A SELF-RATING SCALE FOR HIGH

I SCHOOL PRINCIPALS

I ! 1

I I t A THESIS

I,(! SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTlVIlilNT OF

EDUCATION AND TEE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE KANSAS STATE

TEACHERS COLLEGE OF EMPORIA IN PARTIAL FUI..FILLMENT OF

THE REQ,UlREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF se IENCE

By

EARL E. PHARES

o a lIl' '". .. 61

.II. ...It.

)

{~"~

ft. 1>­<is

(:L:,

Council

­ .~

ACKNOWLEDGMIDNT

The writer Wiahes to aeknewledge his appre­

ciation teJ'li)r.Edwin J. Br(9wn. Director of the

Graduate I>ivisien afKansas state Teachers Cel­

lege of Em;mCilr!:a. Ka1!i1sas. whose interest in his

students tW0rk extends far 1:)eycHld the confines

of duty,!~nd wnQse stimulating suggestions am.(i

constructive ~rit!cism aided materially in the

preparatiol1$.1Ild the writing sf this study.

To Mrs. Earl E. Fharee, :he wishes to s.c­

kn0wledse a huge indebtedness for the patient

cooperation and assistance so generously given

in the wri t.il'ilg at the study.

iv

CONTENTS

:BART Page

I. INTRODUC~ION 1 ... The Nature of the Study 1

Frevious studies 3 The Soope of the Study 12 'ijethods ofProoedure 13 Souroes of Data 14 Types e>fData Colleoted 14 The Problem 15 Defini t!.G>tl of Terms 16 Presentation of Material 17

II. THE SELF.RATING SCALE i9 ~ki:ng Use of the Saa.le 2.0 The Scale 21

III. ESTABLISHING THE SCALE 35 ~alidity 36 TabUlation Table of Frequencies 38

IV. SUMMARY 43 Conolusions 43 Recommendations 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY 46

PART I

INTRODUCTION

The Nature of the Study

The theme of this investigation has these twocotermi­

Eoue objectives, first, to analyze the personal and pro­

fessional qualifications essential to the office of the

aQministrator of the ordinary high school; second, te: clas­

sify these items of qual~fication into related groups upon

the basis of their related conjunction with the position.

The next step will be the resolution of these items into a

.unified and coherently organized scale of measurement

against which the principal may place himself for determi­

nant comparison. The very nature of this analytical process

will be a complete evaluation of the administrator's posi­

tion and of the essential characteristics desirable in the

person ~ho would hold the position.

In short, it is to be a self-rating scale to which, it

is hoped, the administrator may frequently repair for an

illwninating, truth-telling confeseional, and be able to

come therefrom inspired, reassured, and invigorated. The

frequently potential motives of one's ambitions, interests,

or desires may be revived, or even liberated by the trigger

of inspiration whioh may come from such a self-analysis or

comparison. Too often the principal has had the thought

2

that he ie capable of doing far more, that he ia in a ;posi ..

tion for exerting .great beneficial influencee, ..... ancl here

this casual thought ends. It ha.s not been merged with ac"

Actually tme t m0st slnoere meanihg of success may be

tha.t be~eficUU<ll!ClneeClUenee of struggle, movement; ehange,

a.md the subjeetd.ve exhilLaratiG. that aGGomIlaniee s111cl1when it

is in the way of directed effort. Such expending (!)f ener~,.

i,mplies the impx-ovemen.t which oan oeme only t1'lrougk one's ewn

afferta.

I.the principalship of the ordina.ry highschool this

emergy can be direCllted for imprevememt along dua.l limes, suoh

liRes being se closely integrated with ea.ch other, hawever;

8.S to be imeepirable. One consists of thepersGna.lity traits

of bothtl1e i':I!Idividual and Bocial type; the other enfolds, the

p'rofessional pha.ses of the si tuatioll. Relative to the first

be it sa.id tha.t aprincipal(or any other person) may develop

attractive individua.l and social traitB--if he Will; with. re­

gard to the seoond, let it be emphasized that the pos~tion

itself has two mdn-d1vergent fields of reBponsib1lit~, the

supervisory and the a.dm.inistratiVe. Fossibly the various

phases of the prinoipal's traits aDd funetioJllS are in fre­

quent juxtaposition. If 60_ suoh practioe is far more oom­

mendable than the oommon attitude of principals in empha"

slzingthe administrative duties te the sUbJectiot! of the

more eduoa.tive aims of' the job, as the supervisory.

PreviOus Studies

Hareld O. RtiggJ. has made C!ile of the most widelyaQoep....

ted df ~at1ng scales in the struggle te measure a.nd Q0JllI>are

teaohel'll; This study emphasized the fact that there are

two ae1;>Qrate El.Jllddietinet features Gf the ordinary rating

form, and' thalttherflrst funetien of his stuqly .,.ra.$ self­

iml'povement t4rc>ugh self-rating. The seaendaWY'!ilset,~Jp_

made ef the's:e:!ale Was that of pating peracaas in. numer~E:al

j,jtpdel" "eamparing them, in the ppoceas, wi th 1'ive GJ'their

greupB e·f !iimdividtlale. Each of the lattep groupe are of . .

diffe.tent quali tielir: (1). the beet tJaat tlle ratCilr,J;1a.aever

lol1'en,: (2) the peoreethe has ever seen ar kno_•. (3) ..

:I!i e1'p.6,s:,erlilte,:ti:ve of thesverage,(4) a persoll midW'a.y i!;>;e!twe;e.)'),...

thebeat'atfrit1 ,the avera.ge, alili "flO) the p6irSGlif! midwaybetwe!e)~

.the pOGlri~st!: ~'~'Q, t~~r ~verage. Rugg 'a SE:si1 e Wiae :f'lxiSt Jl:f.e ...

~elq~edit.e the ;publ i G i~ 1918.

W,r'th, ~cClure2 made a studY 1;,J\\ ,j.. ~: "]1 '­

1925 of theratinSGf , '.",,"

pP1Jl1e~~a.~e~nd fou·nd tha.t in analyzing the variGue i rl\.~i.a; .

8c~leBofpP~Jl.GipalB the SCGre ea.rds fell into thpeegrQups

and that rating scales were imppoving in (1) organi2ation,

(2) l::eliab;'lity, .amd (:;) weightimg of standarc!s.

~;a... a.rp;J..d..'.Q. augg., "Se1t.. Imppovement through self-Ra..1fing ,A llew Sciale!qr Rating Teachers' Efficienoy," EIJJ:l4ENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Volume 19, IJ. 670. 1918.

~\fQrth l/(oOlure, liThe. Rating of Element""ry SOAQqlPJ;ln"~il\?a.J:,$· in Service, II FOURTH YEARBOOK, Del>artment of llllemen­tar~Sehool Principals, 1925, p. 427.

----------

4

Bertha Y. Hebb,3 in 1926, pUblished e. very com:prehen...

sive work consisting, illustrativelY, of self-rating cards

in which long lists of qualifications were itemized. The

organization was not good but the lists were quite complete

in making contact with the field.

Ellsworth Lowry4 produced a novel card in 1923 in the

form of giving it both weight and prepared anewer arrange­

ment. Although weighting a card apparently gives it an im­

pression of more efficiency, such weighted scalee have not

proven to be of more value.

T. H. Schutte,5 aleo in 1925, produoed a card contain­

ing the weighting device in the form of a. percentage s6ale.

The percentage idea added to a scale adds the connotation of

rele.ting efficiency ts the scale, but supervisors and admin­

ietratcrsin general have not favored weighting with the

percentage scale in mind because of the tendency to press

the field within the Bcspe of' the small numerical range.

Scott and Clothier,6 in 1923, published a very complete

work, personnel Management, giving refutation to the idea,

3Bertha Y. Rebb, IISamples of' Teacher Self-Rating Cards," im City School Leaflet No. 18, February, 1925, U. S. Bureau of Education, pp. 4-5.

4El1sworth Lowry, "Supervi sing and Self-Rating Score Card," (;privately pUblished). Indiana, Pennsylvania, 1923.

5T• H. Schutte, "Schutte Sca.le for Rating Teachers," (coPYtight, 1923, by World Book Co., Yonkere-on-Hudeom, New York. J

6Scott, Walter D., and R. C. Clothier, Pe t "Hi1nnel :Ma».­a&ement, A. W. Shaw & Company, New York, 19237643 pages.

5

c();mmQn:LYia~(i,le:ptelii, th~tpr(\)fe!S'J:J~~~~:J. ~«!Jn a.:t?e 5Qt·rated.

Membere of ]lrofeea~Gl:l;as are ra-ted very: li31iriotJ,y. Matay (3or'p~·

ratio~s employing te¢hn1Qa1~Y tra~~~~ .e~ ~ae ra;ing seales

very s~milar to these ~sed in e~uQatiGma:t.symtenlf'.

T~e ;P1,l~utl:l7 ra;t;~,~g sYllfterp. fer teaeheX'f;) Wae made durin.g

the .~hCll~~ y~~:r cpf,1921..,22. ~lJ.e systeIQ,has a tWQfG;Ld.P1+r­

J,;! 0 !ile.j ~.~ if;jPfgal1-i fi ed to reoogtaize and reward tefll,qh.eX'

J;I!le:t'tt l ··a~ol it a;Lse Pertains tEl the i~pr~vement of the wQrk

which ..theteac:Q.er ~B doing. It seeke to ~et JaP l!litYljtti(i)~s

in· wl1ie};L a fr~u1].k,QPEln appraisal of 'the sit1+atiq)lil's/;;WQff

J);@,Y le,s.G. ,'tCil its appreeiatiye con6iQ.eratiQ~ and t4etiL~e fr·~m

t;;ai~·pre.i~El tGl a discussion of n:t.ethQd~ by yrh~q~it In!-Y be

i~p,~Ye(ji.

William:r.., Conmor, 8 wri1t~ IlI.g in. tlq,e J:'c,n~\lqiJ,al.!! ESUO~"

1;i QI1alReeear,ol)., gives ali! oa4.est'\ilcijY, lJ!1l wl'a..i li):tata!1'6!4..liilt, •.~

the waple list of i:rat.e;t'li'Glgati pnliil ~ B.~~ ...~~e.ci. to t~;rlJ1.$of

]>1:1p11 ~cti vity. Thee't;\ldy g~ve·e· a l+l'i1i<g:u.e S~a.lilt in t:hUf$

using tl1e wo:r.k aotiyity of tl;le p1P-piJe t;l+6:msel'Ves to. J\'lea..I3~

ure the te~eher.

H. T. Johostom.,9 wri tine: ~nSohoQ!:t: and Societ~ in 1917,

illustrates a brief scale rating oard in which the points

. ?"The :Pulut~ System for the R~ting of T,eachere, II Board of ;md\l:~.~t1oll publication, June 9, ;1.922, pp. 2.. 3. Duluth, Minnesota.

JQ~~~~i!i~tJ~ATi~~~rRE~Jon,M;~~~'lil~fM~;: i r~~~~-~~~S;~: 58.

9H• T• Jobnston, "Soientifio sup:erv:1ei0n, of Te.ao;p.iine:," SCHQQL.~ SOCIETY, Vol. 5. Fecrua.ry 17, 1919,$'p_ ;1.8:1. .. 88.

6

aria drgaRlzed,with'aview of getttn@ at the tmportan'hfea..

tl!ireSof'the worker'eeffi6ienoya.s qUickly a.s ]j0ss±:tlle, 10Arthur C. Boyee. inl@15, cQnt:Hved a rating 801$11e

whicih reeeived wide ]publiOity Upon its publioatiorl. Th:ie

,:Lieee otwepk was done as a bit of experimental pioneering

but i t'was immed.iaieilY a.ocepteda.nd.uEH!l!'cl.. The BoalewS!a

6I';ganli zei(i to measure or rate theteaclie:r. and a.s such am

l 'rle:t'rument its organiza.tion is pE1ll't:iInent.

'0A reoent and .v!ery sea.rching Fating Scheme to oome i 't0

t1'1e field is onedeve'loped by Eidwin .T. J3rdwn11 of tne'Ka.rlsas

St,'a1e'1'ea.chers' College. While this particular device is

primat':i:ly intiEh~ded for a superviscfr"sse1f.. r'a;ting scal/e,i.ts

v'ersatl(~tity i 1'1 canstrudlt i 0'11 peJtmits ita use by a 13up'e'rv isib\l.g

pliincipa:L'(jj:r c)'ther'0ffi cial whc is re spcnsible 'for t1kl:e 0rgan­

izat'1:d:m :'tM~fd ina:pt:ovement of 6001a lize'd ]JFa ee c1til' e 6 • The!!!s lllhenae

lendel t·se·lftQc'onven,i eRt use and~eia.dy diia.~mosis due; to

de]!lteting, ;>gra::F>hi;'dal1y, Ule statiuis sf the qualifi eati one •

.A.lmack and BurlSlohl2 Il'l:ade a. very dGlmprshenaivElisurV":ey sf

theactmirii;stration of consolidated amd vi llageschool,a in

which their' 'analyses were based upon the laws of the state

-------------------,-----------'-­lOA:rthurC. Boyce,"Metheds $f MeaSuring TeacheI's' Effi­

ciency," Fourteenth Yearbook of the National Society for the Studs of EdtlQ~tiQn, :Pl'. 62-74. Public School Publishing Company, Bloomington, Illinois, 1915.

su]er~i~~;i~p;in~r;:~~,!a~alft;tll:sT~mir;~rB~~~:rp~«II:h-. ing (1oInpany,Mflwaukee, I~9:- _ .

. 12J~hn C. Almack and J. F. Bursoh, The Administration .Q! (Jons0;lidated !2tlli! llllase 12chQCi>ll!!, Houglil'on liffIin (jom­pa-ny, BO$ton, 1925.

7

and the regv,.lat1ons af school boards. Such a study would.

in the opinion of this writer, tend to clarify and emph$­

size the duties and qualifications of the position, but it

would make inadequate provision for the vital element of

personality.

H. A. Bone13 formulated a scale for aiding the teacher

to evaluate her own work. The Bcale is divided into main

he~dings as follOWS: (1) relation of the classroom teacher

to the pupilS as judged by reSUlts, (2) relation as a member

of the schoQl fa.oulty, (3) relation as a member of the oom­

ID.1,mi ty. 14W. P. Burris, in 1923, offered a rating scale for the

high school prinoipal whioh was constructed upon these bases:

(1) personal, (2) sooial, (3) eduoational, and (4) profes­

sional qualifications. Eaoh of these main items ha~ a n~­

berof Bub-tapics, and the Beale itself was devised to be

s~ored by means of plue and minus eigns.

Rose A. Carrigan15 has given to the profession a score

oard in which the following are the main headings: (1) evi­

dence of adequate teacher-preparation, 140 points; (2) the

atmosphere of the background or workshop, 250 points; (3)

the wQrk accomplished, 375 points; (4) the child, 375 pointe.

~----..._--------------------------­13H. A. Bone, "Criteria by which a Teacher May Mea.sure

Her Work," in HIGH SCHOOL QUARTERLY, Vol. 7, 1'1'. 153... 55, (April, 1919).

14W. P. Burri s, 'IProposed Scale for Rating High Schoel

Frincipals," in Second Yearbo~k" Department of Secondary Frincipals, National Educa.tion Association, Vol. 11, Pl'. 462­464, (1923).

l5Rose A. Carrigan, "Rating of Teachers on a Baeis of

8

17VI., A. ,CqQk stated,in. a h:i:etQJ'Y Qf the develQpJI'J.ent of

rating;eoaleE1, th,at the f11'8,t sQhemes were tl':l.Qse~r~gi:taated

't?:y, ,.~Qy()eand ,.EliL~ot. O"elk' S ori ti ciemo! theratins;pro­

~ees,evenat ·the present, is that there is u.ncertai,.TiJ,ty as

~e .whatsllQuld. be included in til. rating e,cpenae, a..<tt1a1!ther,

tAI1f;'e,i B l~~;tle agreement as to the .umber of point;s to b~

ueedin the acale.

J. w•.Grabtree wrote a very good a.rticle in which he

4i scus8e~~~~i.1i'ati!l,g ef' t.eaehera. :meJ>Jte.8~Jllt.ed ",.r~\!~.•i~

ca,r~ to bellltiltzed. by beth the eUJ:!~~vis.r"Jld. tlil.etie,;!a.o~el~;

hies Q.'bJect,a:pp~reJll.tl,y, was te )lave tae pertinent and oam­

meR elements p·e the PQ i:Jilt.sof COllts,Cilt betwee.m the tw. :i.lldi­

18viduals.

_J ..

Su:pe~yi~oryV'iBitatiom,." ..;hl JOUJii(NAL OF EDUCATIONAL w;mTHOD" V01.2,PIl. 48--55 (September, 1922).

16E • W. Cober, in the T.p.ir<l Yearbook, Depa.rtment ~'~ E1em,entary School Principals, :N'atiollal Educational ,Ae'·$OCl(. at i (!);11 , Vol. 3, No.4, PP. 219-32, (July, 1924). .

17W. A. Cook, "Uniform Standards for JUdging TeaChers in.

South Dakota.," in EDUCATIONAL A;DMI1nSTRATION AlID SUPERVISION, Vol. 7, PIl. 1-11, (January, 1921).

18J • W. Crabtree, "Rating of Teaohers." in P;:oceed'inse of the National Eduoational Association, Vol. 53, pp. 1:1>6..1'7,(1915).

9

A scale in wnioh the educational and sooial qualitie~

are emphasized was :placed in the field by Katherine Cranor

as a device primarily to aid the aupervis9r. The main items

proposed are: (1) educational preparation~ (2) tact, (3)

tolerance, (4) poise, (5) appearance, and (6) relationship

with the teachers. This contribution is an important one

in that the stress is laid upon the vital human element. 19

In his well-known works ooncerning public school ad­

~i~istration, Cubberly20 analyzes the field o~ the executive

as follows: (1) the principal as an organi~er, (2) as an ad­

ministrator, (3) as a superVisor, and (4) as a community

leader. The authority of this educator is so Widely recog­

nized that many rating scheme contrivers would readily ac­

cept his judgment. 2l

A very good self-rating scale for the teacher was de­,

vised by Franklin B. Dyer. The scale primarily deals with

the phases of personality and ability. 22

R. W. Fairchild made a score card for the measurement

19Katherine T.· Cranor, "A Self-Rating Cara for Supe!,­visors as an Aid to Efficiency in School Work," in'E1!>UCA~ CATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION, Vol. 7, pp. 91-120,· (February, 1921).

20Ellwood P. Cubberly, Public §cho~l Adm~niBtration, ohapters 16, 21, and 22. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boeton, 192~.

21E• P. Cubberly, The prinogPal ~~ ~ Sohool, Hough­ton Mifflin Company, BoStOn, 192 •

22Franklin B. Dyer, "Questions on Teaohing To HelpTeaohers.Make a Self-Examination to Find Ways of· Improving, II in ATLANTIC I~DUCATIONAL JOURNAL, Vol. 11, pp. 343-44, (March 19l6).

10

of administration. His work analyzed the fundamental re­

quirements of a sUQcessful sohool administra.tor. The rating

oard is divided into the following headings~ (1) tempera­

ment and tact, (2) appearanoe a.nd professional preparation"

(3) organization of the school, and (4) teaol1er probleme. 23

Arth,ur S. Gist, in a detailed work, analyzed tp.e qua.li ­

fications and duties of the principal as (1) an admin,i13­

trator, (2) a community leader, (3) pUblioitY,man, and (4)

hie personal ,;relation in the school and community.24

W. S. Gray25

pointed out the potentialities of ,the

self-rating device in an article published in the SCHOOL

REVIEW in 1921. His discussion pointed to the fact that

self rating direots the teachers' attention to thesignifi ­

cant problems of teaching, that the use of the scale aided

the principal in securing an important background concern­

ing the requirements of teachers.

In a rating card developed for the field of home ecc­

nomics Adah H. Hess contrived a clever 8cale, and its versa­

tility is such that it need not be restricted to this

epecific area. The card was made with three main divisions:

(1) teohniques and results of instruction, (2) olassroom

23R• W. Fairchild, liThe Measure of the Administrator," in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 57, pp. 2~-24. (January, 1921).

24Arthur S. Gist, !he ~dmini$mtion of an E1emente.rl §£hool, Charles Soribners and Sane, New York,-r928.

25W• S. Gray, "Rating Soales Self-Analysis, and the ImJ;>rovement of Teaching," in SCHOOr... REVmW, Vol. 29, 1'1'. 49­53, (January, 1921).

11

man~~~meht, and (~) educational, ~ereonal, and social quali ­

fi cat ione:. 26

Relative to rating ecales in general R. E. Kent eays

"that all the teacher work, including every major factor in

it, should be considered in making a self-rating Bcale, but

these factors should be conaidered only with respect to wha.t

they.cohtribute toward educational results in the children

under her care. II The scale which'Kent presented was based

. upon these groupings: (1) pupil achievement, (2) merit in

mechanica, (3) merit as a social worker, a.nd (4) personal­

ity. 1n this device the emphasis is placed upon pupil ao­

ti~ity and aChievement. 27

S. G. iUch,28 in his self-rating device, grouped his

items upon effective methods of supplying physical needs,

power of cooperation with the staff, and maintaining ~he

prestige of the Bchool and the profession. In discussing

rating devices, Rich advocated that principals be rated by

the te/3chere.

In the business world E. H. Schell published a book

which is actually a very personal and pertinent group ·of

----------------_._----------- ­26Adah H. Hess, IITeacher Rating as a Means of Improv­

ing Home Economics Teachers in Service," in JOtffiNAL OFHO:ME ECONOMICS, pp. 85-90, (February, 1922).

2'7Raymond E. Kent "What Should Teacher Hating Schemes Seek to ;Measure?'· JOtrnNAL OF EDUCATIONAL :I:mSEARCH, Vol. 2, PP. 802-80'7, (1920).

28 1;3. G. Rich, "Rating of Principals and suR~rintendente~'

in EDUCATION, Vol. 42, pp. 496-500, (April, 192~).

12

ftem13 for self... analys:ls. Thebbok is a forcefully written

One in which the pijrsona.i'polnts which are vital are the

only onea presented.a~

P. R. SP~rllif~8 .evelo~ed a s~lf-ra.ting soalefo~ prin­

eipale in wl'ifCh he lncluaed. these standards: (1) relation­

shf'p'wf'ehpupile, (2) voe£tiofral guidance, and (:3) Ueee!

s1h:bllcIardized iE;stS<fo'I' meat3u:i:'fng classroom instruotion.

In an analysis of traits that he thought desirable in a

6upervisox:, JOBe~h S. Taylor evolved a self-ratil1S ,cneme

for teachers.. The main divisions of his rating are: (1)

scholarlRl1ip, (2) preparation for work, (3) knowledge of

fund~mel'.ltals of drill, (4) execution of work, and (5)1lt+J;lil

.lnt eres t •31

The Scope of the Study

'Pherange and are'a of the investigation inoluc1eethe

search for 'and the discovery of those qualifications essen­. . .

tia,l·to the J0band the person of the principalship of the

ordinary hfgh school. The traits resolved in this refising

proces's include all the oharacteristics pertinent to the

position or neoessary to the person who fills the position;

the two factors are supplementary. The composition of these

2,9Erwin H. Schell, The Teohnique .u: :j:C.;xeoutiVa Control, MoGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, (1924).

30P. R. Spenoer, "A High SchOOl Principal's Self-RatingCard, II in SCHOOL :RJTIVIEW, Vol. 30, pp. 268..71,. (April, 1922).

3lJoseph S. Taylor, "Some Desirable Traits of the Sup­ervisor," in EMlUCATIONAT.J ADMINISTRATION AND SUP.TI:RVISION,Vol. 9, pp. 1-8, (January, 1923).

13

inter-related groupe of lPertinen.ciee into a. oomplete at1d.

eonciScecurd "hy,f'0rms the ra.ting scale ittel:t.

~e tJ'aite or 0haraoterietiee listed. $(:\I1'1e1s"t: <at 'thel.!l$

menti6nedae essentially desirable· by a.utl:l.cu'i ties who have

FJ:tltlJ:.iBhed'W<1)rk~fR the fi eld o:r edaoati onal 8i~mirU[stration,

ii;s <e;v:f!:d.ene:f$&S'yjll:l'blicaticJnB in the field: of busitaeef3sj'atlcl

]cHI:15J?y; ll>, of'ffcHals heaa.img eenool boards.

Method of Procedure <

In general the linee of interrogation pursued in this

analysis consist of the following:

1. What are the duties of an administering prinoi~al?

2. What professional qualifioations should. this offi ­

cia.l possess?

3. How able should the principal be as an organizer?

4. What qualifying traits are essential to an effi ­

. aient executive?

P. What shOUld be the supervisory qualifications of a.

principal of a high school?

6. To what extent shOUld this officer be integrated

into the aotivities of the community?

7. What personal traits and habits may be expected-­

even demanded--of the person filling this office?

8. What should be the attitude of this prinoipal to-

hie job and hie profeeaion?

14

8ource5 of Data

A great deal of the information presented herein conles

from two general types of materials. The first type comes

from the pen of authorities who have pUblished aocepted

books in the field of administration, the other type of

material co;me;B from a similar class of experts (in soroe in­

stances the same individuals) who ha.ve had their manuscripts

ac cepted and publi !Shed by profess! one,l peri odi oal ma.gazim,8 s.

The analyses of previously submitted rating scales of

various kindrs have been found to be sources of many items

of determination espeoially those related to personal and

executive characteristios.

A third sourGe of seleotion has been disoovered in the

personnel publications of the allied field of business,

wherein muc}.lstudyof an analytical nature relatimg to the

rating of individuals for specific jobs has been oarried on.

A further fund of applioable information has been

found in the professional investigations carried through at

various edUGational institutions by research workers. Many

of these have been published by the institutions, or in

part by the publlahingoompaniee.

The Types of Data Collected

The analysis of these various sources of informational

material has brought to light the following types of data:

1. The amount of training deeirable in the profession.

2. Personal characteristios of force and initiative

15

d~~irable in such leadership,

3. The attitude of mind assumed by leaders toward their

p,X'ofessions.

4. Tendencies of responsible persons to extend their

professional training in service.

5. The expression of willingness to oooperate withfel­

low, .~orkers in a congenial manner.

In,i,.t.iative in assuming responsibility for actions

in.service.

7. Evidenoes of professional skill in e~ecuting.the

mechanics of organization.

8. Skill and tact exercised in the handling of su~er­

vieory techniques and problems.

9. Inspirational encouragement furnished by profeB­

sional leaders to the faculty and the connnunity.

10.; The habits a.nd practioes of lea.ders of va.rious pro­

fessions in regard to personal cleanliness and ap­

pearance.

ll. The social customs and manners of the individuals

accepted as prominent in the professions.

12. Traits and qualities which communities desire that

their school officials possess.

The Problem

The objective of the molding of this scale for self­

analysis is to aid the principal to take inventory of his

activity and personality in the position itself. The 001'1­

struction of the scale itself will be based upon the vital

16

groups of the desirable qualifications of the office and

its occupant. Each of these divisions will in turn be com­

prosed of the 8ubor<iinate points which are related to that

hea<iing and at the san'ltll time will retain coherence among

themselves.

The oomlDila.tion of the items which form the material

{,or the seale construction will be attempted (1) by aean­

ning the works af various authors in the field of adminis­

tration, both edueational and commercial, aI'ld (2) by a.na­

lyzing the variou8.rating scales. Authors of administrative

books and articles have set themselves up as being mare ar

less expert iI'l the field; furthermore, as theil.1 warks are

aecepted )y workers in the field and by people in general,

there is thus still greater regard of them as having an

expert's knawledge.

Reference to these authorities and comparison with

other rating scales will further tend toward the establish­

ment of validity and reliability for the scale to the extent

that the items mentioned are coincidental with various

sources.

There will be attempt to strengthen still further the

validity and reliability by comparison of the established

qualifications with those desired by school boards.

Definition of Terms

The term "principal" as used applies to any official

who is the authorized head of a secondary school. Under

17

present conditions many such persons devote a part of their

time to the teaohing process, and it has been inva.riably

true even in the pa.st that little has been actually accom­

plished in the way of aotive Bupervision in the ordinary

high school.

"Secondary school" is a term which commonly is, and

shall here be, taken to include all public high schools or

private academies wherein the institution's chief function

shall be the education of pupils of grades seven to twelve,

inclusive. This will naturally inolude both the junior and

senior high schools of any type of seoondary organization.

It will also include smaller high schOOls of the two-year

or three-year organization.

Presentation of Material

The general plan of this study has been to give to the

principal a. definite and stimUlating picture of (1) what

the position really is, and (2) to give this official also \

a convenient device for checking upon his fulfillment of

that position.

Part II, which is the rating scale itself, consists

of the personal and professional items from the above men­

tioned materials. Synonyms and other terms with shades of

the same allusion are oondensed as much as possible.

To obtain validity and reliability in a study of this

type is a very difficult problem., but the writer believes

that a measure of success has been reached in this attempt

as presented in Part III.

18

The concluding section of this work presents a summary,

and some conolusions which have emphasized themselves in the

making of this analysis.

19

PART 11

THE SB:LF-RATI:N'G SCALE

It (Js" agaila deel:ra'tple to menti en that tbe:~1g aim ot

"i,.,Et~~i~at~ng EJ~,ll,l~ is tts oapaci ty tm cause the sUbJeot

to. be analytioal of his awn prefessional er parsenal traits

at'lQ prooedures. Mentien sheuld alse be made af the faot

that t~i efficiency Cf a self-rating device depends te a . ".,

greA.t extent upon the frequency and thoraughnessof its a:p­

p11catiori as a mea.suring stick.

Th.e use of a self-rating scale !mplfee an urge te im­jrev~, a prGd that not Qnly drives one tQ de as weil' but tc>

attempt te de better. If ome llessesses no such trai ts there

\'iff'f b~ neittJ.er desire to r:lGT reason for itaim! amy d.evfce

wlii'6h has fer its' main purpGse the lm.prGvement of the worker

in service.

Self-criticism is rarely stimulated by the persemal ex­hortatiens ef anetl'ier persen--a eec(!)Jld party. An 1!lrge frcun

wi thin oan do a gree.t deal more to stimulate an individual.

At this point a scheme er device by whioh the person may be

made critioally conscious net only of his weaknesses but

alse of hie strengths, finds its most impQrtant function.

A self-rating device probably satisfies this requirem.ent

niore than any Gther l!Ioheme. It poslleesee the least amount

of undesirable subjectivity, approaohes the impereonal, and

moet important of all, is used for the very purpose for

whioh it was intended, that of seeking improvement.

20

The self-rating scale presented herewith is an earnest

and sincere atte~pt to proVide suoh means ef oo~parison and

measurement for the principalship of the ordinary high soho$l

as the office is defined by the outstanding eduoational ad­

ministrative authorities.

Making Use of the Scale

This self-rating soheme, when used, will consist aotu­

ally of a serie~ of graphs in that a partioular portion of

the parallel lines is to be checked for that section of the

scale opposite it. Thus one gives c0nsid.eration t(!) eaoh sf

the alphabetized sections as a unit. Give the attention to

each question in its relation to the general head. Check

upon each issue by placing a small cress-mark or a large dot

between the desired lines at the right of the page. One oan

then easily connect these marks which will result in a ver­

tical graph for the analysis (!)f each section. If the gra~h

line swings away from the centra.l space "A" the rater should

scrutinize the corresponding questions carefully, giving

special heed when the tendency is toward the left.

One must ~se extreme caution in exercising judgment; be

h0nest with your self. Perfect frankness is the key as the

main aim is n0t a high first soore, but a higher score upon

each Bubsequent rating. Dontt forget that improvement is

the obj eot.

The column symbols of the graph are signifioant in this

way: P indioates an inferior grading; F, fair; A, average;

G, very good; and S, superior.

21

The 80ale

I. Personal and Sooia1 PFAGS

Te what extent:

A. ;Q,! ! :gosses! h~lll.!J! & ~rs0l'!!l <r..1es:n~i­

ness?

1. Bo I pOBsess personal cleansing

habits?

2. Do I daily make oert~in that my per­

son is free from all body, oral, or

tobacco odors?

B. Am I neatly groomed?

1. Is my person c10tmetd with clean ap­

parel of at least fair quality?

2. Do I exercise a l"eas,onable varia­

tion in the choice of clothing?

3. Are my satoria1 habits such as will

cast no reflection upon my appear­

ance?

1. Am I interested in what is happening

around me?

2. Am I pleasant and oheerful?

22

3. Do ! possess, without exception,

pleasant mannerisms?

4. Am 1 sensitive to the sQcial pro­

prieties?

5. Do I aid in planning recreation?

6. Do my teaehers and associates grow

more friendly with the passage of

time?

D. Q2! ~;eroiBe !~ct is.!l ~~cial relati~q~?

1. Are my Buggestions readily taken?

2. Am I asked by teachers to suggest

criticism of their work?

3. Am I readily invited to give judg­

ment en problems or new work whioh

is being tried?

4. Do I encourage initiative in both

teachers .and pupils?

5. Do 1 refuse credit not due me?

5. Am 1 sensitive to ethical procedure?

E. ~ ! £er~~~ere !1!h ~lanned !2~?

1. Am I working as hard as any of my

teaohers?

2. Do I retain my enthusiasm even a.fter

a week of heavy work?

3. Do I. have pronounoed foroe in either

work or play?

4. Do I oonserve the time and energy

ef my teaohers?

5. ~o I summarize projects and make

them professionally available?

II. Pr0fessional Growth and Attitudes

To what extent:

A. ~ ! ~eeI?iy !bre~s...t .2! lli !!!!! .!a !!l r,8e:o.i !!& !i .. :Erofes!i ona:t- llll~a tllre?

1. Do I add several good books to my

Jrofessional library eaoh year?

2. Am I a subscriber to at least four

professional magazines?

3. Am ! purposefully suggesting these

professional aide to my teaohers?

B. Am ! ~artie1I?atins in oommunitl ~ st~~~

educational activity?

1. Do I get interested participation in

the meetings of my own faculty?

2. Do I participate to my utmost in

state or national educational meet­

ings?

c. Do ! contribution to......-.. ..... _....-.. bI •_

strive -..... to make

__ •• _*_.-...

23

PFAGS

1. Do I experiment. analyze, and re­

port my observations?

2. Am I a contributor tQ the profes..

sional literature of my locality,

oO'l1nty or state?

3. ])(1) I enceurage my instru.ctors tQ

carryon experimental work during

the school year?

D. :&g 1. !!!terested 1n ~~ !! E~­sional lngu1rl !ni2 the !lelds 2i te~cA­

In& !! supervision?

1. Do I attempt to adjust the recom­

mendationsof eduoational aSBoci­

ations to fit local conditione?

2. Do I aid suoh orsanizations by re­

porting the results of my experience

with their suggestions?

3. Do I encourage my teachers to be

active members of professional

organizations?

4. Do I lend interested cooperation to

inter-school investigatlot18.~

5. Do I continouely extend my training

by summer sohool or extension work?

24

PFAGS

26

E. gave ! ~!eeQ aml Re~ !.m~~~etr!tiY~

~chemee !E£ £heck!~!heir !to~eeI10n,1.

utilit;r?

.1. Do I exper"111Ltlmt wi th !le,,- JnethcHile?

21 Have I· sat1sfactorily integrated•

student organizations?

3. Am I continuallyanalyzlng my com­

munity to find additional curricular

materials?

4. Do I readily try noteworthy aide of

others'?

5. Does the student organization financ

scheme function effioiently?

6•.: Are the student organizations spen­

sored~ft~ctively?

7. Ie there ~efinite attem~t to give

personal and social pupil guidanoe?

III. Cooperativeness and Teamwork

To what extentt

A. ~! obtC!in x:eoil2rocal coo12eration ~

ml !eaoh~re in Acheel aotivlt~e!?

1. Are my teachers willingly interested

in eerving on oommittees?

2. Do I ask for teachers' suggeetiena

upon a projected plan?

F FAG S

3. Do faoulty members work pleasantly

and oooperatively in community mat­

ters?

B. Rave 1. d~li:t.l ~ Set :!!llini oOIatribu­

t1on~ ~ !b£ taoultl me,tinSs?

1. Do I&aspire my teachers to volun­

tary activity in faculty meetings?

2. D~ the teaohers promote group plans

for 1.mprGVelllent?

3. Am I careful to make commendation

where due?

c. !!!! ~ loyal !£. !$I ~u~eriore ~nd l2. m !eachers?

1. Do I seek opportunity to commena the

school and its workers?

2. Do I give hearty cooperation in exe­

cuting the educational policies of

JIIY Buperiors'l

3. Am 1 prompt in completing my records

to their final form?

4. Do I refrain from speaking of a fel ­

low worker if I oannot oommend'l

D. ~ 1 aga~ Ae8~onsib!litl for !l 2wn

lotion!?

26

P FAG S

27

1. Do I try to escape oensure relative

to oriticized plans in which I have

l;lll.rticipated?

2. Do I unhesitatingly paes oredit

along to other persons who partioi­

:pated?

3. Am. I alert to "do a good turn" that

will benefit instruction?

E. ~ ! ~oBsese !. defini te .!!ucationa! ;{!hi

as.o12hl of. & own?

1. Do I know intimately the general

needs of my oommunity?

2. Am I able alwaye to enlist the

active aid of my teaohers in adjust­

ing the curriculum to the oommunity?

3. Do 1 personally visit the general

social and home environment of the

pupils?

4. Do I invariably extend my eel! to

benefit pupil oonditions?

5. Do I form the center around which

the school revolves as an integral

part of the community?

F. ~ 1 !~~ualll ~artioi12a~~ !n ~sirable

gommunitl actiyitiee?

P FAG S

88

P FAG S

friendliness?

2. Do I avoid taking part in looal

political equablee?

3. Do I ~eep the sohool board and the

oommunity informed regarding Bohool

affairs?

4. Do I give public approval of the

better phases of the sohool system?

r". Skill in Administrative Meohanios of the High

School

To what extent:

A. ~!!!h! !choCt ~nit ~uqctioq !moothly

and !igorous!.x?

1. Have the students been inspired to

oooperate in running their sohool?

2. Do I delegate responsibility to in­

struotors and sponsors?

3. Doea such de.legation reflect Bound

judgment on my part by its results?

4. Are intra-sohool regulations kept to

the very minimum that is oonducive

to effioienoy? , I

, .

PFAGS

1. Is eaoh oourse of study in line with

the general policy of the school

system?

2. Do the class organizatione ~aBlly

tend to cohere with the genera.l

school organization?

3. Does a spirit of friendliness per­

meate the intra-,sMool oompeti tions?

4. J)ses eaoh of the intra-mural oon­

tests have a beneficial aim?

c. !! there develo~e~ ~ ~~~tain~d ~

broad e~tra-ourrioular program?

1. Do 1 attempt to enfold every pupil

into an extra-olass aotivity?

2. Do I give proper emphasis to "&C­

t.ivi ties" and to the regular sub­

jects?

3. Ie there Buffioient stress oondern­

ing an avooation for eaoh student?

D. H!!! ! tormu~ated ! aeneral orsaa1zation

laich !! 9.011c1,u~iV;~ 1£ 0:t~er and di,!ol­

Eline?

1. De the teachers attempt to get

pupils to govern themselves within

the group?

2. Are the students permitted to par­

tioi~ate to some extent in gOTern­

ingtheir schoo.l organizations?

3. In case of breach of discipline do

I try to get the matter settled by

bringing student influence and

aotioE upon it?

1. Is the method of cheokiag supplies

and properties conservative of time

and energy?

2. Is the hall way and inter-Class

traffic rapid but orderly? .

3. Does the fire-drill system work ef­

ficiently?

4. Are the attendance records kept in

a readily cumulative form?

6. Ie the library adjusted for easy

utility by pupils in study rooms?

6. Is there poeltive development in

each of the home-rooms'?

v. Supervisory Ability and Skill

30

P FAG S

31 To what extent:

A. ~ ! ~ilize the ~r1nc1ple! ~ sup~~.

vision !E£. teachin&?

1. Is the supervisory progra.m ad.justed

so that the teachers are striving

for, pupil benefit?

2. Bo I consistently report to the

Buperintendent ooncerning phases of

supervisory objeotive?

B. ~ ! ~ ! ~rosram £f visitation i.nte­

srateg !E!£ ~ seneralschedu1e?

1. 'Does the program oall for .fre\luent

contact with the teacher at work?

2. Do I give most of my supervisory

time and attention to thoae teaohers

having teaohing difficulties?

~. ~oI make memoranda in duplioate so

that the instructor may thus possess

a copy?

4. Am I definitelY attempting to be

demooratically helpful and co"opera­

ti ve'(

c. ~ !. !!!! ~ !!m! of §'H:eervie~2!! ~par"

en~ 1£ ~ teaohers?

P FAG S

1. Are the teachers consoious of the

ohild as the unit of education?

2. Rave I ma.de it apparent that super­

vision is for the benefit of the

pu]>11?

3. Rave r inspired my teachers with a

meliet in supervision?

4. ~o my teachers and I continually

~eep in mind the goal for the year?

5. Does my supervision formulate anedu

oational philosophy for my teachers?

6. Are my procedures such that a teach­

er may emulate them with benefit?

D. ~ ! a§sist leachere 12 ~ti1ize recog­

nized ~laBB ~!££edu~e6?

1. Am I helpful to the teacher in ana­

lyzing the aims of instruction?

2. Do I encourage socialized class-room

l'articipation?

3. Do I aid the teacher in making les­

son assignments~

4. Am I helpful to the teacher in mak­

ing leeson cut1inee?

5. Have I inspired the teacher to uti ­

lize every device whioh will improve

the teaching act?

:32

P FAG S

33

6~ DQ I arrange tllat demonstration lee- P FAG S

eons of various types be taught a~d

witnessed by the teachers?

E. ~ 1 !earch for ~.~ r.~coin1!Aon 12 ~etter !eachins?

1. D9 I give recognition to the teacher

whoh$s the scientific attitude?

2. Do I encourage and aid the teachers

in securing publication of their

work?

3. Do I use every opportunity to report

to the community the good work of ~

teachers?

4. Do I encourage and facilitate teach­

er membership upon local, state, or

other educational committees?

~. Have I developed an efficient record

devioe for the recommending of teach

erJJ?

F. ~ 1 !!stinctlI feel ~ ~ leachins

l1aff !l! 1!~~ !!! l'urE,Pse?

1. Have 1 been able to inouloate a

wholesome demooraoy in supervision?

2. Have I inspired my teachers toward

a solidarity of purpose?

3. Has my staff been led to develop a

social life which is seleotive yet

does not exolude the community?

4. Have I elllcouragedmy teaohers to

play ~B hard as they work?

5. Bo I encourage interchange of ideas

between Both individuals and groups.- .

of teachers?

G. ~ I !Bl! 1£ instill ! feelin~ £! per­

sonal :E!0feseionali..!!!! i!! ll!.2.her .?£nfe,t­

ences?

1.Bo I definitely leep eniagements

with FupiIs, teachers, or other

persons?

2. ~o teachers and pupils welcome me

as an ally in their work?

3. Am I able to keep conference dis­

cussion .way from the personal and

centered upon pupil benefit?

4. Do I stress values found in profes­

sional literature and professional

organizations?

5. Do I emphatically enoourage improved

training in servioe?

P FAG S

35

PART III

ESTABLISHING THE SCALE

Analysis of the genal'al supervisory and a<bninietrative

fieldsG>n'tlie seoonda.ry level brings cone at onee intm abrupt

eCiltat'aetwttiB questions of objectives, a.ims, personality,

methods, sooial traits, principles of administration. Qlaee­

pcoom l'I'ecedures, primciples or supervisici)lO" faCUlty meetings,

eozmnunityrela.tiC:lJas, and many other essential phases of the

work of the principal.

1m the general construction of the Bcale the arrangement

is s\:lch that it predioates aJ!1 affirmative answer a.s the G>pti ..

mum resJons'e. The restriction to a definite "ne" Elr "yes l•

in answering mentally each of the main headings points spe­

oifical1y toward greater objectivity. Following up st1eha

definite response one can the more easily isolate and eriti­

oize the strengths and weaknessee by means of the. sUBordinate

queries under that respective heading. UndoubtecUymany d.e­

sirable traits are not included, and it is un~ueetionab1y

true that each of the mentioned) quali ties is nQt therQughly

and completely analyzed. The only valid exouse f@r this

seeming inadequacy is from the viewpoint of utility. Funda­

mental principles with as much Qrevity as ia consistent with

oareful work, hae been the thought kept constantly in mind

by the author.

35 Validity

A aU:Fvey of the litera.ture of the administrative and

supervisory 'ielas aemomstratee a very emphatio trend toward

unamixnity of o"'"'iniol1 in r<>O'.·ard· to· obj ectiv i th d' Wo . . . es, a me, me os,

principles and procedures as they relate to the secondary

eeliloolprincipalehip. In this scale the main qualities are

~1ilt$:rr"ely a JlQJ:'t of the atructure by reaaOl1 of being peu~ese.

ed •.. of the weight of frequency of occurrence on the part of

authorities in each of the two fields of education. In ad­

dition, a survey of personnel investigations in the area of

business practice lends from another angle weight to the

olaim of validity to these traits. Furthermore, in pursuing

a worthy work of inquiry, one comes in contact with the com­

piled opinions of a large number of school board presidents.

The opinions of these officials were not solicited with any

such suggestive device as a questionnaire; they were merely

asked to list qualifications which they desired and looked

for in an administrative officer. Suoh prooedure WOUld, it

is believed, make their combined opinion fairly reliable.

In comparing the more heavily weighted opinions obtained

with the two groupe of authorities mentioned above, it is

found that while the ranking according to weight of frequen­

oy differed in Bome respects, there was impressive unanimity

regarding the charaoter of theBe major traits. Espeoially

was this true with respect to the field of administration.

The attempt to establish this soale a.s a valid one is

based upon one premise that of frequenoy of mention in pUb­

liehed materials. Each author, upon publishing a work,

automatioally establishes himself as an authority in the

field in which he has written, therefore his opinion ie

equal to that of any other author. This being BO, thett the

greater the agreement found among such writers the greater

the tendency towar4 validity. Thus, in Table I, the writer

attempted to show in tabulated form the unanimity of opinion

regardi~g the various items of qualifications.

TABLE I. T.A:BULATED STATUS OF TEE WEIGHT OF FBEQ,UENCY OF AU... TI:lORITIE6 WITH RELATION TO T:rm: GENERAL HEADINGS OF Tlm SELF­

RATING SCALE

==-::::-=-=:;======-=-==::::=::::::::=:;,..;:::::::::===:='-::::::===:=:::::===:==:==::::::::'t=-:r::::::::tlc:rf!t# Item Fre­

Tabulation quenoy:Number ___• ,__... _._. , ......... 1 ­

2, 5, 8, 1~, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, li, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 35, 37, 5C3, 4"0, 42,45, 45, 46, 49, 50, 65, 158,159, 60, 6i, 62, 66, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 79, 89, 90, 96, 98, 102, 103, 112, 115, 117. 52

2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20,I-B 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 35, 37, 59, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 63, 58, 59, 60, Ql, 62, 66, 68, 69, 7fi, 79, 89, 90, 9S, 98,

50],02, 112, 115, 116, 117.

~, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16,I-e 18" 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49, 60, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 6~, 66, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 7C3, 89, 90, 94, 96, 98, 102, 103, 104,

60107, 112, 114, 115, 117.

4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,1, 2, 3,I-D 21, 22, 23, 24,-25, 26,16, 17, 18, 19, 20,

42, 43,27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 38, 39, 4O, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, ~9, 60, 61, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76,

9a, 99, 100, 102,'9, 84, 90, 9~, 94, 96, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116,

75117.

2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18,I-E 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 50, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 75,

4979, 90, 96, 98, 113.

9, 1O, 11, 15, 14, 15,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,II-A 27, 28,16, 17, 18, 19, 2O, 21, 22, 25, 26,

29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 155, 57, 58,

68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79,59, 61, 62, 64, 92, 94, 99, 100, 102, 193,80, 84, 89, 90,

104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117 •

.......................

76

--

TABDD 1. (continued)'

ttem NUIrl'6er

II-C

, II-D

J

II-E

III-A

III-B

11!-0

Tabulation

2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35, 57, 58, 43, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, ~5, 98, 102, 114.

2: 6, 7, 8, 1'1, 13, 15" 16, 18, 19, 20,. 22,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 55, ~7, 58, 09, 40, 41, 43, 45, 53, 57, 58, 62, 64, 66, 68, 79, 8O, 90, 94, 102, 103,105, 112, 113, 114.

2, 3, 5, 6, 9, iI, 12, 13~ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, '24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 56, 68, 69, 70, 74. 75, 76, 79, 80, 84, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 10,2" 103, 105, Ill, 112, 114, 115, 117.

9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 38, 53, 54, 57, 62, 74, 9.4, 107, l13~

I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, ~4, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 53, 58, 59, 60, 52, 64 , 65, (57, 68 , 69, 70, 74 , 7 5 , 76, 79, 80, 8~, 90, 92, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, '112, 114, 115,- 117.

I, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 45, 47, 49, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 79, 90, 94, 96, 98, 99, 112, 114, 117.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36; 37, 38, 39,.40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 63, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 6~, 68, 69,

Fre­quencr

40

48

76

25

71

58

40

T~LE 1. (continued)

Item Fre­Nu.mber Tabulation <quenoy---'....-.-.------ . 1----­

(oontinued) 70,74,75,76,79,80,84,89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117.

111-0

82

1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 51, 36, 41, 42, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59, 64, 65, 67, 76, 90, 94, 96, 98, 104, 107, 114, 117.

III-D

40

2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 63, 56, 68, 59, 6e, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 7O, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 84, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 106, 107, Ill, 112, 113, 114, 117.

III-E

82

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,'12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 6O, 51, 52, 67, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, S9, 75, 76, 79, 84, 89, 90, 94, 96, 102, 112, 114.

III-F

68

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,IV-A 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, SO, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 84, 89, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, Ill, 112,

77114.

2, 3 , 6 , 8 , 9, la, 11 , 12 , 13, 14 , 15 , 16 , 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 52, 54, 58, 59, 61, 52, 64, 67, 68, 69, 74, 75, 76, 79, 84, 90, 92, 94, ge, 98, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, Ill,

IV-B

67112, 114.

2, 3t 4, 5, 61 9, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20! 22,23, 26, 27, 2~, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, \58, 43, 46, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 62, 67, 74, 76, 94,

IV-C

=-='=l.=:!::'=.·:=''''·=·=:=~=·:~''':'=-=·===..=~=,=,-=:::::===::===.:====.;=!======~:::::::::::==

41 TA:BlliE I. (Illontinued) -~ p : ::::

Item Fre­NumlDer Tabulaticm quencY'

.,.... =4,. ~_.__._... . -. _

(eoatinued) 96, 99, 103, 107, 112. 114. 40

IV- D.,. J. , 2, 3, 4- , 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,J.4, If5., lS, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 2.7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 3:~'" 40,41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53,

. 67, f58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 9:9." .75,'.9, 94, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 107, If2,114, 117. 68

Iv-E 1, 2, 3, 5, S, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. 15, 16, 18, 19, laO, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, ~O , 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 54, f55, 67, 58, 59, 60, 61, 52, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 84, 89, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 1015, Ill, 112, 113, 114, 117. 66

., 2, 3,.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 1'7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 2'7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 52, 5:3, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 68, 75, 79, 90, 94, 96, 98, 99, 112, 114, 11'7.

V-A

60

2, :3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 1Z, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 43, 49, 52, 53, 58, 62, 64, 67, 90, 94, 96, 112, 114.

V-B

32

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47,49, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, '70, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, 84, 89, 93, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 111, 112, 114,

v-c

7?116, 117.

~, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 2'7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 3:3, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 5"1, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 57, 68, 69,

V..D

75, 79, 80, 84, 89, 90, 96, 98, 99,70, 74, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 112, 114, 117. 64

, • v . . , V4•..._... .....---..-................,.- . ;

42

TABLE I. (oontinued) • I ... ......-.... ........ - -_.. ­--=:r======' ===='=:._=:=.:.::'===:::::-:::::~=-====::;::::===-

Item Fre ... Number quenoyTabulation ._-_. --,----,-------------- ­V-E

V-F

V-G

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, 31, 33, 36, 6;3, 54" 57, 58, 7~, 76, 79, 90, 11., 115, 116,

7, 8, 9, 11, 21, 22, 23, 38, 43, 45, 60, 62, 63, 94, 96, 99,

117.

12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 27, 28, 29, 48, 49, 50, 61, 64, 65, 66, 69, 104, 107, 112,

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 74, 75, 79, 80, 84, 89, 90, 94, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117. '

1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 65, 66, 68, 70, 74, 76, 79, 90, 94, 96, 99, 112, 113, 116, 117.

10'

60

78

53

==-- .._-- ....-==::::!:=========:::=====._=.============

43

PART IV

SUMMARY

Conclusions

While rating cards have long been used by admin~st:rators

a.nd supervisors, Subjeotively, for the purposes of determin..

ing merit with relation to promoti on, or demotion, salary

inorease er deorease, tenure of offioe, etc., for persons

other than the rater, analysis ot the eduoational field dis­

clQses that there ie distinct inorease in the formulation

am<:i use of the self.. rating Boheme. The purposes just men­

tioned are valid, but the selt.. rating device tends to make

them even more subservient (and justly so) to that greater

object of instruction: the improvement in training of the

educator, for the benefit of the child.

The principal purpose of a Beale should be to stimulate

the rater to meaningful self-criticism of hie own work. A

se1f.. rating Bcheme cannot be abused, a criticism which is

made of the subjective scales. Laok of improvement of moti­

vation by anyone person using such a. self-rating scale oan­

hot justifiably bring oensure of the Beale. It is rather a

greater reflection upon the person using the device.

As preViously stated, the Boale should be used frequent­

ly and should be justly analytioal and oritioal upon each

ocoasion. Furthermore, oursory examination of the last-used

soale is urged and recommended at frequent ~eriode in the

interval before again filling out the Boale.

44

Knowledge gained from analysis of previous rating

schemes, works of educational authorities, both adminis­

trative and supervisory, opinions of business experts as

expressed in various personnel studies, and the expression of

the lay-officials who are direotly responsible for eduoating

the youth, makes it apparent that the following features are

worthy of stress:

Teaohers and educational officials of the better type

recognize the value and purpose of the self-rating soale.

The capaoity for self~evaluation is a phase of judging

skill, and being such, it growe and refines itself with

practice.

Any rating scale, not merely a self-rating one, must be

checked with an extremely objective attitude of mind.

Increasing interest and use of self-rating devioes are

the actual trend.

At present, at least a self-rating device must employ

subjective procedure in a large part.

That superVision improves teaching is a generally ac­

cepted fact, but that self-judgment is much more effective

has not been so clearly perceived.

The most essential purposes to which a prinoipal's

self-rating scale can be applied are superVision, adminis­

trative functions, and development of personality.

A self-rating scale undoubtedly possesses vast capacity

for stimulation toward professional growth.

45

Recommendationa

The three ~haeeB thus mentioned should be aotively

aimed at the educational betterment of the pupil as the unit.

The use of a self-rating Bcale for the purpose of stimuM

lation by comparison is probably the most effective means of

improving the prinoipal and his functions of office •

.Consecutive uses of the self-rating l'rooedure by the

princiJilal shOuld show similar (although 1 t is hoped, im­

proved) results.

The scale should contain a compact but comprehensive

group of items.

The scale ia primarily for use as a device for increas­

ing the efficiency of the offioial, for the benefit of the

child.

One should use the scheme to measure himself as he is,

then strive earnestly to im~rove in the weakness or weak­

nesses noted before repeating the measurement.

A statement from H. O. Ruggl may be used to summari2e

aptly the whole situation relative to theu:se of rating

Bcales in that

"if a rating scale is to be truly helpful, its ahief element must be self-improvement throughself-rating. Improvement of teachers in service rests direotly upon the initial step of self-cri ­ticism••••• It can be stimulated from within•••• provided objective impersonal schemes oan be de­veloped by which teaohers can be made critioallyoonsoious of their strengths and weaknesses."

___,_""' , 1 , ----

IRarold O. Rugg. "Self-Improvement Through Self-Rating, A :New Scale for Rating Tea.chers' Efficiency," in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 19, pp. 670-684, (Ma.y, 1920).

46 BIBLIOGHAPHY

of

Annotated References

1. Al_:!llk., J~hn;Q. The School Board Member. Macmillan JO;I'Ji\!l;pa~1/, New lork, 1927. 281pages. Discuases the duties 0f the member of the board of education and his

': ,ra;ijJi;lblilt 1a.~ e¢o,w;e.rd his job. ',' ","-""'o;i"'·,""-""_

i ~! r!:j" ,

2. Al.!BEJ'!\i~Qhn c. "Duties and Training of a City Superin­tendent," in .A:MH:RICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 62,

'·;;'~p1IIi$ll.r3;2.,(A])ril, H~2l). The title of this artiole B·~gt;'·:t~lytSj;t~'(iB; :mature of the content.

3. Al~~~~1~~:~id~e:n:It~ay~~J.~~B§~~~.~iB.~o*~~t~~B~r»t~~ '~i~5~j),,.ny, Boston, 1925. 466 pages.

4. Alfl,:,:,~1;c,;~ohn C. and A. R. Lang.. "Froblems of the Teach.. ~1,g·41?lri\~fes8:.ion, 'I in JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ~~S~~I~fIO¥, Vol. 11, pp. 219-220, (June, 1922). The title is indioative of the nature of the content. It i.i8/., .o,:f course, samewhat limited. "~,jJ

5. Al~:., C.and Herbert Sorenson. "A Teaching..Rating l~t~iadl,i!e:'j,o;fI>eterminedReliability and Validi ty, II in EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION, Vol. 16,

.;;p~;.,;L 7~9}..186, (March, 1929).

6. Ar;p, J\.S.iJawal Eduoati£!! !lli! 1he Consolidated ~chGl(ll. Wor:L,G.,<;Bo okCJolnpany, Yonkers- 0 n-Hudeon , New York, J:§~. 21,2pag$s. Enumerates some qualities which the teacher l'!bok:efer in the successful principal.

7. Be;¥i!r,~",,~,·a,me.B~:nd Guy Bates. ItThe Basis of Teacher-Rating," i'i;t!),J,;m!ID;UXJATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION, Vol. 15, :P~ .¥;J~..g5..183, (MarGh, 1929)'. The c o.. authors di SCUBS the :~~ty;te4r; of valieHty in scales.

8. Ba!t~!!S/,; GUY.. "Functions of the Elementary SchoolPrinci­Pf(lIlJ."j"/\:Ljn JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL METHOD, Vol. 4, 1'1'.178­1,~4"j;;(jl~1'iluary, 1925).

9. Benson, A. F. "The Public School Principal, II in A1JIERI­O~¥j~PHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 64, pp. 49 .. 50, (March, :L.92~)., Herein are listed the duties of the principal ate ··$i·pu,sinesB executive.

47

10. Beveridge, F. H. "Qualifioations of the Fr0tessional Superintendent of Schools," in PROCEEDINGS $fDepart­ment of Superintendence, National Eduoation Asaooia­tion, Vol. 11, pp. 88-95, (1898).

11. Bobbi tt, Franklin. "The Building Principal in the Sur­veys, II in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, V01. 19, ;pp. 106­120, (October, 1920).

12 •. Bti>bbi tt, ;Franklin. "Mi stakes Often :Made by Prinoipals, II in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 22, pp. 337-434, (February, 1920).

Boobitt, Franklin. "The Supervision of Ci ty Schools," ~n 12TH YEARBOOK, National S00iety tor the StUdy Qf Educatian, Part I, pp. 62-74, Publio School Publishing company, Bleemington, 1913.

14. Bogge, J. "School Board Regua1tion Concerning the Ele­mentary Schoel Principal, ,. in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOTI.RlfAL" Vol. 20, pp. 730-742, (June, 1920). This contains the epinion af a large number of' schoel board pres'ielents as to the qualifications of a principal.

Bone, H. A. "Cri teria by Which a Teacher Uay Measure IUs Work,'" 1n HIGH SCHOOL Q,UARTERLY, Vol. 7,l'p. 153-155, (April, 1919). A discussion of means by which an in­structor may check and analyze hie teohnique.e.

Boyce, Arthur C. "Methods of Mea.suring Teaohers' Effi ­ciency," in FOURTEENTH YEARBOOK of the' National SQoiety for the study of Education, Fublic School Publishing Company, Bloomington, (1915). This is a oritioism and discussion of the better known of the rating methGds of tnat period.

17. Bradford, Mary C. C. "Report of' the Commi ttee of One Hundre<i C:lassrQem Teaohers' Problems," in PROCEEDINGS of the National Education Association, Vol. 62, pp. 265­268, (1924). Excellent summary on rating.

18. Brown, :Edwin J". f!: §e1f-Batini §oa~ f!!. S!l2ervisor~, .§u:eervisor;y: ~!!!ci12als,,!ill! eli1!ng Teaone;;Jl. Bruoe PublishIng Company, IJ~9. ThIs Ie a oomplete rating scale on one page in large leaflet-form.

19. Burris, W. P. "Proposed Scale for Rating the Scho0l ~rinc!pal," in the SECOND YEARBOOK, Department of Elementary School Principals, Nation~l Education Asso­ciation, Vol. 11, pp. 462-464, (1924). The content is discoursive ooncerning points for a proposed Bcale.

p

20. Burton, William H. .§u*$rv~siqn and l.m;pro!Etment .9! ~e9:0h" !~. D. Appleton an Company,~w Yor~, !923. Thla work presents procedures, principles, and problems of the educative process from the Bupervisorts standpoint.

21. Carrigan, Rose A. "Rating of Teachers on the Basis of Supervisory Visita.tion," in JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL METHOD, Vol. 2, pp. 48-55, (September, 1922). The title indicates the type of content.

22. Carroll, Charles. "Educating a Superintendent of Schools," in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 76, pp. 41-43, 136, 138, (1928). Discusses the qualifications de­sired of an administrator. .

23. Case, R. D. "Take Time to Be Human, It in JOURNAL OF EDU... CATIO:H, Vol. 116, pp. 361-363, (September, 1933).Discusses the social qualifications from the stand­point of the community.

24. Chancellor, E. W. Our ~ch~ols, Their Administration ~nd SUEer!isi£g. D. C. Heath and Company, Boston, pp. 72­99, 1904. 434 pages. Although old, the general funda­mentals in the indicated portion should be applioable.

25. Clark, R. c. "As Is the Principal," in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURl~AL, Vol. 75, 1'1'. 49-50, (September, 1927). Discusses the responsibility of the principal in kee~­ing his faCUlty inspired and hie school up in its standards.

26. Cober, E. W. tiThe :Principal and Ris Professional Growth," in THIRD YEARBOOK of the Department of Elementary School :Principals, National Education Association, Vol. 3, 1'1'. 219-232, (July, 1924).

27. Connor, W. L. "A New Method of Rating Teaohers," in ~OURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Vol. 1, PP' 338-358, (May, 1920). Set forth in this contribution is a per­tinent group of questions relating to pupil activity.

28. Cook, W. A. "Uniform Standards for JUdging Teachers in South Dakota,'t in EDUCATIONAL ADMHnSTHATION At'ID SUPER­VISION, Vol. 7, PI'. 1-11, (January, 1921). .

29. Crabtree, J. W. "Rating of Teachers," in PROC:F1EDHWS of the National Educational Association, Vol. 53, pp. 516­519, (1915). Contributed opeinione of well known edu­cators of the time are presented herein.

30. Cranor, Katherine T. IIA Self-Rating Card for Supervisors as an Aid to Efficiency in School Work," in JlmUCATIONAL

49

.A:JJM:INISTRATION MID SUPERVISION, Vol. 7, pp. 91..120, (February, 1921). A good self-rating card for the supervisor.

31. Cubberley, Ellwood P. The Princi£al and His School. Houghton Mifflin Company,-Boston-;-l923.--571 pa.ges. This isa very comprehensive treatise; covers all the phases of the principal's work.

32. Cubberley, Ellwood P. Public School Administration. 'Ohapters 15, 21, and 22;HOughtonMIrITTri-company,Besten, 1929. 710 pages. Content in these chaptersis ,very general.

33. C''t1bberley, Ellwood 1'. Rural Life and Eduoation. Rough­ton Mifflin Company, Boston;-I9237- '377 pages. ~numer­a:,tes in a clear manner the qualifications and funotions of the rural school administrator.

3>4/i.i Davidaon, Percy E. liThe Professional Training of School Offioers," in EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, Vol. 46, pp. 473-491, (December, 1913). Discusses the kind and amount of training desirable in a school official.

35. Davidsen, W. M. "How to Measure the Efficiency of Teach­ers," in PROCEEDINGS of the National Educational Aase" ciatien, Vol. 51, pp. 286-290, (1913). Discussion of rating as an effective means of measuring teaoher effi ­ciency; a pioneering effort.

36. Decker, W. H. "Relation of Business and Education in Loeal School Districts," in AMITIRICAN SCHOOL BOARD 30URNAL, Vo~. 72, p. 51, (April, 1926). Advocates business training but from an educational viewpoint.

37. Deffenbaugh, W. S. "The Selection of the School Super­intendent, II in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARI) JOlJRNAL, Vol. 68, 1'p. 36-104, (June, 1924). Lists the needed qualifi ­e:ations.

38. Dutton, Samuel T. and J)avid Snedden. f~ Administrati2.!.! of Public Education in the United States. 601 pages.A-comprehensIve-discussIon of-rmprovement from the vie~oint of the chief executive.

39. Dyer, Franklin. "Q,uestions on Teaching to Help Teachers Make a Self-Examination to ]'ind Ways of Improving," in A'I'LANTIC EDUCATIONAL JOURNAL, Vol. 11, pp. 343-344, (March, 1916). Lists a group of questions pertaining to personality and ability.

60

40. Elliot, E. E. ~A Tentative Soalefor the Measurement of Teachers' Efficiency," in T:FlACHERS' YEARBOOK OF EDUCATIONAL INV]iSTIGATIONS, Department of Heference and Research, New York City Schools, 1915.

41. Englehardt, 11. S. and Fred Englehardt. Public School A~in~s~~ion. Chapter 22. Teachers~ollege, Colum­oia University, New York, 1927. Emphasizes the busi­ness phase of school administration.

42. Farrington, Frederick E. liThe Equipment of a School Principal, II in EDUCATIONAL REVIEW, Vol. 35, PP. 41-51, (January, 1908).

43. Fairchild, R. W. "The Measure of the Adrninistrator,n in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 57, pp. 23-24, (January, 1918). Gives the fundamental requirementsof a successful administrator.

44. Fi chandler , Alexander. IIstudying Self-Appraisal, II in SCHOOL AlID SOCIETY, Vol. 4, pp. 1000-1002, (December,1916). Content includes a very good self-rating soale.

45. Finney, Ross L. and Alfred L. Schafer. The Administra­ti£n of Villa~e ~£ gonsolidated SchooIB7 -298 pages. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1924. Discusses the personal and professional characteristics needed for rural administration.

46. Fi tzpatri ck, Burke F. SU;2§.!.vi si.Ql! in Elemen~,ary §chools. F. A. Owens Publishing Company, Dansville, New York, 1923. Deals somewhat completely with the personal phases.

47. Flowers, Ida V. "Duties of Elementary School Principals,"in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL. Vol. 27, pp. 414·422, (February, 1927). Content indicated by the heading.

48. Forbes, M. G. "Ethics for Teachers," in JOURNAL OF TEE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Vol. 11, pp. 219-220, (June, 1922).

49. Foster, Herbert H. High School Administration. The Century Company, New York;'pp.-4?-6§, 'lS28. In the indicated portion is found a good discussion of the qualifications desirable in a principal.

50. Freems.n, F. N. "Teate of Personality Traits," in SCHOOL REVIEW, Vol. 33, PP. 95-106, (February, 1926). Title indioates content.

51

:M1!flin Company, Eoeton, 1924. 173 pages. A very:pra.ctical ma.nual of the administrative B,nd supervisoryfunctions of such schools.

G:1. st, Arthur S. 1h! AdministE§!io!,! of £!:!! ~~~ntar;z ~!hool. Charles Scribner-'s Sons, New York, 1928. ~Q8 pages. Entire work deals with the field of the ~~incipal and his work in the community.

G:t st, Arthur :So and William A. King. liThe Efficienoy of ~he Principalship from the Standpoint of the Teacher," ip ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 23, pp. 120-126, {October, 1922). Presents the rating of the principal f~qm the te~cher'B viewpoint.

Gowin, Enoch E. Th~ ~2S£cu~ ~nd Hi S Q£ntr£! .Qf Men. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1918. 349 pages. Diecusses in vivid manner the personal traits of leaders.

q.r~;y, C. T. "The Training of Judgmeht in the Use elf the 'A.yres Scale of Handwri ting, 11 in JOURNAL OF :illDUCAT.IONAL ~SYCHOLOGY, Vol. 6, pp. 85-98, (February, 1915). Illus­trates how judgment can be trained.

(3-ray, W. S. "Rating-Scales, Self-Analysis, and the 1m­. provement of Teaching, II in SCHOOL REVIEW, Vol. 29,

pp. 49-57, (January, 1921). Presents a good discus­eion of self-rating and points to the potentialities of the device.

Gr~er, F. E. and P. T. Rankin. "Experiment in Meaeuringthe Principal's Work, II in PROCJEEDINGS of the Depart­ment of Elementary School Principals, National Educa­tion association, Vol. 10, pp. 564-570, (April, 1931).

Hebb, Bertha. Y. "Samples of Teachers' Self-Rating Cards,"• in Cilz School Leaflet. No. 18,Bureau of Education, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., (Feb­ruary, 1925). This leaflet presents a number of ratingcards samples, many of which are in use in the larger systems of the country.

Henry, Mrs. C. K. "What Do You Look for in a Superin­• tendent? It in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 72, pp. 45.-46, (June, 1926). A critical article givingthe Viewpoint of the lay pereon.

:a: ervey, H. P. liThe Rating of Teachers, /I in PROCmGDnmS I. of the National Education Association, Vol. 59, pp.

825-829, (1921). Advocates that supervisors do not rate; that this be done by some other agency.

52

6L Hess, AdahE:. "Teacher Ra.ting as a Means of ImprovingHome J1~conomics Teachers in SeJ:'vi ce," in JOURNAL OF HOME ECONOMICS, pp. 85-90, (February, 1922). The score card contained in this presentation is applicable to other fields.

62. Hines, Harlan C. "Mer it' Systems in Larger C1 ties, 'I in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 68, pro 52 ff., (June, 1924). Comprehensive analysis of practices in 1a.rgE;lr cities.

63. Hines. Harlan C. liThe Selection of Teachers for the Cityof Cincinnati, Ohio, II in AMERI C.AN' SCHOOL BOAR] JOUR1TAL, VoL 59, pp. 41, (August, 1924). Discusses the traits for which the administrator seeks in the instructors.

64. Hudleson, Earl. liThe Profession of Principal, II in SCHOOL RBJVIEW, Vol. 30, pp. 15-23, (January, 1922). Tabular results of questionnaire analyses regarding academic and professional phases.

65. Hughes, C. L. "Functions of a Superintendent," in AMERI­CAN SCHOOL TIOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 66, pp. 192-193, (Sep­tember, 1923). Gives a pertinent list of duties of the head school officer.

66. Hughes, Hardin W. "General Principals, and the Reeulte of Rating Characteristics," in JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL METHOD, Vol. 4, pp. 421-431, (June, 1925). A charao­ter rating scale.

67. Hunkins, R. V. IlTechnic of the Superintendent of Schools in Cooperation wi th the Board of Edueation," in AMERI­CAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 73, pp. /41-42, (May, 1927). Discusses the desirability of, and the teeh­niquee of cooperation.

68. Hunt, R. L. liThe Superintendency in Small Schools," in SCHOOL EXECUTIVES 1~GAZINE, Vol. 52, No. 11, pp. 370­

/371, 376, (July, 1933). A discussion of the qualifi ­cations of the school administrator as analyzed byeducational authorities, and 'by school board members.

69. Jones, ,Olive M. "The Relations of the Prjncipals to the Teacher, and the Standards of Judging the Effective­ness of Tea.ching, II in SCHOOL ANI) SOCIETY, Vol. 14, PIl. 469.. 477, (:\lTovember, 1921). A description of the handbook a,nd rating :plan of l~ew York.

70. JUdd, Chs,rles H. "The High School PrincipaJ., in SCHOOL REVTI~W, Vol. ~6, pp. 641-653, (November, 1918).

71. Judd, Cha,rles H. and Others. RgE!1. §,g.hoo:l: .§g!!~ .2.£ ll!!!

York §i!~. G. A. Works, Director of the Survey,Ithaca, New York, 1923. Principles of organization,adminil3tration,and supervision.

72'. Kent, Raymond E. "What Should. Teacher Rating Schemes Seek to Measure? II in JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Vol. 2, pp. 802-807, (1920). Places emphasis uponpupil activity and achievement.

73. King, LeRoy. "The Present Status of Tea.cher Rating in Un! ted states, II in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURlTAL, Vol. 70, pp. 44-46, (February,l925). Presents a very broad ~iew of the profession.

74. Knoeppel, Charles E. "Laws of Industrial Organization, II in INDUSTRIAL lfiANAGE:MENT, VoL 58, :p. 266, (1919).Discusses relations between executive and employees.

75. Ko'()s, Leonard V. !he !!igh §2h£Q;h Prin.c~al. 'HoughtonMifflin Company, Boston, 1924. 121 pages. Gives rather complete criteria of the principal traits.

76. Lansburgh, Richard H. Indgstrial Mana~~l. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1923. pp. 39 ff. Deals with the fundamentals of organization in human rela.tions.

77. Lentz, Olarence. "Rating of Principals in Chicago," in TENTH YEARBOOK of the Department of Elementary ScholDl Principals, National Education Association, pp. 571­575, (April, 1931). Treats of the Administrative prob­lems of the school.

78. Loin, Nell lD. IlTeacher REl..ting, II in .JOURNAL OF THE NA­TIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Vol. 14, pp. 118-119, (April, 1925).

79. Lowry, Ellsworth. Supervisi~n ~ lhe §~-Ratigg ~£. State Normal School, Indiana, Pennsylvania. Card 1'8 detailed a.nd applicable over a broad field.

8G. M&Clure, Worth. IIFunctions of the Elementary School Principal," in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL .JOURNAL, Vol. 21, pp. 500-514, (March, 1921). Enumerates the duties and responsibilities of the office.

81. MoOlure, Worth. "The Rating of Elementary School Prin­cipals in Servioe," in FOURTH YEARBOOK of the Depart­ment of Elementary School Principals, National Edu­Gation Association, pp. 424-446, (1925). Inspeotion, instruotion, discipline, methods, and administration are discussed.

82. Monroe, Walter B,nd John A. Clark. "Measuring Teachers'

54

Efficiency, U in BULLETIN @f the University of Illinois. l>e'Jpartment of Education, Vol. 21.

83. )[o:Fgan, Catherine. ¥anua1 of Directions for 14a}(;i t Ef.. f.:i£ieno;y; 9.!!:.9. R!iinas. Detrort-Pti'6iIc SchooIB, x23:"

84. lIIorrisen, :r. Cayoe. "Analysis of the Principalship as a :Basis for the Preparation of Elementary School Princi­pals,'f in PROCEEDINGS of the National Education ASSQ­eiation, Vel. 63, pp. 453-461.

85. M(i!ir;r;-tsan, J. Cayce. "Supervision from the Teaoher's VieWpoint," in JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL :METHOD, VQl. 1, pp. 131-138, (December, 1921). Clear analysis of the :admhdstrative fU1il.ctions af the ..elementary school 1i1.-in­<tipal from the Viewpoint of the teacher.

86. 1I(0r1'ieon ;J. Cayce. "The Value of CarefUlly Defined JRules and Regulations Ceve1'ing the Work of the Board of Edu­cation and the Superintendent," in AiERICAN SCHOOL :BOARD ;JOURNAL, Vol. 72, ;pp. 48-49, (February, 1926).Advooates rules and regulations' for e'Yery distrlctand gives advantages. .

~art0t, Ava L. "Abolishing the Rating of Teachers," in PR.QCEEDINGS mf the National Eaucation Associati<!m, Vol. 63, pp. 1168-1173, (1915). Criticism which empaa.­sizes the defects o£ the process.

Peters, C. c. "Improvement of Facilities for Profession.. al Training of Superintendents," in EDUCATIONAL AJ).. MINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION, Vol. 6, .pp. 337-345, (September, 1920).

89. Phillips, E. D. "A Self-Rating Scale for Teachers,1t in AMERICAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vml. 66, pp. 45-46, (September, 1923). Good discussion of teacher self­rating.

90. Pittenger, B. F. "Who May Be Superintendent of Our Seheols?" in TEE NATION'S SCHOOLS, Vol. 4, pp. 21-24, (November, 1929). Criticism of administrative qualifi ­cations.

91. Fol1ioh, R. E. "Superintendents' Sta.ndards and Polioies in the Seleotion, ApPQintment, and Promotion of Ele­mentary School Prinoil'als," in ELIDAENTARY SCHOOL JOUR­NAL, Vol. 26, pp. 107-111. (October, 1925). Discussee advisa.bility af prinoipa.ls suooeeding to the offioe of Buperintendent.

92. Petter, 'M. C. "Q,ualifications and Functions of the Ward

55

!~:c~plolPrlp.ct~al,u in J?ROCEEJJ1IWS of the 14~tional :ID?uc~tion ASlfJOci~.ti~n\, Vol. 49, Pl? 322-324, (1909).Discusses the functlohs and duties of the ward prinei-W~ .

93. ~Y~\t£.§bb.Q.ol .Q.Q.flli9*.: ,E:'amtr~h, ;Mi cf1ig§t! l'ubli ~ §'oho2.1.~. The Board of Educati on, Hamtramch, lfLi chigan, 1 27. ~fes,nts school cq~e,jn terms of functions of both the ''fj9 ard an~ tpe e;m.l'leYe~13~

94: •. Re ~d~:r,;fW~:td G. The Business Admini strati on of a School f~l~~~J~'·.,.., ~.• ~nl1and9omp'any,.: :Bosto~, -~929:--454- pages:-­ilrV"·'?Xy.gooa. ;presen,:ta~lon of the IndIcated field.

A •

95. ~.~~~,$r,Wa:rdG. 'The Fundamentals of Public Sohool Ad­m,;n;lst':tati on. GInn and Company; Boston, (1929)":- ­Chapters 1-11I1. In the indicated portion is a pre­,~ntation of the personal and professional phases ably 'i;,~ven.·

96. FZl¢h, Stephen G. "Rating of Principals and SUlJerinten­i:lents,1I in EJ)UOATION, Vol. 4£1, pp. 496-500. Advoca,tes that teachers be asked to rate their principal and ;Proposes a card.

97. :Riddle, Anna~ "'Teacher Rating, Report of the Conur,i ttee of One Hundred on Classroom Teachers' Problems, II in P~OPEEDINGS of tbe National Education Association. yolo 65, pp. 202-215, (1925).

98. :e.~ tter, Elmer J. 'mat ings of Teachers in Indiana, II in ~t$~NTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL, Vol. 18, pp. 740-756, (June, 1918). Gives practices used in tea.cher rating.

$9. Roberts, A. C. ano E. M. Draper. Th~ tHE!! §.chool Prig­Qipal .§.§. Administr~!., ~u:2er~i~!:, !!:nd J2irector of E:z:traGurricular Activities. D. C. Heath and Company,New·york;l'923. ----- ­

100. 119'61h$01:1, W• .T. lIThe Small Tovm Principal and Hi s },3QQ\rd, II i n ~RICAl:r SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 70, :p. 53, (June, 1925). Recommends the single unit chief executive type of administration be used.

101. R.u~Q.igerf .. w. c.. "Rating Teachers," in SCHOOL AiTD SO­CIET¥, Vol. 20, pp.' 263-268, (August, 1924). Good criticiem.

102. Rugg, Harold O. "Self-Improvement of Teachers Through sel;t' ... l1.ating,1/ in tHG1rrm':CAHY SCHOOL JOmUTAI'f Vol. 20, pp. 670~ 684, (May, J. 9:-'0) • Analysi s of well known scales .nd an additional proposal.

66

10$. Sati.nd~l'slu. Olga~"Wh.att Teachers Want From the Prin­Ci'i:pal' inH"is Oa:p's'cityas$upervieor," in SCHOOL REVIEW. V$l. 3:3, p:p. 510.. 615, (OctQber, 1925).

104. Schell, .Erwin H•... I!;.!I29hnig~~ .21.J!lxecutivtE.. contrQl.. McGra.wPU.ll COIllPany, Ino •• rew YOrk, l§24. SuggestIveand stimulating' th~'ught rega.rd~mgthe personal squat! on.

lQ6. ~Clhu,tte,T. If.icb,ut.l! Ii!tine: t1ca,le !oar ,Teache~!. lerld ]~ook GC!)~anY;-Y(ljnkers-(m-HUason,1923. Favors ri0n-weli~J;ed card.

106. sde'tt, dliarleeE. "Eduoational Supervision, II in AMERI­C4.lt~qHOOL :l30AIID JQUENAL, Vol. 68, pp. 36, 131, (March, +~,:e4 ,. The);lul:":p~pe ef th,eartiole is to cla.rify 01:1.1' tllinking in regard to supervision and its relatien tG administration.

107. $'ott,.W'a:lter. D. andE. C.Olothie1". Persenn!! MaqaSe.. mente A. W. Shaw Company., New York, 1923. i343 pa.ges. CQmprehensive discussion of traits ese:e:ntial to an . executive.

108. Sears, :J. B. "The Measurement of Teacher Efficiency,"in :JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, Vel. 4, 1>P. 81-94, (Se~tember, 1921).

109. Showalter, N. D. !!!~ ~~ !£!: ~~;a1 §cho0l. Qr!!~er.J.. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, f~20. Deals lnpracti ­cal way with problems of administration.

110. Skaaland, S. G. "Office System in the Small Scheol," in AMERICAN SCH001 BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 59, pp. 4, 130, (August, 1924).

111. Smith, H. P. The !usinesB 4dministration of ! qitl §choo~ ~ste~.~eaiherB~Cor!ege,Co!umoia-univerlity,New Yor , ~26. ~

112. Spencer, P. R. "A High School Principal's Self-RatingCard" in SCHOOL aEVIEW, Vel. :30, P1'. 268-270, (April,1922~. Presents an administrative-supervisory rating card.

113. Stearling, J. G. "The Functions 0f the Business Man­ager in the Smaller Cities," in AMERICAN SCHOOL :BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 65, p. :38, (July, 1922). Lists functions and emphasizes versatility of the position.

114. stone, C. R. "What the Principalehip Should Be," in AMERICAN SOHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 7?, pp. 52, 157, (:JUly, 1928).

57

115. stoops, R. O. "Leadership in Education; in the Princi­pal and Supervisor," in PROCEEDINGS of the National Education Association, Vol. 56, pp. 623-626, (1918). Discusses the phases of personality.

115. stout, E. J. "Ethics of Teacher SelectiCim, II in AMERI .. CAN SCHOOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 70, pp. 132, 134, (Janu­ary, 1925). Very good.

117. Taylor, Joseph S. "Some Desirable Traits of the Super­visor," in EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION, Vol. 9, pp. 1-8, (January, 1923). Traits sf the super"vising official.

118. 'FhGrndike, E. L. "Fundamental Theorems in Judging Men," in JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. II, (March, 1918).

119. Toulon, G. C. "S90re Card for the High School Princi .. pal's Annual Report,lf in AMERICAN SCROOL BOARD JOURNAL, Vol. 67, pp. 52-53, (July, 1923).