - 09600247
notis - ABW9294

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    List of Tables
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Abstract
        Page ix
        Page x
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Review of the literature
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Presentation and analysis of the data
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
    Summary, conclusions, and discussion
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
    Appendices
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
    Reference notes
        Page 133
    References
        Page 134
        Page 135
    Biographical sketch
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
Full Text













THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING
IN SELECTED SCHOOL SYSTEMS RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION
OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAM PROVIDED
BY AN OUTSIDE AGENCY








BY

JAMES W. PFLEGER


















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY







UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1982















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The guidance provided by Michael Y. Nunnery, as my committee chair-

man and advisor, during the period of my work on my doctoral disserta-

tion is greatly appreciated. I am also grateful for the assistance of

James A. Hale in the selection of a topic and of Stephen Olejnik in se-

lecting a statistical process.

My gratitude is also owed to Commander O. H. Fendt, USNR, and Mr.

J. Gilliam of the staff of the Chief of Naval Education and Training

who authorized the NJROTC program as the vehicle for the study without

which the study could not have been conducted. Their cooperation and

logistic support were a great aid to the successful completion of this

dissertation.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES.................................................. vi

ABSTRACT........................................................ ix


CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION......................................... 1

The Problem........................................ 3
Statement of the Problem......................... 3
Delimitations..................................... 3
Limitations...................................... 5
Justification for the Study...................... 5
Definition of Terms................................. 8
Procedures.. ............................... ......... 9
Selection of the Sample.......................... 9
Instrumentation.................................... 12
Collection of Data............................... 13
Treatment of the Data............................ 14
Organization of the Research Report................. 16

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................ 18

Decision-Making Ideology and Research.............. 18
Individual or Group Decision Making.............. 18
Research on Decision Making...................... 23
Decision Making: Research Supports Theory....... 25
Methods of Research Relative to Locus of
Formal Decision Making........................... 26
Instructional Programs Provided by an
Outside Agency................................... 31
Description and Purpose of NJROTC.................. 35

III PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA................ 40

Interviewee Perceptions of the Decision Point
Analysis Instrument and Other Relevant
Concerns.. ................................. ....... 40








Perceptions about the Final Decision Makers......... 43
Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered
More Successful................................ 44
Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered
Less Successful................................. 57
Participators in the Decision-Making Process....... 69
Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered
More Successful ................................ 69
Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered
Less Successful................................. 78
A Comparison of Role Incumbent Involvement
in the Decision-Making Processes in Schools
with More and Less Successful NJROTC
Programs.. ................................. ...... 88
Comparisons Relative to Final Decision
Makers.......................................... 91
Comparisons Relative to Participators
(including Final Decision Makers).............. 92

IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND DISCUSSION................. 94

Summary............................................ 94
Conclusions.. .............................. ......... 98
Discussion.......................................... 101

APPENDICES

A DECISION POINT ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT................... 106

B STRUCTURED INTERVIEW GUIDE........................... 112

C PROCEDURES FOR RANKING NJROTC UNITS.................. 113

D LETTERS TO SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS.................... 115

E FOLLOW-UP LETTER FOR MAILED DECISION POINT
ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT................................ 117

F FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PRINCIPALS....................... 119

G FREQUENCIES, BY DECISION ITEM, OF PARTICIPANTS'
PERCEPTIONS ABOUT FINAL DECISION MAKERS IN HIGH
SCHOOLS WITH MORE AND LESS SUCCESSFUL NJROTC
PROGRAMS........................................... 121

H FREQUENCIES, BY DECISION ITEM, OF PARTICIPANTS'
PERCEPTIONS ABOUT PARTICIPATORS (INCLUDING
FINAL DECISION MAKERS) IN HIGH SCHOOLS WITH
MORE AND LESS SUCCESSFUL NJROTC PROGRAMS........... 125

I MEAN NUMBER OF PERCEPTIONS AS PARTICIPANTS IN
DECISION MAKING BY POSITION BY SCHOOL.............. 129

REFERENCE NOTES................................................. 133









REFERENCES.................................................... 134

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................................. 136















LIST OF TABLES


PAGE

TABLE

1 Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses
from Participants in Schools with More Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final
Decision Makers..................................... 45

2 Frequencies of Mailed Responses Relative to the
Role of Participants Not Involved in a Specific
Decision Item and Affiliated with More Successful
NJROTC Programs.................................... 47

3 Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from
Participants in Schools Visited with More
Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived
Final Decision Makers ............................ 48

4 Frequencies of Responses Relative to the Role of
Participants Not Involved in a Specific Decision
Item and Affiliated with Schools Visited with
More Successful NJROTC Programs.................... 51

5 Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and
Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools
with More Successful NJROTC Programs Relative
to Perceived Final Decision Makers................. 53

6 Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation
Responses Relative to the Role of Participants
Not Involved in a Specific Decision Item and
Affiliated with More Successful NJROTC
Programs........................................... 56

7 Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses
from Participants in Schools with Less Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final
Decision Makers..................................... 58

8 Frequencies of Mailed Responses Relative to the
Role of Participants Not Involved in a Specific
Decision Item and Affiliated with Schools with
Less Successful NJROTC Programs.................... 59









9 Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from
Participants in Schools Visited with Less
Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to
Perceived Final Decision Makers.................... 61

10 Frequencies of Responses Relative to the Role
of Participants Not Involved in a Specific
Decision Item and Affiliated with Schools
Visited with Less Successful NJROTC
Programs............................................ 64

11 Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and
Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools
with Less Successful NJROTC Programs Relative
to Perceived Final Decision Makers................. 65

12 Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation
Responses Relative to the Role of Participants
Not Involved in a Specific Decision Item and
Affiliated with Schools with Less Successful
NJROTC Programs.................................... 68

13 Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from
Participants in Schools with More Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators
(including Final Decision Makers).................. 71

14 Decision-Item Frequencies Responses from Participants
in Schools Visited with More Successful NJROTC
Programs Relative to Perceived Participators
(including Final Decision Makers).................. 72

15 Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and
Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools
with More Successful NJROTC Programs Relative
to Perceived Participators (including Final
Decision Makers) .................................. 76

16 Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from
Participants in Schools with Less Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators
(including Final Decision Makers).................. 80

17 Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from
Participants in Schools Visited with Less
Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived
Participators (including Final Decision Makers).... 82

18 Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and
Visitation Responses from Participants in
Schools with Less Successful NJROTC Programs
Relative to Perceived Participators (including
Final Decision Makers) ............................. 85









19 Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance
Results Relative to Positions of Perceived
Final Decision Makers in Schools with More
and Less Successful NJROTC Programs................. 89

20 Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance
Results Relative to Positions of Perceived
Participators (including Final Decision Makers)
in Schools with More and Less Successful NJROTC
Programs............................................. 90

21 Rank Order of Positions Based on Perceived
Frequency of Participators in the Decision-
Making Process in Schools with More and Less
Successful NJROTC Programs.......................... 93


viii















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy


THE LOCUS OF FORMAL DECISION MAKING IN SELECTED SCHOOL
SYSTEMS RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL
PROGRAM PROVIDED BY AN OUTSIDE AGENCY

By

James W. Pfleger

December 1982

Chairman: Dr. Michael Y. Nunnery

Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision


To provide more learning experiences at minimal costs, school ad-

ministrators sometimes offer instructional programs provided by outside

agencies, such as the Naval Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corp (NJROTC)

program. Since decision making is an integral part of the task of educa-

tional administration, a study was undertaken to make available decision-

making role processes used by school officials operating NJROTC programs

considered more and less successful.

The questions providing direction to the study were as follows:

1. What role incumbents constituted the formal decision-making

processes in the operation of more and less successful NJROTC programs

and how frequently was each role incumbent involved?

2. Were there any differences in the involvement of role incum-

bents affiliated with more successful programs compared to less success-

ful programs?








To determine which role incumbents were involved and how frequently,

a decision point analysis instrument was used. In the 6 southeastern

United States' high schools visited, where the NJROTC programs were

ranked among the top or bottom 5 in their regions, 47 principals, as-

sistant principals, counselors, naval science instructors, assistant

naval science instructors, senior ranking cadets, second senior ranking

cadets, and third senior ranking cadets provided usable data. An addi-

tional 54 principals, naval science instructors, and senior ranking

cadets in 20 similar high schools provided usable data by mail.

It was found that naval science instructors, principals, and super-

intendents or their staffs were most frequently perceived as final de-

cision makers (94% of the time) and naval science instructors, assistant

naval science instructors, and principals were most frequently perceived

to be participators (including making the final decision), about 68% of

the time. The only significant difference found between the two groups

was the senior ranking cadet as a more frequent participator in schools

with more successful NJROTC programs. It was concluded that the locus

of formal decision making was not a primary factor in operating a more

or less successful NJROTC program.















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


With the cost of education increasing and the expanding desire to

provide different learning experiences, a possible direction for high

school administrators to follow is the acceptance and operation of an in-

structional program provided by an agency outside the school system.

This is not a new concept as illustrated by the fact that in 1976, 1600

high schools in the United States had been authorized to include in their

curriculum the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps program (an in-

structional program) provided by the Department of Defense (an outside

agency) (Public Law 94-361, 1976, Sec. 807). However, to operate such a

program involved a decision-making process.

Decision making is an integral part of the task of an educational

administrator. Kimbrough and Nunnery (1976) pointed out that many theo-

rists believe "administration and decision making are almost the same, or

at least that decision making is a most critical aspect of administration"

(p. 117). Herbert A. Simon (1957) supported this idea that "decision

making is the heart of administration" (p. xlvi). Influenced by Simon,

Griffiths (1959) held that "a specific function of administration is to

develop and regulate the decision-making process in the most effective

manner possible" (p. 73).

An administrator would be more effective through control of the

decision-making process instead of personally making all decisions








(Griffiths, 1959, p. 91). To control decision making implies that others

must be involved in the decision-making process. What role incumbents in

a school or school system participate? The answer to this question might

determine whether the decision reached would result in an end that was

more successful or less successful.

The study reported herein was intended to provide educational admin-

istrators with new knowledge of the role incumbents in school systems who

had participated in decision making relative to the operation of an in-

structional program provided by an outside agency. Programs considered

to be more successful were compared to programs considered to be less suc-

cessful as determined by the outside agency. In order to conduct the

study, an existing instructional program provided by an outside agency

was used as a vehicle to provide the data. The existing program used

was the Naval Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (NJROTC) program

provided by the United States Navy, hereafter referred to as the Navy.

The NJROTC program was provided by the Navy under the nationwide su-

pervision of the Chief of Naval Education and Training in Pensacola,

Florida. The general goals were to develop informed, responsible, and

self-disciplined citizens and to promote an understanding of the need for

authority in a democratic society and of the requirements for national

security. NJROTC was available to all secondary schools, public and pri-

vate. In the selection of schools, the Navy considered the number of

NJROTC units in the geographical area in relation to the population.

Another factor considered was the potential to enroll the required mini-

mum of 100 students. Classes met five periods per week. Type of credit

was determined by the school or school system administrators. In some,

NJROTC was an elective course and in others, it could be substituted for






3

physical education or health. Most NJROTC units had less than 150 cadets

during the 1981-1982 school year. Instructors were retired naval person-

nel whose salary was partially paid by the Navy. Decisions made relative

to the operation of NJROTC concerned Navy science instructor duties, cadet

activities, and unit/class administration. (A more detailed description

of the NJROTC program and its goals can be found in Chapter II.)


The Problem

Statement of the Problem

The problem was to determine the locus of formal decision making

relative to the operation of an instructional program (NJROTC) provided

by an outside agency (Navy). More specifically, answers to the following

questions were sought:

1. What role incumbents constituted the formal decision-making

processes used by school officials in the operation of an NJROTC program

where the program was considered more successful and how frequently was

each role incumbent involved?

2. What role incumbents constituted the formal decision-making

processes used by school officials in the operation of an NJROTC program

where the program was considered less successful and how frequently was

each role incumbent involved?

3. Were there any differences in the role incumbents' involvement

in the decision-making processes used by school officials relative to the

operation of a more successful NJROTC program compared to a less success-

ful program?


Delimitations

The following confinements were observed:

1. The study of the decision-making process relative to the opera-

tion of the NJROTC program was limited to three of the eight NJROTC






4

regions. These three regions and the states included therein were (a) Re-

gion 5--Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia; (b) Region 6--Georgia, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee; and (c) Region 7--Alabama, Flor-

ida, and Mississippi (Chief of Naval Education and Training, Note 1, pp.

1, 4-8, 10-13, 16-20, 22-24).

2. Only those NJROTC units within Regions 5, 6, and 7 that had a

naval science instructor the entire 1980-1981 school year were included

in the study.

3. The study was confined to the locus of formal decision making

relative to the NJROTC instructional program provided by an outside

agency, the Navy, and to data gathered by means of a decision point anal-

ysis instrument (Appendix A) and a structured interview guide (Appendix B).

4. Due to restraints in time and travel costs involved, on-site in-

terviews were limited to the six coastal states within Regions 5 (Mary-

land and Virginia), 6 (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), and

7 (Florida). Of the 104 NJROTC units in Regions 5, 6, and 7, 83 were lo-

cated in these 6 states, including 14 of the 15 "top 5 units" in each re-

gion and 13 of the 15 "bottom 5 units" in each region. These were con-

sidered sufficient for a valid study.

5. Relative to the operation of an NJROTC unit, the on-site inter-

view part of the study was limited to six school organizations, two

randomly selected high schools from each of the three regions' coastal

states. Selection within each region was one school from among the high

schools whose NJROTC unit was ranked among the top five in the region for

the 1980-1981 school year and one school from among the high schools whose

NJROTC unit was ranked among the bottom five in the region for the 1980-

1981 school year.








6. The role incumbents who participated in the on-site interview

part of the study were (a) the principal of the selected high school,

(b) the assistant principal of the selected high school, (c) the counse-

lor of the selected high school, (d) the naval science instructor of the

selected high school, (e) the assistant naval science instructor of the

selected high school, (f) the senior ranking cadet of the NJROTC unit of

the selected high school, (g) the second senior ranking cadet of the

NJROTC unit of the selected high school, and (h) the third senior ranking

cadet of the NJROTC unit of the selected high school.

7. The role incumbents who participated in the part of the study

involving the mailed decision point analysis instrument were (a) the prin-

cipal of the selected high school, (b) the naval science instructor of the

selected high school, and (c) the senior ranking cadet of the NJROTC unit

of the selected high school.


Limitations

The following limitations to the study were anticipated:

1. The results obtained would be generalizable only to the states

included in the study.

2. The ex post facto character of the study did not permit the

manipulation of independent variables and causal inferences are not war-

ranted.


Justification for the Study

As was noted in the first section of the study, decision making is an

integral part of administration. Simon (1957) further held that adminis-

tration must be so organized as to ensure correct decision making (p. 1).

Decision making can be studied from two dimensions, the decision-making








process itself and the role incumbents involved in the decision-making

process. In regard to the first dimension, Stufflebeam (1971) identified

degree of change and amount of information grasp as two factors that pro-

vide the setting in which decisions are made. Given two levels of each

factor, he described four settings in which educational administrators

might make decisions. He called these settings metamorphic (large change

with high information grasp), homeostatic (small change with high infor-

mation grasp), neomobolistic (large change with low information grasp),

and incremental (small change with low information grasp) (pp. 61-9).

In whichever decision setting the educational administrator may be

found, processes are available to logically proceed from a problem to a

solution. Stufflebeam (1971) provided a process involving four stages:

awareness, design, choice, and action (p. 53). Griffiths (1959) listed

six steps in decision making: recognize and define the problem, analyze

and evaluate the problem, establish criteria to evaluate solutions, col-

lect data, select the preferred solution, and implement the decision (pp.

94-107). Kast and Rozensweig (1979) provided a flow chart showing vari-

ous factors contribute to a problem for which, theoretically, an infinite

number of alternatives exist. Each alternative must be assessed for

probable future effects. Then, these effects are evaluated in importance.

The alternatives whose probable effects are considered important become

the bases from which the decision is made (pp. 352-3).

As has been noted, Griffiths (1968) stated that "the central function

of administration is directing and controlling the decision-making process"

(p. 220). This implies that more than one role incumbent needs to be in-

volved in the decision-making process, the second dimension of studying

decision making. (This dimension was the focus of the study reported








herein.) Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) noted that, although the individual

is an important part of the decision-making process, group involvement

has advantages such as "more knowledge and information, more alternative

solutions, and increased likelihood of the decision being understood and

implemented" (p. 414). So, whatever the decision setting may be and the

procedures utilized to make a decision, the selection of role incumbents

to participate in the decision-making process is important to ensure more

correct decision making.

What role incumbents of a school system were included in the decision-

making process relative to the operation of an instructional program pro-

vided by an outside agency? Each year high school administrators were

accepting into their curriculum an instructional program provided by an

agency outside the school system. In 1979, 24 high school administrators

added NJROTC to their curriculum and another 25 did so in 1980 and 1981

(Chief of Naval Education and Training, Note 1). In 3 years, educational

administrators of 49 schools decided to accept NJROTC into their curricu-

lum without the availability of a formal decision-making role process to

assist them in making decisions relative to the operation of the NJROTC

program.

In light of the foregoing, the justification for the study undertaken

was to make available to educational administrators needed current decision-

making role processes used by school systems relative to the operation of

an instructional program provided by an outside agency (i.e., NJROTC) in-

cluding decision-making role processes used by school systems whose in-

structional programs were considered more and less successful as deter-

mined by the outside agency. The study provides a comparison among and

within decision-making role processes to determine any differences or com-

monalities. It is believed that if commonalities were found, guidelines






8

would become available to assist educational administrators in selecting

role incumbents for their decision-making process to make decisions to

reach the goal of implementing more successful instructional programs pro-

vided by an outside agency.


Definition of Terms

High school. A school comprised of grades 9 through 12 or 10 through

12, private or public.

Instructional program. A course of study including methods and ma-

terials used in teaching it.

Less successful program. NJROTC unit rated among the bottom five

units in its region as determined by the region's area manager based on

the Navy's 1980-1981 annual NJROTC inspection report.

Locus. The role incumbents (positions) that had an effective re-

sponsibility for or an input in the decision-making process relative to

the operation of an NJROTC program.

More successful program. NJROTC unit rated among the top five units

in its region as determined by the region's area manager based on the

Navy's 1980-1981 annual NJROTC inspection report.

NJROTC area manager. Naval officer responsible for supervision and

coordination of NJROTC units within a given geographical area.

NJROTC region. One of eight geographical areas in which supervision

and coordination responsibilities for all NJROTC units within its bound-

aries are assigned to an area manager.

Outside agency. An organization not directly associated with a school

or school system (e.g., the Navy).

Role incumbent. The individual who occupied any position in the

school system included in the study.









School official. Individual occupying a position of legal authority

in a school system (e.g., chief executive, superintendent, principal,

headmaster, president).

Senior ranking cadets. Based on the number of members in the NJROTC

unit in the school year 1981-1982, the senior ranking cadets were the

cadets appointed in the spring semester to the 3 highest positions in a

(a) company staff, if the unit had less than 150 members, (b) battalion

staff, if the unit had 150 or more members, or (c) regimental staff, if

the unit had 2 or more battalions (Chief of Naval Education and Training,

Note 2, art. 509).

Superintendent or his/her staff. Chief executive officer of the

educational organization and those subordinates who report directly to

him/her. (In one instance, this position was given the title of presi-

dent.)


Procedures

The procedures section of the study includes four subsections.

These are (a) selection of the sample, (b) instrumentation, (c) collec-

tion of data, and (d) treatment of data.


Selection of the Sample

All high schools within the delimitations set forth were included in

the sample. That is, for each of the three regions included in the study,

the area managers of those regions provided the names of the high schools

whose NJROTC units were considered among the five more successful units

(top five) and five less successful units (bottom five) in their region.

To maintain confidentiality, fictitious names were assigned the 30 schools

as follows:








Five more successful


Region 5


High

High

High

High

High



High

High

High

High

High



High

High

High

High

High


School

School

School

School

School



School

School

School

School

School



School

School

School

School

School


Region 6


Region 7


High

High

High

High

High



High

High

High

High

High



High

High

High

High

High


School

School

School

School

School



School

School

School

School

School



School

School

School

School

School


(From the staff of the Chief of Naval Education and Training, it was

learned that High School #59 did not have a naval science instructor the

entire 1980-1981 school year delimitationn #2). Thus data from this

school were deleted from the study. Also, it was determined that High

School #74 was a military school with all students enrolled in NJROTC

and headed by a military headmaster. Since it was believed that data

from that school would confound the results of the study, the data from

High School #74 were also deleted from the study. Additionally, High


Five less successful






11

Schools #53 and #71 did not respond to the mailing and, as such, were not

included in the data analysis.)

To obtain greater in-depth data relative to the study and to ensure

reliability of the decision items, six high schools were selected for on-

site interviews with role incumbents. One high school was randomly se-

lected from within coastal states of each of the three NJROTC regions'

list of the five more successful units and one from each of the three

lists of the five less successful units during the 1980-1981 school year.

Hence, six schools were visited, three (High Schools #51, #64, and #70)

from within the top five ranked schools of each of the three regions and

three (High Schools #55, #69, and #79) from within the bottom five ranked

schools of each of the three regions. Schools were subjectively ranked

by the area managers based on the results of their one-day annual inspec-

tion. Areas inspected were given a "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory"

grade. This scoring did not allow for rank-ordering of schools. There-

fore, the sample for the interview portion of the study was randomly se-

lected from among the top five and bottom five ranked units of each of

the three regions within the delimitations set for the study. The proce-

dures used to rank NJROTC units are explained in detail in Appendix C.

(Although an additional high school was randomly selected from the lists

of the more successful units and from the lists of the less successful

units within each region as an alternate in case the school officials of

the originally selected schools or school systems were not willing to par-

ticipate in the study, none were visited as all of the school officials of

the originally selected six schools were willing to participate.)

Random sampling for the above was accomplished by assigning each

high school eligible for consideration in the study a 2-digit number and








selecting an assigned number from a table of random numbers (Ary, Jacobs,

& Razavich, 1979, p. 378) using the last two digits. Specific positions

(e.g., principal, assistant principal) for role incumbents to participate

in the on-site interview part of the study were determined through inter-

views with naval science instructors in the area of the University of

Florida who were not included in the study's population.


Instrumentation

The decision point analysis instrument (Appendix A) was based on that

prepared by the staff of Project 5-0443 (1913) (cited in Doherty, 1968)

and modified in form and content as similarly done by Doherty (1968), Mc-

Cluskey (1972), Holcombe (1974), and Scaggs (1980). Content validity of

included decision items was made by a review of proposed items by five

instructors of naval science who were not participants in the study.

Those items selected by at least four instructors are included in the

instrument. These five instructors also determined which position role

incumbents were to be included in the instrument as possible participants

in the decision-making process within a school or school system.

The second instrument, the structured interview guide (Appendix B),

provided uniformity in conducting interviews related to the operation of

an NJROTC program. The questions contained therein were designed to en-

sure that the decision point analysis instrument contained the role posi-

tions important in the decision-making process and that no decision item

of significance was omitted. The last question solicited information

about the professional relationship between members of the NJROTC depart-

ment and those of other departments within the school.








Collection of Data

In determining the roles involved in decisions relative to the oper-

ation of an NJROTC program, the chief executives of the schools or school

systems of the six selected high schools were sent a letter (Appendix D)

requesting approval for inclusion of their high schools in the on-site

interview part of the study. Incumbents of positions listed in delimita-

tion 6 were interviewed, as available and willing. The structured inter-

view guide (Appendix B) was used to provide uniformity in conducting the

interviews. (On the days the schools were visited, the desired incum-

bents were in school except for the third senior ranking cadet in High

School #69. Of the 47 role incumbents available in the 6 high schools,

all participated.)

Field visits were of 2-days duration for each of the high schools

visited. Each role incumbent participating completed the decision point

analysis instrument at the beginning of the interview period. Filling

out the decision point analysis instrument in the presence of the researcher

was intended to eliminate semantic problems, if any, and to ensure that

the completed instrument was available during the interview.

The decision point analysis instrument (Appendix A) was mailed to

the naval science instructor of each of the 24 schools included in the

sample, but not visited, for dissemination to the principal, the naval

science instructor, and the senior ranking cadet. Of the 72 decision

point analysis mailed, 41 were returned as follows:

Principals 11 or 45.8%

Naval science instructors 16 or 66.7%

Senior ranking cadets 14 or 58.3%

Follow-up letters (Appendix E) were sent which increased the number of

returns to the following:









Principals 14 or 58.3%

Naval science instructors 21 or 87.5%

Senior ranking cadets 19 or 79.2%

Since a higher percentage of participation was desired from the princi-

pals, an additional letter (Appendix F) was mailed to them which increased

their returns to 19 (79.2%).

As noted earlier, data from High Schools #59 and #74 were not used

in the study. Hence, the number of participants, by mail, were 9 princi-

pals, 9 naval science instructors, and 9 senior ranking cadets from high

schools with more successful NJROTC programs and 9 principals, 10 naval

science instructors, and 8 senior ranking cadets from high schools with

less successful NJROTC programs.

The 54 usable returns by mail combined with the 47 interviewees ren-

dered a total of 101 participants in the study. As implied previously, 4

high schools of the original sample were not included in the study, thus

participants represented 26 of the 30 high schools in the original sample.


Treatment of the Data

Based on the data collected through the two instruments, an analysis

was made by inspection of the data and narration thereof to determine

which role incumbent was the primary decision maker and which role incum-

bents, if any, participated in making the decisions relative to the oper-

ation of the NJROTC program in selected high schools where the program

was considered more successful (first part of question 1 of the study) and

relative to the operation of the NJROTC program in selected high schools

where the program was considered less successful (first part of question

2 of the study). Additionally, an analysis was made by inspection of the

data and narration thereof to determine the frequency of role incumbents'









involvement within the decision-making processes utilized by school offi-

cials relative to the operation of an NJROTC program considered more suc-

cessful and operation of an NJROTC program considered less successful

(second parts of question 1 and 2 of the study).

To assist in the above analysis, frequency tables were constructed

for each of the two basic groups (more successful and less successful

units). The first set of tables is a summary of how often the role in-

cumbent listed in Appendix A was perceived by the participants in the

study as the final decision maker for all decision items considered in

the study. The second set of tables is a summary of how often role in-

cumbents participated (including making the final decision) in the deci-

sion-making process for all decision items considered in the study. The

third set of tables summarizes the role incumbents' perception of their

role (provide information only or no participation) in the decision-making

process in the case of those decision items for which they did not per-

ceive themselves to actively participate. Each set of tables includes

three subsets based on (a) data collected via mailed instruments, (b) data

collected through on-site interviews, and (c) combination of data from

both sources. This strategy rendered a total of 18 frequency tables used

for the inspection and narration analysis of questions 1 and 2 of the

study.

The final analysis was made to determine any differences in role in-

cumbents' involvement in the decision-making processes utilized by school

officials relative to the operation of the NJROTC program in selected high

schools where the program was considered more successful compared to that

in selected high schools where the program was considered less successful

(question 3 of the study). If significant differences were found, a model









might be developed to assist school officials in selecting which role in-

cumbents should participate in decision making relative to the operation

of a more successful instructional program provided by an outside agency,

such as NJROTC. Since this part of the study involves a significant dif-

ference of importance, analysis of variance tests were computed with a

95% level of confidence required for significance (Ary, Jacobs, & Raza-

vich, 1979, pp. 152-156).

To assist in the final analysis as described in the preceding para-

graph, two frequency tables were constructed indicating the average (mean)

number of times each role incumbent was perceived to have (a) made the

final decision and (b) participated (including making the final decision)

in the decision-making process for any decision item considered in the

study. These are tables on which are displayed the means and standard

deviations of the number of final decisions or participation perceived

for each of the nine role incumbent' positions included in the study di-

vided into two groups--those affiliated with high schools with more suc-

cessful NJROTC programs and those affiliated with high schools with less

successful NJROTC programs. The mean appearing in the table is the mean

of the means obtained for each school included in the study and the stan-

dard deviation is based on the variance of those means. As suggested,

significant difference, if any, was determined through a series of one-

way analysis of variance tests comparing, for each role position, the

mean number of final decisions or participation perceived by participants

in high schools with NJROTC programs considered more successful with those

in high schools with NJROTC programs considered less successful.


Organization of the Research Report

In Chapter I, the problem is stated, the delimitations and limitations

listed, terms used are defined, and the justification for pursuing the








study is given. The procedures section includes an elaboration on the

selection of the sample, the instruments used, the methods used to col-

lect the data, and the treatment of data.

The first section of Chapter II is a review of writings dealing with

decision-making ideology and research. This is followed by a review of

research methods used in locus of decision-making studies, use of instruc-

tional programs provided by outside agencies, and the purpose and descrip-

tion of NJROTC (the instructional program provided by an outside agency

used as a vehicle for the study).

Chapter III is a presentation and analysis of role incumbents' in-

volvement in the decision-making processes relative to the operation of

the NJROTC program in the high schools where the program was considered

more successful (question 1 of the study) and where the program was con-

sidered less successful (question 2 of the study). Included in Chapter

III is a presentation and analysis of any differences in frequency, by

position, of role incumbents' involvement in decision-making processes

utilized by school officials relative to the operation of an NJROTC pro-

gram considered more successful compared to an NJROTC program considered

less successful (question 3 of the study).

The first section of Chapter IV is a summary of the study reported

herein. This is followed by a listing of conclusions and a discussion of

the study.
















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


The review of literature is divided into four sections. The first

includes selected literature about who makes decisions, i.e., individual

and group decision making. The second section includes a review of

methods of research used in the locus of decision-making studies. This

is followed by a review of selected literature concerning instructional

programs provided by agencies outside the school system. The final sec-

tion is a description of the NJROTC program and its purposes at the time

the study was conducted.


Decision-Making Ideology and Research

This section is divided into three subsections. The first is a re-

view of writings concerned with the difference between individual deci-

sion making and group decision making. The second subsection includes

research studies that were conducted including those cited in the first

subsection. The final paragraphs summarize the theories supported by

studies conducted.


Individual or Group Decision Making

As suggested above, one focus in the literature relates to who should

be involved in the decision-making process. Is it better for the person

in authority to make the decision alone or should other role incumbents

in the organization be a part of the decision-making process? Group deci-

sion making can be groups making the decision by majority vote, by






19

consensus, or cooperatively by groups providing input for an individual

to make the decision. Much has been written on decision making but few

authors have gone into detail concerning the importance of specific role

incumbents' participation.

Kimbrough and Nunnery (1976) pointed out that in the 1930's cooper-

ative decision making was supported by educational administration schol-

ars. Although this approach to decision making raised problems, it was

considered to result in more valid decisions which were more likely to be

implemented by the organization. Cooperative decision making was per-

ceived to be the core of democratic administration (pp. 95-96).

Of the five principles put forth by Koopman, Miel, and Misner (1943)

regarding democratic action of school administrators, three were appro-

priate to the study of role incumbents' involvement in decision making.

These were

1. To facilitate the continuous growth of individual and social
personalities by providing all persons with opportunities to par-
ticipate actively in all enterprises that concern them. . .

3. To provide means by which persons can plan together, share their
experiences, and cooperatively evaluate their achievements.

4. To place the responsibility for making decisions that affect the
total enterprise with the group rather than with one or a few indi-
viduals. (pp. 3-4)

To involve more role incumbents in the decision-making process, commit-

tees were formed and meetings were opened to more participants. "Member-

ship in the basic committees should be in accordance with the interests,

needs, and abilities of individual staff members" (Koopman et al., 1943,

p. 82).

Griffiths (1959) included in his assumptions relative to administra-

tion that "the specific function of administration is to develop and regu-

late the decision-making process in the most effective manner possible"









(p. 73). In other words, it was not the function of the chief executive

officer to make the final decision but rather to ensure that the organiza-

tion in its decision-making process proceeded in an effective manner. If

administrators controlled the decision-making process instead of making

the final decisions, Griffiths noted that more effective decisions would

result and their subordinates would find their behavior more acceptable

(pp. 90-91).

Although some may question whether groups make better decisions than

individuals, groups can present a wide range of possible decisions.

Groups and individuals can give the administrator a broader scope of pos-

sible solutions. In this regard, committees can be an aid in providing

the administrator with multiple solutions from which to make a decision

(Griffiths, 1959, p. 104). Griffiths (1968) emphasized nine years later

that "the central function of administration is directing and controlling

the decision-making process" (p. 220). This implied that other role in-

cumbents were to be included in decision making.

Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) discussed individuals compared to groups

as decision makers. They noted that research done by Hall (1971), which

is described later herein, had shown "that on complex problem-solving

tasks to which there is a single correct answer, groups using a consensus

mode have been more effective than individuals" (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979,

p. 404). Groups tend to be more open. "A group of open-minded individuals

with diverse value systems might prove to be an effective and efficient

problem-solving agent" (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p. 405). Sometimes,

however, the best solution is to make no decision and referring it to a

group with conflicting values where it is likely no action will be taken

may be the best approach.






21

In comparing individuals and groups in terms of rationality and the

decision-making process, Kast and Rosenzweig (1979) held that "to achieve

a logical, methodical, exhaustive, systematic decision process, an or-

ganized group effort may be the answer" (p. 405). There is a tendency

for groups to use a more rational decision-making process with a formal-

ized procedure including steps to be followed by the letter. Concerning

group rationality, they wrote:

A group may facilitate the development of more information with re-
gard to a problematic situation and hence move the decision closer
to "ideal" rationality, where one of the requirements is complete
knowledge. However, the inclusion of diverse information inputs
often widens the scope of the problem environment, introduces con-
founding variables, and, in general, makes the situation more com-
plex. As a result, the evaluation of alternatives, particularly
predicting the probability and importance of outcomes becomes more
difficult. (p. 406)

Relative to behavioral aspects of decision making, Kast and Rosenzweig

summarized the advantages and disadvantages of groups as follows:

Groups are important in behavioral aspects of decision making for
two reasons: (1) they are agents of choice and (2) they have an
impact on individual decision makers. Groups have advantages such
as more knowledge and information, more alternative solutions, and
increased likelihood of a decision being understood and implemented.
Potential disadvantages include social pressure (actual or implied)
on individuals, domination by one or a few members, and conflict
that forestalls action. (p. 414)

Juniper (1976) listed three kinds of decisions considered more ap-

propriate for individual resolution. These were the swift decision, the

intimate decision, and the calculating decision. The time required for a

group to be organized and deliberate would transform a swift decision into

a slow one. Groups could not decide what an individual must bear or

enjoy, i.e., groups could not make intimate decisions as who will marry

whom. For a calculating decision, groups could cause confusion, as when

a complicated routine must be worked through. However, groups were seen

as more useful than individuals in making decisions that must be approved









by mass consent. Juniper (1976) noted that groups have a wider experience

than the individual and tend to avoid extreme and unconventional views.

Even if the decision to be made is a risky one, groups are more likely

to make a decision than a sole individual (Kast & Rosenzweig, 1979, p.

405). Juniper (1976) also listed as an advantage of groups over individ-

uals the situation in which the cost of making the wrong decision is too

high for the individual to bear alone. The group can share the responsi-

bility and can collectively bear the stress and recrimination that would

follow the decisional error (pp. 287-88).

Olmstead and Hare (1978) also held that matters involving risk were

more likely to be decided by groups than individuals. They noted that

individuals who made conservative decisions when deciding alone shifted

to make more risky decisions when deciding as part of a group. Studies

have been conducted to substantiate that "the 'risky shift' provides one

of the best-documented examples of differences between individual and

group problem-solving" (p. 77). Illustrative are studies by Wallach,

Kogan, and Bem (1962) and Ziller (1957) which are discussed later. Olm-

stead and Hare listed five factors relative to risky decisions. These

were as follows:

Facts. Subjects who have more facts or who in general know more
about the situation are more likely to take a chance. .

Responsibility and majority opinion. When subjects feel the respon-
sibility for the decision has been diffused over the group, the de-
cisions are more risky. . .

Social approval. Subjects will make more risky decisions, if they
feel that other group members approve of risk-taking, or that the
risky choice is more ethical or altruistic. . .

Group composition. As in the experiments on social facilitation,
some of the group effect in the risky-shift phenomenon may be that
the dominant or more likely responses are enhanced as a result of
making decisions in the presence of others. . .








Experiment demands. Some of the early results of the risky-shift
experiments may have been simply a response to the implicit demands
of the experimenter. (pp. 79-80)

In 1979, Lumley wrote of her belief that all teachers should be ac-

tive participants in educational decision making. This was based on the

following four principles:

1. Each individual's participation is a means of enacting a very
personal expression of the democratic way of life.

2. Structuring school organizational meetings so that faculty can
actively participate requires special educational administrative
skills in planning and group decision-making processes.

3. Having a succinct organizationally workable understanding of
decision making may facilitate active teacher participation.

4. Each individual has worth and needs opportunities to express his
or her ideas, suggestions, and understandings for attaining a better
civilization through the education process. (p. 123)


Research on Decision Making

Ziller (1957) made a study relative to decisions involving risk at

the Strategic Air Command's Advanced Survival School in Reno, Nevada.

Subjects were 45 aircraft commanders and their crews of 8 to 13 men each.

These 45 groups were randomly assigned to use 1 of 4 techniques of deci-

sion making. The authoritarian technique was assigned to 13 crews with

12 assigned to the leader-suggestion technique, 10 to the consensus tech-

nique, and 10 to the chairman technique. Crew satisfaction was studied

through the use of a 9-item questionnaire. A finding relative to risky

decisions was "when a decision-making procedure is group centered rather

than leader centered, the group reaches a decision involving greater per-

sonal risks to the members" (p. 3B8).

Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1962) did a study to determine the "extent

to which a decision maker is willing to expose himself to possible failure

in the pursuit of a desirable goal" (p. 75). The data-gathering instrument






24

consisted of 12 hypothetical situations. In each situation, the partici-

pant had to decide between two choices, one of which was more risky than

the other. Reliability of the instrument was shown through application

of the Spearman-Brown split-half test. First, each individual in the

group chose a decision for each of the 12 items and then, as a group, a

choice was again made. Each group consisted of six participants who were

summer session students at the University of Colorado in Boulder. Groups

were all male or all female. The results were the same for both sexes.

Wallach, Kogan, and Bem (1962) found that

group interaction and achievement of consensus concerning decisions
on matters of risk eventuate in a willingness to make decisions that
are more risky. . persons with stronger individual risk taking
proclivities tend to become more influential in the group than per-
sons who are more conservative. (p. 85)

Hall (1971) researched strength in group problem-solving through use

of the movie 12 Angry Men and his personally-developed "Lost on the Moon"

instrument. In both procedures, first, a group of individuals was to

make decisions individually and independently and then, to make the same

decisions as a group. The movie focused on a jury of 12 men, one of whom

maintained that the defendant was not guilty. Based on information known

from the movie concerning the background of the other 11 members, the de-

cision to be made was to determine the order in which the other 11 jury

members changed their finding to "not guilty." In the "Lost on the Moon"

exercise, a list of 15 items had to be ranked from most to least impor-

tant. In both exercises, one correct solution existed. Findings were

based on the absolute difference between each priority assigned by the

group or individual and the priority assigned in the correct solution,

e.g., if the group or individual assigned priority number 10 to the first

item on the list in the "Lost on the Moon" exercise and the correct pri-

ority was 15, 5 points were credited to that group or individual. The








number of total points credited was indirectly proportional to the degree

of arriving at the one correct solution. The studies showed that, in both

exercises, the final decision of the group as a whole was significantly

closer to the one correct solution than individual decisions. It was fur-

ther found that groups who worked together previously were closer to the

correct solution than groups assembled for the first time for the purpose

of the study.

Richter and Tjosvold (1980) wrote an article based on a study con-

ducted by Richter in which the participants were third through sixth

graders in two Pennsylvania schools. Intact classes were randomly as-

signed to the experimental and control groups. The study was conducted

over a 5-week period with a protest and a posttest administered to eval-

uate the student's attitudes toward school and social studies (the subject

matter taught for the study). Before beginning the study, students in the

experimental groups planned with the teacher the topics and the activities

to be included during the 5-week period while the control groups were

simply told what these were to be. From posttest results, Richter and

Tjosvold concluded that students who were involved in decision making had

more favorable attitudes, more positive interaction, worked more without

supervision, and scored higher on achievement tests than students whose

teachers made decisions without student participation.


Decision Making: Research Supports Theory

For the most part, the authors read and cited indicated that deci-

sions will be more accurate if reached by group consensus. The utility

of the construct was demonstrated by Hall (1971) as described in the pre-

vious subsection. Another construct held is that, if an outcome of a de-

cision involves risk, it is more likely to be chosen by a group than by a









single individual making the decision. This construct was investigated

and found to be valid by Ziller (1957) and by Wallach, Kogan, and Bem

(1962).

A construct most appropriate to the study reported heroin holds that

implementation of a decision will be more successful if those affected by

it are included in the decision-making process. The article written by

Richter and Tsojvold (1980) bore this out relative to elementary school

students. An extensive review of dissertations and journals revealed a

lack of studies conducted relative to this construct. It was believed

that further studies should be undertaken to provide empirical data that

can be utilized involving students in decision making in the elementary

and secondary schools. The study reported herein is, in part, an answer

to the question whether role incumbent involvement in decision making

renders an NJROTC program more or less successful.


Methods of Research Relative to Locus
of Formal Decision Making

As has been noted, an examination was made of the research litera-

ture to learn the methods used by other researchers in determining the

locus of formal decision making. The examination was not intended as a

critique of their methods but as a gathering of ideas to be used as a

basis in conducting the study reported herein. Therefore, strengths and

weaknesses, per se, were not closely examined. Rather, the ideas that

were deemed pertinent to the purpose of the study are described herein.

Yopp (1978) compared the tasks of selected public school administra-

tors with that of administrators of selected schools operated by the Church

of Christ. Although his research was not concerned with decision making,

per se, his instrument included items for responses of a decision-making

nature. Items from his instrument which were of value in developing the






27

instrument for the present study were (a) who determined the content and

organization of the curriculum, (b) who decided pupil placement, (c) who

provided for publicizing school activities to the community, and (d) who

selected and assigned personnel (pp. 122-30).

McCluskey (1972) investigated the roles involved in formal decision

making for student personnel services in multi-unit community college

districts. He selected three districts within which to conduct his study

based on certain criteria relative to size and age of the college and

willingness of the administrators to participate. To collect data, he

utilized a decision point analysis instrument and structured interview

guide. The former was completed by each interviewee prior to the arrival

of McCluskey to conduct the interview. Both instruments were designed to

identify role incumbents primarily responsible for making a decision and

role incumbents participating in making the decision. Included for analy-

sis were data obtained from records, documents, and observations. The

decision point analysis instrument consisted of 25 decision items for

which each participant was to indicate who made the decision, who partici-

pated in making the decision, and what their participation was in the

making of the decision. To answer the first two questions, participants

were provided a list of 10 community college officials to identify if

they made or participated in making the decision. One of four responses

(made the decision, recommended the decision, provided information, or

did none of the above) was to be indicated in answering the third ques-

tion. The instrument was mailed under a cover letter providing instruc-

tions for its completion and requesting background data.

McCluskey found that the primary decision makers were the campus ad-

ministrators for student services and the district administrators for

student services. Decisions were not substantially influenced by









committees in two of the three districts studied. Participation in deci-

sion making varied for each district with the campus administrators for

student services and the chief campus administrators being most involved.

Results might have been more valid if schools had been selected for par-

ticipation on a random basis instead of willingness to participate. These

results would be limited to the three college districts participating.

Two years later, Holcombe (1974) did a similar study of formal de-

cision making for curriculum and instruction in multi-campus community

colleges. He followed McCluskey's procedure closely using the same methods

to investigate the locus of formal decision making. However, in develop-

ing the instrument, he reduced the number of community college officials

to seven and added a "don't know" response for the participant who did

not know who made or participated in making a specific decision included

in the list of decision items. He reduced the decision items to 10, 5

concerning curriculum and 5 concerning instruction. The decision point

analysis instrument included a cover letter of explanation, instructions,

and a background data sheet. The instrument was completed in Holcombe's

presence. This achieved a 100% return rate and assurance of minimum mis-

interpretation of the decision items listed. Those included in the study

were the chief administrator and the chief administrator for academic af-

fairs for the entire college, the campus administrator and the campus

administrator for academic affairs for each campus, and division and de-

partment chairpersons and faculty representatives from all campuses.

Holcombe found that the primary decision makers were perceived to be

the division and department chairpersons. However, for non-credit courses,

the community services and the continuing education directors were the

primary decision makers. Academic administrators from the district were

not perceived as strong decision makers in the two areas under study.









Decision making relative to curriculum had more participants than that

relative to instruction.

Doherty (1968) conducted a study using a decision point analysis in-

strument designed similarly to that used in 1966 by Glen Eye in a study

conducted for the United States Office of Education. One of the five

purposes of Doherty's study was "to secure perceptions of the loci of re-

sponsibility for decisions in local school systems" (p. 30). His sample

included 31 school systems in Wisconsin. He gathered data through the

use of a decision point analysis instrument, a curricular quantity index,

and a curricular quality index. Of these, the decision point analysis in-

strument was of significance to the study herein. His instrument was

divided into five categories as follows: business management, community

relations, curriculum, pupil personnel, and staff personnel. Decision

items which were of value in construction of the decision point analysis

instrument for the study herein are as follows:

2. The decision on the ways to group pupils by classes.

3. The decision on the priority for the use of unscheduled rooms
and multipurpose areas. ..

12. The decision on the retention of pupils.

13. The decision an the adequacy of teacher performance. . .

15. The decision on which community drives and activities merit
school participation.

16. The decision on the rules governing pupil conduct. . .

19. The decision on how to evaluate the curriculum. . .

21. The decision on the practice for assigning homework.

22. The decision on the assignment of teaching and non-teaching
loads. . .

24. The decision on the content of local news items to be released.
(Doherty, 1968, pp. 135-36)









The participants were to indicate for each decision item who among 10

positions listed made the decision and indicate if the participants,

themselves (a) made the decision, (b) recommended the decision, (c) pro-

vided information only, or (d) did not participate in that particular

decision item. Included with the instrument was a personal background

data sheet.

In reference to the one purpose of Doherty's study that was relative

to the study herein, he found that

school systems do vary in the degree to which the staff members
agree on their perceptions of the location of decision-making respon-
sibilities. While there is general agreement among professional
staff members in some systems on who is primarily responsible for
making various decisions, lack of agreement of perceptions of deci-
sion points exists among members of other staffs. Ihe variations
in congruence of perceptions exist. . for the total range of
decision making. (p. 116)

Scaggs (1980) did a study of decision-making processes in Florida

community colleges using a modified version of the decision point analysis

instrument developed by Glen Eye and later used in modified form by Do-

herty. She used the instrument as a questionnaire mailed to the 28 com-

munity colleges in Florida. Questionnaires were mailed to each president,

each chief academic administrator, each chief business officer, department

chairpersons (two in each college), and faculty members (four in each col-

lege). Of the 252 mailed, 150 were returned. No other instrument was

used. The instrument included nine decision items relative to curriculum

change. A list of officials was provided for participants to indicate

who made the decision and who participated in making the decision. If the

participants did not know if any of the role incumbents were involved in

a decision, a "don't know" category was provided. No provision was made

to indicate participants own participation in the decision-making process

as was done in the other studies reviewed.








Scaggs found that over-all the president was perceived to be the

final decision maker most of the time (42.1%) followed by the academic

dean (12.7%) and the institutional vice president (8.6%). She noted that

the faculty perceptions differed from other status groups and that they

were less in agreement as to the position of the decision-making author-

ity.

The five dissertations reviewed were primarily of value in the de-

velopment of the decision point analysis instrument used in the study re-

ported herein. Decision items used by Yopp (1978) and Doherty (1968)

became the starting point for developing the needed decision items. Pro-

cedures used by McCluskey (1972), Holcombe (1974), and Scaggs (1980) to

collect data and interpret data provided a framework to develop the methods

used in the study reported herein.


Instructional Programs Provided by an Outside Agency

The study reported herein was concerned with decision making relative

to the operation of an instructional program provided by agencies outside

a school or school system. NJROTC was used as the vehicle about which

data were collected but findings and conclusions might well be applicable

to other such programs. Therefore, a search was conducted to learn what

instructional programs, other than NJROTC, provided by outside agencies

did exist for which the results of the study herein might be applicable.

Of the programs found, there was no indication that a locus of decision-

making study had been made.

A search was conducted of the dissertation abstracts and writings

in journals under headings of business and education, computer instruction,

instruction, innovations in education, performance contracts, and teaching

methods. Of 12 dissertation abstracts reviewed, one was found to be






32

applicable. Of 28 journal articles reviewed, 2 were pertinent. Most of

the writings found in journals dealt with cooperative efforts between

school systems and industry and/or business to provide training for pros-

pective employees needed by the latter. The article concerning the Pack-

aging Machinery Manufactures Institute (Johnston, 1976) included a pro-

gram of instruction provided by an outside agency similar to that of the

NJROTC program. Also, the United States Army, United States Air Force,

and the United States Marine Corps had instructional programs like the

United States Navy available to high schools under the same federal laws

as the Navy.

Monier (1972) conducted a study involving an instructional program

in reading and arithmetic provided by Singer/Graflex Incorporated for

black students in the first, second, and third grades of the McComb, Mis-

sissippi, public schools. The study centered around the effectiveness of

the instructional program and did not investigate the locus of formal

decision making. Further studies to be conducted above the second grade

level were recommended by Monier. (One such study might involve the locus

of decision making using the findings of the study reported herein as a

basis.)

To alleviate the problem of schools lagging behind in producing the

number of machinery mechanics required by industry, the Packaging Machin-

ery Manufactures Institute (PMMI), comprised of about 135 United States

companies, developed a set of textbooks and materials to provide a com-

plete instructional package for use in schools. The first school that

used the PMMI package was Thomas A. Edison Vocational and Technical high

school in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Instructors worked closely with the

staff of PMMI and relied on local industry to provide the necessary ma-

chinery. Later, this program was implemented in schools in New York,








Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, and Tennessee. Although most of the ma-

chines used in the instruction were packaging machines, the components

of these were essentially the same as on most other industrial machines.

Many PMMI members cooperated with schools by providing manuals, spare

parts, and machinery (new and old) to supplement the PMMI instructional

program (Johnston, 1976).

Another "packaged" program being developed for school systems in-

volved the combined use of the microcomputer and videodisc. The Minnesota

Educational Computing Consortium (MECC)-Rockefeller Family Fund Project

demonstrated the potential of using the Apple II microcomputer with the

Pioneer Model VP-1000 Optical Videodisc player. The 5-unit course in eco-

nomics was to be developed consisting of 8 to 12 sessions of 15 to 30

minutes each. (This packaged program was not completed as of the time of

this writing.) An accompanying manual would be the main instructional

guide and teacher input would be minimal. Written materials would also

be provided which the student would use interacting with the microcomputer

and the videodisc player. Two television monitors used were a 9-inch

black and white for the microcomputer and a 13-inch color for the video-

disc (Glenn & Kehrberg, 1980).

During the 1980-1981 school year, the United States Air Force pro-

vided the Air Force Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (AFJROTC) pro-

gram to over 36,000 American students in 285 high schools in 45 of the 50

United States, Guam, England, Germany, and Spain. The program included

instruction in aviation, national defense, space, careers, and leadership.

Studies in aviation were applicable to both military and civilian aspects

(Air Force Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps, Note 3, pp. 4, 13-14).

The objectives of the program were to develop

a. An appreciation of the basic elements and requirements for na-
tional security.








b. Respect for and an understanding of the need for constituted
authority in a democratic society.

c. Patriotism and an understanding of their personal obligation
to contribute toward national security.

d. Habits of orderliness and precision.

e. A high degree of personal honor, self-reliance, and leadership.

f. Knowledge of fundamental aerospace doctrine.

g. Basic military skills.

h. A knowledge of and appreciation for the traditions of the Air
Force.

i. An interest in the Air Force as a career. (Department of the
Air Force, Note 4, p. 2)

Instructors for the AFJROTC program were retired Air Force personnel.

Although instructors had to meet Air Force standards, the hiring was done

by the school officials and they were considered employees of the school.

AFJROTC graduates joining the United States Air Force entered at the sec-

ond pay grade level (Department of the Air Force, Note 4, pp. 6-7).

The United States Army provided a Junior Reserve Officers' Training

Corps (JROTC) program for inclusion in a high school's curriculum. The

program emphasized citizenship and leadership. Land navigation and team-

work were also part of the program. "American Military History provides

an understanding of the military role in current events" (United States

Army JROTC, Note 5, p. 2). Markmanship instruction included the famil-

iarization of safety precautions and maintenance of the .22-caliber rifle.

Retired Army personnel were utilized as instructors hired by school offi-

cials with the approval of the Army. Selection of instructors was the

prerogative of the school officials. The Army did "reimburse the school

one-half the difference between each instructor's retired military pay and

what he would receive if on active duty" (United States Army JROTC, Note

5, p. 3).








The United States Marine Corps offered a program similar to that

of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Like the others, they emphasized their

own military specialty.


Description and Purpose of NJROTC

In order to obtain data concerning the locus of formal decision

making of an instructional program provided by an outside agency, an

existing program had to be used as a vehicle for the study. The one

chosen was the NJROTC program provided by the Navy. In order that the

reader might have a better understanding of the vehicle (NJROTC) used,

following is a review of available written material to provide a de-

scription of the NJROTC program and its purpose.

The purpose of NJROTC could be viewed in the context of the concern

of the greater community. The community had been complaining that schools

were not coming up to expectancy in the academic achievement of students,

that students were not graduating ready to take their place in the world

as followers or, especially, as leaders, and that many of today's youth

had not learned the meaning of patriotism, loyalty, and pride of country.

Too many students seemed to take for granted the freedoms they enjoyed

without a feeling of obligation to the country that made these possible.

If youth were unwilling to stand up for their country, a challenge from

another country would be an easy victory for the latter (Cheatham, 1981,

p. 15). Within this context, NJROTC stimulated enthusiasm for scholar-

ship and appreciation for heritage and traditions of America and instilled

in its cadets a sense of pride in their organization, in their associates,

and in themselves. NJROTC was a community type program intended to help

students learn about possible careers with an emphasis on the sea, its

potential for food and medicine and its importance as a way of transportation









to bring to the United States those materials not available within its

shores but required for the nation to advance technologically.

In order to fulfill this ideology, the Navy had developed a 3-year

and a 4-year NJROTC program. The goals of the programs as outlined by

Peake (Note 6) could be summarized as follows:

1. Cadets would perform their duties and responsibilities of citi-

zenship by applying principles of leadership and by planning and imple-

menting social and academic activities for the NJROTC program.

2. Cadets would use positive traits of character by participating

in exercises that called for orderly conduct; performing in a manner that

displayed self-confidence; performing with moral soundness, honesty, and

uprightness; developing a philosophy of life that respects others; being

sensitive to the welfare of one's country; and finding pleasure in indi-

vidual and group achievements.

3. Cadets would become aware of and concerned for humanity and world

affairs by relating civil defense to national security, problems of man-

kind to self, world to domestic affairs, and historical events to present

with emphasis on seapower.

4. Cadets would recognize the value of constituted authority by ob-

serving orders and rules established by authorities, accepting responsi-

bility for their actions, and influencing others to accept constituted

authority.

5. Cadets would become aware of career opportunities and develop

skills commensurate with those entering the Navy at the third enlisted

grade level (p. 28).

The curriculum for the NJROTC program did not conflict with other

courses offered by the high school but became an integral part of the

school's total academic offering. In addition to topics on naval subject








matter, the curriculum included navigation, leadership, nautical astron-

omy, electronics, oceanography, and first aid which could be of use to

cadets in choosing a career other than the naval service. Through this

course of study, cadets were able to develop a practicing knowledge of

the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, develop an awareness of

and concern for humanity and world affairs, develop a well-disciplined

mind and body, and develop positive traits of character (e.g., self-

discipline, self-reliance, orderliness, integrity, respect, patriotism,

and individual and group pride). Additionally, cadets were able to de-

velop an interest in oceans and their influence on world affairs, a sci-

entific interest in the sea, and a concept of seapower (Sundt, 1980, pp.

5-6).

The NJROTC program not only provided students with another elective

but also brought to a high school many extracurricular activities (e.g.,

a drill and rifle team) and the opportunities for cadets to participate

in a mini-recruit training program and to visit naval vessels (Chief of

Naval Education and Training, Note 7, p. 9). NJROTC permitted the school

to participate in parades in a manner other than marching bands. The

unit color guard could be used at various school activities for opening

ceremonies as well as lead the school contingent in a parade. Also avail-

able to cadets was an annual weekend field meet in which cadets from dif-

ferent schools compete in obstacle races, track, marching, personnel in-

spection, and academic achievements, winning awards for themselves and

their high school. From these activities, cadets could acquire a greater

understanding of individual courage and effort as well as responsibility

to and for other team members (Lilly, 1981, pp. 10-13).

In addition to knowledge of naval matters, cadets were taught good

study habits. They were provided the basics for obtaining the most from








study including a study system for a reading assignment (Sundt, 1980,

pp. 7-11). In leadership class, cadets acquired leadership styles and

approaches not only through learning in the classroom but also by prac-

ticing leadership in roles of responsibility by having a position of au-

thority within the NJROTC company or battalion structure (Sundt, 1980,

pp. 40-42). Learning about leadership in civilian life was also taught

(Sundt, 1980, p. 39). The communication skill which cadets learned was

of value not only in other classes in high school but in whatever career

they chose to follow after graduation (Sundt, 1980, pp. 42-44). In health

education cadets learned the importance of development in emotional growth

and maturity. Personal hygiene, cleanliness, and posture were emphasized

(Sundt, 1980, pp. 45-50).

An advantage of the NJROTC program was its low cost to the school or

school system. The Navy provided all necessary texts, library reference

material, and equipment (Chief of Naval Education and Training, Note 2,

p. VII-1). Uniforms were provided at no cost to the cadets. The host

school provided office, storage, drill, and classroom space.

The Navy assisted in locating qualified instructors but the final

decision to hire rested solely with the school officials (Chief of Naval

Education and Training, Note 2, p. IV-2). Retired naval personnel were

hired as instructors and those available had a minimum of a bachelor de-

gree. Assistant instructors may or may not have had a degree. The in-

structors' minimum salary was the difference between their retired pay

and the full pay they would have received if on active duty. Of this

difference, the Navy reimbursed the school or school system half the

minimum amount. The school system coulo pay more than the minimum but

only one-half of the minimum was reimbursed (Public Law 88-647, 1964,

sec. 2031 (d) (1)).









Since the school officials had the final word on hiring a naval sci-

ence instructor, the same requirements could be made of them as of any

other teacher similarly employed. The school officials held the option to

rehire or not rehire without interference or objection from the Navy.

Like other teachers, the naval science instructors were available to as-

sist in various assignments for the smooth operation of the school (Chief

of Naval Education and Training, Note 7, pp. 2, 5).

In brief, high school officials could enter into agreement with the

Navy to have implemented in their high schools an NJROTC program which

had the general goals to develop informed, responsible, and self-disci-

plined citizens and to promote an understanding of the need for authority

in a democratic society and of the requirements for national security.

Instructors were retired naval personnel whose salary was partially paid

by the Navy.















CHAPTER III
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


Chapter III is a presentation and analysis of the data collected

concerning role incumbents' involvement in decision making relative to

the operation of the NJROTC program, the vehicle used to determine the

locus of formal decision making relative to the operation of an instruc-

tional program provided by an outside agency. The chapter is divided

into four major sections. The first section includes information ob-

tained as a result of the interviews held with participants in the study

who were visited by the researcher. The next two sections contain a pre-

sentation and analysis of the data obtained through the decision paint

analysis instrument relative to the study participants' perception of

(a) final decision makers and (b) all participators in the decision-

making process (including the final decision makers). The last major sec-

tion is an analysis of the differences in frequency as final decision

makers or participators as perceived by participants in the study in

high schools with more and less successful NJROTC programs.


Interviewee Perceptions of the Decision Point Analysis
Instrument and Other Relevant Concerns

On-site interviews were conducted at six randomly selected high

schools to obtain in-depth data relative to the study and to ensure the

reliability of the decision items. Three schools were selected from the

list of high schools with NJROTC programs considered more successful

and three from the list of high schools with NJROTC programs considered








less successful. The three high schools visited from the former list

were High Schools #51, #64, and #71; from the latter list, High Schools

#55, #69, and #79 were visited. (The data collected by means of the

decision point analysis instrument from the study participants in these

schools are included in the following two sections of this chapter.)

Of the 48 prospective interviewees, 8 from each of the 6 selected schools,

47 were available and willing to participate. High School #69 did not

have a cadet officially assigned to the third senior ranking cadet posi-

tion at the time of the researcher's visit.

The purposes of the interviews included the verification of the

decision point analysis instrument's reliability. In this regard, the

interviewees were questioned concerning the clarity in meaning of the

decision items and the adequacy of the list of positions and decision

items included. Results related to these purposes are discussed in the

next three paragraphs.

Through the on-site interviews, it was learned that participants

considered (a) decision items 3 (the decision relative to publicizing

the NJROTC program to the community) and 14 (the decision relative to

the release of local news items concerning the NJROTC program) to be the

same, (b) decision item 12 (the decision relative to the assignment of

homework) to have been an actual day-to-day assignment of homework and

not a policy decision, and (c) decision item 15 (the decision relative

to policy concerning assignment of grades) interpretable in two ways--

grade level or performance achievement. Hence, decision items 12, 14,

and 15 were not used in the analyses presented in this chapter. Decision

item 3 was retained as it was more encompassing than item 14.

Of the 47 participants interviewed, 38 held that the list of posi-

tions in the decision point analysis instrument included all involved








in the decision-making processes in their schools relative to the deci-

sion items considered. Three cadets from High Schools #51 and #79 indi-

cated that the cadet public affairs officer was a participant in deci-

sions relative to publicizing the NJROTC program. The principal of high

school #51, the assistant naval science instructors of High Schools #51

and #55, and the counselor and the senior ranking cadet of High School

#69 stated that others interested in multipurpose areas also participated

in decision making relative to the use of those areas by the naval sci-

ence instructors. In High School #51, the naval science instructor so-

licited input from all cadets relative to decisions involving field trips.

Additionally, six interviewees perceived the final decision makers for

decision items #11 and #18 to be outside their local school organiza-

tions, i.e., at the Navy and state levels.

Except for one participant in High School #51, no others thought

that other decision items should have been added to the instrument. The

item recommended for consideration was fund raising projects for which

the final decision was made by the principal with participation by the

naval science instructor, assistant naval science instructor, and cadets.

The second senior ranking cadet and the third senior ranking cadet

in High School #79 believed that they should have been involved in deci-

sions relative to cadet assignments. The senior ranking cadet in High

School #70 wanted section leaders to be involved also. The senior rank-

ing cadet in High School #55 held that the three most senior ranking

cadets should participate in decisions to accept and retain students in

the NJROTC program. The principal of High School #79 wanted parents in-

volved in decisions concerning field trips.

All participants interviewed in High School #64 perceived a strong

harmonious relationship between the instructors of the NJROTC department









and those in the other departments. In the other two high schools

visited with NJROTC programs considered more successful, a harmonious

working relationship was reported; however, there was a reported re-

luctance to excuse cadets from non-NJROTC classes in one school and a

report of one teacher being uncooperative in the other school. In the

three high schools visited whose NJROTC programs were considered less

successful, there were no positive comments concerning the working re-

lationship. However, there were no reported negative comments.

Two cadets in High Schools #70 and #79 recommended that decision-

making procedures be changed to include more participation by the senior

ranking cadets. On the other hand, the principal of High School #79

held that there should be no cadet involvement in the decision-making

process.

Except for the possible duplication of content in decision items 3

and 14 and the ambiguity of items 14 and 15, information obtained from

the in-depth interviews, summarized in the preceding paragraphs, was not

deemed significant enough to necessitate changes in the decision point

analysis instrument. Therefore, as has been noted, the only changes made

to the instrument for the analyses, in the following sections, were the

deletion of decision items 12, 14, and 15.


Perceptions about the Final Decision Makers

In this section, questions 1 and 2 of the statement of the problem

are answered relative to which role incumbents were perceived as being

the final decision makers in making decisions relative to the operation

of NJROTC, an instructional program provided by an outside agency. The

first subsection contains the data relative to question 1 and the second

subsection, to question 2. In each subsection the data collected by mail









are presented and analyzed by inspection and narration separate from

that collected by the researcher during visits to selected high schools.

Each subsection is concluded with a presentation of the combined data

(i.e., that obtained from both sources). Additionally, in the subsec-

tion containing the combined data, there is a presentation of informa-

tion relative to the frequency with which the perceived final decision

makers were involved by decision item (as shown in the decision point

analysis instrument in Appendix A). Frequency tables are included to

provide a summary of the data collected.


Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered More Successful

Data collected by mail. Of the 11 high schools, that were mailed

the instrument, with NJROTC programs considered more successful and meet-

ing the criteria for inclusion in the data analysis, 27 of 33 (3 per high

school) potential participants returned the decision point analysis in-

strument. As has been noted, there were no returns from High Schools

#53 and #71. Thus, usable data were provided by participants in nine

high schools. These included the nine principals, the nine naval sci-

ence instructors, and the nine senior ranking cadets.

Table 1 is a summary of the data provided by mail by the partici-

pants from high schools with more successful NJROTC programs. The en-

tries in the table are the number of times the listed position's role

incumbents were perceived to be final decision makers by each category

of participants. For example, the first entry (21) indicates that the

9 principals, who responded from high schools with more successful NJROTC

programs, perceived their superintendents (or their staffs) to be the

final decision makers for decision items listed in the decision point

analysis instrument in 21 instances.










TABLE 1


Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from Participants in Schools with
More Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Principals (9)b 21 41 5 1 57 0 0 0 0

Naval Science
Instructors (9) 25 40 5 2 68 0 0 0 0

Senior Ranking
Cadets (9) 9 19 1 1 88 1 1 0 0

Position Totals 55 100 11 4 213 1 1 0 0

Percent of
Grand Total 14.29 25.97 2.86 1.04 55.32 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00

Grand total = 385. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of par-
ticipants (27) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know" re-
sponses (42) and the number of omissions (5) where the participants perceived final decision makers to be
others than those listed; i.e., 27 x 16 (42 + 5) = 385.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.






46

All participants perceived the superintendents or their staffs, the

principals, the assistant principals, the counselors, and the naval sci-

ence instructors to be final decision makers on at least one decision-

making item relative to the operation of the NJROTC program. The naval

science instructors were perceived to be final decision makers most fre-

quently (55.32% of the time) followed by the principals (25.97%) and the

superintendents or their staffs (14.29%). The assistant principals,

the counselors, the assistant naval science instructors, and the senior

ranking cadets were each perceived to be final decision makers less than

3% of the time. One cadet perceived the assistant naval science instruc-

tor to be the final decision maker on one item and another cadet per-

ceived the senior ranking cadet to be a final decision maker for one item.

It is noted that the responses given by the principals and the naval

science instructors relative to the frequency of final decisions made by

role incumbents by position varied very little. In comparison there was

much variation in the responses of the senior ranking cadets. This in-

dicates that the senior ranking cadets were probably not aware of which

role incumbents made most of the final decisions concerning the NJROTC

program in which they were a student leader. This is moderately sub-

stantiated by the fact that the 9 senior ranking cadets participating

in this part of the study indicated "don't know" 24 times while the 18

principals and naval science instructors responded so 18 times.

In completing the decision point analysis instrument, participants

were requested to indicate their own participation in the decision-making

process for each decision item listed. Two of the response choices for

this entry were "only provided information" and "had no participation

in making the decision." Table 2 is a summary of the number of times

each of these two choices was selected by role incumbents, in high








schools with more successful NJROTC programs, who participated in the

study by mail and who did not perceive themselves as final decision

makers nor active participators.

Table 2 is a summary of role incumbents' responses when the role

incumbents did not consider themselves as final decision makers nor ac-

tive participants in the decision-making process. In 152 of 160 cases,

they considered themselves as having no involvement in the decision-

making process as opposed to providing information only.


TABLE 2

Frequencies of Mailed Responses Relative to the Role
Participants Not Involved in a Specific Decision
Item and Affiliated with Schools with More
Successful NJROTC Programs

Participants

Naval Science Senior
Response Principal Instructor Ranking Cadet

Information Only 0 4 4

No Participation 59 20 73

Data collected by visitation. This subsection includes data from

the decision point analysis instrument collected during visits to the

three high schools whose NJROTC programs were considered more success-

ful. Of the 24 (8 per high school) potential participants, all were

available and willing to participate in the study by completing the in-

strument. Table 3 is a summary of the data provided by these partici-

pants.

The principals, the assistant principals, the counselors, and the

naval science instructors perceived the superintendents, or their staffs,

and themselves as the only final decision makers. However, in High

School #51, the assistant naval science instructor perceived himself











TABLE 3

Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from Participants in Schools Visited with More


Participants

Principals (3)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (3)

Assistant Naval
Science Instructors
(3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (3)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Position Totals

Percent of
Grand Total


Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa

SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


2


17 1



14 2


7 0


8 0


0


0 0


0


1 25 0 0



0 16 1 0


2 13 1 0


1 25 0 1


11.36 34.07 3.47 18 76 .5 D6 .0 00


11.36 34.07 3.47


1.89 47.63 0.95


0.63 0.00 0.00










Table 3--extended

Grand total = 317. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of
participants (24) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know"
responses (64) and the number of omissions (3) where the participants perceived the final decision makers
to be others than those listed; i.e., 24 x 16 (64 + 3) = 317.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








as the final decision maker relative to policy concerning makeup tests.

In High School #64, the senior ranking cadet held that the assistant

naval science instructor made the final decisions concerning rules of

conduct for cadets while the second senior ranking cadet noted that the

senior ranking cadet made that final decision. The third senior ranking

cadet indicated that the assistant naval science instructor was the final

decision maker relative to assignment of cadets to officer and petty of-

ficer positions and that the senior ranking cadet was the final decision

maker relative to when cadets would wear the NJROTC uniform. As in the

data collected by mail, the naval science instructors were perceived

to be the final decision maker most frequently (47.63% of the time) fol-

lowed by the principals (34.07%) and the superintendents or their staffs

(11.36%). The assistant principals, the counselors, the assistant naval

science instructors, and the senior ranking cadets were perceived to be

final decision makers minimally (i.e., less than 4% of the time).

Except in the case of the principals, as final decision makers, the

responses given by the cadets in this group (Table 3) were closer in fre-

quency to those given by non-cadet participants than was found in the

data collected by mail (Table 1). In this group of participants, the 9

cadets gave "don't know" responses 47 times while the 15 non-cadet par-

ticipants did so a total of 17 times.

Table 4 is a summary of role incumbents' responses when the role in-

cumbents did not consider themselves as final decision makers nor active

participants in the decision-making process. In 190 of 211 cases, they

considered themselves as having no involvement in the decision-making

process as opposed to providing information only.

The in-depth data collected by visitation, as presented above, sub-

stantiates the data collected by mail. In the following subsection, both









TABLE 4

Frequencies of Responses Relative to the Role of Participants Not Involved in a Specific
Decision Item and Affiliated with Schools Visited with More Successful NJROTC Programs

Participantsa

Response PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Information Only 0 0 2 2 6 1 2 8

No Participation 17 30 36 1 8 33 32 33

aPRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--naval science instructor, ANSI--assist-
ant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third
senior ranking cadet.








sets of data are combined to answer more fully the part of the first

question of the statement of the problem relative to final decision

makers. Additionally, as has been noted, there is information provided

relative to the extent to which final decision makers were involved by

decision item.

Data collected by mail and visitation combined. In the following

paragraphs, data from both mail and visitation are combined. The com-

bined data provide a more complete answer to the part of the first ques-

tion relating to final decision makers.

The total number of participants providing responses used in the

data analyses and affiliated with high schools whose NJROTC programs

were considered more successful was 51. Included were 12 principals, 3

assistant principals, 3 counselors, 12 naval science instructors, 3 as-

sistant naval science instructors, 12 senior ranking cadets, 3 second

senior ranking cadets, and 3 third senior ranking cadets. Table 5 is a

summary of the data provided by these participants.

Since four times as many principals, naval science instructors, and

senior ranking cadets than other role incumbents participated in the

study, the entries for them in Table 5 show expected greater frequen-

cies. From the combined data, the answer to the first question of the

statement of the problem is that primarily the superintendents or their

staffs, the principals, and the naval science instructors constituted the

formal decision-making processes as final decision makers in high schools

whose operation of the NJROTC program was considered more successful.

Specifically, they were involved 94.44% of the time. Other role incum-

bents participating minimally were the assistant principals (3.13%), the

counselors (1.43%), the assistant naval science instructors (0.57%), and

the senior ranking cadets (0.43%).










TABLE 5

Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools
with More Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


Principals (12)b 23

Assistant
Principals (3) 6

Counselors (3) 7

Naval Science
Instructors (12) 28

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3) 6

Senior Ranking
Cadets (12) 12

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3) 2

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (3) 7

Position Totals 91

Percent of
Grand Total 12.96


66 7


1 75 0


0 17

1 20


57 6



14 2


26 1


8 0


3 93 0 0



0 16 1 0


3 101 2 1


1 25 0 1


29.63 3.13 1.43 51.85 0.57 0.43 0.00 0.00


0 0










Table 5--extended


Grand total = 702. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of
participants (51) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know"
responses (106) and the number of omissions (8) where the participants perceived the final decision makers
to be others than those listed; i.e., 51 x 16 (106 + 8) = 702.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

Number in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








Even though not related directly to the questions which gave direc-

tion to the study, it was deemed to be of interest to make a cursory ex-

amination of the extent to which the final decision makers were involved

by decision item. Therefore, attention is called to Appendix G which

contains a presentation of the frequency with which each of the role in-

cumbents was perceived to be involved in each of the 16 usable decision

items in the decision point analysis instrument. A study of Appendix G

reveals the following:

1. The superintendents or their staffs were perceived to be de-

cision makers most frequently on two items (#4 and #18).

2. The principals were perceived as decision makers most frequently

on four items (#5, #6, #7, and #13).

3. The naval science instructors were perceived as decision makers

most frequently on 10 items (#1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10, #11, #16, #17, and

#19).

4. Each decision item was perceived to be most frequently decided

by one role incumbent.

As expected, when the data from both sources were combined, the

cadets had the majority of the "don't know" responses. The cadets re-

sponded that they did not know the final decision maker 71 times while

the non-cadet participants responded so 35 times.

Table 6 provides a summary of the participants' perception of their

own roles when they perceived themselves not to be a final decision maker

or an active participant in the decision-making process. As can be easily

seen from the table, in 342 of 371 cases, when the role incumbents did

not consider themselves making the final decision nor being an active

participant in the decision-making process, they considered themselves










TABLE 6

Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses Relative to the Role of
Participants Not Involved in a Specific Decision Item and
Affiliated with Schools with More Successful NJROTC Programs

Participantsa

Response PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Information Only 0 0 2 6 6 5 2 8

No Participation 76 30 36 21 8 106 32 33

aRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--naval science instructor, ANSI--assist-
ant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third
senior ranking cadet.








as having no involvement in the decision-making process as opposed to

providing information only.


Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered Less Successful

Data collected by mail. Of the 11 high schools with NJROTC programs

considered less successful included in the mail portion of the study,

27 of 33 (3 per high school) potential participants returned the decision

point analysis instrument. These included 9 principals, 10 naval science

instructors, and 8 senior ranking cadets. (Since High School #59 was

deleted from the study, the two responses from personnel from that high

school were not included in the analyses.) Table 7 contains a summary

of the data provided by these participants.

The superintendents or their staffs, the principals, the assistant

principals, the counselors, and the naval science instructors were per-

ceived as a final decision maker on at least one decision item relative

to the operation of the NJROTC program. No other role incumbent was per-

ceived to be a final decision maker. The naval science instructor was

perceived to be the final decision maker most frequently (46.83% of the

time) followed by the principal (34.94%) and the superintendent, or his/

her staff (14.18%). The assistant principal and the counselor were in-

volved minimally--less than 3% of the time.

It is noted that the principals and the naval science instructors

perceived the superintendent or his/her staff and the principal to be a

final decision maker more frequently than did the senior ranking cadets.

This may indicate that the senior ranking cadets were not aware of the

final decisions made by the superintendents or their staffs and the prin-

cipals. This notion is further substantiated by the fact that the 8

senior ranking cadets participating in this part of the study indicated









TABLE 7


Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from Participants in Schools with Less Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Principals (9)b 20 62 4 1 55 D 0 0 0

Naval Science
Instructors (10) 28 46 5 1 75 0 0 0 0

Senior Ranking
Cadets (B) 8 30 2 3 55 0 0 0 0

Position Totals 56 138 11 5 185 0 0 0 0

Percent of
Grand Total 14.18 34.94 2.78 1.27 46.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Grand total = 395. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of
participants (27) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know"
responses (30) and the number of omissions (7) where the participants perceived the final decision makers
to be other than those listed; i.e., 27 x 16 (30 + 7) = 395.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.


Number in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








"don't know" 26 times on the instrument while the 19 principals and naval

science instructors responded so 4 times. It is also noted that the

naval science instructors perceived themselves to be a final decision

maker more frequently than did the principals or the senior ranking cadets

perceive them to be (Table 7).

Table 8 provides a summary of the participants' perception of their

own role when they perceived themselves not to be a final decision maker

or an active participant in the decision-making process. As can be seen

from the table, in 132 of 163 cases, when the role incumbents did not

consider themselves making the final decision nor being an active par-

ticipant in the decision-making process, they considered themselves as

having no involvement in the decision-making process as opposed to pro-

viding information only.


TABLE 8

Frequencies of Mailed Responses Relative to the Role of
Participants Not Involved in a Specific Decision
Item and Affiliated with Schools with Less
Successful N3ROTC Programs

Participants

Naval Science Senior
Responses Principal Instructor Ranking Cadet

Information Only 4 11 16

No Participation 32 21 79


Data collected by visitation. Of the 24 (8 per high school) poten-

tial participants in the three high schools with less successful NJROTC

programs that were visited, 23 were available and willing to participate

in the study by completing the decision point analysis instrument. The

third senior ranking cadet in High School #69 had left school and an






60

official replacement had not been made. Table 9 is a summary of the data

provided by these participants.

The assistant principals, the counselors, and the naval science in-

structors perceived the superintendents or their staffs, the principals,

and themselves as making all final decisions. However, in High School

#69, the principal perceived the assistant naval science instructor as

the final decision maker relative to the frequency with which the cadets

wear their NJROTC uniforms. The assistant naval science instructor in

High School #79 and the senior ranking cadet in High School #69 perceived

the assistant naval science instructors as the final decision makers rela-

tive to policy concerning makeup tests. In High School #69, the second

senior ranking cadet perceived the assistant naval science instructor as

the final decision maker relative to the assignment of NJROTC cadets to

officer and petty officer positions and the senior ranking cadet as making

the final decision relative to publicizing the NJROTC program to the com-

munity. Consistent with the data collected by mail, the naval science

instructors were perceived to be the final decision makers most fre-

quently (42.26% of the time) followed by the principals (35.48%) and the

superintendents or their staffs (14.84%). The assistant principals, the

counselors, the assistant naval science instructors, and the senior rank-

ing cadets were involved minimally--less than 4% of the time.

Further study of Table 9 shows that except in the case of the prin-

cipals as final decision makers, the responses of the cadets in this

group were similar to those given by non-cadet participants. Like the

responses received by mail, the majority of the "don't know" responses

concerning knowledge of the final decision maker were by cadets. The 8

cadets gave this response 45 times while the 15 non-cadet participants

did so a total of 9 times.











TABLE 9

Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from Participants in Schools Visited with Less Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


Principals (3)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (3)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)


6 25


Senior Ranking
Cadets (3) 6

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3) 3

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (2) 5

Position Totals 46

Percent of
Grand Total 14.84


2


18 2



11 4


5 0


2 0


0 9


1


0 21 0 0



2 21 1 0


1 24 1 0


1 16 1 1


0 0

4 1


2.26 42.26 1.29 0.32 0.00 0.00


D


0 0


0 0


35.48 3.55










Table 9--extended


Grand total = 310. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of
participants (23) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know"
responses (54) and the number of omissions (4) where the participants perceived the final decision makers
to be other than those listed; i.e., 23 x 16 (54 + 4) = 310.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








Table 10 is a summary of role incumbents' responses when the role

incumbents did not consider themselves as final decision makers nor ac-

tive participants in the decision-making process. In 202 of 219 cases,

they considered themselves as having no involvement in the decision-

making process as opposed to providing information only.

The in-depth data collected by visitation, as presented above, are

consistent with the data collected by mail. In the following subsection,

both sets of data are combined to better answer the part of the second

question of the statement of the problem relative to final decision

makers.

Data collected by mail and visitation combined. In the following,

the decision point analysis instrument data from both sources are com-

bined. It provides a more complete answer to that part of the second

problem question relative to final decision makers.

The total number of participants providing data used in the analy-

ses and affiliated with high schools whose NJROTC programs were considered

less successful was 50. Included were 12 principals, 3 assistant prin-

cipals, 3 counselors, 13 naval science instructors, 3 assistant naval

science instructors, 11 senior ranking cadets, 3 second senior ranking

cadets, and 2 third senior ranking cadets. Table 11 is a summary of the

combined data from these participants.

Since approximately four times as many principals, naval science

instructors, and senior ranking cadets than other role incumbents par-

ticipated in the study, the entries for those role incumbents in Table

11 show expected greater frequencies. From the combined data, the answer

to the second question of the statement of the problem is that primarily

the superintendents or their staffs, the principals, and the naval science

instructors constituted the formal decision-making process as final










TABLE 10


Frequencies of Responses Relative to the Role of Participants Not Involved in a Specific
Decision Item and Affiliated with Schools Visited with Less Successful NJROTC Programs

Participants

Response PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Information Only 0 5 0 2 0 1 2 7

No Participation 15 30 40 9 12 35 38 23

apRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant
naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior
ranking cadet.











TABLE 11

Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools
with Less Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Final Decision Makers

Final Decision Makersa


Participants

Principals (12)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (13)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (11)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadet (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadet (2)

Position Totals

Percent of
Grand Total


PRIN APRIN

87 6


COUN NSI ANSI

1 64 1


SRC SSRC

0 0


1 15

1 14


64 7



11 4


35 2


2 0


1 96 0 0



2 21 1 0


4 79 1 0


1 16 1 1


35.18 3.12 1.70 44.82 0.57 0.14 0.00 0.00


14.47










Table 11--extended


Grand total = 705. (Relative to final decision makers, the grand total is the product of the number of
participants (50) and the number of usable decision items (16) minus the sum of the number of "don't know"
responses (84) and the number of omissions (11) where the participants perceived the final decision makers
to be others than those listed; i.e., 50 x 16 (84 + 11) = 705.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

Number in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.





67

decision makers in high schools whose operation of an NJROTC program was

considered less successful and they were involved 94.47% of the time.

Other role incumbents who participated minimally were the assistant prin-

cipals (3.12%), the counselors (1.70%), the assistant naval science in-

structors (0.57%), and a senior ranking cadet (0.14%).

As noted above, it was deemed to be of interest to make a cursory

examination of the extent to which the final decision makers were in-

volved by decision item. Therefore, attention is called to Appendix G

which contains a presentation of the frequency with which each role in-

cumbent was perceived to be involved in each of the 16 usable decision

items in the decision point analysis instrument. Study of Appendix G re-

veals the following:

1. As in school organizations with more successful NJROTC programs,

the superintendents or their staffs were perceived as the most frequent

decision makers for decision items #4 and #18.

2. The principals were perceived as most frequent decision makers

on the same four decision items as in school organizations with more suc-

cessful programs (i.e., #5, #6, #7, and #13).

3. The naval science instructors were perceived as most frequent

decision makers on 10 decision items (i.e., #1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10, #11,

#16, #17, and #19).

The reader will recall that one of the options available to the par-

ticipants was not having knowledge of the Final decision maker. There-

fore, it is significant to note that the non-cadet participants responded

"don't know" 13 times whereas the cadet participants responded so 71

times.

Table 12 provides a summary of the participants' perception of their

own role when they perceived themselves not to be a final decision maker









TABLE 12


Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses Relative to the Role of
Participants Not Involved in a Specific Decision Item and
Affiliated with Schools with Less Successful NJROTC Programs

Participants

Response PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Information Only 4 5 0 13 0 17 2 7

No Participation 47 30 40 30 12 114 38 23

PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--naval science instructor, ANSI--assist-
ant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third
senior ranking cadet.








nor an active participant in the decision-making process. As can be seen

from the table, in 334 of 382 cases, when the role incumbents did not con-

sider themselves making the final decision nor being an active participant

in the decision-making process, they considered themselves as having no

involvement in the decision-making process as opposed to providing in-

formation only.


Participators in the Decision-Making Process

In this section, questions 1 and 2 of the statement of the problem

are answered relative to which role incumbents were perceived as being

participators, including being a final decision maker, in the decision-

making process relative to the operation of an NJROTC program, an instruc-

tional program provided by an outside agency. The first subsection pro-

vides an answer to question 1 and the second, an answer to question 2.

In each subsection the data collected by mail are presented and analyzed

by inspection and narration separate from that collected by the researcher

during visits to the three selected high schools. Each subsection is

concluded with a presentation of the combined data. Additionally, in

the subsection containing the combined data, there is a presentation of

information relative to the frequency with which the perceived partici-

pators were involved by decision item (as shown in the decision point

analysis instrument in Appendix A). Frequency tables are included to pro-

vide a summary of the data collected.


Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered More Successful

Data collected by mail. Of the 11 high schools, that were mailed

the decision point analysis instrument, with NJROTC programs considered

more successful and meeting the criteria for inclusion in the data analy-

sis, 27 of 33 (3 per high school) potential participants returned the









decision point analysis instrument. Usable data were provided by par-

ticipants in nine high schools as noted in the previous section. Table

13 is a summary of the data provided about participators in the decision-

making process.

The 27 participants perceived role incumbents of all positions listed

in the decision point analysis instrument as participators in the

decision-making process, although some participation was minimal. The

naval science instructors were perceived to be participators most fre-

quently (28.56% of the time) followed by the assistant naval science in-

structors (19.37%) and the principals (18.74%). All others were involved

less than 10% of the time. Frequency of overall participation, by posi-

tion, differed from the final decision makers. Specifically, as can be

determined from Table 13, the assistant naval science instructors and

the senior ranking cadets were more involved as participators than the

superintendents or their staffs who were more frequently involved as

final decision makers.

Again, it is noted that in the cases of the superintendents or their

staffs and the principals, there was more agreement about their roles as

participators between the principals and the naval science instructors

than between either of these groups and the senior ranking cadets. This

is another indication that the senior ranking cadets may have had no

awareness of the involvement of the superintendents or their staffs and

the principals in the decision-making processes relative to the NJROTC

program of which they were student leaders.

Data collected by visitation. Of the 24 (8 per high school) poten-

tial participants in the 3 schools visited, all were available and willing

to participate in the study by completing the decision point analysis

instrument. Table 14 is a summary of the data provided by these 24 par-

ticipants.









TABLE 13


Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from Participants in Schools with More Successful
NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)

Participatorsa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Principals (9)b 31 85 25 4 94 36 8 2 2

Naval Science
Instructors (9) 36 88 43 16 120 93 35 22 16

Senior Ranking
Cadets (9) 12 35 6 10 103 86 67 25 10

Position Totals 79 208 74 30 317 215 110 49 28

Percent of
Grand Total 7.12 18.74 6.67 2.70 28.56 19.37 9.91 4.41 2.52

Grand total = 1110. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.


bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.











TABLE 14

Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from Participants in Schools Visited with More Successful NJROTC
Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)

Participatorsa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


Principals (3)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (3)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (3)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Position Totals

Percent of
Grand Total


9


24 5



26 9


15 0


19 1


8 33 16


8 45 30 8



7 37 34 10


5 36 32 14 10


3 36 34 14 14 10


5.82 28.17 5.51 4.99 29.11 20.37 5.93 4.57 3.53


5.82


20.17 5.51


4.99 29.11 20.37 5.93 4.57 3.53










Table 14--extended

Grand total = 962. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








Except for the principals, counselors, and senior ranking cadets,

the participants in this part of the study perceived all role incumbents

of positions listed in the decision point analysis instrument as active

participators in the decision-making process for at least one decision

item relative to the operation of the NJROTC program. The principals

and the counselors did not perceive the second senior ranking cadets

nor the third senior ranking cadets to he involved in any decision item

listed in the decision point analysis instrument. Additionally, the

counselors did not perceive the senior ranking cadets and the senior

ranking cadets did not perceive the assistant principals to be involved

in any of the decision items. The principal of High School #51 perceived

the senior ranking cadet to be a participator in the decision-makina

process only relative to the retention of NJROTC cadets in the program

and the assistant principal of High School #64 perceived the three senior

ranking cadets to be active participators only relative to publicizing

the NJRDTC program to the community. The naval science instructors and

the three senior ranking cadets perceived the three senior ranking cadets

to be active participators in more than one listed decision item.

As with the data received by mail, the naval science instructors

were perceived to be participators most frequently (29.11% of the time)

followed by the assistant naval science instructors (20.37%) and the prin-

cipals (20.17%). All others were seen as involved minimally, less than

6% of the time. Also, as in the data received by mail, the assistant

naval science instructors and the senior ranking cadets were seen as

more frequently involved in overall participation than the superinten-

dents or their staffs who were more frequently involved as final deci-

sion makers.








The data collected by visitation, as detailed above, substantiates

the data collected by mail. In the following subsection, both sets of

data are combined to more completely answer the first question of the

statement of the problem relative to overall participation in the

decision-making process. Additionally, as has been noted, there is in-

formation provided relative to the extent to which participators were

perceived to be involved by decision item.

Data collected by mail and visitation combined. As described pre-

viously, the total number of participants affiliated with high schools

whose NJROTC programs were considered more successful was 51. Table 15

is a summary of the data provided by these participants either by mail

or in the interview setting.

Since four times as many principals, naval science instructors, and

senior ranking cadets than other role incumbents participated in the study,

the entries for them in Table 15 show an expected greater number of fre-

quencies. From these combined data, the answer to the first question of

the statement of the problem is that primarily the principals, the naval

science instructors, and the assistant naval science instructors consti-

tuted the formal decision-making process as participators (including

final decision makers) in the high schools whose operation of the NJROTC

program was considered more successful. Specifically, together they par-

ticipated 68.05% of the time. Other role incumbents participating to a

lesser degree were the senior ranking cadets (8.06%), the superinten-

dents or their staffs (6.52%), the assistant principals (6.13%), the

second senior ranking cadets (4.49%), the counselors (3.76%), and the

third senior ranking cadets (2.99%).

Further study of Table 15 shows that the frequency of participation

for the 3 most senior ranking cadets perceived by the 18 principals,











TABLE 15

Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools with More
Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)

Participatorsa

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


Principals (12)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (12)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (12)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Position Totals


34 116 34


30 18

29 7


39 112 48


26 9


50 6


20 4


135 402 127


12 127 52 9


4 33 12 1

10 33 14 0


24 165 123


0 0


43 27 20


7 37 34 10


15 139 118 81 35 17


3 36 34 14 14 10


3 27 24 9


78 597 411 167 93 62


Percent of
Grand Total 6.52


19.40 6.13 3.76 28.81 19.84 8.06 4.49 2.99


19.40 6.13 3.76 26.81 19.84 8.06


4.49 2.99










Table 15--extended

Grand total = 2072. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








assistant principals, and counselors was 16; whereas for the 18 most

senior ranking cadets themselves, it was 194. On the other hand, the

18 most senior ranking cadets perceived the 18 principals, assistant

principals, and counselors to be participators 121 times; whereas the

principals, assistant principals, and counselors, themselves did so

260 times. This could be an indication that these two groups of par-

ticipants may have had no awareness of each other's involvement in the

decision-making process relative to the NJROTC program.

Even though not directly related to the questions which gave direc-

tion to the study, it was deemed to be of interest to make a cursory

examination of the extent to which the participators (including the final

decision makers) were involved by decision item. Therefore, attention

is called to Appendix H which contains a presentation of the frequency

with which each role incumbent was perceived to be involved in each of the

16 usable decision items in the decision point analysis instrument. Study

of Appendix H reveals the following:

1. The principals were perceived as the most frequent participators

on five decision items (#4, #6, #7, #13, and #18).

2. The naval science instructors were perceived as the most fre-

quent participators on 10 decision items (#1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10, #11,

#16, #17, and #19).

3. The principals and the naval science instructors were equally

perceived as the most frequent participators on decision item 5.


Schools with NJROTC Programs Considered Less Successful

Data collected by mail. As has been stated, from the 11 high schools

with NJROTC programs considered less successful included in the mail por-

tion of the study, 27 of 33 (3 per high school) potential participants








returned the decision point analysis instrument. Table 16 is a summary

of the responses provided by these participants.

The 27 participants perceived the role incumbents of all positions

listed in the decision point analysis instrument as participators in the

decision-making process, although some were minimal. The naval science

instructors were perceived to be participators most frequently (28.73%

of the time) followed by the principals (20.92%) and the assistant naval

science instructors (18.67%). Others were involved less than 9% of the

time. Overall participation differed from "final decision makers" for

this group in so far as the assistant naval science instructors were

more involved as participators than the superintendents or their staffs

who were more involved as final decision makers.

It is noted that for the positions of superintendents or their

staffs, principals, assistant principals, and naval science instructors,

the principals and naval science instructors were in greater agreement

with each other than they were with the senior ranking cadets. Again,

this may suggest that the senior ranking cadets were not aware of the

extent of participation by the superintendents or their staffs, the prin-

cipals, the assistant principals, or even the naval science instructors.

In the case of the frequency of involvement of the senior ranking cadets,

the number of responses by the principals was much less than those by

the naval science instructors and the senior ranking cadets. These data

may indicate that the principals were not aware of the amount of partici-

pation by the senior ranking cadets in the decision-making process rela-

tive to the operation of the NJROTC program.

Data collected by visitation. Of the 24 (8 per high school) poten-

tial participants in the 3 schools visited in this category, 23 were










TABLE 16


Decision-Item Frequencies of Mailed Responses from Participants in Schools with Less Successful
NJRDTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)
a
Participators

Participants SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

Principals (9)b 38 108 47 21 112 49 8 5 4

Naval Science
Instructors (10) 32 86 34 17 127 87 31 17 15

Senior Ranking
Cadets (8) 11 39 12 17 81 72 33 8 3

Position Totals 81 233 93 55 320 208 72 30 22

Percent of
Grand Total 7.27 20.92 8.35 4.94 28.73 18.67 6.46 2.69 1.97

Grand total = 1114. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

SUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bNumber in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.








available and willing to participate in the study by completing the de-

cision point analysis instrument.

As can be seen from a study of Table 17, except for the principals

and the assistant principals, the participants in this part of the study

perceived all role incumbents of positions listed in the decision point

analysis instrument as active participators in the decision-making proc-

ess relative to at least one decision item concerning the operation of

the NJROTC program. The principals and the assistant principals did not

perceive the second senior ranking cadets nor the third senior ranking

cadets to be involved in any decision item. No principal perceived

senior ranking cadets as participators but the assistant principal of

High School #55 perceived the senior ranking cadet to participate in the

decision-making process relative to rules concerning the conduct of the

NJROTC cadets. As in the data received by mail, the three most frequent

participators were perceived to be the naval science instructors (26.86%

of the time), the assistant naval science instructors (21.77%), and the

principals (19.33%). In this regard, the data compiled from the visita-

tions were in different order when compared to the mailed responses.

Specifically, from the mailed data, the naval science instructors were

followed by the principals and the assistant naval science instructors;

by visitation, the naval science instructors were followed by the assist-

ant naval science instructors and the principals. Other role incumbents

were involved less than 9% of the time. Consistent with the data re-

ceived by mail, the overall participation differed from "final decision

makers" for this group in so far as the assistant naval science instruc-

tors were more involved as participators than the superintendents or

their staffs who were more involved as final decision makers.











TABLE 17

Decision-Item Frequencies of Responses from Participants in Schools Visited with Less Successful NJROTC
Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)


Participants

Principals (3)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (3)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (3)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (2)

Position Totals

Percent of


SUPT PRIN

19 33


APRIN

8


13

31


28 8



20 14


14 9


15 2


Participatorsa

COUN NSI

10 32


ANSI SRC

23 0


4 37 26 6



5 37 36 7


5 29 28 12


7 36 32 12


5 20

50 264


Grand Total 8.44 19.33 8.85 5.88 26.86 21.77 4.68 2.75 2.24


SSRC

0


0

2


2



2


7


B 8


6 2

27 22


Grand Total 8.44


19.33 8.85 5.08 26.86 21.77 4.68 2.75 2.24










Table 17--extended

Grand total = 983. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bThe number in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.






84

Further study of Table 17 shows that the frequency of participation

for the 3 most senior ranking cadets perceived by the 9 principals, as-

sistant principals, and counselors was 7; whereas for the 8 most senior

ranking cadets themselves, it was 68. On the other hand, the 8 most

senior ranking cadets perceived the 9 principals, assistant principals,

and counselors to be participators 68 times; whereas the principals, as-

sistant principals, and counselors, themselves did so 180 times. This

could be another indication that these two groups of participants may

have had no awareness of each other's involvement in the decision-making

process relative to the NJROTC program.

The data collected by visitation seemed to substantiate that ob-

tained by mail even though the rank order of frequency of participation

was not identical. The small difference resulting in the interchange in

rank order of positions between the principals and the assistant naval

science instructors and between the counselors and the senior ranking

cadets was not considered significant to warrant discarding the data re-

ceived by mail.

Data collected by mail and visitation combined. The following is a

presentation of the combined data (mailed and visitation) from the de-

cision point analysis instrument. It provides a more complete answer

to the part of the second question of the statement of the problem rela-

tive to overall participators (including final decision makers) in the

decision-making process. The total number of participants affiliated

with high schools whose NJROTC programs were considered less successful

was 50, as described earlier in the report. Table 18 is a summary of the

data from these 50 individuals.

Since approximately four times as many principals, naval science

instructors, and senior ranking cadets than other role incumbents











TABLE 18

Decision-Item Frequencies of Combined Mailed and Visitation Responses from Participants in Schools with Less
Successful NJROTC Programs Relative to Perceived Participators (including Final Decision Makers)


Participants

Principals (12)b

Assistant
Principals (3)

Counselors (3)

Naval Science
Instructors (13)

Assistant Naval
Science
Instructors (3)

Senior Ranking
Cadets (11)

Second Senior
Ranking Cadets (3)

Third Senior
Ranking Cadets (2)

Position Totals

Percent of


Participatorsa

SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC


57 141 55


39 114 42


20 14


53 21


15 2


31 144 72 8


21 164 113 37 19 16



5 37 36 7 2 2


22 110 100 45 15 10


7 36 32 12


Orand Total 7.82 20.17 8.58 5.01 27.85 28.12 5.613 2.72 2.10


20.17 B.58 5.01 27.85 20.12 5.63


2.72 2.10


Grand Total 7.82










Table 18--extended

Grand total = 2097. (Relative to participators, the grand total is the sum of the position totals.)

aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal, APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.

bThe number in parentheses refers to the number of participants providing usable data.






87

participated in the study, the entries for them in Table 18 show a greater

number of frequencies. From the combined data, the answer to the second

question of the statement of the problem is that primarily the princi-

pals, the naval science instructors, and the assistant naval science

instructors constituted the formal decision-making processes as partici-

pators (including final decision makers) in high schools where the oper-

ation of the NJROTC programs were considered less successful. They

participated 68.14% of the time. Other role incumbents who participated

to a lesser degree were the assistant principals (8.58%), the superin-

tendents or their staffs (7.82%), the senior ranking cadets (5.63%), the

counselors (5.01%), the second senior ranking cadets (2.72%), and the

third senior ranking cadets (2.10%).

As pointed out earlier, a cursory examination of the extent to which

participators (including final decision makers) were involved in the

decision-making process by decision item was deemed to be of interest.

Therefore, attention is called to Appendix H which contains a presenta-

tion of the frequency with which each role incumbent was involved in each

of the 16 usable decision items in the decision point analysis instru-

ment. A study of Appendix H reveals the following:

1. The principals were perceived to be the most frequent partici-

pators on six decision items (#4, #5, #6, #7, #13 and #18).

2. The naval science instructors were perceived to be the most fre-

quent participators on the same 10 decision items as in school systems

with more successful NJROTC programs (i.e., #1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10, #11,

#16, #17, and #19).

3. The superintendents or their staffs were perceived to be the

second most involved on decision items #4, #6, and #18.








A Comparison of Role Incumbent Involvement in the
Decision-Making Processes in Schools with More
and Less Successful NJROTC Programs

Data presented and analyzed in this section are intended to provide

an answer to the third problem question (Were there any differences in

the role incumbents' involvement in the decision-making processes used

by school officials relative to the operation of a more successful NJROTC

program compared to a less successful program?). The answer is given in

two parts--first, the involvement of role incumbents as final decision

makers and second, the involvement of role incumbents as participators

(including final decision makers).

To assist in the analysis, two frequency tables were constructed

indicating the average (mean) number of times each role incumbent was

perceived to have (a) made the final decision (Table 19) and (b) partici-

pated, including making the final decision (Table 20), in the decision-

making process for all decision items considered in the study. The

tables include the means and standard deviations of the number of final

decisions or participation perceived for each of the nine role incumbent'

positions included in the study divided into two groups--those affiliated

with high schools with more successful NJROTC programs and those affili-

ated with high schools with less successful NJROTC programs. The mean

appearing in the tables is the mean of the means obtained for each school

included in the study and the standard deviation is based on the variance

of those means. (For the reader's information, the mean number of percep-

tions by school is included as Appendix I.) Since this part of the study

involves a significant difference of importance, a series of analysis of

variance tests were computed with a 95% level of confidence (alpha = .05)

required for significance.










TABLE 19


Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance Results Relative to Positions of Perceived
Final Decision Makers in Schools with More and Less Successful NJROTC Programs

Positions

Statistic SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

More Successful

Mean 1.93b 3.90 0.45 0.16 7.53 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00

SD 1.07 1.80 0.62 0.18 1.44 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00

Less Successful

Mean 2.22 5.05 0.46 0.18 6.53 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00

SD 1.45 1.97 0.64 0.32 1.58 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.00

Computed F 0.32 2.39 0.00 0.04 2.82 0.36 1.56 NA NA

Probability
of Greater
Critical F .5754 .1352 .9773 .8480 .1059 .5549 .2237 NA NA


aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal,
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.


APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second


Number refers to the mean number of times the role incumbent was perceived to be the final decision maker.










TABLE 20

Means, Standard Deviations, and Analysis of Variance Results Relative to Positions of Perceived Participators
(including Final Decision Makers) in Schools with More and Less Successful NJROTC Programs)
Positions

Statistic SUPT PRIN APRIN COUN NSI ANSI SRC SSRC TSRC

More Successful

Mean 2.78b 7.78 2.61 1.34 11.69 8.02 3.66 1.82 1.12

SD 1.41 1.41 1.70 0.75 1.48 1.49 1.34 1.01 0.91

Less Successful

Mean 3.29 8.84 3.74 2.09 11.89 8.32 2.27 1.02 0.77

SD 1.30 2.70 1.92 1.09 1.59 2.50 1.89 1.07 0.93

Computed F 0.95 1.50 2.51 3.99 0.10 0.14 4.51 3.74 0.91

Probability
of Greater
Critical F .3402 .2333 .1265 .0572 .7521 .7152 .0441 .0649 .3498


aSUPT--superintendent or his/her staff, PRIN--principal,
naval science instructor, ANSI--assistant naval science
senior ranking cadet, TSRC--third senior ranking cadet.


APRIN--assistant principal, COUN--counselor, NSI--
instructor, SRC--senior ranking cadet, SSRC--second


bNumber refers to the mean number of times the role incumbent was perceived to be a participator.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs