• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Abstract
 Statement of the problem
 Design of the research
 Analysis of the data
 Discussion and suggestions for...
 Appendix A: Measurements of...
 Appendix B: Letters
 Appendix C: API validation
 Appendix D: Florida competencies...
 Bibliography
 Biographical sketch














Title: Differences in attitudes and educational philosophy of selected and nonselected applicants for public school administrative positions /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00099478/00001
 Material Information
Title: Differences in attitudes and educational philosophy of selected and nonselected applicants for public school administrative positions /
Physical Description: viii, 72 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hart, Jacquelyn D., 1938-
Publication Date: 1985
Copyright Date: 1985
 Subjects
Subject: School administrators -- Selection and appointments -- Florida -- Alachua County   ( lcsh )
School administrators -- Attitudes -- Florida -- Alachua County   ( lcsh )
Public schools -- Employees -- Florida -- Alachua County   ( lcsh )
Foundations of Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Foundations of Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1985.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 66-70.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jacquelyn D. Hart.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00099478
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 - 000875093
notis - AEH2633
oclc - 014641493

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 2 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
    Abstract
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Statement of the problem
        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
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Design of the research
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Analysis of the data
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    Discussion and suggestions for further study
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Appendix A: Measurements of beliefs
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Appendix B: Letters
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
    Appendix C: API validation
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Appendix D: Florida competencies for school-based administrators
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Bibliography
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
    Biographical sketch
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
Full Text












DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES AND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
OF SELECTED AND NONSELECTED APPLICANTS
FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS










By

JACQUELYN D. HART


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





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1985















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Certainly words are inadequate to thank the

dissertation committee for its support and direction

throughout the period of this study. The writer sincerely

thanks her chairman, Dr. Bob Burton Brown, who provided

stimulation, encouragement, and suggestions and planted the

idea from which the study grew.

Grateful recognition is given to Dr. Linda

Crocker who unselfishly gave her time and patiently gave

advice regarding the statistical analysis and who set a

standard of quality and reasonableness in thinking and

in research, which has been an enduring inspiration.

Special thanks are extended to the other members

of the committee, Dr. Robert A. Bryan, grammarian, and

Dr. David C. Smith, who always kept an open door and was

there when needed.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

. . . ii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . .


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

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . vi

CHAPTER

I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . ... . . . 1

Background of the Problem .. . .... 1
Purpose of the Study... . . ..... 3
Review of Literature ... . . . 5
Selection Systems...... 5
The assessment center .. . ... 5
The targeted selection
program . . . . ... 6
The Administrator Perceiver
Inventory .. . ........ 7
Philosophical and Sociopolitical
Attitudes . ...... 13
The Personal Beliefs
Inventory . . . . . . 13
The Bumper Sticker
Inventory . . . . . 16
Theoretical Rationale . . . . . 18
Significance of the Study .... . . 19


II DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH . . . . .

Subjects . . . . . . .
Instrumentation . ..
Measurements of Beliefs . .
The Personal Beliefs
Inventory . . . .
The Bumper Sticker
Inventory ....
Interview Performance ..
The Administrator Perceiver
Inventory . . .
The Interview Rating Scale .


. . 21

. . 21
22
. . 22

. . 22

S 23
. . 24

S. 25
- 27












CHAPTER


Data Collection and Design .
Analysis of the Data . .

III ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . .

IV DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY ....

APPENDIX

A MEASUREMENTS OF BELIEFS . .

B LETTERS . . . . . .

C API VALIDATION . . . . .

D FLORIDA COMPETENCIES FOR
SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . .


Page

27
28

30


. . . 42

. . . . 51

. . . . 54


. . . 62

. . . 66

. . . 71















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Relationship of teacher rating scores
and Administrator Perceiver Inventory
scores (N = 48) . . ... .. ... . . 25

2. Relationship of teacher rating scores
and Administrator Perceiver Inventory
(3rd Edition) (N = 22) . . . ... .. ... 27

3. Means and standard deviations for the
three hiring categories . . . . . 32

4. Univariate F-ratios for contrasts of
means between the three hiring categories
presented in Table 3 . . . . .. . . 32

5. Means and standard deviations when
hiring categories collapsed (selected and
non-selected) . .. . . . . . . .33

6. Univariate F-ratios for contrasts of
means between the two hiring categories
presented in Table 5 . . . . . ... 33

7. Correlation coefficients, probability of
obtaining this correlation by chance,
and sample size . . . . . .. ... . 35















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



DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES AND EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY
OF SELECTED AND NONSELECTED APPLICANTS
FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS

By

Jacquelyn D. Hart

December 1985

Chairman: Bob Burton Brown
Major Department: Foundations of Education

One purpose of this study was to investigate

possible attitudinal differences among selected and

nonselected applicants for a public school administrative

position. A second purpose of this study was to explore the

relationship between selected attitudinal characteristics

of potential public school administrators and the ratings

of these subjects obtained from two different structured

selection interviews. The following four major research

questions were examined:

1. Is there a difference in mean Bumper Sticker

Inventory scores among candidates who were

selected and assigned to an administrative

post, selected but not yet assigned, and

not selected?











2. Is there a difference in mean Personal

Beliefs Inventory scores among the three

groups of candidates?

3. What are the correlations for each pair of

the following variables: Bumper Sticker

Inventory, Personal Beliefs Inventory,

Administrator Perceiver Inventory, and

Interview Rating?

4. Does a weighted linear combination of

Bumper Sticker Inventory and Personal

Beliefs Inventory scores predict the hiring

outcome decision?

The sample of the study consisted of 54 of the 77

public school teachers, elementary and secondary, who had

applied to become a part of the administrative pool of the

school district, 1984-85, and who had passed an initial

screening and advanced to the interview stage of the

selection process.

One-way analysis of variance was performed on each

of the four variables to test the significance of observed

differences in group means. The observed differences

between the groups in mean Bumper Sticker Inventory scores

and Personal Beliefs Inventory scores were not statistically

significant. A discriminant function analysis showed that

the combined scores did not differentiate between the

selected and nonselected groups.











Only two correlations were statistically

significant. One significant correlation was between

Interview Rating and Administrator Perceiver Inventory and

the other was the correlation between Bumper Sticker

Inventory and Personal Beliefs Inventory.

Recommendations were offered for future validation

studies of the administrator selection process.


viii














CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


Background of the Problem

The questions posed in this study have arisen from

the increased use of structured interviews and systematic

selection systems for appointing administrators in the

public schools. The Florida Statutes, Section 231.068, as

amended by Chapter 84-336, Laws of Florida (1984), establish

the Management Training Act and provide that

By July 1986, each district school board shall
adopt and implement an objective based process for
the screening, selecting, and appointment of
principals and assistant principals in the public
schools of this state which meets the criteria
approved by the Florida Council on Education
Management. (p. 2)

The report continues:

There is a growing recognition that the kind of
person in the job of the principal will likely
determine the kind of school that results. The
factors consistently identified as characteristic
of effective schools are all either directly or
indirectly related to the effectiveness of
principals. Because of the increasing importance
that schools provide quality instruction for all
students, the increasing complexity of the job of
the school principal, and the increasing number of
principals who are near retirement age, it is
essential that special attention be given to
providing a process with which superintendents,
school boards, and the public can be assured that
the most talented and capable people are selected
to manage the schools in each district. (p. 2)









The primary purpose of the Management Training Act

is to provide a support system to improve the quality of

the performance of principals and other managers. The

guidelines apply to the district and to the processes

within those districts for the screening, selecting, and

appointment of principals and assistant principals; however,

as a part of each district's human resource development

program, these guidelines can and should be applied to all

school-site and district-level administrative positions.

A selection system is a uniformly applied

step-by-step procedure for collecting applications and

making hiring decisions. It is designed to ensure fair

selection decisions for all applicants. Currently, there

are at least three different selection systems in operation

in the state of Florida: the assessment center, an

industrial model; the targeted selection program, a

behavioral approach advanced by Development Dimension

International, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and the

Administrator Perceiver Inventory system, offered by

Selection Research, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska.

The present study focused upon the Administrator

Perceiver selection system as it is applied to the

selection of school administrators in a north-central

Florida county school district. The central issue of this

study was whether in addition to providing "objective data"

for the selection of school administrators, the system also

resulted in unintentional selection of administrators who










subscribe to a more narrow spectrum of educational,

philosophical, and sociopolitical views than are held by

the entire pool of applicants.


Purpose of the Study

One purpose of this study was to investigate

possible attitudinal differences among selected and

nonselected applicants for public school administrative

positions. A second purpose of this study was to explore

the relationship between selected philosophical and

sociopolitical attitudes of potential public school

administrators and the ratings these subjects received in

job-selection interviews on two different structured

interview forms which comprise the Administrator Perceiver

Inventory system.

The first attitude variable of interest was the

applicant's orientation toward Dewey's philosophy of

experimentalism. This variable was operationally defined

using the score on an attitude assessment known as the

Personal Beliefs Inventory (Brown, 1968). The second

attitudinal variable was the applicant's basic

sociopolitical attitude, measured on a traditional-liberal

dimension, using the Bumper Sticker Inventory (Brown, 1984).

The following four major research questions were examined:

1. Is there a difference in mean Bumper Sticker

Inventory scores among candidates who were










selected and assigned to an administrative

post, selected but not yet assigned, and

not selected?

2. Is there a difference in mean Personal

Beliefs Inventory scores among candidates

who were selected and assigned, selected

but not yet assigned, and not selected?

3. What are the correlations for each pair of

the following variables: Bumper Sticker

Instrument, Personal Beliefs Inventory,

Administrative Perceiver Inventory, and

Interview Rating?

4a. Does a weighted linear combination of

Bumper Sticker Instrument and Personal

Beliefs Inventory scores predict the hiring

outcome decision?

4b. Does the weighted linear combination of

Administrative Perceiver Inventory,

Interview Rating, Bumper Sticker Instrument,

and Personal Beliefs Inventory scores lead

to improved prediction of hiring outcomes

over that obtained by Administrative

Perceiver Inventory and Interview Rating

scores alone?












Review of Literature

Selection Systems

In the exploration of the relationship between

selected characteristics of potential public school

administrators and the Administrator Perceiver selection

system ratings obtained from structured selection

interviews, it may be useful to place the Administrator

Perceiver system in perspective with the other two selection

systems operating in Florida.

The assessment center. The first industrial use

of an assessment center is generally attributed to the

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) (Bray, 1982).

Other centers have been more or less variations on

AT&T's theme (Finkle, 1974). The term "assessment

center" is somewhat of a misnomer since it implies that

there must be a building or some other semipermanent

physical location for the activity. Although this

is often the case, there is nothing mandatory about

it. What is really involved in assessment is the

application of various methods of observing and

evaluating behavior in a variety of situations. The main

characteristic of the center is that candidates are

evaluated not on what they have done in present or past jobs,

but on how they are likely to cope with a new type of

position. The purpose, therefore, is to provide arnobjective











off-the-job evaluation of developed abilities, potential

strengths and weaknesses, and motivation (Howard, 1974).

Currently, Dade County, the largest school district in

Florida, and the fourth largest in the nation, is the only

district in the state utilizing an assessment center

approach.

The targeted selection program. The targeted

selection program was developed by an industrial

psychologist, William C. Byham, through a firm in

Pittsburgh called Development Dimensions International

(DDI). Byham began working on the selection problems when

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was

first formed in 1964, and his general notion was to

determine how selections for employment could be made to

meet the EEOC guidelines.

"DDI first started with the assessment center

technology and found that assessment centers were very

expensive" (W. H. Drummond, personal communication, April 1985) .

Rather than focus on "what if," targeted selection is a

scheme which makes hiring decisions based on the candidate's

past performance; this reflects a belief in the application

of a simple idea, i.e., one's past performance is the best

predictor of future performance (W. H. Drummond, personal

communication, April 1985). It is precisely its emphasis

on past performance rather than hypothetical "what if ."

situations that distinguishes targeted selection from both









the assessment center and the Administrator Perceiver

Inventory methodology. At least seven school districts in

the state of Florida are using the targeted selection

method: Broward, Palm Beach, Santa Rosa, DeSoto, Polk,

Pinellas, and Orange Counties.

The Administrator Perceiver Inventory. The

Administrator Perceiver Inventory (API) is an individually

administered structured interview composed of 70 standard

questions. The interview questions are designed to permit

an individual to express himself/herself on different

job-related issues. In addition, the API system included a

second structured interview composed of 38 items developed

by SRI according to local district specifications. These

items were developed to assess the 19 competencies specified

by the state -of Florida for all school administrators (see

Appendix D). Henceforth, the 70-item interview will be

called the API and the 38-item developed uniquely for Florida

Administrators will be called the Interview Rating (IR).

There are 12 different themes that underlie item

content on the API: mission, human resources, development,

relator, delegator, arranger, catalyzer, audience

sensitivity, group enhancer, discriminator, performance

orientation, work orientation, ambiguity tolerance, leader,

and gestalt.

The Administrator Perceiver Inventory was designed

for the purpose of identifying interpersonal skills while

screening applicants for school principal position. Unlike








the assessment center and the targeted selection program,

which are industrially based, the API is theoretically based

in an educational philosophy.

The purpose of the API is twofold:

1. To provide individuals who are responsible

for the employment of principal's

information concerning the probable

job-related characteristics of the applicant

with emphasis on the building of positive

administrator-teacher relationships and a

positive, open school climate.

2. To provide administrators responsible for

managing principal's information concerning

the principal's probable job-related

characteristics with the emphasis again

on the building of positive

administrator-teacher relationships and a

positive, open school climate.

Prior to the development of the API, similar

procedures were used in studies such as those done by Knapp

(1955) and Gaeddert (1956), using scored interviews.

Bonneau (1957) found a correlation of r = .67 between scored

structured interview responses of teachers and student

ratings of the teachers. Dodge (1955, 1964) and Dodge and

Clifton (1956) conducted several studies using the interview

process with teachers, which indicated that responses were











stable (reliable) and produced significant correlations

between the interview and student ratings of student

teachers. Leiske (1969) concluded that the interview

process was highly effective for predicting performance of

elementary level teachers who would effectively "activate"

students.

Winseman (1969) found the interview process to be

quite reliable, showing a significant relationship between

the interview analysis and the teacher/student rapport of

vocational teachers. Warner (1969) found a predictive

relationship between interview data collected at the

conclusion of the teacher's senior year of college and

the ratings they received from the administrators and

students at the end of the teacher's first year of teaching.

All of the noted studies given here preceded the

development of the API; they can be considered the

foundations of-it because they

1. Provided evidence that structured interviews,

with scored responses, could be reliable

and would significantly correlate with

external criteria

2. Identified questions that were, in

combination, associated with an external

criteria

3. Developed scoring standards for questions











It was learned from the vice-president, Selection

Research Institute, that two dissertation studies have

been conducted on the Administrator Perceiver Inventory.

Moss (1982) sought to determine if an administrator

interview instrument, the API, developed by Selection

Research, Inc., could be used to evaluate in-service

principals. His basic hypothesis was that there would be

a significant correlation between the API interview

scores and the teacher survey, and between the central

office ratings and the API interview scores. Other

tests were run to determine if there were differences

when comparisons were made of elementary and secondary

principals.

Moss's basic hypothesis was accepted. There were

significant correlations (.338) between the interview

and the teacher survey, and (-.551) between the interview

and central office ratings. Because the .338 is in the

low range, caution would be advised in using the

Administrator Perceiver as a principal evaluation tool.

The negative correlation between the API scores and the

central office ratings indicates that there was a tendency

for principals with high API scores to receive lower

central office ratings. This raises some question about

the validity of API scores for in-service principals.











Powell (1978) used the Administrator Perceiver as a

measure to identify the organizational climate of several

elementary schools and to study attributes of the

administrator of each school to determine whether or not

certain climates were relative to selected attributes. The

following two questions were addressed:

1. Is the organizational climate of an

elementary school related to specific,

predictable attributes of an elementary

administrator?

2. Is there a relationship between individual

components of the organizational climate

and specific attributes of an elementary

administrator?

Powell found that the administrator who scored high

for either or all of the following--() Human Resource

Development, (2) Audience Sensitivity, (3) Group Enhancer,

(4) Performance Orientation, and (5) Work Orientation-

probably possessed traits to provide a climate in which

teachers would have high morale. Principals who scored

high for each of the life themes (1) Group Enhancer,

(2) Work Orientation, and (3) Ambiguity Tolerance were

considered principals who could provide a climate in which

teachers would be comfortable. The life themes (1) Mission,











(2) Human Resource Development, (3) Audience Sensitivity,

(4) Group Enhancer, (5) Performance Orientation, and

(6) Work Orientation were significant predictors; however,

the Group Enhancer theme appeared to be the most

significant theme for identification of administrators who

could provide schools with open climates. In summary,

these studies are thought provoking, but they do not provide

substantial evidence about the nature of the attitudes or

belief systems measured by the API.

Webb (1968) noted that every instrument for

observing and rating teaching or administrative behavior

has some theoretical structure, even if it is not
explicitly stated. The very fact that particular
behaviors are classified or listed as pertinent
enough to be considered, establishes the
proposition that some rationale designated they
be chosen for examination. (p. 61)

This relates directly to interview scores used in the

selection process. Somebody, on some basis, has declared

these interview questions and answers to be essential. The

investigation and identification of variables which

correlate with interview scores is an excellent approach

to improving our understanding of what such instruments

actually measure. Given the critical decisions that are

made using the API scores, additional investigations of

its correlates seem in order. The present study was

designed to determine whether API scores are related to a











particular educational philosophy as well as to more

general sociopolitical views.


Philosophical and Sociopolitical Attitudes

Two attitudinal variables chosen for use in this

study as possible correlates for the API scores were

orientation toward John Dewey's philosophy of

experimentalism and a basic sociopolitical attitude

(liberalism vs. traditionalism). In the following sections,

literature on instruments designed to measure each of these

attitudes is reviewed and a rationale is presented for

using these instruments in this study.

The Personal Beliefs Inventory. The Personal

Beliefs Inventory (PBI), developed by Bob Burton Brown,

measures fundamental beliefs along the dimension of John

Dewey's experimentalism; it has been used for collecting

data since 1963. The 2-month test-retest reliability (.63-

.65) in the instrument is extremely strong and it correlates

highly with Rokeach's Open and Closed Mind, which can

further be traced back to the F-scale by Thorndike at

Berkeley in the late forties (Brown, 1968).

Reliabilities found for the Personal Beliefs

Inventory compare favorably with the reliability

coefficients reported for other respected measures in

this area (Brown, 1968). For example, the reliabilities

reported for the Study of Values ranged from











.39 to .84 (Allport & Vernon, 1931), while the reliabilities

for the Dogmatism Scale ranged from .68 to .93, and for

the Total Opinionation Scale they ranged from .57 to .76

(Rokeach, 1960, p. 90).

Brown (1962) studied the relation of teachers'

classroom practices to two measures of a philosophy of

experimentalism. This study was the launching pad/

lightning rod for Brown's Personal Beliefs Inventory in

which three major generalizations were found:

1. Teacher beliefs about basic philosophical

propositions and educational practices

can be identified which are in agreement

and/or disagreement with Dewey's philosophy

of experimentalism.

2. Teacher practices can be identified which

are in agreement and/or disagreement

with Dewey's philosophy of experimentalism.

3. Teacher beliefs and teacher practices

identified on the same dimension of

agreement/disagreement with

experimentalism may be compared to

identify patterns of relationships which

differentiate among groups of teachers.

The body of empirical research which follows is part

of the Personal Beliefs Inventory developmental history:










Hayes (1968) investigated the effects cooperating

teachers and college supervisors have on interns' beliefs

and found that the beliefs student teachers hold going

into their internships are more important in influencing

their scores on measures of educational philosophy than

the experiences they have during internship.

Bane (1969) found that the fundamental

philosophical beliefs (PBI scores) appear to have a greater

bearing on teaching behavior than either educational

beliefs (Teacher Practices Observation Record scores) or

belief systems characterized as either open or closed

(Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale). Further, he found that as the

beliefs of the teachers approached greater agreement with

experimentalism at the fundamental level, their practices

were found to be more experimental and more cognitively

complex. This relationship did not exist for educational

beliefs or open and closed mindedness. Apparently, what a

teacher believes to be good teaching practices has less

effect on his behavior than what he believes about more

fundamental issues.

In Brown's (1969) field test of the use of

judgments of teacher competence in classroom performances

as the potential basis for teacher certification, he

found that

1. Teachers' beliefs seem to have some influence
on both the observational descriptions and the











evaluative ratings of their teaching
behavior-although much less clearly than
do the beliefs of the observer-judges.

2. Observer-judges' beliefs appear to
strongly influence both their observational
descriptions and the evaluative ratings of
teacher behavior.

3. Teachers who use teaching practices in
agreement with John Dewey's philosophy of
education generally are given higher ratings
than those who do not.

4. Evaluation of teachers in terms of
global competencies seems to lack
justification; instead, teacher evaluation
is relative to the complex interaction of
many factors, including beliefs of both the
teacher and the observer-judges, observations
of classroom behavior, age, sex, experience,
grade level, and subject taught.

5. Teachers observed in all phases of the
study tended not to use teaching practices
advocated by John Dewey; i.e., they were
observed to use many more nonexperimental than
experimental teaching behaviors. This
represents a serious theory-practice dilemma,
as they failed in many cases to use the very
practices which they themselves had said
they should use. (p. 94)

In view of findings that teachers' beliefs

influence teacher behavior and that observers tend to award

higher ratings to teachers whose practices reflect Dewey's

philosophy, it seems reasonable to ask whether such

teachers who apply for administrative positions will also

be more favorably regarded in interview situations.

The Bumper Sticker Inventory. Unlike the Personal

Beliefs Inventory, which has been used for collecting

data for more than 20 years, and whose reliability is











extremely strong, the Bumper Sticker Inventory is making

its "maiden voyage" in this study. The Bumper Sticker

Inventory, also developed by Bob Burton Brown, is based

on Burton Yale Pines' book, Back to Basics. Unlike the

Personal Beliefs Inventory, which has a "left" bias, or

"liberal" bias, the Bumper Sticker Inventory has a "right"

bias, or "traditional" bias.

The Bumper Sticker Inventory is multidimensional;

it spans views on politics, economics, sociology, family,

medicine, morality, religion, and education. According

to B. B. Brown (personal communication, May 1985), the

difference between the Bumper Sticker Inventory and the

Personal Beliefs Inventory is that the Personal Beliefs

Inventory was built by a person who had a left bias on a

theory which has a left bias. The Bumper Sticker

Inventory, although it was constructed by the same person,

is based upon a more traditional bias. Therefore, the

correlation between these two instruments will be

interesting. In theory, they might be expected to work

like a left parenthesis and a right parenthesis,

bracketing an individual's beliefs. Both the Personal

Beliefs Inventory and the Bumper Sticker Inventory

reflect basic philosophic viewpoints that currently

influence American education, but perhaps in opposite

directions.











Theoretical Rationale

The rationale for investigation of a possible

relationship between the attitudes measured by the

Personal Beliefs Inventory, the Bumper Sticker Inventory,

and the API selection measures arose from the developmental

history of these instruments. The development of the

Administrator Perceiver Inventory can be directly traced

back to the early 1950s when Dr. Donald O. Clifton, now

president of Selection Research, Inc. (SRI), and others

were working with college counselors at the University of

Nebraska. This work led to the structured interview with

scored responses which was found significantly useful.

The development of the API was strongly influenced

by Carl Rogers' and Arthur Combs' humanistic, nondirective

theory of education (G. Muller, personal communication,

January 1985). For example, Rogers (1969) has stated that

the goal of education,if we are to survive, must become

the acceptance of change in learning. Rogers defined

certain attitudinal qualities which exist in the

interpersonal relationship between facilitator (teacher)

and learner and postulated that

We know that the initiation of such learning rests
not upon the teaching skills of the leader, not
upon his scholarly knowledge of the field, not
upon his curricular planning, not upon his use
of audiovisual aids, not upon the programmed
learning he utilizes, not upon his lectures and
presentations, not upon an abundance of books,











though each of these might at one time or
another be utilized as an important resource.
No, the facilitation of significant learning
rests upon certain attitudinal qualities which
exist in the personal relationship between the
facilitator and the learners. (p..105)

One of the ways Brown tested the Personal Beliefs

Inventory was to try it out on people whose beliefs were

well known. The questionnaire was sent to nationally

renowned educators like Harry S. Broudy, Arthur Combs,

Ira J. Gordon, Carl R. Rogers, and B. F. Skinner. The

results on the Personal Beliefs Inventory show both Rogers

and Combs to be in general agreement with experimentalism

with a score well above the median (Brown, 1962). Thus, if

Rogers' views were a strong influence in the development of

the API interview instruments, it seems quite reasonable

to hypothesize that persons who earn high scores on those

instruments would also earn high scores on Brown's Personal

Beliefs Inventory and low scores on Brown's traditional

Bumper Sticker Inventory.

Significance of the Study

Glasman (1984) has reviewed a number of studies

demonstrating the relationship between personal

characteristics of school administrators and school

effectiveness, as measured by school climate, staff moral,

and student achievement. Thus, the process used to select











school administrators in a district can have critical

long-range educational impact on teachers, students, and

the community at large. If a particular selection system

results in the appointment of school administrators who

subscribe to a particular educational philosophy or

certain political values, it is important to know this.

Such knowledge would be useful to the district

immediately affected, but also could alert all districts

concerned with adoption of objective selection systems to

the need for careful empirical study of unanticipated

consequences.















CHAPTER II
DESIGN OF THE RESEARCH


One purpose of this study was to investigate possible

attitudinal differences among selected and nonselected

applicants for a public school administrative position. A

second purpose of this study was to explore the relationship

between selected attitudinal characteristics of potential

public school administrators and the ratings of these

subjects obtained from two different structured selection

interviews.


Subjects

The subjects for this study were public school

teachers, elementary and secondary, from Alachua County,

Florida, public schools, who had applied to become part

of the administrative pool of the school district, 1984-85.

Initially, there were a total of 121 applicants. After an

initial screening of these applications, district

administration reduced this pool to 77 applicants who

advanced to the interview stage of the selection process.

These 77 applicants constituted the sample for this study.

For the purpose of this study, three selection

categories were identified: (1) selected and assigned to











an administrative position, (2) selected, but not yet

assigned, and (3) not selected. Only those applicants who

self-selected to take part in the study, by completing

two additional attitude questionnaires, were included in

the final sample. Fifty-four of the 77 applicants (70%)

agreed to participate and completed questionnaires.

The race and sex distributions of the sample were

as follow: (1) race-black, 8; white, 46; and (2) sex-

women, 23; men, 31.


Instrumentation

Measurements of Beliefs

Two inventories, the Personal Beliefs Inventory

and the Bumper Sticker Inventory, were used to measure the

beliefs of the subjects who were potential public school

administrators and those who were recently selected as

public school administrators from the administrative pool.

The Personal Beliefs Inventory. The Personal

Beliefs Inventory (PBI) was developed for the purpose

of measuring an individual's fundamental philosophic

beliefs in terms of agreement-disagreement with

John Dewey's philosophy of experimentalism. The

instrument consists of 40 items to which the respondent

indicates the extent of his/her agreement or disagreement

with each item by means of a six-point scale, 1 and 6











representing the extremes of agreement and disagreement.

The higher the total score, the higher an individual's

agreement is with experimentalism, and the lower the total

score, the less an individual agrees with experimentalism.

Three sample items from the Personal Beliefs Inventory

follow:

1. Change is a basic characteristic of nature,

and man has some measure of control over

this change by using his intelligence.

2. The mind possesses faculties for

remembering, imagining, reasoning, willing,

and so forth, which are developed by

exercise and discipline.

3. A statement of fact may be both true and

untrue depending on the standpoints and

conditions of the observations.

A description of the development and validation of

the PBI is provided by Brown (1968). For the PBI, Brown

reports reliability estimates made in four ways: (1) split-

halves, .60; (2) 2-months test-retest, .63-.75; (3) comparable

forms, .58; and (4) Hoyt internal consistency, .55-.78.

The Bumper Sticker Inventory. The Bumper Sticker

Inventory (BSI), developed by Brown (1984), measured

beliefs along a traditional-liberal dimension. The

instrument was based on Pines' Back to Basics book. The










instrument consists of 40 items. To each item, the

respondent indicates agreement-disagreement on a six-point

scale, from "I agree very much" to "I disagree very much."

Three sample items from the Bumper Sticker Inventory are

1. Sacrifice economic growth to protect the

environment

2. Equality of opportunity simply isn't good

enough; we must strive for equality of

results

3. Don't let creative expression replace

thinking and knowing in the school

curriculum

The BSI is without a validation history in that its

first application by an independent researcher is with the

present study. However, in the development of this scale,

Brown tested 75 items and selected those which had

significant Pearson product moment correlations with total

test scores for this population (B. B. Brown, personal

communication, May 1985).


Interview Performance

Two systematic structured interview instruments

designed by Selection Research, Inc., based on Carl Rogers'

and Arthur Combs' humanistic, nondirective approach to

counseling and education, were used by the district for

selecting applicants for the administrative pool.












The Administrator Perceiver Inventory. The

Administrator Perceiver Inventory is an individually

administered structured interview composed of 70 questions.

It may be scored only by individuals certified as

Administrator Perceiver specialists.

Table 1 below indicates the relationship of the

teacher rating scores and Administrator Perceiver scores

for a sample of 48 administrators (SRI, 1980). In this

particular study the API was administered to 48 practicing

administrators and a minimum of 25 teachers were asked to

rate each of the administrators in the sample. The

teacher ratings were then correlated with the API scores.



Table 1. Relationship of teacher rating scores and
Administrator Perceiver Inventory scores
(N = 48)

Correlation to
Instrument Mean SD Teacher Rating

Administrator Perceiver
Inventory (1st Edition) 29.21 8.74 +.50*

Administrator Perceiver
Inventory (2nd Edition) 26.63 8.65 +.65*


*p < .05.










As may be seen from Table 1, the teacher ratings

correlated significantly to both the first edition and the

second edition of the interview process.

In Table 2, the third edition of the Administrator

Perceiver Inventory also correlated significantly and

positively to similar teacher rating scores. This

particular study (SRI, 1980) was conducted with all the

administrators in a small suburban midwestern school

district.



Table 2. Relationship of teacher rating scores and
Administrator Perceiver Inventory scores
(3rd Edition) (N = 22)


Instrument Mean SD Correlation

Teacher rating 282.6 19.6
+. 58*
Administrator Perceiver +.58*
Inventory 37.4 9.6


*E < .05.


Interpretation of the Administrator Perceiver

Inventory is restricted to estimating the probability that

the interviewee will develop a positive relationship with

teachers and other job-related characteristics. The API

does not assess the interviewee's knowledge of subject

matter or management theory.











The Interview Rating Scale. The Interview Rating

Scale (IR) was developed as well by SRI based on the

district's and state's requirement of the 19 Competencies,

a copy of which is found in Appendix D. The interviews

are administered by a local district panel of four, with

an assistant superintendent always serving in the capacity

of chair. The IR was tested with a total of 70 items of

which 38 were selected by consensus as the "best responses"

from the "best principals." These measures of competencies

are traits which are devised for an effective public school

administrator. A high score is interpreted as indicative

of a potentially successful administrator.

Data Collection and Design

In January 1985, the deputy superintendent for the

School Board of Alachua County was contacted and permission

was granted to conduct the study. In April 1985, the deputy

superintendent wrote a memorandum to all individuals who had

applied for the administrative pool, transmitting the

questionnaire and requesting their participation. A copy

of the memorandum can be found in Appendix B. The

questionnaire contained two sections: Part I, the Bumper

Sticker Inventory, and Part II, the Personal Beliefs

Inventory. The instructions on the front cover of the

instruments indicated that there are no right or wrong












answers to any questions. They were further advised that

their responses to the items in this study were confidential

and to guarantee their anonymity, their responses would be

identified only by a "blind" number, age, race, and sex.

A copy of the questionnaire is in Appendix A.

A follow-up memorandum from the deputy

superintendent was sent in May 1985 to individuals in the

administrative pool and to those who _had been promoted

from the pool. A copy of this memorandum may be found in

Appendix B.

The completed questionnaires were returned to the

school district office. All scores from completed

questionnaires were collected by June 1, 1985.

Scores from the Administrator Perceiver Inventory

and the Interview Rating were provided by the school

district. Complete anonymity was again maintained and

subjects were identified to the researcher by the indication

of a corresponding number.

Analysis of the Data

Four scores of interest (API, IR, BSI, BPI) were

compiled for each subject. Statistics, such as means,

standard deviations, and Pearson product moment correlations,

were computed for each of these variables. Inferential





29





statistics were used to compare mean scores of subjects in

different hiring categories. These included four

univariate analyses of variance and discriminant function

analysis.














CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA


One purpose of this study was to investigate

possible attitudinal differences among selected and

nonselected applicants for a public school administration

position. A second purpose of this study was to explore

the relationship between selected attitudinal

characteristics of potential public school administrators

and the ratings of these subjects obtained from two

different structured selection interviews.

Subjects eligible for inclusion in this study were

77 applicants for the administrative pool who passed an

initial screening and advanced to the interview stage of

the selection process. All applicants for the

administrative pool were asked to participate in the study

by completing the questionnaire. Fifty-four subjects

completed the mailed questionnaire (PBI and BSI) scales

used in this study. Three of the 54 omitted more

than 10%of the items on the questionnaire and one added a

seventh number to the six-point scale. Subsequently,

responses of these four were discarded. The final sample,

therefore, for this study was 50 subjects.










The sample was divided into three categories which

represented decisions made by the district on their

applications. The categories were (1) selected and assigned,

(2) selected but not yet assigned, and (3) not selected.

In Table 3 the means and standard deviations are given for

each of the three hiring categories for age, two structured

interview scores, and two attitude scale scores. As noted

in Chapter I, the scores on the Interview Rating and the

Administrator Perceiver Inventory interview instruments

were used by district personnel for the selection of

applicants, so the differences among the groups on these

means were expected. The first two major research questions

of this study focused on whether the groups differed in

mean scores on the Bumper Sticker and the Personal Beliefs

attitudinal inventories.

One-way analysis of variance was performed on each

of the four variables to test the significance of observed

differences in group means. As expected, there were

significant differences for the interview ratings (IR and

API), but observed differences in mean BSI scores and PBI

scores were not statistically significant (F-ratios for

these tests are shown in Table 4).

Tables 5 and 6 show a reexamination of these data

with only two hiring categories (selected and nonselected).

The F-ratios in Table 4 again show no significant

differences in the mean BSI and PBI scores for selected

and nonselected applicants.









Table 3. Means and standard
hiring categories


deviations for the three


Standard
Variable Number Means Deviation

Age 11 38.00 4.31
GROUP I IR 11 32.55 2.91
(selected and API 11 29.09 5.12
assigned) BSI 11 136.73 16.98
PBI 11 145.55 17.62


GROUP II Age 18 41.83 5.36
GROUP II IR 18 30.11 3.32
(selected but API 18 26.06 4.16
not yet BSI 18 142.94 17.87
assigned) PBI 18 133.11 16.17


Age 21 40.48 6.35
IR 21 24.62 3.69
GROUP III API 21 18.86 6.17
(not selected) BSI 21 137.10 21.38
PBI 21 137.90 15.09




Table 4. Univariate F-ratios for contrasts of means
between the three hiring categories presented
in Table 3


Variable F-ratio PR > F df

IR 23.34* .0001 2,47
API 16.26* .0001 2,47
BSI 0.55 .5797 2,46
PBI 2.01 .1459 2,46

*Exceeds critical F-value at alpha = .05.










Table 5. Means and standard deviations when hiring
categories collapsed (selected and nonselected)

Standard
Variable Number Means Deviation

Age 29 40.38 5.26
IR 29 31.03 3.34
GROUP I API 29 27.20 4.70
(selected) BSI 29 140.59 17.50
PBI 29 137.83 17.53


Age 21 40.48 6.35
IR 21 24.62 3.69
GROUP II API 21 18.86 6.17
(not selected) BSI 20 137.10 21.38
PBI 21 137.90 15.09





Table 6. Univariate F-ratios for contrasts of means
between the two hiring categories presented in
Table 5


Variable F-ratio PR > F df

IR 41.07 .0001* 1,48
API 29.51 .0001* 1,48
BSI 0.39 .5344 1,47
PBI 0.00 .9873 1,47


*Exceeds critical F-ratio at alpha = .05.











Research Question 3 focused on the correlations

for each pair of the following variables: IR, API, BSI,

and PBI. These correlations are presented in Table 7. Only

two of these correlations were statistically significant.

One significant correlation was between IR and API; the

other was the correlation between BSI and PBI.

The correlation between IR and PBI approached the

.05 significance level. The correlation is 0.2496 with a

probability of occurrence by chance at .08.

Research Question 4a asked, "Does a weighted linear

combination of BSI and PBI scores predict the hiring outcome

decisions?" A discriminant function analysis using two

hiring categories (selected and nonselected as shown in

Table 5) as the dependent variable and the BSI and the PBI

scores as the predictor variables yielded nonsignificant

results. (The multivariate F-ratio approximation was .28

and probability of obtaining such an F-ratio by chance

was at least .76. Thus, the F-ratio was far below the

value required for statistical significance at alpha of .05.)

Since no significant relationship was found between

the combined BSI and PBI scores and hiring decisions nor

between the attitude measures and the interview measures,

it can be deduced that combining these scores (BSI and

PBI) with API and IR scores could not lead to an improved

prediction of hiring outcomes.


















Table 7. Correlation coefficients, probability of
obtaining this correlation by chance, and sample
size


Variable Age IR API BSI PBI

Age 1.000 0.0197 0.0933 0.1956 0.0743
0.000 0.8918 0.5189 0.1779 0.6080
50 50 50 49 49

IR 1.000 0.5690* -0.1201 0.2496
.000 0.0001 0.4108 0.0804
50 50 49 50

API 1.0000 -0.0385 0.1860
0.0000 0.7925 0.1959
50 49 50

BSI 1.0000 -0.5306*
0.0000 0.0001
49 49

PBI 1.0000
0.0000
50


*Significant at alpha < .05.















CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION


On the basis of the analyses of the data, the

findings of this study can be summarized as follows:

1. Observed differences in mean BSI scores

among candidates who were selected and

assigned, selected but not yet assigned,

and not selected were not statistically

significant.

2. Observed differences in mean PBI scores

among candidates who were selected and

assigned, selected but not yet assigned,

and not selected were not statistically

significant.

3. Correlations for each pair of the following

variables (BSI, PBI, API, and IR) indicated

statistical significance in only two of

these correlations. One significant

correlation was between BSI and PBI. The

correlation between IR and PBI approached

the .05 significance level. The

correlation was .2496 with a probability of

occurrence by chance at .08.










4. A weighted linear combination of BSI and

PBI scores did not predict the hiring

outcome decision. A discriminant function

analysis using two hiring categories

(selected and not selected as shown in Table

5) as the dependent variables and the BSI

and the PBI scores as the predictor

variables yielded nonsignificant results.

The findings from this study clearly did not reflect

the hypothesized bias in the selection of teachers who hold

certain sociopolitical attitudes for the administrative

pool. The scores did not indicate a skewness in either

direction-conservative or liberal, in terms of a

political, or a sociological, or economical "bent." The

implications strongly suggest liberal humanitarians may be

selected for administrative positions, so may

traditionalists and by the same measure they both may be

"passed over." This is probably a positive outcome, in

that it may reflect the discriminant validity (as described

by Campbell & Fiske, 1959) of the selection process.

Discriminant validity is defined as the correlation between

measures which should not be expected (or desired) to show

a strong degree of relationship.

The second finding, that there is no tendency for

the administrator selection process to lead to selection of

administrators with a strong orientation toward Dewey's









philosophy of experimentalism in education, may not be as

comforting if school principals are supposed to adopt the

role of principal-as-experimenter in instructional

leadership, described by Bridges (1967) or supervise the

improvement of instruction as suggested by Weldman (1982).

The fairly strong negative correlation (r = -.53)

between the PBI and the BSI offers some evidence of the

construct validity of these two instruments, in that one

would expect those who hold strong orientations to Dewey's

educational philosophy to score low on a scale of

traditional values and vice versa. This finding occurred

exactly as predicted.

The positive correlation (r = .57) between API and

IR ratings could reflect two possible causes. One reason

could be that they measure the same interpersonal and

managerial skills. A second reason is that they could

measure an individual's ability to make a good impression

in interview situations. Further study would be necessary

to determine which may be the case. It shows that each

instrument has sufficient reliability to correlate with

another variable although not with the BSI and PBI.

A major educational problem has been in defining

effective administrators at the building level. The basic

problem addressed in this study is whether by the use of

the Administrator Perceiver Inventory, the school district

has introduced an "attitudinal bias" into the selection

process. The study results did not support this hypothesis.











While this is promising, these results alone do not clarify

what traits are actually being measured by this structured

interview system. Additional research is yet needed to

establish the validity of this interview selection process.

The API incorporates many of the psychological and

management theories of Abraham Maslow, Arthur Combs, Carl

Rogers, Douglas McGregor, among others. It is based on a

humanistic, nondirective theory with high regard for

individual differences. Further, the API was designed for

the purpose of identifying interpersonal skills; yet, it

is not a panacea for the selection of administrators-there

is a great deal yet to be learned about the process of

predicting administrator success and management effectiveness.

Additional research is yet needed to establish the

validity of this interview selection process. A validation

study should be made one year following the appointment

of the administrator to determine the effectiveness of this

selection system. Components which should be considered

or included are the teachers' satisfaction with the

principal's performance (e.g., do teachers consider the

principal to be a good manager, good educator, good

facilitator?); the opportunity for parent involvement;

and the scholastic achievement of students impacted by this

selection. The basic issue to be addressed is whether

principals with higher scores on the API and IR actually

have higher performance on these long-range criteria.










The study of potential administrators' attitudes

and the relationship of these attitudes to selection (which

was the focus of the present work) is a virtually untapped

area in educational research. The discriminant function

analysis procedure that was used in this study appears

to be an excellent method for analyzing the relationship

of attitudes and outcomes resulting from a particular

selection system. One recommendation offered here is that

further attempts should be made to investigate other

variables that may relate to an individual's chances of

being selected for administrative assignments. Any attempt

to use the discriminant function analysis should be done in

such a way as to identify a complete set of possible

variables which may influence group membership. The method

for discriminant analysis which was used in this study

was appropriate in that there was a limited number of

variables. Additional variables such as educational level,

years of experience, education discipline background, and

candidate's race and gender could be included in future

studies. It should be noted that if more variables are

added, larger samples will be necessary to maintain the

statistical power of the analyses.
































APPENDIX A
MEASUREMENTS OF BELIEFS

















r COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
I nhverity of Florida
Gainevllle, Fla. 32611




Number


Your Age_


Your Sex_


Your Race


STUDY OF VALUES

This study of values contains two sections:
(Part I) the Bumper Sticker Philosophy, and (Part II) the
Personal Beliefs Inventory. THERE ARE NO "RIGHT" OR
"WRONG" ANSWERS TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. They are
questions about which people have legitimately different
points of view. We want to know only what you yourself
believe about such things.

Your responses to the items in this study are
confidential. To guarantee your anonymity, your responses
will be identified only by a "blind" number, age, race,
and sex.

Begin your answers on the following page. There
are no time limits. However, do not spend a lot of time
puzzling over responses to items which may give you pause.
Your first or immediate reaction is what we want.



















EAL awamon.ru QmTwnnrr/MMAT AC. ewe












Part I


BUMPER STICKER PHILOSOPHY


Please evaluate the following statements as if they
were bumper stickers you were contemplating putting on your
vehicle, or, if you are the type who doesn't wish to reveal
your personal beliefs so openly, simply react as if you
were observing these statements on passing vehicles. Many
different views are expressed here. You will find yourself
agreeing with some and disagreeing with others. Whatever
your position, you can be sure that many people feel the
same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin by writing 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, according to how you feel about it. Please
mark every one.

1: I AGREE VERY MUCH 4: I DISAGREE A LITTLE
2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE 5: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE
3: I AGREE A LITTLE 6: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH


1. The Moral Majority is neither.

2. Our founding fathers were racists.

3. Adultery is always wrong.

4. High school students should be given a wide choice
of courses.

5. Sacrifice economic growth to protect the
environment.

6. Don't let creative expression replace thinking and
knowing in the school curriculum.

7. Black credentials obtained through special
consideration-affirmative action-will always be
viewed suspiciously.

8. There are inherent human limitations and frailties
that cannot be overcome.

9. Schools should impose detailed dress codes on
students.











1: I AGREE VERY MUCH 4: I DISAGREE A LITTLE
2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE 5: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE
3: I AGREE A LITTLE 6: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH


10. The community rather than the criminal is the
true culprit.

11. Some people are of more value than others.

12. Abolish the parole board.

13. Black students come from a different culture and
thus should not be held accountable to the same
standards as white students.

14. Capitalism exploits the poor.

15. Individual rights have priority over property
rights.

16. One person gains economically only at the
expense of another.

17. Report cards should accurately mirror test scores.

18. Dismantle all restraints to individual rights.

19. Prisons should rehabilitate rather than punish.

20. Have you hugged your kid today?

21. Homosexual behavior is normal.

22. There are very few right or wrong answers.

23. Woman's place is in the home.

24. Inequality is inherent in the human condition.

25. Abolish the death penalty

26. Sex between two single people is immoral.

27. Government should stay out of the marketplace.

28. Abolish the minimum wage.

29. Legalize marijuana.











1: I AGREE VERY MUCH 4: I DISAGREE A LITTLE
2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE 5: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE
3: I AGREE A LITTLE 6: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH


30. Honor the vital differences in the roles of men
and women.

31. The government is not the answer-it is the problem.

32. The theory of creation should be taught in the
classroom along with the theory of evolution.

33. Require pupils to pledge allegiance to the
American flag.

34. Report cards ought to be replaced by parent-
teacher conferences.

35. Equality of opportunity simply isn't good enough;
we must strive for equality of results.

36. Roll back federal involvement in schools.

37. Abolish colleges of education.

38. Make your kid do something-lead, follow, or get
the hell out of the way.

39. Washington often knows better than the individual
what is best for him.

40. Keep abortion free and safe.



Source: Brown, 1984










STATEMENT


In 1984 the administration of the Alachua County school
system instituted an improved method for the selection of
potential administrators with the establishment of the
Administrative Pool.

Prior to 1984 no formal objective system existed. When a
vacancy occurred, an advertisement was circulated, which
usually resulted in many people applying for the position.
At this point the administration would screen the large
number down to a workable size, usually six to eight, and
the interview process would begin. There were many
problems with this system, the primary ones being that no
set criteria was established, and the same individuals
kept applying for all the positions. In addition, the
process took many hours for interviews and confined several
people for days.

The impetus to change was provided by the Florida
Legislature when a law was passed requiring that by 1986
each district had to submit a plan to the DOE showing
objective reasons for the selection of school administrators.

The Administrative Pool system meets the state mandate so
we feel we are leading the charge for a change. We
generally invite applications twice a year-for a category,
not a specific job. Applications are initially reviewed
by all the assistant superintendents with many being
rejected for technical reasons. The applicants are then
interviewed based on the two interviews developed by
Selection Research, Inc. The results provide us with
objective data to determine whether or not the individual
enters the pool. Those selected are now eligible to be
interviewed for specific positions while those not selected
are free to apply again.

When a position opens up, three individuals from the
appropriate pool category are selected to be interviewed.
One of them is appointed, the other two remain in the pool.

The Administrative Pool system provides an efficient means
of selecting administrators by gathering of objective data
and the removal of the "good ole boy" stigma. In addition,
its early establishment places us ahead of the state
mandate.










SRI PERCEIVER ACADEMIES
ADMINISTRATOR THEMES


MISSION

Mission is represented by one's personal commitment to make
an affirmative impact on the lives of others. This
administrator believes staff members can grow and develop.
This person is primarily concerned with a cause that can be
of benefit to others.


HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Human resources development is indicated by the
administrator's ability to receive satisfaction from the
personal and professional growth of staff members. This
person helps staff members experience success and finds
fulfillment in the achievement of each person's goals.


RELATOR

The relator theme is evident when the administrator desires
positive personal relationships with others and has
strategies to build relationships with the staff. This
manager is committed to an extended and enduring
relationship of mutual support.


DELEGATOR

A delegator wants to know each teacher's strengths and
interests in order to extend responsibilities in a way
which helps each teacher grow and be successful. This
person begins with the individual and moves to the task
or area of responsibility.


ARRANGER

An arranger demonstrates insights and skills in working
with groups of people in order to achieve common objectives.
This person understands the uniqueness of individuals and
helps people to work together effectively and openly.










CATALYZER

The catalyzer is a manager who can stimulate the
performance of teachers through searching out and
encouraging the creative and innovative ideas of teachers.
This person is open with personal ideals and builds
enthusiasm about positive changes.


AUDIENCE SENSITIVITY

An audience sensitive administrator spontaneously assesses
the thoughts, feelings, proposed actions, and actions from
the viewpoint of patrons, faculty, and students. This
person remains sensitive to this awareness and uses such
insight in the decision-making process.


GROUP ENHANCER

Group enhancers believe their particular staff has great
potential. This person looks for the strengths in individual
staff members and has a positive perspective toward them.
This administrator builds pride through the accomplishments
of staff and plans ways to maintain a supportive group
climate.


DISCRIMINATOR

The discriminator is an administrator who differentiates
according to a well-defined value system which focuses on
the worth and dignity of human beings . .especially
students. This person is characterized by an ability to
identify that the most importatn aspect of a school is
what happens between teachers and individual students.


PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION

The performance orientation theme is observed in an
administrator who is goal directed. This person's goals
are stated in terms of specific "practical" outcomes for
self and others. This person uses criteria for measurements,
has definite objectives, and is interested in measurable
results.


WORK ORIENTATION

An administrator with work orientation is intensely involved
in work and is almost continuously thinking about it. This










person tends to rehearse and review activities related to
work, family, and special interest commitments. Such an
administrator has a lifestyle which integrates these areas
of priority into his/her actualization. This person
possesses a great deal of stamina and ordinarily is
actively involved for long days and weeks.


AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE

This administrator displays a tendency to suspend judgment
until as much evidence as possible is available from
involved parties. A high tolerance for ambiguity is seen
as a means to an end rather than an end in itself, Much
restraint is placed upon impulsive decision making.


LEADER

A person strong in this theme enjoys being the leader.
He/she likes being in a position of influence and can handle
being "out front." This person is persuasive when necessary
and demonstrates persistence and courage in the face of
resistance. A person strong in this theme tends to be
competitive and is emotionally and verbally powerful in
driving toward an objective.


GESTALT

The person strong in this theme has a drive toward
completeness, and tends toward perfectionism. Even though
form and structure are important, the individual person is
considered first. This administrator works from individual
to structure and helps others develop their own need for
completeness.
































APPENDIX B
LETTERS





















SUPERINTENDENT OF SCmOIB





MEMOF CRANUM
TO: All Individuals Who Have Applied for the
Administrative Pool in Alachua County

FROM: Tommy Tomlinson, Deputy Superintendent

SUBJECT: Administrative Pool Questionnaire

DATE: April 9, 1985




The enclosed questionnaire is part of a doctoral study being done
by Ms. Jacquelyn Hart. Ms. Hart is presently employed at the
University of Florida but formerly was a teacher in our system.
I am personally interested in the results and the implications
for the Administrative Pool process. I would, therefore, ask
that you take a few minutes of your valuable time to fill out
the questionnaire. I will appreciate your effort, and I know
Ms. Hart will be thankful. Please return the questionnaire to me
by April 19 if at all possible.

You will be identified by the information asked for on the cover
page.

no

Enclosure




















SO BORD OF









MEMORANDUM


SOARO MEMBERs
CMARLEG S. CHESrUT
BARArA G. GALLANT
FRANK J. LAOOTIC
MAROARET P. NATTRES

SUPRlNTENOENT OF SCHOOLS
DOUGLAI P. MAOANN. d.O.


TO: INDIVIDUALS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE POOL AND
-THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTED FROM THE POOL

FROM: TOMMY TOMLINSON, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT

DATE: MAY 3, 1985





A few individuals have not returned the questionnaire regarding
the doctoral study being done by Ms. Jacquelyn Hart from the
University of Florida. I sent this to you the second week in
April. Your response and cooperation will be greatly
appreciated by both of us.

Some have expressed concern about being identified by the
number in the upper right-hand corner. This number is strictly
for my benefit and has nothing to do with the study or your
answers.

Take a few minutes to complete the instrument and return it to
me as soon as possible. If you lost the first one, let me know.
If you have questions, call me at 395-0529.


cc: Jacquelyn Hart


~n;rm~mmr~i~

































APPENDIX C
API VALIDATION









Part A


Item Characteristics
by Theme


Sample Two Sample One

Correlation Correlation
to Total to Ratings to Total to Ratings
Theme/Item X (N =577 (N= 79) X (N =336) (N= 51)

MISSION
T. Why become .25 .43 .00 .29 .43 .27
15. Mission .28 .39 .20 .37 .40 .29
29. Teachers/students .40 .39 .29 .47 .35 .38
43. Parent comes .33 .37 .11 .38 .31 .19
57. Goals .27 .46 .01 .31 .47 .04
TOTAL T75 175-


HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
2. Ways help .32 .41 .11 .41 .42 .23
16. Three functions .28 .47 .09 .36 .47 .21
30. Best use .32 .44 .02 .40 .44 .11
44. Judge success .21 .38 .10 .27 .38 .17
58. Great satisfaction .37 .38 -.20 .37 .38 -.15
TOTAL T75 T9T








Sample Two Sample One

Correlation Correlation
to Total to Ratings to Total to Ratings
Theme/Item X (N =577) (N= 79) X (N =336) (N= 51)

RELATOR


Like you
Close
Build rapport
Mrs. Brown
Serious crisis
TOTAL


DELEGATOR
4. Key
18. Committee
32. Do well
46. Mrs. Melbourne
60. Job description
TOTAL


ARRANGER
5. Structure
19. Enhance
33. Best way
47. Faculty meeting
61. Diverse interest
TOTAL


.49
.45
.58
.42
.61
2759



.29
.29
.59
.34
.26
1.77


.22 .32
.41 .25
.36 .20
.59 .35
.36 .17
T794


-.03
.05
.26
.14
-.21


.53
.49
.62
.44
.61




.34
.32
.72
.35
.26
1.99



.58
.41
.36
.70
.36
2.41


.11
.17
.24
.25
-.01








Sample Two Sample One

Correlation Correlation
to Total to Ratings to Total to Ratings
Theme/Item X (N =577) (N= 79) X (N =336) (N= 51)

CATALYZER
6. Teacher .28 .32 .02 .33 .28 .04
20. Routine .42 .39 .25 .45 .41 .27
24. Field trip .45 .29 .01 .53 .31 .10
48. Experimental .77 .28 .17 .84 .29 .18
62. Idea is good .42 .41 .10 .53 .40 .07
TOTAL T-. 276T


AUDIENCE SENSITIVITY
7. Students .53 .26 .11 .58 .31 .04
21. Parents .60 .34 .12 .68 .29 .30
35. Young leader .26 .30 .01 .29 .31 .10
49. Outspoken .36 .33 .08 .41 .27 .09
63. PTA President .24 .30 -.11 .24 .27 .01
TOTAL 1IT7m 9T9


GROUP ENHANCER
8. Morale .30 .33 .19 .36 .30 .35
22. Praise .58 .39 .06 .64 .34 .17
36. Lounge .22 .32 .06 .25 .31 .09
50. Reporter .38 .36 .26 .39 .41 .36
64. Organizations .19 .39 -.10 .19 .40 -.01
TOTAL IT67 IT-








Sample Two Sample One

Correlation Correlation
to Total to Ratings to Total to Ratings
Theme/Item X (N =577) (N= 79) X (N =336) (N= 51)

DISCRIMINATOR
9. Priorities .53 .20 -.03 .53 .21 .02
23. Better teacher .37 .24 -.14 .47 .16 -.08
37. Resistance .27 .33 -.06 .27 .30 .05
51. Teaching position .35 .37 .19 .35 .41 .18
65. Newly hired .31 .22 .17 .30 .23 .15
TOTAL 1~85 T97


PERFORMANCE ORIENTATION
10. Assess .47 .12 .06 .47 .13 .10
24. Scores .20 .13 .40 .20 .10 .37
38. Reach objectives .52 .31 .27 .59 .28 .37
52. Set objectives .78 .30 .11 .86 .24 -.03
66. Help teachers .44 .38 -.04 .51 .38 .01
TOTAL 2.75 2763


WORK ORIENTATION
11. Social .71 .27 .26 .72 .27 .46
25. Alone .57 .24 -.27 .57 .23 -.01
39. Month .41 .28 .02 .47 .24 .11
53. 45 hours .23 .22 .29 .23 .23 .28
67. Saturday .58 .38 .12 .66 .42 .25
TOTAL 275U 2T65








Sample Two Sample One

Correlation Correlation
to Total to Ratings to Total to Ratings
Theme/Item X (N =577) (N= 79) X (N =336) (N= 51)

AMBIGUITY TOLERANCE
12. Quick .23 .44 .26 .29 .43 .41
26. Not solved .27 .29 .08 .38 .32 .16
40. Important .33 .31 .01 .38 .27 .20
54. Basic changes .42 .41 .06 .50 .39 .03
68. Necessary .16 .34 .09 .15 .35 .10
TOTAL T;T1 177


LEADER
T1. Persuasive .30* -
27. Terminate .38* -
41. Competitive .50* -- -
55. Large groups .40* -
69. Reject .40* -
TOTAL 1.90


GESTALT
14. Organized .31 .40 .18 .33 .41 .25
28. Prepare .40 .28 .12 .48 .24 .27
43. Perfect .30* .30* -
56. Unfinished .15* .15* -
70. Deadline .30* .30* -
TOTAL 1.46 1.51


*Estimated only from other instrumentation (experimental themes).










Part B

Administrator Perceiver Inventory (API)
Theme Characteristics


r to r to
Mean S.D. Total Criterion
Theme (N=913) (N =913) (N=185) (N =48)

Mission 1.64 1.32 .66 .69

Human Resources Development 1.61 1.42 .62 .48

Relator 2.60 1.48 .68 .69

Delegator 1.85 1.24 .60 .56

Arranger 2.11 1.31 .65 .72

Catalyzer 2.47 1.13 .57 .52

Audience Sensitivity 2.07 1.13 .60 .61

Group Enhancer 1.73 1.30 .63 .42

Discriminator 1.86 1.25 .42 .08

Performance Orientation 2.49 1.14 .56 .52

Work Orientation 2.56 1.24 .55 .52









r to r to
Mean S.D. Total Criterion
Theme (N =913) (N =913) (N=185) (N=48)

Ambiguity Tolerance 1.52 1.31 .63 .57

Leader 1.90* -

Gestalt 1.48* -

TOTAL 24.51 8.74 -.65

TOTAL* 27.89 -


*Estimated only from other instrumentation (experimental themes).
































APPENDIX D
FLORIDA COMPETENCIES FOR
SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS















FLORIDA COMPETENCIES FOR
SCHOOL-BASED ADMINISTRATORS

PURPOSE AND DIRECTION

1. PROACTIVE ORIENTATION-Takes the role of being fully
"in charge" and responsible for all that happens in a
situation or a job. An "internal control"
orientation in which persons behave with the full
assumption that they can be the "cause" and can move
events, create change, and achieve goals. Initiates
action and readily takes responsibility for all
aspects of the situation-even beyond ordinary
boundaries-and for success and failure in task
accomplishment. Initiates actions of self and others
to learn about the organization and to achieve goals.

2. DECISIVENESS-Expresses forcefulness and confidence
when a decision is made. A readiness to make
decisions, render judgments, take actions, and commit
oneself and others regardless of the quality of the
decision.

3. COMMITMENT TO SCHOOL MISSION-Holds a set of values
about the school, e.g., welfare of the students,
fairness to staff; behavior is consistent with values
despite barriers.

COGNITIVE SKILLS

4. INTERPERSONAL SEARCH-Is able to discover, understand,
and verbalize the concepts, thoughts, ideas held by
others. Is not only sensitive to the ideas and
opinions of others, but behaves to ensure an
understanding of the feelings and verbalizations of
others.

5. INFORMATION SEARCH-Searches for and gathers many
different kinds of information before arriving at an
understanding of an event or a problem. Uses formal
and informal observation, search, and interaction to
gather information about the environment. The breadth
(number of sources) and depth (what is learned from
each relevant source) of information search.










6. CONCEPT FORMATION-The ability to form concepts,
hypotheses, ideas on the basis of information. Can
reorder information into ideas, see relationships
between patterns of information from different
sources, and can link information separate spatially
or over time. A logical process of forming ideas
based on infromation from different sources.

7. CONCEPTUAL FLEXIBILITY-The ability to use alternative
or multiple concepts or perspectives when discussing
problem solving or making a decision. Can view a
person or an event from different perspectives; can
devise alternative plans or courses of action and
can visualize the pros and cons of each. Considers
information from different points of view in arriving
at a decision. The ability to view an event from
multiple perspectives simultaneously.

CONSENSUS MANAGEMENT

8. MANAGING INTERACTION-The ability to get others to
interact, to stimulate others to work together, to
understand each other, to resolve conflict, or agree to
its presence, to encourage others to reach mutual
agreement. Uses own and others' ideas to initiate and
stimulate dialogue between others. To demonstrate
good group process and facilitator skills.

9. PERSUASIVENESS-The ability to persuade or influence
others through a number of possible means; gaining
and sustaining their attention and interest in a
group situation; using information or arguments,
modeling the behaviors expected; or being direct in
specifying what others will do.

10. CONCERN FOR IMAGE-Shows concern for the image of
the school via the impressions created by the students
and staff and manages these impressions and public
information about the school.

11. TACTICAL ADAPTABILITY-States the rationale for using
particular strategies; e.g., to influence certain
groups, tailors style of interaction to fit the
situation and changes style if it does not succeed.

QUALITY ENHANCEMENT

12. ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION-States high internal work
standards. Verbalizes personal and group goals as a
desire to do something better-better feedback or











measures of how well self or group is doing; shows
frustration in meeting barriers or in response to
own or others' mistakes or failures.

13. MANAGEMENT CONTROL-Devises opportunities to receive
adequate and timely feedback about the progress of
work accomplishments of others. Follow-up on
delegated activities or providing plans for or taking
action on feedback of information to others about
meeting standards of productivity.

14. DEVELOPMENTAL ORIENTATION-Holds high and positive
expectations about others' potential, views developing
others as a property of the principal's job. It
involves working with others as a coach, discussing
performance problems, providing feedback about
performance and giving reassurance for development
while allowing the person to take individual
responsibility.

ORGANIZATION

15. ORGANIZATIONAL ABILITY-Sets plans and promotes to
accomplish goals. Schedules activities and the use of
human and other resources for accomplishing goals.
Focuses on time, deadlines, flow of activities or
resources on ways to get the job done.

16. DELEGATION-Delegates authority and responsibility
clearly and appropriately in accomplishing organization
goals. This must be differentiated from organization,
that is from the normal assignment of tasks which
people routinely do. It is the delegation of a project
not currently a routine part of the person's job; e.g.,
gathering information, developing a proposal or a
plan, implementing a project.

COMMUNICATION

17. SELF PRESENTATION-The ability to clearly present
one's own ideas, others' ideas, and information in an
open and genuine way. Is able to share ideas with
others in an open informative, nonevaluative manner.
Effectively uses technical, symbolic, nonverbal and
visual aids or graphics in order to get the message
across.

18. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION-Clear, concise, and properly
structured written communication.





65





19. ORGANIZATIONAL SENSITIVITY-The awareness of the
effects of one's behavior and decisions on other
people and other groups in and outside the
organization.















BIBLIOGRAPHY


Allport, G. W.,& Vernon, P. E. (1931). A study of values.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bane, R. K. (1969). Relationships between measures
of experimental, cognitive, and affective teaching
behavior and selected teacher characteristics
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
1969). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31A,
275. (University Microfilms No. 70-12225)

Benjamin, A. (1969). The helping interview. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Bonneau, L. R. (1957). An interview for selecting
teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Nebraska-Lincoln, 1957). Dissertation Abstracts
17, 537. (University Microflims No. 0018676)

Bray, D. W. (1982). The Assessment Center and the study
of lives. American Psychologist, 37(2), 180-189.

Bridges, E. M. (1967). Instructional leadership: A
concept re-examined. Journal of Educational
Administration, 5(2), 136-147.

Brown, B. B. (1962). The relationship of experimentalism
to classroom practices (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1962). Dissertation
Abstracts, 23, 3256. (University Microfilms
No. 63-02881.
Brown, B. B. (1968). The experimental mind in education.
New York: Harper and Row.

Brown, B. B. (1969). An investigation of observer-judge
ratings of teacher competence. Gainesville, FL:
Institute for Development of Human Resources,
University of Florida.

Brown, B. B. (1984). The bumper sticker philosophy.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.












Byham, W. C. (1971). Assessment centers for spotting
future managers. Harvard Business Review, 48(2),
150.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait and
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56.
81-105.

Clifton, D. O., & Hall, W. E. (1952). A projective
technique to determine positive and negative
attitudes toward people in a real-life situation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 13,
273-283.

Combs, A. (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming.
Washington, DC: Department of the National
Education Association.

Combs, A., Richards, A. C., & Richards, F. (1976).
Perceptual psychology: A humanistic approach to
the study of persons. New York: Harper and Row.

Combs, A., & Snygg, D. (1959). Individual behavior.
New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers.

Dewey, John. 1960). The quest for certainty: A study of
the relation of knowledge and action. New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons Publishers.

Dodge, G. W. (1955). Characteristics of student teacher
related to ratings by their pupils. Master's
thesis, University of Nebraska--Lincoln, 1955.

Dodge, G. W. (1967). Aptitude for positive teacher-pupil
rapport (Doctoral dissertatin, Univeristy of
Nebraska--Lincoln, 1964). Dissertation Abstracts,
22, 4280. (University Microfilms No. 62-0733.

Dodge, G. W., & Clifton, D. 0. (1956). Teacher-pupil
rapport and student teacher characteristics.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 17, 364-371.

Finkle, R. B. (1974). Managerial assessment centers. In
M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial-and
organization psychology, 78-93. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Gaeddert, W. (1956). A study of student responses in a
positive reference frame (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nebraska--Lincoln, 1956).
Dissertation Abstracts, 16, 706. (University
Microfilms No. 0016239)











Glasman, N. W. (1984). Student achievement and the school
principal. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 6, 283-296.

Griggs, E. T., et al. v. Dukes Power Company, U.S. Supreme
Court, MarcE 8, 1971.

Guilford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental statistics in
psychology and education (4th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Hayes, A. P. (1968). Effects of cooperating teachers and
college supervisors on student teachers' beliefs
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 1968).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 30A, 1449.
(University Microfilms No. 69-17027)

Howard, A. (1974). An assessment of assessment centers.
Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 115-134.

Knapp, D. R. (1955). A proposed technique for the
selection of people who have knowledge of skills in
human relations. Master's thesis, University of
Nebraska--Lincoln, 1955.

Lieske, G. R. (1969). An interview process for selection
activating teachers. (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1969).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 31A, 109.
(University Microfilms No. 70-12270)

Milhollan, F., & Forisha, B. (1972). From Skinner to
Rogers: Contrasting approaches to education.
Lincoln, NE: Professional Educators Publications,
Inc.

Moses, J. L., & Byham, W. C. (1977). Applying the
Assessment Center method. New York: Pergamon
Press.

Moss, M. L. (1982). An analysis of an interview scale for
administrative job candidates used as a rating
scale for practicing administrators (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Nevada, 1982).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 43A, 2848.
(University Microfilms No. DEP 83-000117

Pines, B. Y. (1982). Back to basics. New York: William
Morrow and Company.











Powell, T. J. (1978). Relationship between organizational
climate of elementary schools and predictable traits
of elementary administrators (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Virginia, 1978). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 40A, 594. (University
Microfilms No. DDJ79-1635U--

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its
current practice, implications, and theory. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.

Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind:
Investigations into the nature of belief systems
and personality systems. New York: Basic Books,
Inc.

Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Selection Research, Inc. (1974). SRI Administrator
Perceiver interview guide. Lincoln, NE: SRI,
Inc.

Selection Research, Inc. (1980) Administrator Perceiver
technical manual. Lincoln, NE: SRI, Inc.

Snyder, W. V., with collaboration of C. R. Rogers. G. A.
Muench, A. W. Combs, & V. M. Axline. (1947).
Casebook of non-directive counseling. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Steele, K. L. (1969). A comparison of two methods of
preparing observers to make systematic classroom
observations (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Florida, 1969>. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31A, 272. (University Microfilms
No. 70-18583)

Uniform federal guidelines in employee selection
procedures. (1977, December). Washington, DC:
Civil Rights Commission, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Department of Justice,
Department of Labor.

Warner, A. K. (1969). A structured interview for
predicting future pupil-teacher rapport (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Lincoln-Nebraska,
1969). Dissertation Abstracts International
30A, 1386. University Microfilms No. 69-17358)





70




Webb, J. N. (1968). Improving reliability estimates for
systematic classroom observations with the teacher
practices observation record (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1968). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 30A, 229. (University
Microfilms No. 69-11011)

Weldman, J. (1982). Time management and instructional
supervision. The Clearing House, 55(7), 72-79.

Winseman, A. W. (1969). An interview process for
selecting activating technical instructors
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-
Lincoln, 1969). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 31A, 243. (University Microfilms
No. 70-12294.














BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Jacquelyn D. Hart was born September 12, 1938,

at Gainesville, Florida. After graduating from Lincoln

High School in 1955, she attended Lane College, Jackson,

Tennessee, receiving a Bachelor of-Science degree in business

education. She taught in the public schools of Alachua

County, Florida, and Santa Fe Community College, Gainesville,

Florida. In 1965, she enrolled in the Graduate School of

Indiana University and in 1969 became a graduate student

at the University of Florida, where she received the Master

of Education in business education in December 1970 and the

Specialist in Education in 1972 in foundations of education.

She worked as a graduate teaching assistant from

1970 to 1972 in the Institute for Development of Human

Resources, with Dr. Ira J. Gordon.

From 1977 to the present time she has pursued her

work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy while working

at the University of Florida as the Affirmative Action

Coordinator.

She is a member of Kappa Delta Pi, Delta Pi Epsilon,

the American Association of Affirmative Action, Florida

Association for Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors,





72




American Council on Education, National Identification

Program, Delta Sigma Theta, Inc., and the Christian

Methodist Episcopal Church.







I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
-Chair



Bob Burton Brown, Chair
Professor of Foundations of
Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




Linda M. Crocker, Cochair
Professor of Foundations of
Education



I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.



/4&td -i /t kj
Robert P. Bryan
Professor of English








I certify that I have read this study and that in
my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.




David-C. Smith
Professor of Educational Leadership



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate
Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate
School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

December 1985

Chair, FoundationS of
Education



Dean, College o E ion
Dean, College of Edcation


Dean, Graduate School




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