: ” Bulletin ¢ oft the = Deadanaie st econdary-Schoo Pape ofthe ~ Peas “NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION’ *: > Relations of School Principals to the Central” Administrative Office in Large Cities = “The Report of. an Tavestigitioa: Carried on with © the Approval and Support of the ‘Social © Science Research Committee of the * University of ees. By ~ WILLIAM C. REAVIS 3 Professor of Education, The University of Chicago With the cobperation of — .. ©. _ EDWARD C. BOLMBIER. and * “WIPPERT A. STUMPF laut Fee Tine 0 Tour $2.00 a Year... ; i January, March, ‘April, May, and Dectauber at Fubiialied ai 189 Néwth Waleot Skreet: Danville; Til, bythe © Departeeyn of Secondary-School Principals of the the National Education FS Sis Kabat: ‘Aventie, Chicago é: ae \. matter Act of for in BULLETIN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SECON DARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Issued Five Times a Year January, March, April, May, and December APRIL, 1937 Serial Number 66 Relations of School Principals to the Central Administrative Office in Large Cities The Report of an Investigation Carried on with the Approval and Support of the Social Science Research Committee of the University of Chicago By WILLIAM C. REAVIS Professor of Education, The University of Chicago With the codperation of EDWARD C. BOLMEIER and WIPPERT A. STUMPF Published by THE DEPARTMENT OF SECQNDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION H. V. CHURCH, Executive Secretary 5835 Kimbark Avenue, Chicago $2.00 a Year $1.50 Postpaid CONTENTS BULLETIN NUMBER 66 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION APRIL, 1937 Officers of Department of Secondary-School Principals Secretaries of State Organizations Preface CHAPTERS I. Introduction : II. Boston, Massachusetts. Buffalo, New York.... IV. Chicago, Illinois...... V. Cleveland, Ohio VI. Detroit, Michigan .. Kansas City, Missouri.. Los Angeles, California... Milwaukee, Wisconsin Newark, New Jersey.. . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Portland, Oregon Providence, Rhode Island San Francisco, California Seattle, Washington Toronto, Ontario .... Vancouver, British Columbia.. Washington, D. C Conclusions THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT President: McCiet.an G. Jones Principal of Union High School and Junior College Huntington Beach, California ; First Vice President: Pau E. Evicker Principal Newton High School Newtonville, Massachusetts Second Vice President: H. V. Kepner Principal West Side High School Denver, Colorado EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE K. J. Cuark Joun E. WELLWwoop Principal Murphy High School Principal Central High School Mobile, Alabama Flint, Michigan V. M. Harpin Witiarp N. Van SiycKk Principal Reed Junior High School Principal High School and Pipkin Junior High School Topeka, Kansas Springfield, Missouri H. V. Cuurcu Executive Secretary 5835 Kimbark Avenue Chicago NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY NATIONAL COUNCIL M. R. McDanikt, President H. J. Parker Principal of Oak Park and River Principal of High School Forest Township High School Corvallis, Oregon Oak Park, Illinois H. V. Cuurcn, Secretary CHARLES Forrest ALLEN 5835 Kimbark Avenue, Supervisor of Secondary Education Chicago, Illinois Little Rock, Arkansas H. V. Kepner L. W. Brooks Principal of West Side High School Principal of — High School Denver, Colorado ort Wichita, Kansas Louts E. PLuMMER Principal of Fullerton Union High Paut E. Enicker School and Junior College Principal of Newton High School Fullerton, California Newtonville, Massachusetts W. L. SPENCER A. E. MacQuarriE State Director of Secondary Educa- Principal of Washburn High School tion Minneapolis, Minnesota Montgomery, Alabama Secretaries of State Organizations Affiliated with the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS W. L. SPENCER, Department of Education, Montgomery, Alabama. V. E. SAMMONS, Senior High School, Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas. HARRY G. HANSELL, 2694 Twenty-third Avenue, San Francisco, California. J. FRED EssIG, Junior-Senior High School, Longmont, Colorado. EDSON M. BAILEY, High School, Manchester, Connecticut. R. E. Hoop, Glynn Academy, Brunswick, Georgia. CHARLES D. LUTZ, Horace Mann School, Gary, Indiana. JAMES E. BLUE, Senior High School, Rockford, Illinois. JAMES M. STERRETT, Warren Harding Junior High School, Des Moines, Iowa. G. C. DOUTZOUR, Wichita High School North, Wichita, Kansas. DUKE W. YOUNG, Mt. Sterling, Kentucky. HARRISON C.*LYSETH, State House, Augusta, Maine. EDWARD G. STAPLETON, High School, Towson, Maryland. WILLIAM D. SPRAGUE, High School, Melrose, Massachusetts. STEPHEN MEAD, Junior High School, Grand Haven, Michigan. OLIVER R. FLOYD, University High School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. J. D. HULL, Senior High School, Springfield, Missouri. VAN MILLER, Overton, Nebraska. PAUL THURSTON, Overton, Nevada. G. HARVEY NICHOLLS, High School, Bound Brook, New Jersey. Davip G. ALLEN, Lake Placid, New York. B. C. TIGHE, High School, Fargo, North Dakota. S. E. JAMESON, High School, Ashland, Ohio. CARL E. CRESS, Harding Junior High School, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. S. F. BALL, . Franklin School, Portland, Oregon. J. E. NANCARROW, High School, Williamsport, Pennsylvania. FRANK FORCHTNER, Superintendent of Schools, Waconda, South Dakota. ELIZABETH FITZGERALD, West High School, Salt Lake City, Utah. ROBERT N. MILLETT, High School, Springfield, Vermont. G. N. PORTER, Garfield High School, Seattle, Washington. CLARENCE G. PEREGOY, Wilson High School, Beckley, W. Va. JOSEPH KRAUS, High School, Stevens Point, Wisconsin. LESTER T. WALTER, Powell Junior High School, Washington, D. C. PREFACE This investigation was undertaken as a seminar project for school principals entering the service in Chicago in 1935. The late Superintendent of Schools of Chicago, William J. Bogan, expressed a very, earnest desire to Professor Charles H. Judd, Head of the Department of Education, University of Chicago, for assistance with the program of in-service train- ing of these beginning principals in the professional aspects of local school administration. Superintendent Bogan wanted these principals to become intellectual and professional leaders in their schools instead of mere routine administrators. On the recommendation of Professor Judd, arrangements were made by Dean Carl F. Huth for the offering of a seminar course, entitled The Principalship in Chicago, in the Univer- sity College of the University of Chicago for the principals designated by Superintendent Bogan. The Social Science Re- search Committee of the University of Chicago made a small grant for the expenses of the instructor and students in visit- ing other cities to ascertain the practices of the cities with re- spect to the relations of principals and the central office for the purpose of comparative study with the practices in Chi- cago. Five cities were visited and case reports were prepared and published in mimeographed form for the use of the mem- bers of the class. The Social Science Research Committee increased its grant in the summer of 1936 to enable the author to make ad- ditional case studies as a means of broadening the knowledge of current practices in local school administration in large cities and of permitting generalizations with respect to tend- encies in the relationships found to exist between school prin- cipals and central-office executives. With the additional funds it has been possible to visit in all eighteen cities and to prepare the individual reports herein presented. It is hoped that these reports will prove valuable to readers who are interested in the internal organization of large school systems and the status of principals as administrative officers in local schools. Special indebtedness is acknowledged (1) to Professor Charles H. Judd for advice and assistance in organizing the seminar and the resulting investigation, (2) to the Social Science Research Committee for its generous financial sup- port, (3) to Dr. George A. Works, Director of the Philadel- phia School Survey, for assistance in collecting the data for the Philadelphia report, and (4) to the Superintendents of Schools in the cities studied for permission to use available printed material and reports and to interview freely both principals and central-office executives with respect to their administra- tive relationships. If any of these relationships are inaccu- rately reported for any of the school systems studied, the error is unintentional and is to be explained solely by the factor of personal equation involved in the collection of the data. Acknowledgement is also made to Walter S. Albertson, Charles E. Butler, Glenn K. Kelly, and George N. Wells, mem- bers of the class, who prepared the reports on Kansas City, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Pittsburgh, respectively, for presen- tation to the seminar. WILLIAM C. REAVIS. CHAPTER I RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS WITH THE CENTRAL OFFICE IN LARGE CITIES The school principaiship is generally regarded as a key position in the administration of city schools. This generaliza- tion is especially true for cities in which the local schools are large and in which local committees differ greatly in social and economic conditions. The central office in such school systems is highly dependent on the principal for the execution of its policies and the maintenance of its standards in the local schools. The old maxim, “As the principal, so the school,” is as true today in large cities as in Colonial times when the school was a one-master institution. The status of the school principal in large school systems exhibits considerable variation. In some cities the principal is regarded by the central office as the responsible head of the local school and is clothed with power to interpret and execute school policies. In other cities the principal is only the titular head of the local school, and is dependent largely on the central office for the interpretation of policies and for specific instruc- tions with respect to the performance of duties. Between these extreme positions may be found many practices skewed in one direction or the other by the prevailing conception of the relation of the school principal to the authorities in the central office. The explanation for the variance between accepted theory and practice is to be found in the development of the school principalship in our modern cities, especially those in the large population group. If the United States had remained a rural nation as it was in 1790, at the time the federal union was formed, both the city superintendency and the school principal- 1In 1790 only five cities and towns in the United States had a population of 5,000 or more and only 3.3 per cent of the total population resided in urban communities. 9 10 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ship as these positions are conceived today would probably be unknown in educational administration. The schools of the rural areas and towns in the Colonial period and in the early federal period were small and were usually in charge of a single master or teacher. The master taught the pupils and looked after the details of school man- agement. The general control of the school and the supervi- sion of instruction were duties of the local school committee. Professional administration and supervision were not required because of the simplicity of school organization and control. Even up to 1840, the approximate date at which boards of education in cities began to establish central-office organiza- tions with superintendents in control, individual schools were usually of the one-room district type with a single master in charge. In the cities where larger schools of the ward type were provided, the buildings were divided between masters, one portion being used by the writing master and the other by the reading master. The primary schools, which taught the bare rudiments, and the Latin grammar schools or high schools, which provided secondary education, were usually con- ducted in separate buildings. Thus, there was little centrali- zation of authority with respect to school organization and ad- ministration, except that which reposed in the central school committee or the individual members of the school committee from the local district or ward. Between 1820 and 1840 the population of the United States increased approximately 77 per cent. The increase was especially great in the cities, a few of which became so large that complicated problems in local government were presented. The number of cities with populations in excess of 10,000 had increased by decades from 4 in 1800, 7 in 1810, 9 in 1820, 14 in 1830, to 22 in 1840. In the very large cities the organiza- tion and administratjon of schools presented as serious a chal- lenge to efficient control as any of the problems of local gov- ernment. It soon became apparent to both the selectmen of the cities and the school committeemen that the single-classroom type of school was not only inadequate but also wasteful and that some form of centralization was inevitable. In addition to the complications arising among the different types of schools with DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 11 their independent administration, the school committees were hard pressed to satisfy the local demands for schools. The amount of money required to maintain the growing schools tended to make the patrons critical, and to cause them to want to know whether value-received services were being rendered. Problems of internal as well as external management in- creased. As a result the members of the school committees soon found themselves unable either to give the time required for the proper management of the schools or to settle in a sat- isfactory manner many of the issues which arose in the ad- ministration of the schools. As the size of the local-ward schools increased, added authority in management was con- ferred on certain successful masters who were designated as head teachers or principals of the local schools. These head teachers were expected to teach their classes, direct the work of assistant teachers or monitors, and to perform the acts of management assigned by the school committee. Assistant school visitors were sometimes appointed to serve the school committee, but, in general, these officials failed to provide the skilled services which the growing schools required. Finally, a few cities established the school superintend- ency and clothed the superintendent with power to grade the schools, to reorganize curriculum materials, to supervise in- struction, and to advise the school committee with respect to needed improvements in school organization and administra- tion. In the administration of the local school units, the super- intendent soon recognized the need of an intermediary officer between the local pupils, teachers, and patrons and his central office. He turned to the head teacher or principal as the offi- cial best qualified to represent the central office in the local school. The development of the relationship between the superin- tendent and the school principal in city school systems consti- tutes an interesting chapter in American education. At first, the principals were merely head teachers who assumed certain local managerial responsibilities delegated by the superin- tendent. Changes in school organization and in the form of in- struction produced great changes in the local schools. The local units were greatly increased in size and with the change came added responsibilities for the superintendent. He found 12 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS himself burdened in the local schools with duties which he was often unable to discharge with promptness and dispatch. Ac- cordingly, administrative responsibility and power were grad- ually conferred on the local school principal, with the result that partial release from teaching was sought for the principal in order that he might have time to perform the administrative duties delegated by the superintendent. With the development of school grading between 1840 and 1875 and the resulting gradation of instructional mate- rials, additional demands were made on the principal for su- pervisory work. It therefore became evident to the school committees in city school systems that the principals must be regarded as assistants to the superintendent and that provision must be made for their release from teaching, in order that they might carry on efficiently certain delegated functions of the central office in the local school units, At first, partial re- lease from teaching was granted and subsequently, full release in the larger schools. The development of the full-time super- vising principal from the full-time teaching principal has in- volved a considerable period of time. Virtually all stages in the development of the school prin- cipalship can be found today in the school systems in Ameri- can cities. In some cities, the relation of the local principal with the central office is approximately that of the head or principal teacher of a hundred years ago. In other cities, the school principal has attained a professional status which char- acterizes him as an educational leader of importance and in- fluence in the local community. But whatever the status of the school principal in any city, the problem of his relation with the central office must be established and defined, for the character of the school system in question depends in no small degree on the relationship established. A broad knowledge of the relations of the school principal and the central office in large cities is especially important to persons engaged in educational administration in urban com- munities. Knowledge of different practices and the different stages of development provides a basis for the better adjust- ment of relations between principals and central administra- tive officials. In recent years much has been done to improve the effi- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 13 ciency of the school principal through professional training prior to admission to service. But since successful administra- tion on the part of principals does not rest on pre-professional training alone, constant in-service training must be carried on by the central-office staff in large school systems. The rela- tions between the principal and the central office should be clearly defined. Understanding of the various relationships must be checked and effort put forth to develop the proper atti- tude between codperating officers. In brief, it can be said that the predominant factor in securing successful administration in large city school systems is the coérdination of the work of the school principal with the directing executives in the cen- tral office. The case reports herewith presented reveal the present status of the school principal in the cities studied and set forth the relations of the principal with the central office. The fund of concrete data reported makes possible a critical examination of current practices in city school administration and permits comparisons and generalizations not previously possible. CHAPTER II BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS The city of Boston is generally credited with initiating many of the practices in city-school administration. Even though many educational practices were originated in Boston, a more rapid development has taken place in other cities which adopted the practices. Boston has long been known for its educational conservatism. This is evidenced in an early report of Superintendent Seaver in which he stated: “We are slow to pull down that which has served our needs in the past. We are cautious about adopting innovations. We are fond of thinking and talking a long time before taking action.” Visitation of the Boston schools clearly revealed that the spirit of conservatism still exists. The position of the principal has passed gradually through a long period of evolution. The principal’s place in the Boston school system is the result of long deliberations on the part of citizens, legislators, school committees, superintendents, other officers of the central educational staff, and the principals themselves. DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION The principal’s relation to members of the central educa- tional office is most clearly understood by studying the devel- opment of the present administrative organization. The school committee—The early supervision and ad- ministration of the Boston schools by selectmen have been often and adequately related in educational literature. At an early date the selectmen performed the functions of the modern school committee. As early as 1666 the Boston selectmen agreed to assist the grammar-school master. Additional responsibilities resulted in the appointment of special committees for special school purposes. Later the sep- arate committees were combined as a single committee. In ac- 15 ° RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 16 cordance with an early act, the first school committee for Bos- ton was chosen in 1789 “to exercise all the Powers relating to Schools and School Masters, which the Selectmen or such Com- mittees are authorized by the Laws of this Commonwealth or the Votes of this Town to exercise.” The first school committee consisted of twenty-one mem- bers, nine selectmen and one member from each of the twelve wards. From this committee the present school committee slowly evolved until at the present time it is comprised of five members chosen at large by the electorate of the municipality. Aside from the educational executive officers, the general rules of the school committee provide for a business manager and a schoolhouse custodian who are directly responsible to the school committee. The principalship.—Needless to say, the rapid growth of education in Boston has presented educational problems which were too many and too intricate for selectmen and committee- men to solve. Consequently, the position of “master” devel- oped. One master was designated as the head of his school. When the curriculum of writing and ciphering was expanded to include newer subjects, such as reading, grammar, geogra- phy, history and “good English,” another master was required to take charge of the new additions to the school program. Therefore, about 1740, a system of administration developed which has been known as the “double-headed” system. The “single-headed” system, with one master at the head of each school, was not firmly re-established until 1847. Supervision of the primary schools by special primary- school committees persisted until 1853. In an attempt to im- prove supervision and to add dignity to the position of the grammar-school master, in 1866 the principals of grammar schools were vested with supervisory control of the primary schools in their respective districts. Thus, in effect, the gram- mar-school principal became a district superintendent. The superintendency.—It is apparent, then, that the posi- tion of “principal” or “master” was firmly established before there was a city superintendent of schools in Boston. In fact, John D. Philbrook, who was chosen as master of the Quincy School in 1847, became the first superintendent of schools of Boston in 1851. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 17 The creation of this new and important position in a city school system obviously had its effect upon the principalship. Although much individual authority of the early masters was necessarily centered in the superintendent, the professional status of the principal as well as the superintendent was greatly elevated under the prominent personalities of those men who have served as superintendents of schools in Boston. The superintendent of schools enjoys full authority as the executive head of the school system in educational affairs. He does not have direct control of the school expenditures but does have a large measure of influence in the administration of finances, selection of sites, and the construction of new school buildings. He is responsible only to the school committee. The board of superintendents.—As a result of the reor- ganization of the school committee in 1905, the board of super- visors became the board of superintendents. Its scope of activities was considerably enlarged and at the present time the board of superintendents holds an important place in the administrative organization. The board of superintendents is comprised of the superin- tendent of schools and six assistant superintendents. Individ- ually, the assistant superintendents are field officers of the su- perintendent; collectively, with the superintendent, they con- stitute an advisory body to the school committee. This is a rather important feature of the administrative organization of the Boston schools. Assistant superintendents cannot give opinions to the school committee as individuals, but as a board of superintendents they may, even though their composite opinion may not be in harmony with that of the superintendent of schools. The presence of the business manager with the superin- tendent of schools and the assistant superintendents creates a board of apportionment. Chart of organization.—The line of authority in educa- tional and business affairs of the Boston school system is indicated in the accompanying chart. The business manager, superintendent of schools, and schoolhouse custodian are individually responsible to the school committee. The six assistant superintendents, as individuals, s.1EetOBE, sieyoBey, sTOousS USTH SIEOTIIO JJBIS Tooyos e7BTpourezu JO sTedpoutag pus s104001TG pus Areuyps ~— go _ spTedpousag) ] squepuequtTszedns quBegstssy xTs UBTpo_ZEng esnoy[oouss quepuequtuedns 7 ' n — < = 1S) z — [4 = 8 < iS) op) i) =) wn Zz S & < — ta = 16761005 99g zTumm0y) rooues | STOOHDS OITGNd NOLSOG FHL JO NOILVZINVOUO DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 19 are line officers responsible to the superintendent of schools. Directors, staff officers, and principals are responsible to the superintendent of schools, but, in general, an assistant super- intendent of an assigned district acts as an intermediary be- tween principals of his district and the superintendent of schools. STATUS OF THE PRINCIPAL Title—The title of “principal” is not exclusively used in designating the person who is considered to be the administra- tive and pedagogical head of a school in the city of Boston. The administrative head of a high school is known as the “head master.” The title of “master” is given to the admin- istrative head of an elementary school, The Boston Trade School, and the Trade School for Girls. In certain special schools, such as the Horace Mann School for the Deaf, the Disciplinary Day School, and the Continuation School, the ad- ministrative head is designated as the “principal.” Connotation of administrative titles is further complicated by the fact that the person next in line to the “head master” of a high school is called a “master,” thereby having the same title as the head of an elementary school. The title of the per- son immediately subordinate to the “master” of an elementary school is “sub-master” if a man and “master’s assistant” if a woman. Despite the many titles by which the administrative offi- cers of Boston schools are designated, there is no confusion in that of “head master.” There appears to be considerable tra- ditional pride and distinction in using the title of “head master” for one who has attained the eminent position of administrative head over a Boston high school. Appointment.—Original appointments to the principal- ship in Boston schools are determined on the basis of eligible lists made in conformity with civil service practices. When a vacancy for a principalship is created, it is the practice to send from headquarters of the school committee a circular letter to the schools announcing the vacancy and inviting candidates to file credentials. The board of superintendents is charged with the responsibility of examining the credentials of each candi- 20 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS date and preparing rated lists on the basis of educational prep- aration, teaching and executive experience, professional inter- est and growth, personal qualities and characteristics, and teaching ability. The ratings are supposed to be definite, re- corded, and published. Each candidate may see his rating and consult the examiner as to how his assets were evaluated and the reasons of judgment in his or her case. Tenure.—A principal in the Boston schools has practical- ly permanent tenure after once securing his position. Unlike the superintendent of schools and the assistant superintendents who are appointed for six-year terms, a principal has perma- nent tenure after having successfully served through a proba- tionary term. Teachers who have served successfully in the same rank or grade for four successive years are eligible for appointment on tenure during good behavior and efficiency. If a teacher on tenure is promoted to a higher position he becomes eligible to appointment on tenure after having served satisfactorily for one year in the new position. The regulations provide, how- ever, that a principal of a Latin, day high, day clerical, day intermediate, day elementary, continuation, or day industrial school “may be annually reappointed to such position for two years, and may then be appointed on tenure.” Change in status.—Demotion or dismissal from the prin- cipalship in Boston is very uncommon. With the existing ten- ure laws, demotion may be made only when it has been proved that the principal has committed some grave offense. In such a case he would be dismissed from the system. All principalships in the primary and intermediate schools are on a par as far as salaries are concerned. Hence, there would be no promotion or demotion in being assigned from one school to another. There appears to be a desire, however, especially on the part of men, to be a principal of an inter- mediate school instead of a primary school. The obvious ex- plantation for this is that being head of the advanced grades carries more prestige. Even though vacancies in the principalship are filled by civil service methods from eligible lists, in practice, one must have served in certain subordinate positions before becoming eligible for a principalship. Therefore, a teacher may be eligi- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 21 ble for a high-school principalship by serving first as a junior master, if a man, or assistant, if a woman; then as head of a department or master; and finally as head master. The candi- date is rated for each promotion. In the elementary school the person rated for the principalship is a sub-master, if a man, and a master’s assistant, if a woman. Candidates for the ele- mentary-school master’s ‘certificate must have served four years as sub-master or as master’s assistant in a Boston day elementary or day intermediate school, or in a position of sim- ilar rank in Boston or elsewhere. Promotion beyond the principalship is solely in the hands of the school committee. The school committee is not bound by eligible lists or the superintendent’s recommendations in the appointment of an assistant superintendent. As expressed by one school official, “this is where politics begin.” Salaries.—Masters of day elementary schools and day intermediate schools are on the same salary schedule. Each receives a salary of $3,888 for the first year of service. With an annual increment of $144, the maximum is reached at $4,896. Head masters of Latin and day high schools receive $4,464 for the first year of service and an annual increment of $144 until the maximum of $5,616 is reached. Administrative heads of other schools in Boston receive comparable salaries with some slight differences in the min- imum salary, maximum salary, or both. With the exception of the principal of the disciplinary day school, who receives an annual increment of $96, the administrative head of each school receives an annual increment of $144 regardless of the initial or final salary. Professional status——Although the position of “master” in Boston has always been held in high and honorable esteem, the amount of individual authority vested in the position has varied from time to time. Before the entire abolishment of the district system in Boston, the master was practically inde- pendent in the administration of his school. The following ex- cerpt indicates the power he wielded: “Twenty-five years ago the master of a Boston school was like the head of a little principality in a surrounding kingdom. 22 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS In his school he was practically supreme. He conducted its affairs largely according to his own ideas. He listened not too kindly to the voice of authority. Usually he was a man of character and force, tenacious in his opinions, and not easily swayed.”? The principal of a Boston school today does not have in- dependent power similar to that of the early master. Even though he is the “administrative head” of his own school, the scope of his authority is defined, rather minutely, in the rules and regulations of the school committee. Nevertheless, the principalship is looked upon as the key position in the administration of the Boston schools. Other officers, holding higher positions in the school organization, have attempted no autocratic control, but rather have relied on the ingenuity and aid of the school principals in formulating general educational policies. One must prove his fitness for a mastership in the Boston schools in various ways. Academic and professional training, experience, and executive ability are important factors. At the present time the requirements for a certificate for a head mas- ter are: Master’s degree, five years of successful teaching ex- perience, evidence of good administrative ability, and four years’ service in a Boston high school, a satisfactory portion of which shall have been in executive work, or in a similar posi- tion elsewhere. PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONS TO EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS. Superintendent.—The superintendent’s relation to all other members of the educational branch of the school organi- zation is one of superiority, He is “the executive officer of the school committee in all matters relating to instruction and discipline in the schools.” Although the rules and regulations of the school commit- tee specify in detail the manner in which the schools shall be managed and supervised, the superintendent of schools is authorized to make such supplementary regulations and give such instructions as he may deem necessary. Moreover, he 1Appollonio, Thornton D. Boston Public Schools, Past and Present, p. 43. Boston: Wright and Potter, 1923. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 23 may, at his discretion, “exercise any or all of the duties” as- signed to any of the educational officers of the system. Since the superintendent may make supplementary regu- lations governing the schools and is also prominent in formu- lating the regular rules and regulations of the school commit- tee, his authority over principals and other educational officers is almost complete. In such a situation, the freedom in which a principal may administer his school is largely determined by the wishes of the superintendent. Fortunately, the city of Boston does not have an autocratic type of superintendent. Being professional, and having served for many years himself as a principal in the system, the superintendent strives to es- tablish a friendly and professional relationship between himself and the school principals. With the large number of principals in Boston and the intermediary position of the assistant superintendent, the su- perintendent realizes the difficulty in making contacts with the principals. His policy, therefore, is to “always have an open door for the principal to visit the superintendent.” Many prin- cipals take advantage of this opportunity. The superintendent also calls a meeting once a week of all assistant superintendents and school principals. At these meetings there is a free ex- change of questions and opinions between superintendents and principals. Convincing opinions from principals are not ig- nored but frequently accepted and formulated into educational policies. Assistant superintendents.—The assistant superintendents hold positions of importance in the administration of Boston schools. The status and importance of the school principal is largely determined by these intermediary officials who are direct representatives of the superintendent in educational matters. Obviously, the superintendent of schools in a large city system must delegate many of the administrative functions to his subordinates. Where there are but few intermediary posi- tions between the superintendent and principals, the principals are clothed with much of the delegated administrative author- ity. On the other hand, a great number of intermediary offi- cers causes an allocation of administrative authority which is absorbed by them before it has passed down the line of organi- 24 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS zation to the school principal. With as many as six assistant superintendents in the Boston school system, the query may logically be raised as to whether or not these officers perform functions which ordinarily are performed by school principals. As a matter of fact, there was considerable resentment on the part of early school masters on account of the diminution of power caused by the establishment of the board of super- visors, composed of the assistant superintendents. This board performed duties of such a minute nature as determining whether or not individual pupils in the grammar schools should or should not receive a diploma. Resentment was often aggra- vated by the school committee’s appointment of an assistant superintendent whose influence or assistance was sought in behalf of some particular individual or individuals in whom the members of the committee were personally interested. Potentially, the assistant superintendents still possess con- siderable control over the administration of individual schools. They are not only clothed with authority to act in matters of organization, instruction, and discipline of each school in their respective districts but are authorized by the rules and regula- tions of the school committee to exercise, in their discretion, “any or all the duties assigned to directors, supervisors, prin- cipals, or teachers.” As a board, assistant superintendents have a great deal of authority in the introduction and modifica- tion of courses of study, selection of textbooks, determination of awards, certification of teachers, rating of teachers, and establishing rated lists for promotion within the service. It should not be inferred that the great amount of admin- istrative authority vested in the assistant superintendents has tended to eclipse the position of the principal as a school ad- ministrator. On the contrary, it is generally believed that the board of superintendents is a stabilizing force in the Boston school system, protecting the principals, as well as other offi- cials, from pressure exerted from without the school system. Assistant superintendents have not enhanced their power at the expense of school principals. Apparently there is no fric- tion between assistant superintendents and school principals. They codperate in bringing about the greatest educational progress which is possible. The superintendent of schools has been successful in de- veloping a strong professional attitude among his assistant ores ena? live oer es ene NRE Pet ~~, a es DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 25 superintendents and principals. The weekly meetings have been especially helpful in this respect. In order to make each assistant superintendent more familiar with all the schools and their principals, the superintendent assigns a different assist- ant superintendent to one of the six districts every four years. Moreover, supervisory functions over the entire system are rotated among the different assistant superintendents. By these means each assistant superintendent is privileged to view the school system as a whole rather than as a single district or as a single segment of the educational program. Supervisors and directors.—In general, the responsibility for the improvement of instruction rests completely with the principal of a school. In this matter, however, the principal has the aid of a number of central-staff officers and the per- sonnel of his own faculty. The assistant superintendents take a very active part in supervision for the improvement of instruction. They may ad- vise the teachers directly, but, in practice, they usually consult the principal, especially with respect to the more important problems. Directorships have been established in the special fields of music, art, penmanship, physical education, kindergartens, household science and arts, vocational guidance, educational measurement, evening schools, and practice work of normal- school students. There are also two supervisors of primary schools and two supervisors of elementary education. These officers codperate with principals as staff members. In the high schools, the departmental heads play a prom- inent role in supervision. As specialists in their respective fields, they frequently initiate movements for the improvement of instruction. They are, however, responsible and subordinate to the head master of the school in which they work. Teachers.—Departmental heads, junior masters, and all teachers are responsible to the head master of a Boston high school; in the elementary and intermediate schools, the sub- masters, masters’ assistants, and teachers are responsible to the master. Teachers are not restricted, however, in carrying their grievances only to the principal. If a teacher fails in satisfac- 26 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS tion by consulting a principal, he may go to a director of a de- partment concerned; failing in both places, he may apply to the assistant superintendent, and finally to the superintendent of schools. If the grievance relates to ratings or promotions in the service, the aggrieved party may apply to the board of superintendents for hearing and adjustment. All persons in the teaching or supervisory corps of the Boston schools have the right of final appeal to the school committee after having failed in satisfactory adjustment with the principal and central- staff officers. The principal has very little to do in the selection of teach- ers. Separate eligible lists are prepared for each subject and, when a principal needs a teacher, he is required to take the one whose name appears at the top of the list. It was reported by one head master that there has been some political influence exerted in the placement of teachers because the school com- mittee may determine when additional teachers should be as- signed to particular schools. Principals, directors, and special supervisors are individ- ually required to rate teachers every two years. Their biennial ratings are sent to the assistant superintendent in whose dis- trict the concerned teacher is employed. The assistant superin- tendent determines the final ratings of teachers on the basis of the ratings submitted by principals, directors, and super- visors, and his own judgment. The ratings given by principals and directors are strictly confidential. The teacher may, how- ever, ascertain his composite rating prepared by the assistant superintendent and filed in the superintendent’s office. Some of the elementary-school principals believe that, at the present time, the rating of substitute teachers is not suffi- ciently influenced by the judgment of the school principal, since only about one-sixth of the total rating represents the princi- pal’s judgment. BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RELATIONS Business manager.—The business manager and the school principal come into close contact in business affairs. Their re- lations are determined minutely by rules and regulations of the school committee. a lomo Mo ie Eile) DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 27 The business manager is an executive officer of the school committee in charge of accounts, receipt of income, preparation of the pay rolls, purchase, storing, and distribution of supplies. He possesses a separate line of authority in the business mat- ters of the school comparable to the authority of the superin- tendent with respect to educational matters. It is significant to note that even though the business manager has a line of authority separate from that of the superintendent of schools, requisitions made by principals for textbooks, supplies and other materials commonly furnished must have the approval of the assistant superintendent. For supplies and other materials not commonly furnished in accord- ance with provisions of the regulations, the requisitions made by principals must ‘have the approval of the board of appor- — tionment. This board consists of the superintendent, the as- sistant superintendents, and the business manager. The principal takes no prominent part in the formulation of the budget other than stating the amount of supplies de- sired. For certain supplies, such as drawing material, the principal is governed by a quota allotment. Most supplies and materials, however, are not provided on a quota basis. In ordering supplies, the principal is advised to state the stock on hand. The principal is responsible to the business manager for the accurate certifications of the presence and absence of all teachers and other employees under his control. On the basis of these certifications pay rolls are made. Custodians.—The schoolhouse custodian is an executive officer of the school committee in all matters relating to the care and custody of land and buildings used for school pur- poses. He exercises general supervision and control over the custodians and their assistants employed in the several school buildings. Custodians of schools in Boston are responsible for the care and safety of school buildings and property except during school hours, at which time much responsibility rests with the school principal. Responsibility with regard to the heating or ventilating apparatus is always assumed by the custodian even during school hours. 28 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Since the principal is in charge of his building while school is in actual session, the custodians are consequently, in many respects, under the command of the principal during that time. The regulations of the school committee very specifically state the duties and authority of custodians and, also, their relations to school principals. Regulations provide that custodians are expected to make minor repairs and adjustments when re- quested to do so by principals or teachers, as a part of their regular duties. Custodians are not required to perform mes- senger service for principals but are “expected to be obliging in all matters so far as their regular duties will permit.” Principals in Boston are not authorized to discipline custo- dians. However, if a custodian proves unsatisfactory a prin- cipal may file a complaint with the schoolhouse custodian who would investigate the cause for complaint and then act as he saw fit. If the schoolhouse custodian would not make a satis- factory adjustment the complaint could be carried to the school committee through the assistant superintendent or the super- intendent of schools. The schoolhouse custodian is responsible only to the school committee. The custodians are under some obligations to please the principals of school buildings in which they perform their du- ties, since the principal annually rates the custodians of his building. The ratings made by the principal are sent to the schoolhouse custodian who considers the ratings in the ap- pointment, transfer, or removal of custodians. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The administrative head of a Boston high school is gen- erally referred to as “head master” and the head of a primary or intermediate school as “master.” The titles are of early origin and retained only for purposes of showing rank. In practice the positions of “master’’ and “head master” are the same as what is commonly referred to as “principal.” The evolution of the principalship has been long and va- ried. The amount of authority vested in the principal has depended on other officers in the administrative organization. With the early supervision by selectmen and later the school committee, each master exercised almost unhampered control of his school. The establishment of the superintendency and DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 29 later the board of supervisors did much to take away indi- vidual power of the masters and thereby resulted in a more uniform school system. At present, six assistant superintendents serve individu- ally as field officers for the superintendent. Collectively, with the superintendent, they serve as an advisory board to the school committee. An administrative organization with so many intermediary officers between the superintendent and the principals has the potentiality of minimizing the admin- istrative importance of the principalship. Interviews with the superintendent and some of the assistant superintendents, however, indicate that a high professional attitude exists among the personnel of the administrative organization and, consequently, principals are encouraged rather than barred from contributing to the formulation of educational policies. The position of “head master,” especially, is not encroached upon by central-staff officers. The regulations of the school committee determine quite specifically the relation of the principal to other school officers. Numerous items, of even minor importance, are provided for in the printed regulations. This may add to uniformity and standardization of administration throughout the system but, on the other hand, may not permit sufficient initiative and freedom on the part of certain administrative officers. CHAPTER III BUFFALO, NEW YORK Control of the schools of the city of Buffalo is vested in a board of education consisting of five members appointed by the mayor with the confirmation of the city council. The board of education, the superintendent of schools, and all other of- ficers of the central educational staff have their offices located on two floors of the large city hall. The schools of Buffalo are operated on the 8-4 plan. Ac- cording to the annual report of the board of education for 1934-35, there were eight academic high schools; one technical high school; four vocational high schools; one boys’ continu- ation school; one girls’ continuation school; eighty-two elemen- tary schools; seven special schools, including a girls’ prepara- tory school, an opportunity school, and a school for crippled children. The management of each school is directly assumed by a school principal. The status of the principal as an educational officer is dependent upon other officials and lines of authority. His relations to members of his faculty and members of the central-office staff are largely determined by laws, rules, regu- lations, and practices which have evolved over a period of more than a century. EARLY SCHOOL ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION Prior to 1837 there was practically no unified public edu- cational system in Buffalo. Principals, or “schoolmasters” as they were called in those days, ran their schools much as they saw fit. The only restraining force was from city officials. The obvious lack of supervision and accountability provoked considerable discussion and agitation for a better system of public education. The state of New York evenutally enacted a law “author- izing the appointment of a city superintendent of common schools.” Immediately the common council of the city of Buf- 31 32 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS falo exercised its prerogative by appointing, in 1837, the first city superintendent of schools. That the office was at first neither dignified nor professional is evidenced by the fact that the first appointee resigned at the end of one year, and the second appointee declined to serve. Even though the city of Buffalo is credited with first establishing the office of city superintendent of schools, it was among the last to provide for a board of education. The school committee of the common council acted much in the capacity of a board of education. Largely due to abuses in appointing principals and teachers, the law of 1854 made the office of school superintendent elective, by the people, instead of by the council. This change in the line of authority was considered an improvement over the previous organization. It was, how- ever, by no means faultless. Some contend that, while the su- perintendent was elective, principals as well as teachers were often appointed as a reward for political campaigning. Never- theless, a board of education for the city of Buffalo was not established until 1916. For fifteen years following the establishment of a board of education the form of school organization was such that the lines of authority throughout the school system were ex- tremely confusing. It was pointed out in the annual report of the board of education in 1932 that there was “no main office executive directly in charge of the academic high schools.” Consequently, each high-school principal had vir- tually complete authority with respect to the management of _his school. Coérdination and uniformity were decidedly lacking. As expressed by an annual report of the board of education, “each school represented to a large extent, a law unto itself, so far as courses of study, examinations, gradu- ation requirements and other instructional matters were con- cerned.” Confusion in the flow of administrative authority was no less apparent in the elementary schools. Each elementary- school principal was answerable to four deputies, namely, deputy in charge of primary grades, deputy in charge of in- termediate grades, deputy in charge of upper grades, and deputy in charge of special classes. Moreover, direct lines of PARROT cans DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 33 authority over the various elementary schools flowed from six supervisors and two directors. Thus, the principal of each elementary school, in the early form of organization, was required to conduct his school under the direction of twelve immediate supervisors, each operating within a special and limited field of instruction. This situation, in which the high-school principal was not directly answerable to any office executive and the elementary- school principal was directly responsible to twelve superiors, was considered by the board of education as being inefficient and undesirable. PRESENT SCHOOL ORGANIZATION The movement for reorganization was augmented by the necessity of retrenchment of public-school expenditures. In 1932, a radical reorganization was effected and is now in force. Under the present form of organization, authority in the division of instruction flows from the superintendent of schools through an associate superintendent in charge of elementary schools to elementary-school principals, and an associate su- perintendent in charge of secondary schools to secondary- school principals. All instructional deputyships previously existing in the elementary schools have been changed to directorships with the status of staff rather than line officers. Likewise, in the high school, directorships under the office of the associate su- perintendent of secondary schools have been established in lieu of the minor supervisory positions which had previously existed. As a result, the blurred lines of authority have been large- ly eliminated and, in the words of the 1932 annual report of the board of education, “the status of the principal as the person in charge of his school, answerable only to one im- mediate officer, has been re-established.” The line of authority in the division of instruction is shown in the accompanying chart. It may be noted from the chart of organization that business matters of the school are under the control of officers who are directly responsible to the superintendent of schools. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS STATUS OF THE PRINCIPAL Appointment.—A board of examiners consisting of five members appointed by the board of education holds examina- tions for principals, directors, and teachers. On the basis of examination results the board of examiners prepares eligible lists. All appointments of principals are made by the board of education upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools. In accordance with Section 872 of the Education Law, recommendations for elementary-school principals must be made from the first three persons on the eligible list. The same is not true, however, in the appointment of high-school principals; the superintendent has the sole authority in recom- mending high-school principals. He is not bound by eligible lists or examinations. The superintendent in making recommendations for the appointment, assignment, or transfer of a high-school prin- cipal may or may not consult the associate superintendent. As a matter of fact, however, the superintendent of schools leans heavily, upon the associate superintendent for initiating the recommendations. Even the wishes of the principal may be granted with respect to transfer. Neither the superintendent nor the associate superintendent, however, is bound by the principal’s wishes in this respect. Tenure.—The tenure of the principal is determined by state law. The service of a person appointed to the principal- ship may be discontinued at any time during his probationary period, which is three years, upon the recommendation of the superintendent of schools, supported by a majority vote of the board of education. After the principal has served his probationary term of three years he has more permanent tenure than either the superintendent or associate superintendent, each of whom is appointed for a six-year term. Upon good behavior the prin- cipal’s probationary term is followed by virtually permanent tenure until the retirement age of seventy years. Promotion.—The past policy of the board of education has been not to promote an elementary-school principal di- rectly to the high-school principalship. The assistant high- ORGANIZATION OF THE BUFFALO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 35 mn J < =| ©) Zz — 7] Ay — i) =) <= dS wn ~ =) < a a i) Oo | DR <7 ° ee a io) = & m < a aq i) set [adng essyoung uUoTABIedQ AZUBTYg deexdn quetg 0.1N49034 FudIy jo snve.m qUuBTd jo eBreyo ut £4ndeg INVId dO NOISIAIG Azepuodses sTedtoutag SqUBLIBA 4Tpny squnoooy jo sneer Ss yUNODOY pus eouBuUt © eZiByo ut £4ndeq_ Tarejuowe ta sTedtoutsg [ S2e0TTIO U i / FFBIS UB S10900d STOOUIS ArBpuoses jo eSasyo ut dns eqstoossy BTOOUIS ArBqQuewely JO eZaeyo ut NOILOQULSNI AO NOISIAIC STIOOHOS OITENd OlvddNd AHL dO NOILVZINVOUO 36 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS school principalship has been the intermediary position. It has been suggested that, under the new administration, it is probable that appointments and promotions in high-school principalships will be made in the future entirely on the basis of examination standing irrespective of former positions held in the school system. Promotion or demotion of principals within the elemen- tary school is quite uncommon. There is, however, a salary schedule for elementary-school principals based upon the num- ber of teaching positions maintained in the school. Group A constitutes schools maintaining 25 or more teaching positions: Group B, between 13 and 24; and Group C, less than 12. Pro- motions or demotions, therefore, may be effected by moving an elementary-school principal from one class to another. This may be done by the board of education on the recommendation of the superintendent. Moreover, the salary status of an elementary-school principal may automatically change while in the same school, if the school itself should change from one to either of the other two classes. Salaries—Salaries for principals as well as other of- ficials of the Buffalo schools are determined by a schedule spec- ified in the by-laws and regulations of the board of education. The minimum annual salary for high-school principals is $4,100; the maximum, $4,900. Principals of elementary schools receive a minimum annual salary of $3,000 and a maximum of $3,800 in Group A schools; a minimum of $2,800 and a maxi- mum of $3,600 in Class B schools; and a minimum of $2,500 and a maximum of $3,300 in Class C schools. Annual incre- ments in each schedule classification are based on the amount of the initial salary. Duties.—The duies of the school principal in Buffalo are quite similar to those of principals in other large city school systems. He is held responsible for the efficient management of his own school. By-laws and regulations of the board specifically state that the principals are responsible for: 1. Instruction, direction and control of all members of the teaching, supervisory, and clerical staffs consitituting the organization of his school. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 37 2. Maintenance of the highest possible standards of su- pervision and teaching in his school. 3. Special attention to the work of substitute teachers, inexperienced teachers, or teachers whose records have been recorded as unsatisfactory. 4. Cumulative records of assistance rendered as will show what opportunity and assistance such teachers have had to enable them to succeed. 5. Official records of all class inspection and examina- tion, conference with teachers, and of such other matters as he may deem necessary. 6. Requirement of assistant principals to keep similar records of their work. 7. Utmost care to insure security and proper mainte- nance of all school property and supplies under his charge. 8. Report to the superintendent of a teacher or a super- visor in his school who in his judgment has been unduly absent, negligent, insubordinate, incompetent or inefficient in respect to instruction, discipline or supervision, guilty of conduct unbecoming a teacher or conduct prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the service, or whose mental or physical condition is apparently such as to render him or her unfit for service. In addition to the duties specified in the by-laws and regulations of the board of education, mimeographed copies of general regulations have been issued by the associate super- intendent of secondary schools and sent to all principals of high schools. General Regulations A refer to the supervisory and instructional staff; B, to students; C, to semester exam- inations and promotions; D, to semester examination reports; and E, to organization. Professional status.—The general regulations of the board of education stipulate that “the principal of each school shall be the responsible administrative and pedagogical head of the school.” According to consultation with principals and other officials of the public schools this stipulation is, in general, true. There is some expression, however, among the high-school group indicating that in recent years the high-school principal 38 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS has been shorn of many of the powers which he had previously possessed. This contention may be based on the fact that prior to the recent reorganization each high-school principal had virtually complete control of the management and pro- gram of his own school. With the establishment of the office of associate superintendent of secondary education a concen- trated effort was put forth to standardize administrative practices. Consequently, rather rigid regulations were issued by the board of education on the recommendation of the asso- ciate superintendent of secondary schools. Considerable standardization has been attained with re- spect to examinations, marks, graduation requirements, texts, and curriculums. In formulating the regulations bringing about standardization the associate superintendent may or may not consult the principals. It is reported that in recent years changes have been made in the high-school curriculum and other fundamental aspects of the educational program without the principal knowing of, or taking part in, the changes. The practice in the elementary schools in recent years has been to have principals as well as teachers participate in the formulation of educational policies through the media of principals’ meetings and committees on which principals fre- quently serve. Any changes, therefore, brought about in the policies of the elementary schools have come about by the concerted efforts and opinions of teachers, principals, and others rather than by a manifesto. There is variance of opinion among school officials as to whether or not the professional status of the principal has increased during the last five years. If independent authority and professional status are thought of as being the same per- haps there has been a decline in the professional status of high-school principals. As interpreted by one high-school of- ficial, “the high-school principal now serves more as an agent of the central office than formerly.” In the elementary schools the general consensus of opinion is that the professional status of the principal has decidedly increased within the past five years as evidenced by the fact that now the elementary-school principal is answerable di- rectly to the associate superintendent only, whereas before, DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 39 lines of authority to the principal came from twelve different officials. RELATIONS TO EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS Superintendents.—Under the present organization direct contact between the superintendent of schools and the school principals is infrequent. All principals of the elementary schools are directly responsible to the associate superintendent of elementary schools and all secondary-school principals are directly responsible to the associate superintendent of second- ary schools. In turn, the two associate superintendents are directly responsible to the superintendent of schools. The nature of authority exercised by the associate super- intendents over principals may be inferred from excerpts of the by-laws and regulations of the board: “Associate superintendents shall have supervision of di- rectors, principals and other supervisors in their respective divisions. From time to time they shall call together for con- ference principals and other supervisors in their respective divisions. .. . They may require principals, assistants to principals and other supervisors to report at such times, upon such matters and in such form and where designated as shall be deemed necessary.” It is the practice in the elementary schools for the asso- ciate superintendent of elementary schools to call his prin- cipals together for meetings once a month. In addition, an elementary-school principals’ association conducts meetings voluntarily. Immediately following the new reorganization the asso- ciate superintendent of secondary education called a meeting of his principals each month. In recent years these meetings have been irregular and less frequent and during the last school year, it is reported that there was no such meeting. The interviews held with principals and other school of- ficials do not indicate that there are any unfriendly relations between principals and their associate superintendents or other central-staff officers. Directors.—For the elementary schools there is one di- rector for upper elementary grades; one for intermediate 40 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS elementary grades; and one for primary elementary grades. A number of other directors serve for both the elementary and high schools. Some of the fields for which there are directors are industrial arts, art education, home economics, music, and physical education. There is a separate director of physical education for each elementary and high-school division. The director of physical education has practically complete control over ath- letics, thereby eliminating that activity from the responsibil- ities of the principal. The rules state that “he shall be respon- sible only to the associate superintendent, the superintendent of schools, and the board of education.” The status of directors is “that of staff officers and, ex-' cept as expressly authorized by the superintendent of schools or by the associate superintendent in charge, their direction of school activities shall be exercised through the associate superintendent in charge.” BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL RELATIONS Reorganization of business administration in the Buffalo school system really preceded the reorganization of educational administration. Under the early organization one deputy superintendent was in charge of purchasing, auditing, ac- counting, receipt and disbursement of funds, plant operation, plant maintenance, and other non-instructional activities. A common complaint with such a set-up was that the respon- sibility and discretion of school principals was unduly cur- tailed since, in practice, the deputy superintendent’s authority extended to the control of educational supplies. Since 1932, the business and fiscal affairs of the Buffalo schools have been under the direction of a deputy superin- tendent in charge of plant and a deputy superintendent in charge of finance and accounts. The deputy superintendent of plant has jurisdiction and supervision over the bureaus of architecture and engineering, construction and maintenance, plant operation, supplies, and purchase. The deputy super- intendent of finance and accounts has jurisdiction and super- vision over the bureau of accounts, audit, warrants, and per- sonnel and statistics. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 41 In numerous instances principals have direct contact with the deputy superintendent in charge of plant and finances. In other cases, certain activities are initiated by the principal and referred to the deputy superintendents through the asso- ciate superintendent. Supplies, equipment, and services——When a principal desires, supplies, materials, repairs or any commodities or services he is required to make a written request to the proper authority which may be an associate superintendent, deputy superintendent, or supervisor of cafeterias. The final ap- proval or disapproval of a request rests with the requisition- ing agency to which it properly belongs. Purchase requisitions must be issued by the offices to which the requests are for- warded. Two regular deliveries of supplies are made monthly to the schools as determined by the chief of the bureau of sup- plies. After the delivery schedules have been approved by the associate superintendent, the principals of the schools are notified accordingly. At the close of each school year, each principal is re- quired to make a physical inventory of unbroken lots of in- structional supplies, a list of all textbooks on hand, and an estimate of additional amounts of each required for the en- suing fiscal year. These inventories are forwarded by the school principals to the associate superintendent in charge. The deputy superintendent of plant takes similar action with respect to supplies under his control. The principal of each day school is restricted to an allot- ment or quota subdivided into office expense, instructional supplies and textbooks based upon pupil registration. When 90 per cent of the quota is expended the bureau of accounts notifies the associate superintendent in charge who in turn notifies the school principal. Financial accounting.—Each school principal is required to prepare a pay roll for salaries due principals and members of the faculty staff and forward to the bureau of accounts. The pay roll must be accompanied with time cards signed by the claimant and approved by the principal of the school where services are performed. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 42 The principal is directed to forward to the secretary of the board the names and addresses of non-resident pupils from whom tuition is due. Principals of evening schools and summer schools are authorized and directed to collect all sums due from non-resident pupils. Deposits as security for the return in good condition of loaned textbooks must also be collected by the principal of each secondary school or continu- ation school. In like manner, the principal of each school is authorized and directed to collect any other sums which may be due the board of education as a result of transactions orig- inating in, or connected with, his school. Moreover, each prin- cipal must report and remit to the cashier monthly as pro- vided by the rules of the board of education. The principal is designated as the custodian of all funds which belong to his school and in accordance therewith must keep suitable records of account, receipts of cash, and disbursements which are sub- ject to examination of the bureau of audit. The principal does not directly participate in the formu- lation of the school budget.. However, much of the informa- tion submitted by the principal to the director of a depart- ment or to an associate superintendent has an important bear- ing on the estimate ultimately presented to the board of edu- cation. Even though a principal may submit an estimate to cover the expense of his school for an ensuing year, such esti- mate is subject to revision by the associate superintendent, superintendent of schools, board of education, and finally by the city council. School building.—All custodians and engineers of school buildings are directly responsible only to the director of plant. They are expected to, and in general do, codperate with the school principals. In case of dispute, however, the principal is required to make his complaint to the director of plant where it may be given consideration. Engineers are paid a flat salary and they may hire what help they deem necessary. It is reported that in rare instances insufficient help has been secured under this practice. The board of education, however, guards against such a situation by providing in the rules and regulations that: “Each inspector of janitors shall render to the division of plant a weekly report of daily inspection of schools, disclos- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 43 ing the schools inspected and the condition thereof. Said re- port shall be in detail and on a standard form developed by the division of plant for the purpose of rating schools with respect to cleanliness and other conditions under the super- vision of said division.” In order to standardize the use of school buildings by the principal or teachers at times other than school hours, the board of education has permitted the principal of a school to use the auditoriums and such other rooms as are required only for the following: (a) Annual Parents’ Night, (b) Com- mencement Exercises, (c) One School Entertainment, and (d) Richmond Speaking and any forensic contest sponsored by the board. For any other purpose or evening the principal must secure the approval of the board of education, and a re- quired janitorial fee must be paid. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Buffalo is a pioneer city in the development of city- school administration. Even though it is credited as being the first city to have a city superintendent of schools, it was among the last to have a board of education. The status of the principal in Buffalo has been largely determined by the administrative organization set up by the board of education. At present, elementary-school principals are directly responsible to an associate superintendent in charge of elementary schools; secondary-school principals are directly responsible to an associate superintendent in charge of secondary schools. Both associate superintendents are di- rectly responsible to the superintendent of schools. After the creation of the office of associate superin- tendents, principals, especially in the secondary schools, were deprived of much of the independent power previously pos- sessed and were required to manage their schools subject to rigid regulations. Elementary-school principals have contributed consid- erably in the formulation of policies governing their schools. Principals in the secondary schools, however, have played a less prominent part in recent years in establishing educational policies. if 44 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The general explanation for the difference of the two divisions in this respect indicates that there was a decided lack of uniformity in administration among the various high schools and the central office and board of education believed that the situation could be remedied by requiring high-school principals to conform to rigid regulations. The relation of directors to school principals is that of staff officers. Principals may be guided by the suggestions of directors but need not heed such suggestions unless ordered to do so by the associate superintendent in charge or the su- perintendent of schools. A deputy superintendent of plant and a deputy super- intendent of finance are directly responsible to the superin- tendent of schools. These officers have many contacts with school principals either directly or through their associate superintendent. Relations between principals and the busi- ness officers are adequately defined in the by-laws and regula- tions of the board of education. In general, the provisions are adhered to without modification. A description of the relation between the school principal and the central educational office of the city of Buffalo is based on the past and present conditions. Whether the policies which have been established in the past will be retained by the new administration can not be predicted at this time. CHAPTER IV CHICAGO, ILLINOIS THE RISE OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN CHICAGO Historical development.—The public-school principalship in Chicago was established in 1845 when the board of educa- tion consolidated two single-room schools in one building with three rooms and gave the head teacher the title of principal. Up to this time the pupils had been housed in one-teacher schools. At the time of the creation of the principalship, the con- trol of schools was vested in the common council. A board of seven school inspectors was appointed by the council with au- thority to supervise the schools. The relationship of the first principal to the inspectors was naturally direct, since there were no superior officers between the principals and these officials. By 1853 the number of teachers employed to instruct 3,000 pupils had grown to thirty-four. Inasmuch as the school in- spectors found that the time demanded of them as school ad- ministrators was greater than they cared to donate for public services, the common council created the office of superin- tendent. This newly created superior executive had eighteen specific duties and powers delegated by the ordinance creating the office. The delegation of these powers and duties to a superin- tendent modified the relationship of the principal to the board of inspectors in that now there was initiated a movement to- ward centralizing responsibility in the office of the superin- tendent for the administration of the schools. The practices and procedures set up by the successive superintendents have determined to a large extent the relationship between the principal and the central office. The First Annual Report of the Superintendent of Public Schools of the City of Chicago mentions the principals twice in the twenty-two pages of discussion. Both references men- 45 46 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS tion shortcomings on the part of the principals in need of remedial treatment. The first calls attention to the absence of a proper classification of pupils; lack of records of admissions, withdrawals, class attendance, and school membership; and the failure to provide an organization within the separate schools. In the second reference the absence on the part of the principal of any educational standards for promoting pupils from the primary to the grammar departments is discussed. In the Second Annual School Report of the Superintend- ent, the principal is mentioned only in connection with the establishment of the high school. The ordinance of the com- mon council establishing the first high school made admission of pupils to high school dependent on the joint approval of the superintendent and the principal of the high school. In neither the first nor the second report does the superin- tendent acknowledge any indebtedness to the principals for accomplishing his two significant achievements, namely, classi- fying and grading the pupils. In 1856 approval of the high-school principal for admis- sion of pupils to high school was superseded by the approval of a committee appointed by the board of inspectors. While the high-school principal appears to have lost some prestige in being relieved of the right to approve admissions to his school, he gained the right to revise jointly with the superintendent the examination papers of all candidates whose general aver- ages were within 5 to 10 per cent of the lowest rank admitted. Credit was given by the superintendent to the principal for the success of the school. The superintendent recommended in 1857 that the prin- cipals be relieved part of the day from care of their rooms so as to provide time for attending to the general school duties, and that head assistants be provided to relieve the principals. He acknowledged his indebtedness to the principals who had aided in revising the course of study, and complimented the principals on their professional ambitions and their efforts to improve their schools. In his campaign to induce the board to release the principal from teaching for supervisory duties, he gave as a precedent the practices in the schools of Cincinnati where each principal was practically a local superintendent de- voting all his time to general school administration. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 47 The superintendent in his report for 1867 mentioned an experiment with independent primary schools. Each school was placed under the care of a woman principal with eight as- sistants. The pupils admitted to these schools were those who belonged to the six lower, or primary divisions of the schools. Each school was given a certain district, and all the primary pupils within the prescribed limits were transferred from their respective schools to these new primary schools. The president of the board of education considered the ex- periment such a success that he advocated in his report of 1867 the building of small primary schools around a centrally lo- cated grammar school, He suggested the placing of each pri- mary school under the direct supervision of a woman princi- pal; the principal of the centrally located grammar school was to act in the capacity of a superintendent to these different primary schools. With the appointment in 1869 of an assistant to the su- perintendent, the relationship between the primary-school principals and the superintendent was modified from a direct to an indirect relation, inasmuch as one of the duties assigned the newly elected assistant was that of general supervision of the independent primary schools. The principals had formed a voluntary organization in 1870; the fact that the principals were organized made it pos- sible for their influence as a group to be felt. The loss of the recently completed course of study in the great fire of 1871 fur- nished an opportunity to the principals to function as a group; they rose to the occasion and through committee work replaced the lost course promptly. Appreciation for this contribution of the principals was recorded in the annual report of the su- perintendent for 1872. Credit is given in the Twenty-ninth School Report for the work accomplished by a committee of the principals’ associa- tion in 1882-83 in preparing a list of books suitable for the schools. From the list submitted by the principals, the central office selected a smaller list of two hundred volumes and made the list available for school purposes. Superintendent Howland, who administered the Chicago schools for the ten-year period, 1880-1890, in his report to the board for 1884 magnified the position of the principal, out- 48 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS lining what he believed to be the principal’s true status. He pointed out that the board of education should have some cen- tral authority for advising it of the needs and conditions of the local schools and that this central authority should be the principal. The principals were to advise the board, to see that the orders of the board were complied with, to design a gen- eral outline of the subjects to be studied, to direct the methods to be pursued in the schools, to observe the competency and fitness of the teachers, and to help unify the system as a whole. At the time of Mr. Howland’s superintendency, the as- sistant superintendents went into the schools and administered examinations in the different subjects. Howland felt that this practice weakened the authority of the principal in the school. He expressed the opinion that the chief factor in the success of a school was the principal, and that no amount of itinerant su- pervision could be as effective as the supervision of the prin- cipal. In his opinion, the principal was in the best position to supervise the work of the schoolroom, to correct errors, and to devise methods for securing better results. He held that the principal was the one person familiar with the discipline, the instruction, and the personal influence of every teacher, and hence, best evaluate the results of each teacher’s efforts. Present status.—Since 1890 the official status of the school principal has changed very little. Certain legal gains have been made, such as the provision contained in the Otis Law of 1917 placing the power of appointment, promotion, and trans- fer of principals under the superintendent subject only to ap- proval by the board, and the enactment of a board rule in 1922 implicitly stating that the principal is the administrative head of the school to which he is assigned. Despite these gains the principal in Chicago, because of present extra-legal political control, is probably less certain of his status than at any time during the last fifty years. The principalship is attained with few exceptions through competitive examination. To be admitted to the examination, a candidate must submit to the board of examiners credentials showing (1) graduation from an accredited college and (2) evidence of not less than six years of successful experience in Chicago, at least two of which must have been in actual class- room teaching. The examination consists of three parts: DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 49 (1) a written test covering the candidate’s professional study, (2) a written examination in the general and special subjects taught in elementary schools, and (3) a brief oral examina- tion (10 to 15 minutes in length) before a committee of cen- tral officers of the education department to determine the gen- eral fitness of the candidate. The candidate must obtain a mark of not less than 80 per cent on both the oral and written tests, with not less than 50 per cent on any subject to have his name on the eligible list. The eligible persons are listed in order of their rating on the total examination, the individual making the highest score re- ceiving first place; the next highest, second place; and so on to the one with the lowest score in the last place. The list thus secured is certified by the examining board to the superin- tendent, who makes his nominations therefrom in order as va- cancies in elementary principalships occur. Vacancies in high- school principalships are filled by promoting successful ele- mentary-school principals in active service and may not be filled from other ranks. The administration of the examination system for prin- cipals is a subject that has called forth much criticism in Chi- cago in recent years. It is claimed that political influence bulks large in the final rating which determines the rank of successful individuals on the certified list. The criticism can be traced to the personnel of the board of examiners, which consists of the superintendent and two persons nominated by him and approved by the board of education. The spirit of the law which requires that “appointments and promotion of teachers, principals, and other educational employees shall be made for merit only’? should be faithfully executed by the su- perintendent and board. This cannot be done until the two members of the board of examiners are selected by civil service examination as recommended by Strayer in the survey of the Chicago schools.?_ Until this step is taken public confidence in merit appointments and promotion will be determined largely by the confidence of the public in the superintendent of schools. 1School Law of Illinois, No. 256, Sec. 138, p. 77. 2Report of the Survey of the Schools of Chicago, Illinois, Voluume I, p. 23. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1932. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS RELATIONS OF PRINCIPAL WITH BOARD OF EDUCATION The board of education consists of eleven members ap- pointed by the mayor for staggered terms of four years with the approval of the common council. The present authority of the board to govern the schools is received from an act of the state legislature in 1917 applying to cities of over 500,000 pop- ulation. This act legalizes the administrative organization shown in the following diagram. The administrative organi- zation in Chicago is the multiple type. The central office consists of three codrdinate depart- ments, namely, education, business, and legal. The chief exec- utive officers of these departments are the superintendent of schools, business manager, and attorney. The activities of these executives are supposed to be coérdinated by the board. In reality the coérdination is effected by the president of the board, who maintains an executive office and a staff of assist- ants. Relations with the board of education.—The school prin- cipal has virtually no relations with the board of education or individual members, The board acts as a committee of the whole, usually devoting its attention to matters proposed by the president and its three codrdinate executive officers. Any attention given by the board to a principal would come log- ically through the superintendent of schools. If a principal exerts any influence on board action, the influence would be indirect. Relations with the president of the board of education.— In theory the school principal should have no relations with the president of the board of education. The president, according to law, is merely the presiding officer of the board. He is elected by and from the membership. The intent of the law is that the office of president shall carry no executive power. If such power is exercised by a president, it is a usurpation with the tacit acquiescence of the membership of the board. The present president of the Chicago Board of Education maintains an executive office costing the taxpayers $17,261 per year. Although the position is non-salaried, he is reported to spend a considerable portion of his time attending to school business. While there is no evidence to support the charge szeqos Szeyose im — ! doves | |_saoucees | SuUBT po ysnNoD }e---4 woe ee - ----- ---------= bg stedsouzag oa s1elt outa 4 X { BIORT AL aI | < siosTaredns Tstooeds & TetToeds Z ‘ amos (00.243) fe noha. | squepue3utucdng Ay 40T498TC 20F41381C ~ So eoFang | = Teuct_0uny pue BSTOCOUDS UsTH a stooyos Lasquowery quepuequtuedns a quepue3gurfaedns queystssy a : queystesy P Siesunop snveimg es MER. > ep ean ee ’ é Teteeds eat a | i ion nm eu.t0 . cit., chapter 1, division B, section 17, p. 5. (suBt POVSND ) [Oouds e6no uots Buy] [*yos| pootar JJB95 we TT Polen -TAtG -utTs — Tepoed AIOSTA *adng SOTT Sut Be 28 zodn *24,66 ] edn -eno _L L a | BTOOUDS jo (1OInNsBert | auepe epuequyiedns (qUepue{UTZeEdnsg ) 103062 Tq ) -%10TO) 4 09 £18901005 uoTZomr4eUuy ssouter eous | +s ia 7 | {UoTtaBonpg Jo paeog | 5 g a Ay . 8 = n 3 <2] Zz 2 - < a io] STOOHOS OITGNd ANVTSARTIO AHL dO NOILVZINVOUO DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 89 other two departments, such recommendation may be made to the department concerned, and in case of inability to agree, the matter may be laid before the board of education in the form of a resolution, and the matter settled by the board. Since many rules of the other two departments affect the principal to a greater or lesser extent, this practice presents another point at which the relations of the principal with a central of- ficial might not be harmonious. The principals who were interviewed were frank in their recognition of the weaknesses of the three-headed type of or- ganization, but indicated that so far serious internal trouble had been avoided. THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN CLEVELAND Status and appointment.—Principalships in Cleveland are filled by individuals appointed on their records, without writ- ten examination, according to the judgment of the respective assistant superintendents and supervisors. Appointments must be confirmed by the board of education. All appointments are now made from local staff members, no individuals being brought from outside of Cleveland into principalships. In the elementary field, supervising assistants are named to work with “strong” principals, and are promoted when an opening appears in a principalship. The experience acquired by the supervising assistants is regarded as internship train- ing. Assignment of principals to their schools is done by the assistant superintendent of the respective division ; i. e., senior high school, junior high school, or elementary school. The as- sistant superintendent is guided in making his assignment by a desire to place a candidate in a principalship for which the candidate’s qualifications indicate he is fitted. Most principals do no regular teaching, although in some small buildings “head teachers” have full-time teaching loads. Elementary principalships are considered terminal jobs, without possibilities of promotion to the junior or senior high school fields. Junior high school principals may be promoted to senior high school principalships, or from assistantships in their respective schools to principalships. Promotion from 90 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS smaller to larger schools, carrying also increased salary incre- ments, are often made, the assistant superintendent making the appointment, with the approval of the superintendent. Although the appointment of an individual to a principal- ship must be approved by the board of education, the assign- ment, transfer, or promotion of a principal is handled by the assistant superintendent, with the approval of the superin- tendent only. It is not necessary to carry the matter to the board. Dismissal consists in not recommending the principal for reappointment, subject to the individual’s right of appeal to the superintendent or the board. If a principal is not considered competent, he may be sent back to teaching, but the general practice is that he leave the system, although this is not neces- sarily obligatory. Principals are expected to know the duties prescribed for them by law, and the law as to subject-matter, fire drills, and similar matters that they must take cognizance of. Those in- terviewed did not seem to know just what the law required of them, beyond curriculum matters and the administration of safety. The principal’s relationships with the superintendent’s office.—The superintendent of schools in Cleveland, both in writing’ and in interview has stated emphatically that he con- siders the principal to be the head of the local school. The Administrative Code*® also specifies the principal’s duties in such a way as to make clear his pre-eminent position in the conduct of his own school, under the appropriate assistant su- perintendent. The principal’s relation to the supervisor is the point at which this theory is best tested. Interviews with several prin- cipals confirmed the superintendent’s statement that the prin- cipal alone is responsible for what goes on in his school. Even in subjects in which he is relatively unfamiliar he is held fully responsible for the quality of instruction given. The principals visited make more or less use of the super- visors, as they see fit. Except in specific, delegated matters, 1 Lake, Charles H. “The Co-ordination of the Work of the Principal and the Supervisor,” Educational Method, XII (April, 1933), 391-97. 2Op. cit., chapter 8, division E, section 251, p. 25. 91 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the supervisor is an advisory officer only. Should the principal feel that he can supervise a particular subject or field better than the supervisor, he is not required to use the supervisor. The supervisor is expected to convince the principal of the need for supervisory services; otherwise, the principal may do without them. No principal need accept a plan of a supervisor unless the superintendent has made such plan a part of the general school policy. Both superintendent and principals agreed that the power of the principal in determining school policies was liberal. On decided changes in policy, however, all the principals consulted indicated that they would seek the approval of the assistant superintendent. The superintendent made it clear that the principal, although having a large omnem of power as to pol- icy, is not the final authority. Except for certain uniform practices, the principals make the rules for their schools. The variation applies in practice cven to the marking system, which is supposed to be uniform, yet not followed implicitly by all principals. The general organization of the school is one of the im- portant responsibilities of the principal. Some elementary schools, for example, use a departmentalized plan of instruc- tion; others do not. Class schedules and daily programs are made by each principal in accordance with the needs of his schools, taking into account only the uniform practices of the entire system as to the length of period and time-allotment for certain subjects, and the uniform semester dates. In general, the principal has the final word in matters of supervision, but he must justify his practices by obtaining re- sults. Many committee meetings are held in various subjects to recommend methods, which are, however, not entirely bind- ing on the principal. Some principals use standardized tests more than do others; some make wise use of supervisors while others do not. : Principals are given fairly free hand in the selection of their subordinates, making it a codperative affair with the as- sistant superintendent. The choice of an assistant principal, however, is considered a central-office function. Once se- lected, the subordinate’s duties are assigned by the principal. Department heads are chosen by the principal, but must be ap- proved by the assistant superintendent. 92 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The principal’s authority with respect to teachers.—In the selection of the teaching staff, a principal may exercise con- siderable power, since it is the superintendent’s aim to have the teacher feel a definite responsibility to the principal. The principals consulted indicated that ordinarily they have a choice of teachers for a vacant position, and may or may not select the candidates sent by the chief of personnel. In emer- gencies, however, an arbitrary assignment may be made from the central office. Prior to their final appointment, new teachers in Cleve- land find their work carefully checked. This function is not entirely that of the building principal, since supervisors and the respective assistant superintendent take an active part in the final approval or disapproval of “probationary” appointees. Once teachers have passed the probation period of three years, however, few are dropped. Retirement of teachers is auto- matic at seventy years of age. The matter of transfer is one in which the various prin- cipals seem to work codperatively. The new principal has a chance to reject the teacher sent to him. In case a teacher de- sires to transfer to another school, one principal indicated that the matter was initiated by the teacher in order that it might be handled more gracefully for the teacher involved. This principal felt that the request for a transfer made by a prin- cipal would probably be approved, but that the teacher might suffer embarrassment as a result. Principals recommend promotions of teachers, subject to approval by the assistant superintendent, which is ordinarily given. In case of demotion, a recommendation that the salary increment be withheld is the usual procedure, with the ap- proval of the assistant superintendent also required. Princi- pals’ recommendations as to leaves of absence of teachers are subject to central-office approval, but are rarely overruled. One principal, however, stated that the central office fre- quently overruled recommendations of various sorts made by principals. The assignment of work to a teacher is a matter in which the principal is virtually supreme. The superintendent defi- nitely stated that in case of an appeal to his office from a teacher, it would be referred back to the principal, so long as state requirements were satisfied. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 93 Teacher-rating of a relatively simple sort is made yearly by principals for the purposes of retention or discharge of teachers. In case a teacher is to be dropped, the case is care- fully checked by others than the principal. The principal’s authority with respect to instruction.— Principals give their own interpretation, according to the needs of the school, to the curriculum and courses of study, as well as to subjects. Even in the elementary curriculum, which is highly standardized, there is some variation from school to school. Decided departures, however, are “talked over” with the assistant superintendent. In the selection of educational supplies, principals must confine themselves to a standardized list, but have free choice within the limits of the list. This practice applies also to equipment. Periodic inventories of equipment and supplies are required of all principals. Requisitions, if within the school’s budget, will be honored at the warehouse without for- mal approval at the superintendent’s office. In matters of pupil-administration, the principal has a fairly free hand. Grade-placement is determined by the prin- cipal except in cases of transfer, when the attendance depart- ment handles the matter. Colored children, when transferring from schools in other cities to Cleveland, must be tested by the central office before the principal may assign them to the ap- propriate grade. The use of homogeneous grouping is optional with the principal, who may use the psychological clinic for aid if he wishes. Some schools do much of their own testing, even buy- ing the tests, although the superintendent indicated that the central office classifies the pupils according to certain probable learning rates. Principals are responsible for the proper discipline of their schools, handling the matter as a building problem. In matters of suspension, the attendance officer takes charge of the case after a three-day period has elapsed, and exercises considerable authority in this respect. Promotion of pupils is a matter for the principal to de- cide, subject to the general regulations of the system. Extra-curriculum activities seem to be initiated, con- trolled, and administered entirely by the principals, with the 94 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS encouragement of the assistant superintendents. Some schools have extensive programs, some do not. In case a large project in this field were to be started, the assistant superintendent “would be consulted.” The extent of participation in athletics is a matter for the principal to decide, but the director of welfare has a prominent place in the program, having the final decision in matters of eligibility, and assisting in the scheduling and handling of games. Funds are checked by an accountant, but financing and equipping of teams and games is entirely a local school prob- lem. Except for the “personal regimen” courses, which are a central-office project, the guidance program is largely a prin- cipal-controlled matter, with advisory encouragement from the assistant superintendent. A certain pupil-teacher ratio is maintained, but if this is satisfactory, the principal may, after “talking it over” with the assistant superintendent, make such guidance assignments as he feels are necessary. The central office encourages, but does not insist that prin- cipals initiate parent-teacher associations in their schools. This is another matter requiring consultation with the assist- ant superintendent. THE PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONS WITH OTHER CENTRAL-OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS The principal's relations to the clerk-treasurer.—The prin- cipal has relatively few direct relations with the clerk-treas- urer outside of the pay roll for his school, which is submitted to the clerk-treasurer. The principal is also required to sub- mit a report on tuition pupils. In matters of funds, the report is made to the instruction department. In the spring of 1935, for the first time, the clerk- treasurer called for a report of funds from principals. The principal’s relations with the director of schools.— Principals are required to obtain permits for any activities car- ried on in their buildings after closing hours. Schools are re- quired to pay for the use of auditoriums for commencements, plays, ete. Custodians function under the division of housing, and are not directly responsible to the principals. Board rules DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 95 specify that custodians are supposed to honor requisitions of building principals “in so far as is consistent with the rules.” Although the organization is such as to give rise to friction between principals and custodians in case of personality clashes, the principals interviewed indicated that the relation works out reasonably well. In cases of friction, the principal may carry the matter to the director of schools. A maintenance man employed by the instruction depart- ment investigates principals’ requests for repairs, and makes the request to the director of schools. In general, such repairs are the custodian’s responsibility. The principal’s relations with auxiliary services.—In gen- eral, the relation is largely advisory, although the requests of the auxiliary services are usually honored by the principals. Some of the auxiliary-service heads, more aggressive than oth- ers, apparently have established more than advisory contact with principals. The bureau of attendance, for example, has, because of the character of its functions, more direct connec- tion with the principals than has most of the other auxiliary services. The principal's relations with the secretary of the superin- tendent.—There is no officially direct relationship between principals and the secretary to the superintendent. In prac- tice, the secretary has considerable delegated power. Princi- pals, however, stated that the secretary always acted in the name of the superintendent, and that they respected his re- quests in that light. The principal’s relations with the board of education.—No principal reported any direct relations with board members, standing committees, or the board itself, other than the right of appeal. Not only was no direct legal relation apparent, but only in rare cases have there been extra-legal relations. Occasional requests were reported as being received from individual mem- bers, but never orders. All principals interviewed considered themselves not obligated to follow any direct orders from board members, even if orders should be given. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Results of the study of the Cleveland schools indicate that the policy of the superintendent in making the principalship an office of professional importance has been carried out in the Cleveland system. Principals are in direct executive line under their respec- tive assistant superintendents, who are, in turn, directly re- sponsible to the superintendent, himself. Principals are fairly free to do as they wish in their schools, subject to board of edu- cation rules. Although they do not have the final word in any particular decision if the central office deems it unwise, the policy of the present superintendent has been to exercise his veto power with considerable discretion, and with the deliber- ate objective of enhancing the prestige of the principal in his school. Supervisors, in so far as the principal is concerned, are advisory officials. Principals are encouraged to use super- visory aid, but except in instances in which the supervisor’s plans are made part of the administrative policy of the cen- tral office, the supervisor has no authority over the principal. Relationships of the principals to coérdinate administra- tors, or their subordinates who have professional contacts with the principal, are at present harmonious. However, the rela- tions between principals and custodians have, at times, been unpleasant because of personality conflicts. The principal’s relations with the clerk-treasurer also seem conducive to serious difficulty, especially if either princi- pal or clerk-treasurer oversteps the bounds of authority. Except as definitely stated in board of education rules, there is no evident executive connection between the princi- pals, on the one hand, and the director of schools and the clerk- treasurer on the other. There also is no direct executive con- nection between the principals and members of the board of education and its standing committees. In final summary, it may be said that the principalship in Cleveland is a “professional” position of both importance and responsibility, as well as of increasing prestige, in the present administration. CHAPTER VI DETROIT, MICHIGAN DEVELOPMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION Elementary-school principal.—The first public school was opened in Detroit in 1842. Other public schools were opened in quick succession. By 1848, the board of education operated thirteen primary and three middle ungraded schools. Obvious- ly, the early scope of the masters’ administrative and super- visory functions over these elementary schools was narrow since, in general, the schools were of the one-room and one- teacher type. With the introduction of the union school sys- tem, in 1849, the responsibilities of the master were consid- erably increased since the primary and middle schools, con- stituting the equivalent of the first eight years, were brought together under a single roof with the master of the middle school assuming supervisory control over both divisions. This perhaps constituted the embryo of the modern school prin- cipalship in Detroit. The directory of the Detroit schools for 1936-37 lists 194 elementary schools, each of which is administered by an ele- mentary-school principal. Elementary-school principals are under the direct supervision of district principals who in turn are responsible to a supervising director of elementary schools. The supervising director of elementary schools is directly re- sponsible to the superintendent of schools. District principal——A position which has had an impor- tant bearing on the administration of elementary schools in Detroit is that of the district principal. The office of district principal was first established in 1920 on an experimental basis. The experiment immediately proved so successful that the system, whereby principals assumed charge of a number of elementary schools without being detached from their build- ings, was soon adopted as a general policy of the board. Each district principal is responsible for his own school in addition to the other elementary schools in his district. An original 97 98 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS purpose of a district principal retaining responsibility of a single school was to keep him in closer touch with the prac- t:cal problems of elementary-school principals and to prevent the formalism that had followed the establishment of the dis- trict superintendency in a number of large cities. According to the annual reports of the superintendent of schools, district principals have made considerable progress in evolving a more adequate technique for the administration of their respective districts. Closer coéperation between prin- cipals and supervisors has been accomplished with advantages accruing to all the elementary schools. It is generally be- lieved that district principals facilitate administration of ele- mentary schools by solving problems and making adjustments which formerly were referred to the central office. Proximity to the affairs of schools in his charge and acquaintance with local problcms have afforded the district principal an oppor- tunity to settle mooted questions more promptly and effective- ly than the more remote executives in the central office. There were fourteen district principals in 1921, whereas the number listed in the 1936-37 directory is twelve. The decrease in number of district principals is partially due to the establishment of larger elementary schools. High-school principal.—The Detroit High School was es- tablished in 1858. Professor Henry Chaney was the first prin- cipal and faculty. Although the enrolment and faculty of this school increased rapidly no other high schools were established in Detroit until several decades later. The many administrative responsibilities falling upon the high-school principal were realized at an early date. Early attempts to relieve the principal of a high school from per- forming minor tasks were unique. Although one principal was the administrative head over his school, each school was or- ganized into four grades with each grade under the charge of a grade principal who administered and kept the books. Some- what later the Detroit high schools were organized upon the house system. Under this system, the pricipal was in charge of the faculty and six or eight house principals, depending’ upon the size of the school. In effect, each house principal was a miniature high-school principal. He made out pupils’ programs and records, attended to cases of discipline, and established relations with parents. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 99 At present the high-school principal in Detroit is the ad- ministrative and pedagogical head of his school. He is given considerable authority to administer his school as he sees fit, provided that he does so within the policies established by the administrative staff. In order that he may devote full time to administrative and supervisory functions, the high-school prin- cipal is provided with assistant principals and clerks to per- form routine administrative and clerical tasks. There are fifteen academic high schools in Detroit, each of which is administered by a high-school principal. The position of suvervising director of high schools has recently been es- tablished in Detroit. High-school principals are responsible to the supervising director who in turn is responsible to the assistant superintendent under the final authority of the su- perintendent. Intermediate-school principal.—The intermediate-school principalship is of comparatively recent origin. The inter- mediate schocl, comprising grades 7, 8, and 9, was first estab- lished in Detroit in 1920 in an attempt to project the platoon schools above the elementary level and to provide the logical link between the clementary school and the high school. The “intermediate” school of Detroit is comparable to the “junior high school” of other cities. At present there are twenty in- termcdiate schools in Detroit, each of which is under the con- trol of an intermediate-school principal. Uniformity in the administration of intermediate schools was effected at the time of their establishment by the appoint- ment of a supervisor of intermediate schools who was respon- sible for all matters of detail relating to the development of the new schools. Since that time the local principal has been assuming a larger share of the administrative and supervisory responsibilities: Centralized supervision and administration over intermediate schools, however, are accomplished by mak- ing the intermediate-school principal answerable to a super- vising director of intermediate schools, who in turn is respon- sible to an assistant superintendent. Principals of technical and vocational schools.—The prin- cipalship of technical and vocational schools originated with the establishment of such schools. At present there are eight technieal and vocational schools in Detroit. Principals of these RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 100 schools are directly responsible to the assistant superintend- ent who in turn is responsible to the superintendent of schools. Principals of special schools.—There are twelve special schools in Detroit, each of which is under the direct adminis- tration of a school principal. A principal of a special school bears a somewhat different relation to executives of the cen- tral office than do the principals of other schools; he attends the meetings of the district principal in charge of the district in which the school is located, thereby being partially respon- sible to the district principal and partially responsible to the supervising director of special education. Superintendent of sch: «’,.—The school principalship ante- dated the school superintendency in Detroit. Prior to the ap- pointment of a superintendent, the principal was free to con- duct his school much as he saw fit within the limitations de- termined by committees of the board of education. These com- mittees frequently inspected the different schools and per- formed functions which were later assumed by professionally- trained executives. Analogous to the growth of the individual school neces- sitating the school principal, the increase in the number of schools in the city necessitated a supervisory and administra- tive head in order to maintain a uniform system of education. Consequently the idea of superintendence arose. Immediately after the passage of the law which authorized the establish- ment of high schools and a superintendent of schools, the board, in 1856, appointed John F. Nichols, principal of the Miami Avenue School, as the first superintendent of the De- troit schools. The appointment of a city superintendent of schools im- mediately elevated the professional status of the school prin- cipal. Instead of being answerable to various members and committees of the board of education, the principal gradually became accountable, especially in the instructional affairs, to a professionally-trained executive—the superintendent of schools. The superintendent of schools as executive officer of the board of education is solely responsible to the board for the ef- ficient operation of all school functions. The broad administrative powers vested in the superin- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 101 tendent of schools are clearly indicated in a single section of the by-.aws of the board of education: “He shall have sole power to nominate and to assign, transfer, promote, and demote or suspend all assistant superintendents, supervisors, principals, teachers, and other employes of the board of education as hereinafter provided. . . . He shall have immediate control of all as- sistant superintendents, supervisors, principals, and teach- ers. Ail directions and suggestions to them with refer- ence to the performance of their respective duties shall come through him.” Deputy superintendent.—The office of deputy superin- tendent was established in 1920 in an attempt to relieve the superintendent of the many administrative responsibilities which were increasing as a result of the growth of schools. The broad scope of administrative responsibilities assigned to the deputy superintendent at the time of his appointment is indicated in the annual report of 1921: “The deputy super- intendent administers directly the elementary platoon schools, intermediate schools, high schools, high-school auditor, continuation classes and the vocational bureau.” In more recent years the responsibilities of the deputy superintendent have been more clearly defined and centered upon a particular aspect of the city school administration. At present the deputy superintendent is executive vice-president of Wayne Univer- sity. Assistant superintendents.—The position of assistant su- perintendent was established in Detroit at an early date. De- spite the significant accomplishments of the assistant super- intendent prior to 1897, the position was abolished at that time and not revived until 1914. By 1914 the functions of the super- intendent had expanded to the extent that some relief from routine administration was imperative. Consequently three of the general supervisors were appointed to positions of assist- ant superintendent to assume charge of special education, eve- ning schools, playgrounds, and social centers. _ The number of assistant superintendents had increased to four by 1930, but since has been considerably decreased. The directory of 1936-37 indicates that there is now a first assist- ant superintendent and one assistant superintendent. The first assistant superintendent has charge of finance and general 102 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS edministration; his relations with schooi principals are not di- rectly concerned with instructional affairs. The one assistant su»erintendent assumes general control over intermediate and high schools. A supervising director over each division holds a “line” position between that of assistant superintendent and the principals of the schools concerned. Board of education.—In the early stages of school admin- ictr:ation in the city of Detroit, neither the superintendent of schoo's nor the school principals enjoyed professional free- dom. Political influence permeated the entire school system. The large membership and manner of selection of the board subordinated the practical operation of the school system to the action of the common council. By 1876 the city had grown to thirteen wards and the school board consisted of twenty-six members. Under the large unwieldy ward-elected board, organized on the committee system, the superintendent and school prin- cipals were greatly handicapped in administrative affairs. Com- mittees of the board selected textbooks, passed on the course oi stucy, and appointed teachers and principals. In fact the various committees constituted administrative departments of the school system. Generally the board acted favorably upon the superintendent’s recommendations, but frequently principals were appointed contrary to the superintendent’s recommendation. The efforts of the school superintendent and others inter- ested in the educational administration of Detroit to reduce the size of the board had some effect in 1881 when the membership was reduced to twelve. Even though the size of the board had been reduced the method of representation was still considered objectionable. Board members were elected by wards, and the inspectors were the personal representatives of minor admin- istrative districts. It was not until 1917 that provisions were made for a seven-member board to be chosen by non-partisan ballot. This board represents the community at large without the partisan interests that necessarily influenced the former boards. Reorganization—An immediate and significant accom- plishment of the seven-member board was a thorough reor- ganization of the administrative staff of the Detroit public DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 103 school system. In contrast with the former organization, where the business manager and other executives were inde- pendent of the superintendent’s authority, the new board pro- vided for a unit type of organization with the superintendent as the chief executive officer. All departments were subordi- nated to him, and school principals were held accountable to him directly or through one of his staff for business affairs as well as instructional affairs. Shortiy after the appointment of Frank Cody as superin- tendent of the Detroit schools, in 1919, the board ordered a detailed survey of existing conditions. The findings of the survey enabled the board and superintendent to formulate plans and policies which provided the groundwork of the pres- ent administrative organization of the Detroit public school system. ; PRESENT ORGANIZATION Fundamentally, the educational organization established by the board of education in 1919 is strikingly similar to the present organization. The superintendent of schools remains the chief executive of the board. All departments of the school system are directly under the control of the superintendent subject to the approval of the board. The “line and staff” type of organization prevails. The superintendent, deputy super- intendent, assistant superintendents, supervisory directors, and principals are “line” officers. All special-subject supervi- sors and assistants and other technical experts in charge of service or subject departments are “staff” officers. Channels of administrative authority may frequently be detected from an accurately-devised organization chart. The most recent available chart showing the administrative or- ganization of the Detroit school system is found in the annual report of 1930. Although the single-headed type of control as indicated in that chart still prevails, the number, titles, and functions of intermediary officers between the superintendent and principals have changed considerably. Assignments to administrative positions in the Detroit school system are listed in the 1936-37 directory. On the basis of the listed assign- ments, the accompanying chart is devised for the purpose of indicating the course of administrative authority emanating from the office of the superintedent of schools. n 2 < o — oO z — o ra S < o wn me ° 2] Zz ° & < = wa DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 105 STATUS OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL Appointment.—The superintendent is vested with virtu- 2"y complete control in matters pertaining to appointments. With the confirmation of at least four of the seven school- board members, the superintendent is solely empowered to nominate, assign, transfer, promote, demote, or suspend school principals and other professional and non-professional em- ployees of the public schools of Detroit. By virtue of the au- thority vested in the superintendent, he and his staff, with the approval of the board, have prescribed the regulations per- taining to appointments. One who possesses the academic qualifications is eligible to a principalship in the Detroit schools, provided that he has previously served as a teacher. In general, the principalship is achieved by a series of promotional steps. In the elementary schools, a teacher showing outstanding executive ability may be promoted to a teaching assistant principalship in an ele- mentary school. From there, he may be made an assistant principal with part time free for administrative and super- visory work. From an assistant principalship, a candidate may be promoted to a vice-principalship. A vice-principal is an as- sistant to a district principal and is released from teaching to perform supervisory and administrative functions on a full- time basis. Certain members who have served in an adminis- trative capacity in the elementary schools are eligible for ap- pointment to elementary-school principalships without first serving in all the preliminary positions previously indicated. For example, members of the attendance department and su- pervisors are eligible for direct promotion to elementary-school principalships. Intermediate- and high-school principals are selected from persons who come up from within the school system. They usually have served first as teachers, then as heads of depart- ments, and finally before promotion to the principalship, as assistant principals. Principals serve first as administrators of intermediate schools before being promoted to the principal- ship of high schools. Academic requirements.—A candidate for an elementary- school principalship must have the Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or a university. As a. matter of. fact, the 106 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS minimum requirements in this respect are usually exceeded since the majority of elementary-school principals hold the Mastcr’s degree. Candidates for the principalship of an inter- mediate school or high school are required to have at least the Master’s degree. Participation of principals in formulating educational policies.—School principals in Detroit are afforded considera- ble opportunity to experiment in their respective schools, pro- vided that their experimentation conforms to the policies deter- mined by the superintendent and his staff. Moreover, the prin- cirals take an active part in formulating many of the policies by which they are governed. They meet with the superintend- ent and all other administrative officers regularly once a month. Principals are not only permitted but urged to par- ticipate in the affairs of these meetings which are so funda- mental in determining general educational policies. In order to afford the principals greater opportunity in discussing their more specific problems they also meet each month with the assistant superintendent or supervising director in charge of their respective types of schools. Principals frequently have individual consultation on mat- ters concerning educational policies with certain executives of the central office. In such cases, however, a principal is ex- pected to consult his immediate superior officer before ap- proaching executives ranked higher in the administrative or- ganization. For instance, an elementary-school principal may consult his district principal from whence the matter at hand may be relayed to the supervising director of elementary schools and finally to the superintendent of schools. Principals also participate in formulating educational policies by serving on various committees for studies in curric- ulum, methods of teaching, and problems of administration. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS Supervision.—General supervision in the various types of schools in Detroit is largely in the hands of supervising di- rectors. The more specific supervision, however, is a respon- sibility of the school principal. He is responsible for instruc- tion in his school. In the elementary, intermediate, and high DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 107 schools, the principals have the assistance of the special-sub- ject supervisors who are also teachers in the College of Educa- tion of Wayne University and who work in coéperation with the principals in the direction of education. In the special schoo:s, the principals are responsible for instruction, but they have the service of clinic directors and directors of special phases of various types of special education. Determination of curriculums and methods of teaching.— The principal is given codperative responsibility with other principals, subject supervisors, and the department of curric- ulum and research in determining curriculums and methods of teaching. A committee of high-school principals has been established for the consideration of various changes in curric- ulum content and methods of teaching at the high-school level. Each committee has in its membership a principal who has had special experience in the particular subject under consid- eration. A principal with a new idea as to methods of teach- ing, a new course of study, or a change of content of course of study must first present his proposition to the committee directly concerned. If he can persuade the committee of the desirability of the change he proposes, the matter is taken to the assistant superintendent directly in charge of high schools and the proposal will likely be granted. Elementary- and intermediate-school principals work out the changes in codperation with special-subject supervisors and the depart- ment of curriculum and research and set up experimental classrooms in various buildings. Any principal desiring to set up an experimental classroom and having a definite proposal to make receives the codperation and the approval of the vari- ous superior administrative officers and consulting officers, namely, supervising directors, district principals, and special- subject supervisors. Homogeneous grouping.—Homogeneous grouping is a part of the administrative policy of the central office. Prin- cipals, however, have authority to make homogeneous group- ings either on the basis of school marks or on the basis of in- telligence levels or a combination of the two. Principals may recommend pupils at any time for observation or study by the clinics for the purpose of placement in special classes or trans- fer to special-education schools. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 108 Reporting the progress of pupils—Principals are re- quired to conform to the uniform procedure which applies to their particular types of schools in reporting the progress of pupils and in the time of sending such reports to parents. Re- port cards are sent out three times each semester from every school. Selecting and rating teachers.—Principals are generally not consulted by supervising directors or assistant superin- tendents directly in charge of their schools with regard to the placement of teachers. Principals are frequently consulted by supervising directors and assistant superintendents in the employment of teachers where specialized training is involved. All teachers, before final assignment to a position by the cen- tral administrative authorities in charge, are checked by the committee on personnel. Principals indicate the number of teachers which they need on the basis of enrolment. Teachers are assigned accordingly. In codperation with subject supervisors, the principals rate the teachers. Any teacher rated “D” on the combined rating will be transferred to another school. In case a teacher is rated “D” the second time, the teacher is automatically dis- missed. Elementary-school teachers are rated by building principals, district principals, and supervisors. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN NON-INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS Extra-curriculum activities and funds.—Considerable re- sponsibility rests with the principal for the direction of stu- dent activities and the management of funds accumulating therefrom. The funds derived from student activities are sub- ject to check by the school principal and by the bookkeeper who is manager of the bookstore. Principals may use student funds at their discretion with the following exceptions: (1) Money from athletic contests is handled by an athletic com- mittee and an athletic director in the superintendent’s office. (2) Profits from the bookstore must not exceed 6 per cent. Principals retain the profits and deposit them in the nearest bank to be used by the principal for his school. (3) Principals must receive authorization from the assistant superintendent before they may make expenditure in excess of $25. Prin- 109 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS cipals have authority to spend class dues to any amount with- out approval from an executive of the central office. The prin- cipal and the bookkeeper are required to make a remittance to the central office for all materials sold when the bills for such materials are received by the principal from the business manager’s office. Athletic policy of the local school is not controlled by the principal but by a special athletic board with offices and a director in the board of education building. This athletic board determines policies governing management of athletics and handles all funds. The principal is required by state law to certify eligibility of student participants in the various interscholastic athletic contests. Determination of the school budget.—The school budget is prepared on the basis of experience. The estimated need for an individual school is determined by enrolment and the nature of the school. Principals of elementary, intermediate, and high schools have no direct participation in the determi- nation of the budget as it applies to their respective schools. Principals of special-education schools participate in budget making to the extent of making recommendations through their supervising director for special equipment. The deans of the various colleges have direct responsibility in setting up the budget for their respective schools by rule of the board of education. The deans submit their budgets to the executive vice-president who is deputy superintendent of schools. Signing requisttions.—Requisitions for all instructional supplies, repairs for buildings, and new equipment require the signature of the school principal. Theoretically, these requisi- tions go to the assistant superintendent, supervising director, or district principal immediately superior to the principal. As a matter of expediency these requisitions, unless they are un- usual in character, will be sent directly to the department of educational expenditures in the superintendent’s office. The highest ranking principal, where more than one building is located on a single piece of school property, signs requisitions for supplies and repairs for the central heating plant. Child accounting.—Child accounting is under the direc- tion of a special officer in the office of the board of education. He has the status of truant officer and is appointed by the board of education as required by the Michigan State Law. 110 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Assistant attendance officers are located in various attendance centers in one of the school buildings situated in the attend- ance district. The school principals who are expected to work in codperation with the child-accounting office make reports to the attendance office located in their respective attendance districts on cases needing attention. In case the pupil whose attendance is in question lives in an attendance district other than the one in which he is attending school, the principal makes his report to the central attendance officer. The prin- cipals do not sign pay roll vouchers for attendance officers who may be located in their buildings. .Organizing parent-teacher associations.—Parent-teacher associations may be organized on the initiative of school prin- cipals, provided that the proposals for organization have the approval of the Detroit Parent-Teachers Council. One of the district principals who is the superintendent’s representative is a member of the council. Granting use of school buildings.—Authority to grant the use of school buildings for other than school purposes is not vested in the school principal. The granting’ of the use of the building for non-school organizations is handled by the ad- ministrative officers in charge in the superintendent’s office. However, before granting the use of the building, the admin- istrative officer in charge must consult the principal involved to see whether he has plans for the use of the building at the particular time for which it is wanted or whether the grant- ing of such use would in any way interfere with the school activities. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The school principal in Detroit is an executive assistant of the superintendent of schools and is held responsible for the execution of school policies in the local school to which he has been assigned. He is permitted to participate in the deter- mination of the policies for the school system as a whole through monthly conferences with the superintendent and through membership on special committees on policies and ad- ministrative procedures. Thus, it can be said that the school principal in Detroit is a professional officer responsible to the superintendent for the organization, administration, and su- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 111 pervision of a local school in accordance with the established poticies of the system. Appointment to the principalship is made by the super- intendent of schools on the basis of academic preparation, suc- cessful teaching experience, and interneship experience in mi- nor administrative work in the Detroit schools. Promotion within the ranks of principalships in elementary, intermediate, and senior high schools is made on the basis of demonstrated administrative efficiency and capacity for leadership. A major responsibility of the school principal is the su- pervision of instruction. In order that he may be free to per- form this function both assistant principals and clerks are provided to relieve the principal of routine administration and clerical work. The principal is expected to function as the in- tellectual leader of his school and is expected to utilize the central-office staff in the solution of instructional problems within his school. He is free to experiment only within the adopted policies of the school system. In his relationship with the executives of the central office the principal is not bound by rigid routine. He may deal di- rectly with either line or staff officers, provided that the issue in question does not involve the modification of estab- lished policies. The school principal thus becomes a liaison officer between the central office and the local school. This close relationship between the central office and the local schools has contributed greatly to the training of the prin- cipa's for leadership in their schools. The excellence of the public schools of Detroit is due in no small degree to the effective relationship developed between the central office and the school principals. CHAPTER VII KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI THE SCHOOL ORGANIZATION OF KANSAS CITY In order to understand clearly the place of the principal in the organization, administration, and supervision of the schools of Kansas City, one must first view the existing organization in which the principal functions as a whole. The school facilities of the School District of Kansas City, Missouri, include seventy-nine elementary schools, three senior high schools, five four-year high schools, four junior high schools, two trade schools, two junior colleges, one teachers college, and twelve special schools. These facilities provide fourteen years of schooling for an enrolment of more than sixty-eight thousand pupils, or 17.1 per cent of the entire pop- ulation of the city (19380 census). The fourteen years are distributed into one year of kindergarten, seven years in the elementary grades, four years in high school or in trade school, and two years of college work. The city also has four junior high schools. The junior high schools cover the work of the last year in the elementary grades and the first year—or the first and the second years—of high school. Special schools and classes are maintained for underprivileged children in order that these children may be given adequate training. Open-air rooms, a school for the deaf, sight-saving classes, and a school for crippled children are maintained for the physically-handi- capped children. Opportunity schools and ungraded rooms are maintained for the mentally-handicapped children and parental schools for the socially- and morally-handicapped children. The central organization.—The School District of Kansas City, Missouri, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Missouri. The responsibility for administering this corporation rests with a bi-partisan board of directors of six members. This board operates by delegating its executive duties to executive officers. 113 114 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The superintendent of schools is the executive officer of the board in charge of the department of instruction, and of all educational work of the school district. The secretary-business manager has a dual function. As secretary he is the recording officer of the board of directors and keeps all records of the board. As business manager he is the executive officer of the board in charge of the finances and head of the purchasing department. The chief engineer and superintendent of buildings is the executive officer of the board in charge of the school plant and its operation. The librarian is the executive officer of the board in charge of libraries and enforcement of rules and regulations govern- ing the same. Kansas City is unique in that the public library and all its branches are maintained by the board of education and paid for from the levy for school purposes; hence, the need for an executive officer to administer and supervise library- service. With few exceptions, branch-libraries are housed in school buildings, but are considered as separate units and do not come under the jurisdiction of the principal. A codpera- tive relationship can be said to exist between heads of library branches and principals in making library-service available to teachers and pupils. One branch-library was observed to be coéperating with the principal by allowing noon use of the li- brary, and the principal codperated in turn by providing moni- tors to assist in maintaining proper order. Each of the executive officers designated by the board of directors to carry out its executive duties must in turn dele- gate many duties connected with his department. As a result the task of administering school services in Kansas City in- volves a personnel of 2,700, over 2,000 of whom are in the de- partment of instruction. Successful operation of a large school system, particularly when that system operates by vesting executive authority in several heads, is a codperative enterprise depending primarily on a clear understanding of relationships between the various integral parts. The relationship of the principal as one inte- gral part to those making up the personnel of the central office has a vital influence on the successful operation of local schools. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 115 PRESENT STATUS OF THE PRINCIPAL The principalship in Kansas City is recognized as a posi- tion of great importance, involving much responsibility and power. The principals in general are a well-trained, highly- professional group composed of both men and women. Senior and four-year high school principalships are filled entirely by men; one of the four junior high school principals is a woman; but in the elementary schools there are a few more women than men. Tradition and salary recognize the high-school principal- ship as a more responsible position than the elementary princi- palship, although there are individuals among the elementary- school principals who outrank the high-school men in profes- sional training. Standards for appointment.—Candidates for principal- ships may receive appointment by either of the following methods: (1) By submission of approved credentials. Candidates for positions as school principals must have the same qualifica- tions required of high-school teachers, namely, credentials showing graduation from an accredited college or university approved by the superintendent and two years of successful teaching experience under approved conditions. The transcript of work must show special courses in school administration and supervision, or an examination will be required in these sub- jects. In recent years all principals have been appointed on the basis of approved credentials. (2) By examination. Applicants for school principalships must meet the eligibility requirements for elementary-school certificates and must pass an examination in the subjects re- quired of applicants for positions as teachers in the grammar grades of the elementary schools, and in addition must be ex- amined in the following subjects: physical geography; general history; elementary mathematics, including algebra and plane geometry; elementary science, including physics, chemistry, and biology ; school supervision and administration ; history of education; and educational psychology. Candidates who meet the standards for appointment to principalships need not be in service in the Kansas City schools to be eligible for appointment, although there is a tendency on 116 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the part of the board of directors to favor at present a policy of internal promotion. The present personnel in the high- school principalships has been recruited from within the sys- tem and on the whole has been in service for a considerable period, thus indicating very slight turnover in such positions. Several of the outstanding men among the elementary-school principals have received their appointments while holding re- sponsible administrative positions in other cities. Women who are appointed to principalships are selected from the local teachers who have shown superior teaching ability and have given evidence of administrative capacity. Appointmert and assignment to particular schools is made by the board of directors on the recommendation of the super- intendent of instruction. Women candidates newly appointed to principalships are usually assigned to Class D schools as teaching principals. Teaching duties of principals.—For administrative and salary purposes, senior and junior high schools are classified as A, B, and C schools according to the average daily attendance, and elementary schools as A, B, C, and D schools on the same basis. Class D schools are under the direction of teaching principals who are recruited, practically without exception, from leading elementary teachers within the system. These principals are usually women and they carry a teaching load which varies according to the size of the school. Teaching prin- cipals in charge of Class D schools constitute about 16 per cent of the total principal personnel. Salary schedule of principals.—Principals are placed on definite salary schedules according to the rank of the school, which is determined by the average daily attendance. The maximum salary for principals of the highest class elementary schools is lower than the minimum salary for any rank of sec- ondary-school principals. Salary increases are subject to the recommendation of the superintendent and the approval of the board of directors. Periodic attendance at summer school is required in order to continue at the maximum salary in any class. If, because of decrease in attendance, a school is changed to a lower class, the policy of the board of education is not to reduce the salary of the principal. When a school is reduced DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 117 in rank, the principal is usually transferred, as soon as an op- portunity arises, to a school corresponding to his salary rank. Change in status of principals—Principals may be pro- moted, demoted, or dismissed on recommendation of the super- intendent and the approval of the board of directors. The ele- mentary-school principalship is not a terminal position; there- fore, the elementary principal may look forward to promotion from one rank to another on up to the highest ranking admin- istrative position. The present assistant superintendent in charge of secondary schools was a former high-school principal and the present assistant superintendent in charge of elemen- tary schools was a former elementary-school principal. The president of the teachers college held an elementary-school principalship before assuming his present position. A principal may be given a form of promotion as recognition for outstand- ing service by being granted a salary increase exceeding the “normal rate” fixed by schedule. Likewise, when it is judged that no advance in salary is merited, the salary may remain fixed at the rate of the preceding year. Tenure in office.—The principal may consider his position as virtually permanent, since there is no provision by law for retirement at a certain age. Definite evidence of inefficiency or malfeasance in office is required for demotion or dismissal. Duties of principals—The general duties of principals are prescribed by board rule: “Principals shall have charge of the general administration and supervision of their respective schools under such policies, rules and regulations as the board of directors and the superintendent may prescribe. Their ef- forts shall be directed in a constructive, codperative manner for the up-building and coérdination of all policies and regulations that may be initiated by the board of directors. They shall en- deavor to carry out these policies and regulations in spirit as well as in letter so that the results may represent united, co- dperative, and cumulate efforts of all officials concerned.’ In addition to these general duties twenty specific duties are prescribed to guide principals in fulfilling the general du- ties. While a general feeling prevails that these rules and 1The Rules and Regulations of the School District of Kansas City, Mis- souri. Reprint, October, 1925. 118 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS regulations are in need of revision, it should be noted that the rules deal for the most part with routine practices that must always be a part of the principal’s responsibility and that must serve to increase rather than limit his authority as the respon- sible head of his school. RELATIONS OF PRINCIPAL WITH SUPERINTENDENT A very fine professional relationship exists between the resent staff of principals and the superintendent of instruc- tion. Principals recognize the superintendent as the executive officer of the board of directors responsible for the educational program and as such their leader in determining general school policies. Likewise, the superintendent recognizes the princi- pals as the responsible heads of the local school units and allows wide freedom of judgment and action as long as such judgment and action does not work in opposition to general policies. The superintendent’s policy is to secure the best possible services for the children through the loyal and active participation of all members of his staff in the problems of organization, ad- ministration, and supervision. This policy has had a very def- inite influence on the principalship in making it a key position in school administration in Kansas City. The superintendent maintains a very close personal relationship with all members of his line and staff organization. Principals feel very free to go directly to the superintendent with their problems. The accessibility of the superintendent makes for a very close re- lationship between him and his principals. Influence in determination of school policies.—Principals have an advisory committee of seven members selected by their own group to consider questions of policy with the superin- tendent, but in practice this advisory committee is not a prom- inent factor in the determination of school policy. The part of the principals in formulating administrative school policy is a very incidental one. However, certain opportunities are of- fered to the principals in this respect in the frequent meetings held with the superintendent, many of which are devoted to an interpretation of school policy. The way principals may exer- cise a very definite influence on school policy, incidentally, is illustrated by the junior high-school situation, wherein prog- ress in the further development of this type of organization DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 119 has been retarded in certain sections of the city by the negative attitude of principals, which is probably reflected in the local opposition of their supporting communities toward the junior high school. When an elementary school in the vicinity of a junior high school becomes overcrowded, the seventh grades are transferred from the elementary school to the nearest junior high school. However, when there is room in the ele- mentary-school building for the seventh grades, even though the building may be near a junior high school, the seventh- grade pupils have the option of attending the junior high school or remaining in the elementary school for their seventh-grade work. Hence, certain junior high schools lack capacity enrol- ment because of the fact that the supporting communities are not entirely entirely in sympathy with this organization. Instances where individual principals have departed from general school policy were also observed. In one instance a junior high-school principal was allowed full responsibility for the administration of his school cafeteria, although the gen- eral policy respecting cafeterias in junior and senior high schools is to place them directly under the business manager. In two of the older senior high schools a school library was developed before the system of branch-libraries was estab- lished. These schools have been allowed to continue their school libraries. These libraries are not placed under the juris- diction of the library department. Responsibility for local school organization.—The prin- cipal must accept the type of organization existing in the school to which he is assigned, although he may have a high degree of freedom as far as the functioning of his school is concerned. One principal indicated very definitely that he had as much freedom as one could possibly desire and still belong to an or- ganization. The principal may organize school activities and delegate responsibilities as he deems necessary for the efficient func- tioning of his school. Teachers, clerks, and custodians, are re- sponsible to the principal of their respective schools and are ex- pected to carry out any reasonable duty assigned by the prin- cipal. Guided by general time-allotments determined in the central office, the principal either personally, or with the co- 6peration of his teachers, makes the daily time-schedules for his local unit. 120 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Responsibility for methods of instruction.—The principal may determine the method of instruction to be used within his school unless it represents a very radical departure. This prac- tice explains the fact that some schools are very strong in the use of activities; others, in the use of the project methods; others, in the use made of visual aids; while others confine their instruction to formal methods. Responsibilty for supervision.—The principal may deter- mine his own method of supervision but he is expected to use the available agencies of the central office in solving his prob- lems. Under the Kansas City program supervision is a co- éperative undertaking in which teachers, principals, super- visors, directors, and superintendents are interested. Directors and supervisors come to a building to work with a teacher or teachers usually either at the request of a teacher or a group of teachers, or at the request of the principal. Since directors and supervisors work “on call,” the principal is held respon- sible for the use of their services. Methods of supervision vary with the individual principal —one may make extensive use of texts; another, of super- visors; or another, of classroom visitation. One principal stated that he had made a definite contribution toward the im- provement of instruction within his building by the supple- mentary instructional materials he had made available for his teachers. But, regardless of the method used, the principal is held responsible for results in the achievement ranking of his school. Relations with teachers——While the principal has little voice in the selection of teachers and their assignment to par- ticular buildings, he is allowed reasonable freedom in the as- signment of teachers within his school. The principal of the elementary school that is operated in connection with the teachers college, on account of the particular nature of his re- sponsibility, is given considerable voice as to the teachers who are assigned to his building. The principal of any school may recommend the transfer of a particular teacher. Such recommendations are always given careful consideration and the wishes of the principal com- plied with whenever it will not militate against the best serv- ices for the school system as a whole. The principal’s recom- i ie Ail ie i ee i my > t= 4 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 121 mendations are also carefully considered in granting leaves of absence. As there is no retirement age he must assign teach- ing-load according to the ability of a teacher who has reached an advanced age to render efficient service. The principal is required to rate his teachers annually. This rating is one of the most important factors in the promotion of teachers both as to salary and position. High-school principals appear before the board of directors annually to recommend teachers who merit salary advances above the “normal rate.” Responsibility for school curriculum.—The principal plays a very incidental part in actual curriculum construction and revision. Such work is carried on by teacher committees under the leadership of the director of curriculum. Occasion- ally, a principal who has had training in a special curriculum field will serve as an active member of a committee, but such is the exception. The principal’s contribution is made through such types of participation as the following: giving advice, guidance, and information to committees; encouraging and stimulating participation on the part of teachers; codperating with teachers in trying out procedures, materials, and units of work; aiding in carrying on research studies ; reviewing manu- scripts; and installing courses of study. The principal also plays an incidental part in the selection of curriculum materials. The same general procedure is fol- lowed in the selection of textbooks and supplementary mate- rials as is used in curriculum construction. One principal ex- plained that revising textbooks to meet requirements of the changing curriculum requires more technical ability and time than the principal has to give. He further explained that the comprehensiveness of the supplementary list of materials gives the principal considerable freedom in providing for the needs of his school. He personally felt that the freedom allowed him in the selection of a large amount of supplementary materials had resulted in the improvement of the achievement of his school. Responsibility for equipment and supplies.—The principal must follow a prescribed procedure in the requisitioning of edu- cational supplies, new equipment, and building repairs. The principal has a standardized list of equipment and supplies from which he may requisition for his school. Requisitions for 122 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the most part go directly to the purchasing department, which is under the jurisdiction of the business manager. Junior and senior high-school principals make out careful budgets for all departments and are responsible for staying within the same. Requisitions for supplies and equipment not provided for in the budget are seldom granted unless of a strictly emergency nature. The assistant superintendent of elementary schools handles all requisitions dealing with school furniture and all requisitions for textbooks, supplementary books, maps, etc., for elementary and special schools. Budgets made by principals are carefully checked by the assistant superintendent of sec- ondary schools before being approved. This procedure gives the business manager little opportunity to use veto power over requisitions coming from the educational department. Prin- cipals must “!e an inventory of all articles in their respective schools witi: ti:2 secretary of the board before they are entitled to receive their pay for the last month of the school year. Responsibility for pupil administration.—Responsibility for the various phases of pupil administration, such as classifi- cation, grouping, suspension and punishment, and promotion is very specifically, both by printed regulations and by practice, vested in the principal of each local unit. The only exceptions are the selection of pupils for the special schools and the accept- ance of tuition pupils. Over-age or non-resident pupils cannot be enrolled until written permit or receipt has been presented from the secretary of the board showing tuition has been paid. Principals do not have control over the classification of pupils in opportunity schools. Pupils in such schools may not be changed without approval of the psychologist. Principals are also restricted in placing pupils in ungraded rooms by the rec- ommendation of the psychologist. Pupils for special schools, such as the school for crippled children, the school for the deaf, open-air schoolrooms, etc., are recommended by specialists in the study of these particular types of children and not by the principal. Responsibility for extra-curriculum activities —Prin- cipals have direct control of the extra-curriculum activities for their schools. They determine the extent and variety of activ- ities to be sponsored, since no standard list of activities has been established for the system as a whole. Extra-curriculum DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 123 activities are limited in general to junior and senior high schools. Competitive athletics are limited to senior and four-year high schools and are under the direct control of the principals. No interscholastic competition is permitted among junior high- school pupils. The principals have their own organization to take care of schedules, receipts, and such other details as are connected with competitive athletics. Principals may, and do, by common agreement, change schedules on a day’s notice, if weather conditions warrant such change. They assume full responsibility for the supervision of all cash funds regardless of the source. Record of such funds is carefully kept, as a board ruling provides for an annual audit of all cash funds, al- though this power over the cash funds of local units has not as yet been exercised. Responsibility for the handling of cash funds is frequently delegated to a member of the faculty in which case the principal himself makes a regular audit, since in the end he is responsible. In the management of extra-cur- riculum activities, as with practically all activities, particularly at the secondary level, principals have broad powers to exer- cise initiative with few restrictions from the central office. The principal in Kansas City is rapidly becoming guidance- minded through the influence of a full-time director of counsel- ing who is in charge of the development of the guidance pro- gram. The director works in closest codperation with the high- school principals, making no changes in policy without the en- dorsement of the principal. Educational counseling, first or- ganized in 1921 in the school, has been extended to all the junior and senior high schools through the part-time service of a counselor for each school. The principal as a leader in his school community.—Prin- cipals vary in their degree of participation in community activi- ties according to the type of the community and the interest of the individual principal. Parent-teacher associations and fa- thers’ clubs exist in the majority of schools, but the sponsor- ing of such organizations is not mandatory on the principal. The principal is an advisory member of the board of the organi- zations and participates more or less actively according to his interest. Principals may or may not reside in their school dis- tricts. The majority of junior and senior high-school princi- pals assume responsibility for professional leadership in school 124 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS and community and exercise large power in their respective communities. PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONS WITH OTHER CENTRAL-OFFICE ADMINISTRATORS Assistant superintendents.—The principal recognizes the assistant superintendent of secondary schools and the assistant superintendent of elementary schools as superior line officers but in practice these officers function as consultants rather than as superior executives of the principals. The nature of the relationship existing between any principal and these offi- cers is very important because these officers consult freely with the principals on problems connected with the organization and management of the schools and also on the assignment of teachers. Staff officers.—The principal’s relation to directors and special supervisors is strictly of a consultative nature. Staff officers have no administrative authority over principals. Staff supervisory service operates “on call.” Calls may come either from the teacher or the principal but it is customary for the teacher to respect the principal’s policy in this matter. Staff officers report to principals on entering building and confer concerning observations and recommendations. It is only when principals fail to use such service and the need seems apparent that administrative pressure is applied by superior line officers to whom the matter is referred. The director of health has a semi-administrative relationship to the principal in regard to the use of the school plant after hours. This relationship is more or less perfunctory inasmuch as school functions in build- ings always take precedence over community use. Non-educational executive officers.—The principal has a very close contact relationship with the superintendent of buildings and grounds and the business manager. These offi- cers are vested by the board of directors with executive author- ity to carry out the duties of their respective departments. This power affects the principal as a “veto power” when he de- parts from standardized lists of educational or building sup- plies or equipment or seeks to overdraw his budget. Contact relationships between these officers and the principal are very close as practically all requisitions pass directly from principal DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 125 to these departments. The tabular statement published annu- ally by the business manager showing the total and per-capita cost for each school of administration, instruction, educational supplies, and maintenance and operation, is very closely fol- lowed by the principal in the administration of his school, since he does not desire to be greatly out-of-line with the average. The principal in supervising janitorial service must con- sider the rules and regulations of the building department, since janitors are a part of the personnel of that department. However, the custodians are subject to principals while school is in session. The principal supervises and reports on the effi- ciency of custodians. Regular ratings of custodians made by building inspectors are left with the principal as an aid in his supervision. An adverse report of a custodian’s service is equivalent to transfer or dismissal. The board of education—In theory, there is no direct relationship between the principal and the board of directors except as previously mentioned, namely, that high-school prin- cipals appear before the board to recommend special salary ad- vances for teachers. In practice, there are instances when direct contact is made between a principal and a member or members of the board for reasons which may be quite in order; in other instances it would be more professional if the proper line of authority were observed. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The principalship in Kansas City is a position of great im- portance, involving much responsibility and power. Appoint- ment to the principalship is secured by either of two methods, namely, (1) by recommendation of the superintendent on the basis of approved credentials, and (2) by written examination. In recent years all appointments have been made under the first method. Principals are relieved of teaching duties except in very small schools. The salaries are determined by the class of school and annual increases are dependent upon the recommen- dation of the superintendent subject to approval of the board of education. Promotion or demotion also rests with the su- perintendent. Tenure is indefinite and no provisions are made for retirement at a certain age. 126 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The duties of the principal are specified in board rules and in regulations of the central office. In general, the rules and regulations tend to increase rather than to limit the prestige of the principal as the responsible head of a local school. While the principals function direct'v under the super- vision of two assistant superintendents, they are always free to consult with the superintendent. They are expected to rec- ognize the superintendent as the executive officer of the beard of education with respect to the educational program and to accept his policies as their policies in the administration of the local schools. The principals exercise some influence in the determination of school policies through a representative ad- visory committee, but in general this influence is more appar- ent than real. However, the principal is privileged to exercise large responsibility in the interpretation of policy to his staff of teachers and to his community. The relation of the principal with central staff officers is that of executive and consultants; however, the principal is held responsible by superior executives for the proper use of available staff officers. The relation with non-educational ex- ecutives in the central office is more or less perfunctory, but necessarily codperative. This codperative relationship is re- vealed in the administration of custodians, who although under the direct control of the building department, yet are subject to the orders of the principal during the school day and are rated by the principal. The building inspector, who is also supervisor of the custodians and who also rates the custodians, reports his ratings to the principal as an aid in their super- vision. An adverse report on a custodian’s service by the prin- cipal is equivalent to transfer or dismissal. In supervision the principal is free to use his own methods but he is required to consult the agencies of the central office. Supervision is regarded as a coéperative enterprise in which principal, teachers, supervisors, directors and superintendents are mutually concerned. Initiative on the part of the principal in supervision is encouraged by the superintendent. The principal has virtually nothing to say about the selec- tion of teachers or the school curriculum. He enjoys consid- erable freedom in the assignment of teachers and in the inter- pretation of the curriculum. In the administration of pupils and the control of extra-curriculum activities, the principal is DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 127 free to carry out his own ideas, provided that his ideas do not result in conflict with the policies of the central office. The relationships between the principal and the personnel of the central office are much closer at the present time than formerly. This relationship has tended to make the principal a little less independent as an administative officer but more alert as the professional and intellectual leader of his school. The principal is recognized by the superintendent and the public as the responsible head of the local school, but he is expected to realize that the successful operation of a local unit of a large school system is a coéperative enterprise. CHAPTER VIII LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION The board of education in Los Angeles is composed of seven members serving four-year terms and is elected under a law stipulating that three of the group shall be chosen at one biennial election and four at the next. Because a majority thus may be chosen at one election, the general policies of admin- istration may be changed wholly or in part every two years. Bitterness engendered in board elections has resulted in reprisals after the seating of newly-elected members. Al- though the principals interviewed stated that they and the teachers had not felt the brunt of such antagonisms, the whole situation has not been without effect upon certain relation- ships which will be considered later in this report. A new superintendent, Vierling Kersey, formerly state superintendent of public instruction in California, took office February 1, 1937. To what extent his appointment will alter the relationships found in this study it is impossible to fore- cast. Prior to 1934, the Los Angeles school district had a “multiple-type” organization, the superintendent, the business manager, and the controller being codrdinate. Several years ago a teachers’ committee, after a survey of the school situa- tion, recommended a unitary administrative organization, but nothing was accomplished. In July, 1933, the board arranged for an “outside” survey, the result of which was the adoption in 1934 of the principle of the unitary plan. The budget di- rector, however, is at present directly responsible to the board of education, and, as will be shown in portions of the following report, he has some direct relations with the school principals. The organization responsible to the superintendent, as of September, 1936, was of the “functional” type. Under that organization, the chief deputy superintendent had no pre- scribed administrative responsibility, but many problems were 129 130 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS delegated to him by the superintendent. These problems might come from any division of the school system. The secretary to the board of education heads the secre- tarial division, and is responsible to the superintendent. He has several direct relations with the principals, as may be in- ferred from the functions for which he is responsible. The officials responsible to the superintendent are: 1. Chief deputy superintendent 2. Deputy superintendent in charge of instruction and the curriculum 3. Acting deputy superintendent, in charge of the divi- sion of service 4. Director, personnel section . Director, division of administrative research . Director, educational housing . Secretary, secretarial division . Controller, controlling division . Business manager, business division The most extensive of the foregoing divisions is that of instruction and curriculum. Los Angeles is divided into re- gional “sections,” each headed, under the deputy in charge of instruction and the curriculum, by an assistant superintendent, with a “director of instruction,” and a supervisory staff. The directors of instruction are chosen to complement the special- ization of the assistant superintendent so that in each district office one person is particularly interested in elementary edu- cation and one in secondary education. The final administrative authorization in each area rests with the assistant superin- tendent, and the directors of instruction are advisers and general supervisors. In addition, the division has departments of “curriculum and course of study;” “educational research and guidance;” “visual aids, library and textbook selection ;” “safety education and school savings;” “supervision of vocational and adult edu- cation;” and an assistant superintendent in charge of adult and vocational education, with a staff to assist him. Since the assistant superintendents in charge of sections are in control of instruction at all levels, except vocational and adult education, for which there is a separate section in the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 131 organization, a section is virtually: identical with the “district” found in other large cities. According to at least one person interviewed, the section plan is “degenerating into a ward system,” each section being more or less independent. REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PRINCIPAL An Administrative Guide of board regulations has been compiled in loose-leaf form, with regulations numbered ac- cording to a decimal system, for the guidance of principals. Included in the Administrative Guide are general and spe- cific regulations concerning the duties of principals, and their relations with the central office. Details regarding the pro- motion and assignment of principals are also given. In general, this compilation of regulations indicates spe- cific duties in considerable detail. When various rules are grouped together, however, the regulations give a fair cross section of the place the principal has, at least in theory, in the Los Angeles school system. Duties of principals are also mentioned in the School Code of California, and with these duties the principals are expected to familiarize themselves, as well as with their added or spe- cific duties laid down by the board of education. THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN LOS ANGELES Method of appointment.—Principals in Los Angeles are appointed on the basis of a competitive examination of three parts: a health examination, a written examination, and an oral interview, given in the order indicated, plus credit for training and experience. According to an announcement for the examination of May, 1936, the character or purpose of the examination is as follows: “The system of selecting principals and vice-principals in the Los Angeles City Schools is based upon merit as deter- mined by the competitive examination. ‘The employment of any sort of personal, political, or social influence to secure ap- pointment. . . . or the urging of any consideration other than fitness for the work . . . as a ground for appointment is held to be an act of unprofessional conduct and is strictly forbid- den.’ (Regulation of the Board of Education).” RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The principals interviewed indicated that the purpose of the examination was to objectify appointments to the prin- cipalship, to eliminate haphazard methods of selection, and to bring about a fair method of promotion. The general indica- tion of the principals interviewed was that “school politics” had been fairly well eliminated as a major consideration in matters of appointment or promotion. Not all principals agreed that the examination, as actually given, had been truly ob- jective, since it was indicated that a certain philosophy per- meating the school system had been emphasized in the ex- ercises constituting the examination. The written portion of the examination is an objective- type test, scheduled for two hours and fifteen minutes. The exercises include material on theory and practice of school administration, and some questions concerning the Adminis- trative Guide and the State School Code. This portion of the examination receives a weighting of twenty points. The oral interview, weighted at thirty points, is for the purpose of determining the “degree to which applicants pos- sess personal characteristics desirable in a school adminis- trator.” Deputy and assistant superintendents only comprise the oral interviewing board. According to the principals ques- tioned, this portion of the examination is comparatively short, some principals indicating that it lasted ten minutes or less. Training is weighted at fifteen points. For the elementary principalship, the minimum educational requirements include the Bachelor’s degree and an elementary administrative cre- dential. For the secondary principalship and vice-principal- ship the Master’s degree and a secondary administrative cre- dential are required. Experience, which is weighted at thirty-five points “will be verified by references and letters of recommendation.” The only recommendations, according to the announcement of the examinations held in May, 1936, “that will be considered are written confidential statements from the persons who are listed by the applicant himself on his application blanks.” Certain qualifications as to teacher-status and teaching ex- perience are also prerequisite to admission to the examina- tions. The foregoing plan of examination gives a relatively light weighting to the objective part of the examination, but, as- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 133 suming fairness in judging the experience portion, merit rather than other considerations seems to govern the eligi- bility of prospective appointees. There is some question as to the validity of the relative weightings of the written ex- amination and the oral interview. It seems difficult to believe that interviews as short as those indicated by some of the principals can fairly be worth 50 per cent more than a writ- ten examination of more than two-hours’ length. That the written portion of the examination is consid- ered highly important to those taking the tests may be seen from comments of principals who claimed that the examina- tion as a whole overemphasized snap judgments and adher- ence to a particular philosophy of education at the expense of a “substantial professional background.” Another view ex- pressed by some principals indicated considerable doubt as to whether outstanding individuals might not be held back be- cause of their inability to pass a “good” test of the written type. The mortality rate in the May examinations was said to have been high, thus indicating that the persons sitting for the examination were not the sort desired by the central ad- ministration. Method of assignment.—In general, the principle of se- lecting a candidate who will fit into a particular situation is followed in making an assignment from the elegible list. The choice, however, is contingent upon a certain procedure of se- lection, which, according to the assistant superintendent in charge of the personnel section, “has no precedent in civil service procedure.” The procedure referred to is as follows: The first five available candidates on the eligible list must be given consideration when filling a vacancy, but no can- didate whose name reaches the head of the list will be passed more than four times. An eligible candidate may refuse the first two offers of assignment, but after the third offer, his name is removed from the eligibility list. The obvious purpose of this procedure is two-fold: First, to prevent a qualified individual from being “passed” for per- sonal or political reasons; second, to prevent undue postpone- ment of appointment by qualified individuals. The actual assignment is made after the “section” super- intendent has talked with all the available candidates, if he 134 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS wishes to do so. Apparently, the impending assignment is talked over by the “section” superintendent and the other central-office executives concerned. The practice permits, in actuality, the “section” superintendent to select the can- didate who heads the list at the time the vacancy is to be filled. Changes in the principal’s assignment.—In order to un- derstand the process of promotion, it is necessary to con- sider the administrative classifications. In the following out- line, salaries are shown merely for explanatory purposes. Elementary Schools Group A (enrolment, 549 or fewer) Class I (salary range, $243 to $266 a month) Class II (salary range, $281 to $309 a month) Group B (enrolment, 550 or more) Class III (salary range, $314 to $346 a month) Class IV (salary range, $352 to $365 a month) Junior High Schools (salary, $435 a month) Evening High Schools Groups I to IV (salary range, based on average at- tendance, $196 to $435 a month) Regular Day High Schools Groups I to V (salaries based on enrolment, $393 to $505 a month) Other Day High Schools Specific schools named (salaries, $318 to $505 a month) Promotions from Class I in the elementary schools to higher elementary-school classifications are made for those whose experience rating for the three years preceding aver- ages “strong” or “superior,” providing the individuals have passed the last principals’ qualifying examination and have been placed on the eligible list for promotion. According to the assistant superintendent in charge of personnel, the fore- going examination is predominantly a study of the candi- date’s record, which is weighted thirty-five points in the whole examination. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 135 To be eligible for the principalship of a secondary school, an elementary-school principal must satisfy the requirements prerequisite for taking the secondary examination, which include the Master’s degree, the secondary administrative cre- dential, and two years of experience in a secondary vice-prin- cipalship, appointment to which also depends upon an exam- ination. These requirements, however, were reported to have been waived for the examinations in May, 1986. Examinations for promotion are not held within the classifications in the secondary field; nor are types of schools “mixed.” Eligibility for the principalship of a cosmopolitan high school does not apparently mean eligibility for the prin- cipalship of the Frank Wiggins Trade School, for example. But elections to both the junior high school and the senior high school are made from the secondary list, and a junior high school principal may be transferred to a senior high school without examination. The marked dependence on the examination plan as a basis for promotion brought several objections from prin- cipals interviewed, the main one being that the principal who did exceptional work might not be promoted if he could not write a reasonably good examination. Since, however, the written portion of the examination counts as only one-fifth of the total examination, it does not seem likely, in theory, at least, that principals whose recommendations, training, and oral interviews are outstanding will suffer. On the other hand, because the standing of the individual is determined more or less subjectively for 80 per cent of the examination, and but 20 per cent is objectively determined through the written portion, it seems that personal or political influences are not as fully guarded against as most of the principals in- terviewed seemed to believe. The effectiveness of the un- written portions of the examination in determining eligibility for the principalship depends upon how disinterestedly these portions are judged. Women are not barred, either by custom or by policy, from the secondary principalship in Los Angeles. At present nearly one-third of the junior high school principals are women, as are about one-fifth of the principals in senior, four- year, and six-year high schools. The examination plan of 136 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS appointment and promotion continues to keep the door open to secondary schools for women principals. Dismissal of a principal in Los Angeles is relatively rare. The belief expressed by one of the central-office executives was that a principal is expected to remain in the principalship the rest of his life if he is not promoted to the central-office. According to the assistant superintendent in charge of per- sonnel, dismissal from the principalship can be accomplished in two ways: (1) by a written, signed complaint, and (2) by trial under the California tenure law. If the written, signed complaint is made, a temporary board assembled by the personnel office would give a hearing. If the charges are sustained, the individual may be dismissed from the principalship, to take a vice-principalship or teach- ing position. Some principals so demoted have quit the sys- tem; others have remained in the lower rank. If a principal is brought to trial under the tenure law and the charges are sustained, the individual loses his posi- tion both as a principal and as a teacher. Demotion of a principal, at least in the matter of salary, may be accomplished by transferring the individual without loss of rank to a smaller school. It was indicated that the local organization of principals sometimes concerned itself regarding seemingly unfair demotions. Transfer of principals, other than as the result of a pro- motion or demotion, is made in response to community pres- ure, at the request of a principal for geographic convenience, or to stimulate the individual. One of the principals inter- viewed said it was apparently felt that a principal “should not be in a school long enough to think he owns it.” Accord- ing to the head of the personnel section, a transfer does not necessarily mean that the principal in question has been dis- ciplined. Furthermore, because a community desires a change is not always ground for a transfer nor is community pressure necessarily a sufficient reason for retaining a principal in a particular community. The principals interviewed stated that there had been little, if any, transferring of principals because of “school politics.” Only one instance was cited in which it was claimed that several shifts had been made to bring about a desired DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 137 promotion. Activity of board members was said to influence changes in the non-teaching groups, but not in the teaching staff or principals. Although several of the principals questioned stated that they considered themselves at the mercy of the section super- intendent, others indicated the belief that the tenure of prin- cipals is “very secure.” Those who believed themselves de- pendent on the will of the superintendents were unequivocal in their statements, inasmuch as the tenure of the principal- ship is not covered by law. On the other hand, one principal expressed the belief that the tenure of principals had been “too secure.” Because the principal is less in the political light than the superintendent of schools, the consensus of opinion among the principals interviewed was that the principal is more firmly established in his position than the superintendent is in his. Proportion of principals teaching.—Schools with fewer than six teachers are headed by principals who teach full time. At the time this study was made, these principals num- bered fourteen. Schools having between six teachers and eight teachers plus a principal are headed by principals who teach half time. Twenty-six of these principals were found when this study was made. All other elementary-school principals, and all junior and senior high school principals give their full time to non- teaching duties. Salaries of principals—Salaries of principals in Los An- geles are based partly on school enrolment and partly on the principal’s rating. Salaries in the elementary schools are based both on school size and the efficiency rating of the prin- cipal; in the secondary schools the salary is based solely on school size, although the promotion of the principal from smaller to larger schools is based on his efficiency rating. THE PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONSHIPS Official status of the principal in his school._—While the school principal is regarded by the central office as the re- sponsible head of his school, some of the principals claimed that they were required to obtain permission from the central RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 138 office before making significant administrative changes in- volving established procedure or regulations. A few of the principals consulted felt that they were the official representatives of the central office in their commu- nities, and were expected to manage their schools in accord- ance with the rules and regulations of the central office. The difference in the two attitudes expressed seems to be one of the degree of independence felt. Board of education rules affecting the principal, as given in the Administrative Guide, place numerous important re- sponsibilities directly on the principal, indicating that he is the head of his school, and that, within bounds, his decisions will be so accepted. Official relations with the superintendent.—Almost all the principals interrogated agreed with the theory of the central office that the principal is responsible to the super- intendent through an intermediary executive officer for both educational and business matters. This relationship is ob- served in the transaction of all the matters of ordinary busi- ness carried on between the local schools and the central of- fice. Official relations with the central-office staff officers.— The policy of the administration that staff officers act as ad- visory officials or as consultants is apparently true both in general ‘practice and in theory. Subject-matter supervisors are on the staff of each sec- tion superintendent, and these are considered by almost every principal interviewed strictly and wholly as advisers and con- sultants. Elementary principals did not ordinarily consider the advice of supervisors as an order, but as a “welcome suggestion.” The principals were evidently fully aware of the place intended for the supervisor by the central administra- tion and were virtually certain that the theory worked out almost perfectly in practice. The only qualification offered was applied to the over-aggressive supervisor who, though he did not give orders, might attempt to indoctrinate the local teacher without consulting with the principal. Occasional lapses of the supervisors from their advisory capacity were cited, one principal indicating that some super- visors have a tendency to “slip by” the principal and go di- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 139 rectly to teachers, who, in turn, have a tendency to consider a supervisor’s suggestions as orders. In case of a difference of opinion between the principal and a supervisor, the general feeling was that normally the principal would be sustained by the central office. Official relations with non-educational executive officers. —The central administration intends that the principal shall “consult” with non-educational officials with respect to mat- ters of concern in the local school. The principals themselves in general felt the relationship to be somewhat closer than the term “consultation” would indicate. For example, evi- dence was presented showing direct requests made to the bud- get director. Principals indicated some irritation toward the business department regarding the manner in which requisi- tions are handled, asserting that “red tape” in the filling of requisitions involves considerable time, and that there is no certainty that the requisitions will not be changed or the judgment of the principal questioned. One central-office executive declared that non-educational officers “could not give orders.” Principals concurred in the spirit of this statement by indicating that there was no pro- miscuous sending of orders back and forth without observing the proper lines of authority. Custodians are responsible to a central-office executive in the business division called the “Supervisor of Custodian Service.” Principals, however, consider that custodians are subject to the control of the principal while in the local school by the board regulation which makes the principal supreme. In case of diffculty, principals indicated they would take the matter up with the head building custodian, and if satisfac- tion were not forthcoming, they would carry the matter di- rectly to the central-office supervisor and expect to be sus- tained. Although the present board of education was character- ized as being effective in bringing about certain desired re- sults, it was indicated that some members are “quite med- dlesome in administrative matters,” and that they have “let it be known that they invite contacts with principals and teachers.” 140 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Most of the persons interviewed insisted that direct rela- tionships between principals and board members were “not supposed” to exist, and that little or no direct contact “is ex- pected.” Individual relationships between members of the board and the principals were alluded to, however, one per- son declaring that an attempt was made to be on friendly terms with all board members. The majority of direct relationships between members of the board and the local schools was reported to be in con- nection with jobs of the non-certificated employees. With the appointment of a civil service commission, it was indicated that the more extreme relationships were expected to be eliminated. Influence of the principal on educational policies—The central administration and the principals were virtually agreed that suggestions from individual principals with respect to new policies or changes in established policies were favorably received by central-office executives, and that proposed changes are generally discussed with the principals as a group before such changes are announced. That at times the prin- cipal has been ignored in the adoption of new policies was, however, indicated, although the consensus of opinion was to the contrary. Evolution of present relationships.—It was indicated that present relationships between the principal and the central office were the result of a gradual evolution based on mutual interests in common problems. Most of the principals interviewed agreed with the fore- going statement in whole or in part. Some, however, indi- cated that present relationships were the result of several influences, including the rules and regulations of the board of education, the policies of the superintendent of schools, and pressure brought by the principals’ organization on the cen- tral office. Change in professional relationships within recent years. —A definite improvement in the professional prestige of the principal with the central office was generally voiced by the central administrative officials consulted. Principals, how- ever, were divided in their opinions on the matter. Several indicated a more favorable professional relationship, but oth- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 141 ers thought the professional prestige of the principal had de- clined, or, at best, had not changed. One principal thought that while lines of authority had been better defined, the rela- tions were less closely observed because of the increase in political influences. Execution of the policies of the superintendent.—Almost none of the principals interviewed agreed with the central- office view that “the principal accepts as his own the policies of the superintendent and strives to execute the policies with zeal and enthusiasm.” Opinions of the principals varied from an acceptance of the superintendent’s policies and interpretation without re- gard to personal views, to the point of privately opposing seemingly unsound policies. Responsibility of the principal for his school organization. —Although the rules of the central office are expected to gov- ern the organization of a given school, both the central admin- istration and the principals indicated that considerable free- dom is often allowed in the application of regulations. While no principal interviewed felt that he had unre- stricted authority, all indicated that they might adapt cen- tral-office rules, with executive approval, to their local situa- tions. Need for approval was especially noted in the case of school rules that seemed to conflict with central-office policies. Most of the principals held that they might set up a local school organization without securing approval from the cen- tral office, provided that the organization did not conflict with the established policies of the school system. Both in setting up rules for his school, and in planning its organization, the principal apparently has considerable freedom, with suitable restraints implied with respect to exec- utive approval if marked changes from the central-office pol- icies are involved. The principal and his teachers.—Principals indicated some responsibility in the selection of new teachers, although their opinions were not uniform, nor were they in agreement with the view of the central administration that ordinarily a prin- cipal is given a voice in the selection, but that in emergencies the central office might arbitrarily assign a teacher to a local school. 142 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The opinions of the principals varied from “no voice what- ever in teacher-selection” to the view that a principal might reject any teacher assigned to him if he considers the teach- er’s services unsatisfactory after a short trial period. An in- ference that may fairly be drawn from the principals’ opin- ions is that, while they may be consulted regarding the selec- tion of their teachers, their recommendations may or may not be followed by the central office. A rule of the board of edu- cation specifies that a principal may not invite the transfer of teachers from other districts. Dismissal of a teacher in Los Angeles, means, legally, substantiation of charges filed under the tenure law of Cali- fornia. Recommendation for action to dismiss, according to both the central administration and most of the principals in- terviewed, comes from the principal after consultation with supervisors and central-office executives. Teacher-rating, according to most of the principals and the central office, is the sole responsibility of the principal. Several of the principals interviewed claim that rating is a coéperative task of staff and executive officers, but that the final result is largely the responsibility of the principal. The principal and equipment and supplies.—Board of edu- cation rules place direct responsibility on the principal for various matters in connection with equipment, supplies, and properties. To be specific, the principal shall be responsible for all property belonging to his school. He shall have general charge of the grounds, buildings, furnishings, and equipment and shall be authorized to make and enforce such rules not incon- sistent with existing regulations, and shall see that the build- ings are kept in a sanitary, neat, and cleanly condition. Furthermore, the principal is held responsible for the collection of money for loss and damage to textbooks and school library books. In matters concerning the requisitioning of supplies, most of the principals interviewed agreed with the general view that they may requisition within their budgets from a standard list, but each requisition is subject to central-of- fice approval. Several principals, however, indicated that cen- tral-office approval was not necessary for such requisitions. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 143 The principal and his pupils.—The rules of the board, as set forth in the Administrative Guide, give in some detail cer- tain duties of the principals with respect to the management of pupils. For example, one rule states that it is the respon- sibility of the principal to make an effort to determine the cause of pupil absences. Other rules limit the principal’s power of suspension and expulsion and place the responsibility on him for preventing objectionable or dangerous initiations. The view expressed by the central administration and agreed to by most of the principals interviewed is that, ex- cept for unusual cases, such as truancy or other matters speci- fied by board rule, pupil-administration is the full respon- sibility of the principal. The principal and the curriculum.—Curriculum-making in Los Angeles, according to the view of the central administra- tion, is a codperative activity of principals and central-office staff members, and the product is expected to be used with as little change as possible. Most of the principals interviewed agreed with the foregoing statement. The opinion of the other principals interrogated in con- nection with this study varied, some indication being given of absolute freedom on the part of the principal in modifying the curriculum to fit his school, and also of the other extreme in which the principal is expected only to administer the cur- riculum made in the central office. Other opinions varied be- tween these extremes. It is obvious from the statements of those interviewed that the central office takes an active part in curriculum-mak- ing and exercises considerable control in curriculum adminis- tration. In matters concerning the extra-curriculum, principals are given a relatively free hand; according to the central ad- ministration only certain city-wide activities are excepted. Although the majority of principals interviewed were in gen- eral agreement as to their relative freedom in extra-curriculum matters, a wide variation of opinion was expressed, ranging from absolute freedom, which is evidently contrary to cus- tom, to no freedom whatever. The principal and public relations.—Board of education rules prescribe that in matters pertaining to school publicity 144 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS “the public-relations section should be consulted. ... . Prin- cipals may contact small community newspapers with regard to school news, keeping in mind, of course, the rules and poli- cies of the board of education but shall not send any items to the metropolitan newspapers.” The central administration officials hold that the princi- pal must obtain approval for public-relations plans that are in apparent conflict with policies of the central office. Most of the principals who were interviewed expressed the opinion that in general some freedom is given in matters of public re- lations, but that central-office approval is required. The ex- treme view expressed by certain principals was that complete freedom in public-relations matters is allowed. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The school principalship in Los Angeles is a professional position. This statement might be questioned by some people because of the reported charge that members of the board of education in recent years have had political motives. The evi- dence collected in this investigation does not reveal any direct connection between the political predilections of the board and the principals. The principal is regarded by the central office as the head of his school. He does not possess tenure as a principal but en- joys security under the state tenure law as a teacher. How- ever, the tenure of principals in the principalship appears to be reasonably secure. The central office has shown no dis- position in the past to yield readily to community pressure and to transfer principals without just cause. As the responsible head of a local school, the principal’s suggestions with respect to central-office policies are favor- ably received. He is given considerable, but not unrestricted freedom in the organization of his school. He has some voice in the selection of his teachers, but his recommendations are not always followed. He is responsible for their rating, and, after consultation with the staff and central executives, he originates recommendation for the dismissal of teachers. The curriculum is a central-office responsibility although the principal may adapt the curriculum to fit the needs of his school if he obtains central-office approval. He is expected to DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 145 follow the findings of curriculum research and of committees engaged coéperatively with the central administration in the preparation of instructional material. In the extra-curriculum field he is virtually unrestricted, except for city-wide activities. In matters pertaining to the extra-curriculum, a wide variation of opinion was expressed ; however, most of the individuals consulted agree with the general conclusion here given. Virtually all principals interviewed agree that both in theory and in common practice, the central-office supervisor is a consultant whose suggestions are welcomed but that such suggestions do not have the force of commands. The principal has consultative or semi-executive relations with most of the non-educational executives in the central administration. He may sometimes consult directly with the budget director; or he may have direct relations with the sec- retary in matters concerning the use of the school building. Impatience was expressed by some of the persons interrogated because of the unsatisfactory way in which they claimed requi- sitions were sometimes delayed, cut, or questioned. There is, however, no promiscuous sending of orders back and forth. Each of the non-educational executives seemingly respects the position of the school principal. The duties of principals are very well defined in an admin- istrative guide book published by the central office. As a re- sult relatively few conflicts develop between principals and cen- tral-office executives because of the clear definition of respon- sibilities. Some criticism was expressed by principals regarding the method of recruitment used by the central office. Principals are chosen from within the system by competitive examina- tion. A written examination of two and one-fourth hours re- ceives a weight of 20 points and an oral examination, ten to twenty minutes in length, a weight of 30 points. The validity of these weights has been a subject of considerable comment. However, the present method emphasizes merit rather than political preferment. It may be concluded that the principalship in Los Angeles has suffered little impairment from board politics. The office carries with it a reasonable amount of freedom of initiative 146 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS in so far as conformity of action in a large school system per- mits. In salary, official status, and relations with central- office executives, the principalship in Los Angeles offers a sat- isfying career in public school administration. CHAPTER IX MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION The school report of 1935 indicates that the dual type of administrative organization with a superintendent in charge of the instructional activities and a secretary performing the functions of secretary and business manager was in force at the end of the school year 1934-35. In the following historical sketch of the organization some of the significant steps taken in the evolution of the present plan are shown. Patzer quotes the Milwaukee Sentinel of June 7, 1845, as saying that not a public school existed in the city of Milwaukee at that time.’ The first law authorizing schools for the city was passed in 1846. This law placed the management under a board of school commissioners composed of three members from each of the wards, to be chosen by the mayor and the common council. The schools were to be financed, according to the law, partly by tuition and partly by a per-capita tax. The law further stipulates that no public money could be used for any school unless it maintained an average daily attend- ance of 30.2 The rate bill was used to collect tuition from the parents of children in the schools. The membership of the board of school commissioners was changed by an Act of 1859 to include two, instead of three, ward representatives. This law also stipulated that the board must report annually, in August, to the common council on its acts and proceedings, and on many of the details of school activities. Membership of the board gradually increased as the number of wards grew, until in 1890, for example, the board had 36 members representing the 18 city wards. For a considerable period of time, the two standing com- mittees of the board evidently deemed of most importance 1Patzer, Conrad E. Public Education in Wisconsin, p. 45. Madison, Wis- consin: State Department of Public Instruction, 1924. 2/bid., p. 433. 147 148 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS were the executive and the finance groups. On both of these committees each ward had one representative. By 1877, how- ever, the finance committee had been reduced to a smaller num- ber, but as long as the ward plan was in effect, the executive committee continued to have one representative from each ward. _ Because of dissatisfaction with the growing size of the board, and the fact that often hardly enough members were present to conduct a business session, a law was sought and obtained in 1905 changing the number of commissioners to 12. This law was subsequently held to be unconstitutional, and in 1907 another law was passed setting the number of school com- missioners at 15, and providing for their election by the peo- ple. At the end of the school year 1934-35, this law was still in force. The superintendency.—The Act of 1846 did not give the school commissioners power to appoint a superintendent ; con- sequently, a committee system of management, which divided administrative and supervisory burdens among the members, was adopted. This method of administering the school system soon demonstrated its inefficiency and, in 1852, a law was en- acted authorizing the appointment of a superintendent. The first superintendent in Milwaukee was not appointed until 1859. The duties assigned were such that, he was expected to devote only part time to the position. The early superintendents were in charge not only of the instructional activities of the schools, but they also served as secretary to the board, in which capacity they were, in codper- ation with appropriate committees of the commissioners, vir- tually the business manager of the system. The secretarial duties included, with the codperative activity of appropriate board committees, the purchase of supplies and the auditing and certifying of all accounts. By 1865 the superintendent had become overloaded to the extent that assistance was required. As a result, a law was enacted during that year which permitted the appointment of “a suitable person” to serve as his clerk. Within a compara- tively short time certain of the business functions of the super-_ intendent seem definitely to have been assigned to the secre- tary, although he was, in 1877, still bound to perform such agit 149 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS other clerical duties as might be required by the superintend- ent. In the reports for both 1872 and 1877, the superintendent confined his writing primarily to educational matters, and the secretary presented the financial aspects of the system. The rules of the board in 1877 stipulated that the records of the secretary should always be open to the superintendent, imply- ing a definite division of activity, if not full codrdinate au- thority. The final removal of responsibility for business affairs from the powers of the superintendent evidently was com- pleted by 1905, since an act of that year states that the secre- tary should be responsible for certain enumerated duties of a business nature, “and to do and perform such other duties as shall be required by the board.” No mention is made of any responsibility on the part of the secretary to the superin- tendent. Whether the section quoted was restated from any previous enactment between 1877 and 1905 has not been pos- sible to ascertain. The law of 1905 also created a superintendent of build- ings, directly responsible to the board, coordinate in authority with the superintendent and the secretary. This office did not long survive. Except for the interlude during the incum- bency of the superintendent of buildings, the administrative organization seems to have been in its more recent history that of the dual type. In the superintendent’s report of 1917, the view is pre- sented that instructional affairs should be dominant in the organization plans of a school system, and that a single execu- tive should head the system. The president of the board, in the same school report, affirmed the superintendent’s execu- tive powers as to instructional matters, but disagreed with him in the matter of the unitary organization. The position of the superintendent as the executive head of the education department of the schools and the supreme professional ad- viser to the board was emphatically affirmed by the president of the board in his annual message in 1918. The situation evoking the president’s statement was as follows: During the year 1916-17, the principals had presented, at the invitation of the board,' a plan for an advisory com- 1The board’s invitation apparently had been extended as the result of agitation among certain teachers and principals. 150 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS mittee of 20 whose recommendations would be forwarded di- rectly to the commissioners. Further, the superintendent in his report of 1917 had proposed his own plan for teachers’ councils. Apropos of these evidences of a desire on the part of the educational personnel to make direct recommendations to the board, and perhaps to have a more active part in the administration of the system as a whole, the president’s mes- sage in the 1918 report contains this statement: “Detachment and elevation above the mass is neces- sary to any extended vision. Members of the rank and file cannot command the all around and distant vision nec- essary to wise selection or direction. The attempt has al- ways failed. It always will fail. “This board has hired a superintendent for general administration. He insists that the ‘teachers’ councils’ in Chicago, Minneapolis, and St. Paul have done good serv- ice. In that case he is entirely at liberty to organize a council to assist him, if his subordinates can ever agree upon one. But this board will look to the superintendent for professional counsel in the future as in the past, and will hold him and not any teachers’ council responsible for the administration of these schools.’ Relatively high qualifications have been consistently re- quired of the superintendent, both before the severance of his business functions and after. The law of 1859 specified that he should be a person of suitable learning, experience, skill in the art of instruction, and have practical familiarity with best and approved methods of organizing and conducting a system of city schools. In 1865 the law was amended to include the requirements of graduation from a college or normal school, and a certificate from the state superintendent of public in- struction. The early powers and duties of the superintendent in- cluded responsibility for the manner of grading and conduct- ing the schools; the examining, employment and classification of teachers, in concurrence with a committee of the board; the purchasing of supplies in codperation with a committee of the board; and, with a board committee, the auditing and cer- tifying of all accounts before the board was permitted to allow their payment. A long list of specific powers and duties of the 1Fifty-ninth Annual Report of the Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee, pp. 16-17. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Board of School Di- rectors, 1918. enieanas SS» NOE LE WBE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 151 superintendent was included in the rules and regulations ac- companying the school report of 1877. The rules in force in 1905 also specified in some detail the superintendent’s powers and duties, but those in effect in 1924 eliminate most of the enumeration of duties, substituting a rather broad statement that clearly indicates his general su- pervisory power over the educational activities of the schools. An almost continuous rise in the salary of the superin- tendent has taken place, as might have been expected. His salary in 1866 was $1,500 a year; in 1871-72, $2,000; in 1877, $3,000; in 1917, $7,500; and in 1934-35, $11,000 a year. A “curious custom” that received legal sanction in Wis- consin is cited by McKenny in connection with the superin- tendent and the early high-school principals. High schools were authorized by law to be wholly in charge of the principal, with the city superintendent caring for the elementary schools. While the earliest Milwaukee high school was, by board rule, designated as part of the public-school system of the city, the superintendent’s salary in 1872, for example, was fixed by law at $2,000 a year; the high-school principal’s, at $2,500. This differential in favor of the high-school executive was continued for a period of time after 1872. Salaries re- ported by the secretary of the board in 1935 indicate that now the pay of the superintendent is more than twice that of any of the high-school principals. Appointment of the first assistant superintendent was au- thorized by an amendment to the charter law of Milwaukee in 1888. At present there are four assistant superintendents re- sponsible to the chief educational executive. The secretaryship.—tIn the early years of the Milwaukee school system, the work of the secretary, as in the case of the superintendent, was done by committees of the board of school commissioners. In 1865, after the authorization for the ap- pointment of the superintendent had been in effect for several years, the law permitted the employment of “a suitable per- son” as clerk for the chief executive, to do what the board and he might direct. 1McKenny, Charles (Editor). Educational History of Wisconsin, p. 67: Chicago: The Delmont Co., 1912. 152 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The rules of the board in force in 1877 specified that the secretary’s duties included the compiling of a report from the annual inventory of principals, “and to perform such other clerical duties as may be required by the superintendent.” It was also directed that the secretary’s records should always be open to the superintendent. The school report of 1877 in- dicates that the secretary was already acquiring certain duties in the performance of which he was becoming more or less independent of the superintendent. The law of 1905 definitely makes the secretary responsible only to the board. This law also set up a superintendent of buildings for general care and direction of the work of the de- partment of buildings and grounds, with such other duties as the board might direct. This official no longer exists as a co- érdinate administrative officer, his duties having been re- absorbed into the secretary’s department. At various times in the history of the secretaryship in Milwaukee there has been a movement to divide the functions of the office: In 1905, as was mentioned in the preceding par- agraph, the law provided for a superintendent of buildings. In the school report of 1922 the.president of the board recom- mended that the position of business manager be created to take over the business duties of the secretary. No such coor- dinate position appears in the list of administrative officials found in the report for the following year, nor did such a po- sition appear in the report of 1935. THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN MILWAUKEE Historical sketch_—The principalship in Milwaukee seems to antedate the superintendency by some years, as no author- ity appears in the state law governing the schools of the city concerning the appointment of a superintendent until 1852, although school buildings had been operation since January 1, 1847. The schools in the early years were organized on the basis of three departments: (1) grammar schools, (2) inter- mediate department, and (3) primary department. According to McKenny, the department system was abolished in 1868,! but the school reports of some of the later years show the exist- ence of “primary” schools. 1Jbid., p. 67. fo a ae ae, a. ee ee ee DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1538 The rules of the board in effect in 1866 place the princi- pals of the intermediate and primary departments, with their “assistants” under the general direction of the principals of the grammar school, “and they [the principals of the lower departments] will adopt and carry out such directions and advice as may from time to time be given them [by the gram- mar-school principal.’’] The powers and duties of the principal of the grammar school in 1866 included supervision of the grounds, buildings, fixtures, furniture and books under their charge, but the im- mediate care of the schoolrooms devolved upon the teachers. The grammar-school principal was also empowered to estab- lish special rules to secure good order in the halls and on the stairways; to make rules for the neatness and cleanliness of the yard and outhouses, including a daily personal inspection of both; to visit daily the intermediate and primary depart- ments to advise with and counsel the teachers as to proper classification of the “scholars” and to see that the plan of study adopted by the board was properly carried out; and to suspend pupils for open disobedience or insubordination. The re-admission of suspended pupils, however, was not a function of the principal, and could be accomplished only by written permission of the superintendent or by order of the board. Responsibility of the teachers to the principal was not ab- solute, since one of the rules prescribed that teachers should report immediately to the executive of the ward and to the su- perintendent concerning all damage done by pupils. Some direct relations between principals and the secre- tary were established early. For example, the by-laws ap- pended to the report of 1872 show that requisitions for sup- plies were made directly to the secretary. According to the last publication of the rules, in 1924, the following duties were prescribed for principals: responsibility for the general management and instruction and discipline in his school; direction and assistance of teachers; enforcement of the rules of the board and of the superintendent; care and supervision of buildings and grounds; direction of the janitor; preparation and filing of such reports as the superintendent may require; and arriving at the building at a specified time before each session. 154 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Well-qualified principals have been sought in Milwaukee from the beginning. Qualifications listed in 1877 included the holding of the “A” certificate, the principal’s “partial” certifi- cate, and, after one year as principal in a “full graded” school, the principal’s “full” certificate. The “A” certificate was granted upon the passing of an examination in reading, penmanship, English grammar, geog- raphy, arithmetic, United States history, Constitution of the United States and of Wisconsin, physiology, natural philoso- phy, physical geography, and algebra. The principal’s partial certificate was obtained after passing a further examination with a grade of 80 per cent in the following: English litera- ture, general history, mental philosophy, geometry, natural history, chemistry, and geology. A year’s experience in a full graded school was necessary in order to obtain the principal’s full certificate. Board regulations of 1905 specified that a principal must hold or be entitled to the “assistant’s”: certificate, and, in addi- tion, pass an examination in algebra, geometry, physics and chemistry, botany and zoology, English literature, psychology, and the history of education. Qualifications for the position of “assistant” automatically established partial qualifications for the principalship, in- cluded an age requirement of 18 years, a high-school education or its equivalent, successful teaching experience of not less than two years, and the passing of an examination with a standing of at least 75 per cent in arithmetic, Constitution of the United States and of the state of Wisconsin, descriptive and physical geography, English grammar and composition, history of the United States, orthography, penmanship, physi- ology, reading, and the theory and art of teaching. The qualifications for principals specified in the 1924 rules of the board are more simply stated: the holding of a univer- sity or college degree, successful teaching and administrative experience, and satisfactory evidence of proficiency in their 1The term “assistant” evidently means “teacher in the grades,” and a certificate was granted for this position. Other certificates granted in 1905 were for kindergarten directors, kindergarten “assistants,” teacher of Ger- man, assistant teacher of German, and teacher of the deaf. Certain licenses granted by the state superintendent of public instruction were accepted in lieu of some of the foregoing. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 155 special lines (this qualification applying especially to super- visors). As in the case of the superintendent, the salaries of prin- cipals have risen steadily, although not to so high a level as that of the superintendency. Grammar-school principals, all men, in 1866 were paid $1,000 a year. Intermediate and pri- mary-department principals, including both men and women, received from $350 to $420 per annum. In 1871-72 the high-school principal received $2,500 (while the salary of the superintendent was $2,000). Men principals in ward schools received from $800 to $1,375 a year, with the lowest salary recorded at $600, paid to a woman prin- cipal. By 1917 the range in the salaries of the high-school principals was from $2,760 to $3,120 a year, at that time less than half the salary then received by the superintendent. A further enumeration of salaries, covering those of recent date, will be found in a subsequent portion of this report. The growth of the Milwaukee school system is reflected in the increase in the number of principals. In 1866, when there were three classes of principalships—grammar-school, inter- mediate, and primary—the system had 31 principals in 17 buildings. With the elimination of the two lower classifica- tions, there were but 21 principals in 1877, of whom 18 were men and 3 were women. The 1935 report shows 104 princi- pals, of whom approximately three-fourths were men. These data concerning the number of principals also bring to light what appears to be a policy in the Milwaukee system of an evident preference for men principals in all levels of schools. As is shown in the 1935 figures, the policy has not been so closely followed in recent years as in the earlier period, since the proportion of men principals to women is about three to one, while in 1877 it was six to one. At the time this report was prepared all secondary-school principals were men, as were about half of the elementary principals. The present status of principals——The principal is a key officer in the Milwaukee Public Schools. He holds a position of great responsibility and power, and is encouraged to use his initiative and ingenuity in developing the school entrusted to his charge. In order to meet the responsibilities of his position the principal must be professionally trained. Elementary princi- 156 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS pals are required to hold the Bachelor’s degree and high-school principals, the Master’s degree. Both must have had a speci- fied number of professional courses in education as well as hold the unlimited life certificate in Wisconsin. Principals are ap- pointed by the superintendent of schools with the approval of the board of education. The initial appointment is usually to a small school and then later to larger schools after rendering meritorious service. All schools except the very small districts have vice-principals, who are full-time teachers in the ele- mentary schools. Vice principals are usually promoted to principalships, although in the discretion of the superintendent new principals may be selected from without the system. Principals of medium-sized and large schools are relieved of teaching and routine office work for the full-time job of edu- cational leadership, since the schools are generally provided with vice-principals and clerks. Principals in schools of fewer than eight rooms teach part time. Elementary-school principals in the smaller schools begin service at a salary of $2,600 per year and advance by annual increases of $100 to the top of the class of school to which the principal has been assigned. There are four classes of ele- mentary schools, depending on the number of class rooms. Promotion is made from class to class on recommendation of the superintendent with board approval until the maximum of $4,400 is reached. The range of salaries in the junior and senior high schools is from $4,520 to $5,000, the yearly advance being $120.1 Beyond this maximum principals in senior high schools may be recommended for three additional increases by virtue of outstanding creative contributions to the educa- tional program. During the period of the depression the Milwaukee prin- cipals have maintained their status of educational leadership. There have been no demotions or assignments of two schools to one principal. Promotions are made not by filing credits or passing examinations, but by rendering outstanding service. The principal secures his apprenticeship training through first serving as teacher or vice-principal. Persons appointed from these groups are familiar with the duties and services required of an educational leader. Permanent tenure is secured after 1Manual of the Milwaukee Public Schools, 1936, p. 19. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 157 three years of probation, with a final pension of $100 per month allotted after twenty-five years of service. The yearly increase in salary within the various divisions is automatic, but promotion depends upon the ability of the individual to assume responsibility and on the quality of service rendered. The principal’s powers and duties—The powers and du- ties of principals are prescribed by the board of education: “The principal of each school shall be responsible for the general management, instruction, and discipline of his school; shall direct and assist the teachers, and see that the rules of the board and directions of the superintend- ent of schools are carried out properly; shall have care and supervision of the buildings, grounds, and property of the school of which he has charge, and be responsible for the same; shall have direction of the janitor as pro- vided by law; shall be at his post of duty 30 minutes be- fore the time for school to begin in the morning and 20 minutes before the time for school to begin in the after- noon, and shall render such reports, prepare and file such records, and dispose of such school funds in his posses- sion, as the superintendent may require or direct.” In addition to the duties and powers prescribed by the board of education for principals in rules and regulations, the superintendent has from time to time supplemented these gen- eral requirements by specific and detailed regulations, assem- bled and published in a handbook by the principals themselves. The principal uses the handbook as a guide for the many rou- tine activities in his building. This guidebook is divided into two sections; the first dealing with forms and their use, and the second wth general directions for absences, accidents, at- tendance, child labor, school elections, health inspection, milk service, promotions, recesses, safety, holidays, work permits, school clerks, school hours, and telephones, as well as super- intendent’s circulars.” The principal has delegated powers other than those men- tioned in the handbook which make him the chief officer in his building for the many activities that fall under organization, administration, and supervision. He has direct control over janitorial service, teacher-ratings, pupil accounting, program- making, fire drills, and supervision of the building and 1Rules and Regulations of the Board of School Directors, p. 16. 2Handbook for Elementary School Principals, 1934, p. 16. 158 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS grounds. An accounting in writing through reports must be made by the principal for the manner in which he carried out these several trusts. The principal receives from time to time circulars and bulletins from the superintendent’s office giving supplemen- tary directions and specific interpretations of methods and the course of study. An example of a supplementary direction to the principals is Professional Pamphlet No. 12, 1926, entitled “A Study in the Use of English.” The principals made use of this pamphlet for discussions at general teachers’ meetings. The principal originates such matters as program-mak- ing; delegating duties to teachers, clerks, and janitors; ac- counting, placing and grading of pupils; formation of clubs, use of the library, rules for games and players, and all other plans for the management of his building through the aid of his teachers and with the approval of the superintendent. Whenever the principal delegates duties to the vice-principal, clerk, janitor, welfare officer, nurse, or teachers, he must make regular reports to the central office regarding the effectiveness of these services. The principal as supervisor.—The principal is responsible for the supervision of instruction in his building. His method, plan, and purpose of supervision are determined by himself, for he alone is held responsible for the type of instruction go- ing on in his building, and he must render an accounting for the results of his program of supervision to the central office. Supervisors of the special subjects of music, art, penmanship, physical education, primary projects, and kindergarten, report to the principal’s office when entering his building. They make out with him a scheduled program with the advice and approval of the superintendent. Methods of instruction are generally determined by the central office, usually as a result of committee or group con- ferences. Alert teachers and resourceful principals are en- couraged to work out more effective methods than those pre- scribed. For example, the socialized recitation was observed in a class in literature at the Juneau High School, and the in- tegrated-activity method in art classes, at the Cass Rotary School, where the platoon organization is being introduced. The principal does not participate in the selection of his teachers. They are assigned by the superintendent’s office DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 159 from an approved list. The principal may accept or reject the assigned teachers after three weeks of observation. If the principal retains the assigned teacher after this trial period, he still has the opportunity to evaluate the teachers’ services by his methods of supervision during the school year. The principal, at the close of the term, by means of an efficiency- estimate card, reports his rating of the teachers in his charge to the central office. A teacher reported “unsatisfactory,” with reasons for such judgment, is automatically transferred to another building. A teacher may make a request for trans- fer from one building to another. After three years of proba- tion a teacher becomes permanently assigned within the sys- tem. Since the principal is the sole rating authority over teachers in his building, he has much power and responsibility in determining their success or failure. Principals act as chairmen of subject, curriculum, and textbook committees, being named by the central office for such creative service. The members of these committees are teachers who also recommend the supplementary book list with the advice of the principal. These committees recommend mainly changes in textbooks, determine the time allotment and content of subjects by grades, as well as formulate the loose- leaf course of study on the ability-division plan by and with the approval of the superintendent. Not only are principals and teachers encouraged to suggest book lists for supplemen- tary reading purposes, but liberal supplies are received by them upon requisition of the principal. The principal not only has complete charge of his build- ing, but is responsible for the requisition of materials, new equipment, and educational supplies, and is also responsible for their proper distribution and use. Once a year he makes an inventory of the equipment and supplies in his building and reports to the central office the condition of all such materials. The principal as guidance officer.—The principal in the Milwaukee schools is expected to respect the personality of his pupils, and to be alert in his efforts to develop and to safeguard individuality. Children are placed first; buildings, textbooks, and materials must yield to the needs of the children. Pupil admission, placement, adjustment, classification, promotion, transfer, and advancement, are under the guid- 160 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ance and direction of the principal. Pupils in Milwaukee are no longer disciplined by corporal punishment; a child not re- sponding normally to instruction is treated as a patient, not a culprit. The principal supervises the making of a case- study of every pupil under a plan known as the guidance or “life-advisement” program. In the central office, an official known as the chief advisement officer heads up a program for instructing and encouraging principals and teachers to study and understand the pupils. “In my building,” said one of the junior high school prin- cipals, ‘‘we have what is known as the advisement folder for every pupil in the 7th, 8th, and 9th grades. This folder is kept in the pupil’s home room where it is always available for quick reference by the person who must refer to it most; the home- room teacher is the key advisement officer.” The principal supervises the collection, recording, tabu- lating, and interpretation of all data filed in each pupil’s ad- visement folder. In order to fully understand the child, the principal uses the full resources of his staff to collect the fol- lowing types of data on each pupil: . School marks, results of tests, school history . General intelligence data . Health history and habits . Family history . Social adjustments; clubs, friends, church, gangs Peculiar emotional traits . Special interests; aptitudes, talents, abilities . Vocational data Personality problems Sm ho Ae os & It becomes the principal’s job to study each pupil through the home-room teachers. He collects and tabulates informa- tion regarding each case and advises with pupils, parents, wel- fare officers, and home-room teachers. Superintendent Potter says, “The class-room teacher is the key to the guidance situa- tion at every educational level, and life advisement will be of greatest value only when every teacher shall consider himself a life counselor and shall be so regarded by every child.” 1The Entire School as an Advisory Agency, Superintendent's report, 1933, p. 70. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 161 As the principal thinks and does, so is his school! This statement is especially true of his place as leader of the advise- ment program. He stands between the central office and the key teachers. To him both superintendent and teachers look for the motivation in this work. The principal stimulates and assigns home-room teachers to carry on counseling work in ad- justing the pupil to life. The home-room teacher in the six- year junior-senior high schools is the pupil’s continual adviser- counselor throughout the full high-school course. When the principal wishes to interview a pupil, he may send for the cumulative folder, the home-room teacher, the welfare officer, and perhaps the parent. Principals may sus- pend a child only after parents have failed to respond to a re- quest for an interview regarding the child’s behavior. This suspension is for three days; if the parent fails to seek a re- instatement of the pupil before the three days have elapsed, the case is turned over to the welfare officer for further in- vestigation. The superintendent must be notified in writing of all such suspensions. Promotions are not made on trial, but whenever pupils are promoted the principal has the final de- cision ; however, an appeal may be made to the superintendent. The principal’s authority over extra-curriculum activities. —The principal may organize a program of extra-curriculum activities with the approval of the superintendent, and may as- sign a teacher to sponsor each activity. He personally assumes the responsibility for the supervision and management of all extra-curriculum activities. A principal may require higher standards for his players in competitive sports than those re- quired by the rules of the State Interscholastic Association. For example, the state rules require an average scholastic standing of 70, while the Juneau High School requires 75. Whenever the principal collects funds for attendance at the extra-class activities, such as games, plays, programs, or shows, he makes an accounting to the central office of the amounts received and the disposition made of the same. School extension service in Milwaukee is supported by a direct four-mill tax yielding an annual budget of nearly a half million dollars... This department organizes social-center ac- tivities (often in special buildings adjacent to schools) evening 1Seventy-fifth Annual Report of the Board of School Directors, 1934, p. 25. 162 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS classes, municipal athletics, playgrounds, visual education, li- brary extension, and other full-time recreational ventures for young people and adults. Through the principals these social centers cooperate closely with the P. T. A., the advisement program, the troups of Boy and Girl Scouts, and with the schools in general in the purpose of safeguarding the person- alities of children. The principal’s relation with officials in the central office. —tThe principals are divided into three supervisory districts, with an assistant superintendent directing each. The senior high schools are supervised directly by the superintendent of schools. Assistant superintendents have advisory, administra- tive, and supervisory authority over schools in their districts, but before initiating activities in any school they confer and consult with the principal. The office assistant to the superintendent is an advisory and codperative officer to the principal, but with no directive authority over the principal. The special supervisors from the central office serve as creative teaching supervisors or helpful leaders rather than negative critics. Their programs are made out in the central office with the advice and approval of the principal. These special supervisors cannot initiate techniques and projects, change programs or courses, or give orders to teachers without first consulting with the principal. Further, when entering a building for service, the supervisors must first report to the office of the principal before starting work in the classroom. Principals work directly with the district superintendents and assistant director of the budget, research, and advisement. Principals of junior and senior high schools have the special privilege of making out their own budgets for general costs, equipment, and supplies, but the estimates must be approved by the chief budget officer. Principals of senior high schools are permitted to recommend to the superintendent, within the limits prescribed, members of the staff for special salary in- creases in recognition of outstanding teaching merit. The director of research and advisement works through the principal and teachers to reach the pupils. If the principal becomes enthusiastic about a program of diagnostic testing, or a program of pupil life-advisement, alert teachers soon catch DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 163 the spirit. A state program of testing and measuring achieve- ment seems to have been favorably received by principals, de- sirous of comparing the progress of their pupils with the state achievement standards. The principal has been relieved largely of responsibility for out-of-school-hour activities carried on in his building. Such authority is vested in the extension department of the central office. This department must first grant permission to an organization for the use of the building or issue a permit to engage an outside speaker. Janitors are under the direct charge of the principal who must assign, evaluate, and report their services to the central office. The placing of all workers in a building directly under the charge of the principal has tended to build up a unity of purpose in the work of the local schools. The principal in local professional organizations.—The principals have banded together in an organization known as the Milwaukee Principals’ Association, which has for its pur- pose the welfare and the safeguarding of the professional status of the school principal. This association has codperated with the Milwaukee Teachers’ Association in attaining and protecting by law certain standards and securities for its mem- bership. They have secured by codperative means from their local board of education and through the state legislature the following program: a. A permanent tenure after three years of probation b. A satisfactory pension ($100 per month after 25 years of service) c. A progressive unit salary schedule d. A maximum and a minimum salary e. A selection of teachers from the substitute list with college degrees f. A promotion through outstanding service When efforts were made to curtail by law the educational opportunities of the children and the professional standing of the teachers, these two associations used their constructive in- fluences to defeat in the state legislature laws that would have: a. Fixed the retirement age at 70 years b. Shortened the school term RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 164 c. Lowered the maximum salary d. Provided for the selection of teachers from other than the substitute list SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The principalship was an important position in the schools of Milwaukee prior to the establishment of the city superin- tendency. Even after the appointment of a superintendent the high-school principal retained an independent legal status for many years and was considered a more important official than the superintendent. The board of education finally realized the disadvantage of restricting the activities of the superin- tendent to the elementary schools and secured legislation plac- ing the secondary schools under the superintendent. The line of authority established by board rules is super- intendent—assistant superintendent—principal. The princi- pal may go directly to the superintendent with his problems if he desires to do so. In order to encourage direct administra- tion, the superintendent acts as the immediate superior officer of the high-school principals. Well qualified principals have been sought in Milwaukee from the beginning. The qualifications required as early as 1877 were both the principal’s and the teacher’s certificates. Now, elementary principals are required to hold the Bachelor’s and secondary principals the Master’s degree. Both are re- quired to have had a specified number of professional courses in education and must hold the unlimited life certificate in Wisconsin. The board of education has adopted a salary schedule for principals commensurate with the requirements of the posi- tion. As a result the principalship has become a distinctly professional position which provides a satisfying career in the field of school administration. The principal is regarded by both board of education and superintendent of schools as the responsible head of the local school. He is considered a key official in the organization and administration of the city sys- tem. Through him the policies of the central office are inter- preted to teachers and parents, and are executed in the local schools. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 165 The professional prestige of the principalship is further exemplified by the fact that the principal is clothed with full power over building, equipment, supplies, grounds, and the custodial staff as well as the administration and supervision of instruction. While the principal does not exercise the right of choice in the selection of his teachers, he has power to reject an assigned teacher after a short trial period, if the work of a teacher is unsatisfactory. The principal participates in cur- riculum making and the selection of textbooks and has full power to determine methods of instruction in his own school. Principals of senior high schools are permitted to recommend to the superintendent, within the limits prescribed, members of the staff for special salary increases in recognition of out- standing teaching merit. Staff officers function under the direction of the principal while in the local school. The principal is free to accept or re- ject the advice and suggestions of these officials. However, he is held accountable by the superintendent for standards of excellence in the local school. The principals of Milwaukee have sought to retain and extend the professional status of the principalship through an active principals’ association. In recent years this organiza- tion has offered vigorous opposition to retrograde influences affecting the profession in city and state and has espoused the cause of forward-looking professional movements. The results accomplished by the organization merit the special commenda- tion of the profession at large, as well as the approval of all persons interested in the professionalization of the school prin- cipalship. CHAPTER X NEWARK, NEW JERSEY STATUS OF PRINCIPALSHIP Beginning of the principalship.—The public school system of Newark was authorized in 1850 by an act of the New Jer- sey Legislature. Additional legislation three years later made possible the incorporation of the board of education and the exercise of authority by the board and common council to es- tablish and to support a system of ward schools. The first report of the board of education published in 1857 states that there were then 42 schools with an average daily attendance of 3,732 pupils. Ten of the buildings in which school was con- ducted were the property of the board; the other buildings used for school were rented. The value of the buildings was reported at $120,820 and the total cost of operating the schools for the year at $56,793. The data presented indicate that the schools in the sev- eral wards were small, the average daily attendance being ap- proximately 90 pupils. If principals were employed for the local ward schools, they were evidently regarded as head teachers and not administrative principals. The superintend- ent was the chief school officer, functioning under a board of education of 14 members chosen (two each) from the seven wards. The superintendent, therefore, appears to have antedated the principal as a school officer in Newark. The exact date of the establishment of the principalship is difficult to deter- mine. It is certain that by 1881, the year marking the first 25 years of the city’s public school history, the principalship was well established. The annual report of the board of education for that year lists 14 men and 74 women as teachers, caring for an average daily pupil load of 12,145. The persons desig- nated as principals received approximately twice as much sal- ary as the teachers. 167 168 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The rules of the board of education specify as one of the duties of the superintendent, “to receive reports from the prin- cipals.” The rules also state that the principals are immedi- ately responsible to the superintendent and that in addition to making the reports required they shall attend the conferences called by the superintendent. The principal’s authority in his school is defined in the board rules as having charge and control of his school, school building and property, and as being responsible for the recep- tion and classification of pupils and their instruction and dis- cipline, and the instruction of classes two hours each day. Al- though school was conducted in 49 different buildings, the sal- ary data indicate that only 17 of the principals were of the part-time administrative type. Present status of principalship.—From a city of 40,000 people in 1850 when the public-school system was started, Newark has grown to approximately 500,000 population to- day. This rapid increase in population has necessitated a cor- responding development in schools. The old ward system has had to be abandoned and in its place a system of schools de- veloped for a great city. In the administration of this system the principal of the local school has played a constantly in- creasing role. To-day the school principal holds a unique posi- tion of administrative responsibility and professional leader- ship in the local schools. The principalship is regarded by the board of education and superintendent of schools as a position which should pro- vide a satisfying career in school administration for fully qualified men and women. To make the positions inviting to the ablest people, a salary schedule has been provided com- parable with the schedules of the best city school system and public and private universities. Appointment is made at a reasonably good salary and annual increases are provided for a period sufficiently long to bring the final salary to a very satisfactory limit, which is reached in the eighteenth year of service. Elementary-school principals in schools under 1,000 pupils are started at $3,100 and may be carried by annual in- creases to $5,500 in the tenth year. No further increase is granted until the eighteenth year when the annual salary may become $6,000. Principals in schools with more than 1,000 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 169 pupils are started at $3,500 and may be advanced by annual increases to $6,500 in the twelfth year. The possible maximum salary of principals in this classification is $7,000 in the eight- eenth year. Senior high school principals are started at $5,000 and may be advanced by annual increments to $7,500 in the ninth year of service. The possible maximum in the eighteenth year is $8,000. Junior high school principals are paid $500 more than elementary-school principals with schools of over 1,000 enrolment. All annual increases in salaries under the schedule are based upon merit and efficiency as determined and recommended by the superintendent subject to approval by the board of education. Method of appointment.—Principals of elementary and junior high schools are recommended for appointment by the superintendent of schools from an eligible list prepared by the board of examiners. Competitive examinations are held at stated intervals. The candidates are given a composite per- centage rating based on written examination, oral examina- tion, and experience. Nominations are made from the top of the list subject to approval by the board of education. Vacancies in principalship in the senior high schools are filled by the promotion of persons within the system. The superintendent nominates and the board approves. Merit and efficiency are the criteria which determine the nominations. Tenure of principals.—The tenure of teachers and prin- cipals is established by state law after a probationary period of three years in the system. When tenure is obtained the principal can retain his salary and rank unless demoted. De- motion may be accomplished by transfer to a lower class school than the one in which appointment is held or by trial before the board on charges preferred by the superintendent of schools. On account of the great care exercised in the selection of principals demotion or dismissal is rare. In general, the tenure of the school principal is more certain than that of the superintendent or any of his administrative assistants. Status of principal in local school.—The principal is rec- ognized as the responsible head of his school. Since the local schools are generally large, all principals are relieved of teach- ing in order that they may devote their full time to adminis- 170 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS tration and supervision. The principal is not required to con- sult with the central office about local matters except when the procedures involved deviate markedly from established practices. However, it is understood that the principal will notify the central office of any action of a special nature. The principal is free to initiate rules for the manage- ment of his own school, but he is expected to secure the ap- proval of the central office before putting such rules into ef- fect. Inasmuch as the regulations and directions of the cen- tral office have been codified and published by the Principals’ Association as a handbook, departures from the accepted practices of the handbook are seldom necessary. RELATIONS WITH CENTRAL OFFICE Superintendent of schools.—The line of authority in all matters affecting principals is from superintendent to deputy and assistant superintendents to principal. The principal is al- ways free to go directly to the superintendent if he chooses to do so. However, since the administrative responsibilities of the central office are distributed functionally, it is better as a general rule for the principal to consult the intermediary educational executive before going to the superintendent. No arbitrarily fixed lines of authority are observed in the administration of the Newark schools. The superintend- ent deals directly with the principals in monthly meetings and the deputy and assistant superintendents likewise hold month- ly meetings with principals. The matters for discussion in the various meetings are common knowledge of the entire staff of central officers. The following diagram presents a somewhat generalized picture of the various interrelations between executives and consultants of the central office and the school principals. While points of possible attrition exist which under certain conditions might lead to difficulties in administration, because of the superior character of the central-office personnel few difficulties are actually experienced. Some of these points of possible attrition will be discussed in connection with other relations of the principal with the central office. Deputy and assistant superintendents.—The relations of the principal with the deputy and assistant superintendents DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 171 ORGANIZATION OF THE NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM Board of Education (Wine members) Three Standing Committees Secretary Assistant Secretary | | Superintendent Business Manager Supplies Three Assistant Deputy Superintendent and Superintendents In charge of Equipment Functional duties Instruction Janitors (civil Service) Health Attendance Department Department 172 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS are largely functional. The deputy superintendent has charge of instruction in all the schools and is responsible for the co- ordination of instruction. The assistant superintendents have special assignments, such as special schools, research, budget- ary matter, textbooks, and contacts between the non-educa- tional phases of administration and the educational depart- ment. Extensive experience in the school system enables these officials to deal understandingly with the problems of the school principals. By so doing, they relieve the superintendent of many matters which would otherwise consume his time and prevent him from engaging in activities of greater serv- ice to the schools. Educational staff officers.—The educational staff is com- posed of directors, supervisors, assistant supervisors, and heads of special departments, such as art, music, commercial subjects, penmanship, practical and household arts, and phy- sical education and recreation. The purpose of the supervisory force (directors, super- visors, assistant supervisors, etc.) is to serve as consultants whenever principal or teachers request help or advice concern- ing problems in teaching or the interpretation of courses. For illustration, a teacher dealing with a unit of instruction, such as transportation, may apply to the art department for sug- gestions as to what drawing, painting, or other activity in the field of graphic art children might do appropriately and prof- itably. Or the teacher, deciding herself what her pupils may make or do, may seek help with reference to the materials or technique to be employed in what is to be done. In like man- ner a teacher may call upon any other department for assist- ance in choosing or guiding activities in which that depart- ment specializes. Principals may call upon supervisors to give advice and suggestions concerning the introduction or improvement of a program of work connected with the special studies and to assist teachers in making the program successful. Initiation and actual fulfillment of school programs lie within the pow- ers and duties of principals and teachers, while expert advice and assistance in technical and specialized phases of the work are services to be rendered by the special departments DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 173 upon request. Dates and duration of supervisors’ visits are regulated by requests for service and not by a predetermined schedule originating in the central office. Supervisors rate only the special teachers of their special subjects, but they may confer with principals concerning the work of any teacher. Non-educational central officers.—In general the dealings of the principal with the non-educational executives of the central office is through the assistant superintendent in charge of non-instructional duties of the superintendent. In this manner friction is avoided because of vagueness in the defini- tion of authority and because of the dual type of central- office organization existing in Newark. The secretary and as- sistant secretary of the board of education and budget di- rector have relatively few relations with school principals. On the contrary, the business manager and the superintendent of buildings deal directly with the principals without the ex- ercise of administrative authority. In such dealings, copies of the correspondence passing between the principal and the business department are sent to the superintendent of schools. School janitors are civil service employees under the busi- ness department. They are answerable to the principal for the care of the building. The principal is expected to supervise their work and to prefer charges with the business manager for unsatisfactory janitorial service. The principal reports the absence or truancy of a pupil to the attendance department. An officer of this department will visit the home of the pupil, interview the parent, ascer- tain the cause of the absence, and report the information se- cured to the principal. The department of attendance con- siders itself.a service agency to the central office and local school. Its chief services are investigation, making reports, adjusting personnel problems, and law enforcement. The school physicians and nurses report to the school principal or his office their time of arrival and departure at the principal’s school. They will examine pupils isolated by the principal or teachers and exclude those showing symp- toms of contagious or infectious disease. The physicians and nurses are at all times under the immediate control of the di- rector of health education in all matters pertaining to the SS aan tae 174 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS performance of their duties. In matters pertaining to the health of pupils the physicians and nurses are subject to the rules of the board of health. MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPAL School organization.—The principal may set up his school organization without securing the approval of the central of- fice, provided that the organization does not conflict with estab- lished policies of the school system. If the proposed organiza- tion varies from that in current use in the system, approval of the central office is required. The central office desires the principal to exercise initiative in formulating plans for the organization of his own school, but the central office prefers that such plans be discussed before a proposal is presented for adoption. School supplies.—In the ordering of supplies the principal is guided by his school allotment, which is made on the basis of the average enrolment of the preceding year. However, modifications in allotments may be made from time to time to meet conditions caused by the addition or elimination of classes or by the opening of new schools. A just and adequate appropriation of supplies is made by the superintendent, busi- ness manager, and budget director for the school affected after conference with the principal. All requisitions for supplies are subject to the approval of the superintendent of schools. Orders are sent to the cen- tral office and are checked by an assistant superintendent be- fore being issued by the department of supplies. Since the principal makes the requisitions he is respon- sible for the proper expenditure of the funds apportioned to his school. Any requisitions in excess of scheduled appropria- tions or for books and supplies not on the approved list are held by the business manager, who notifies the principal of the reason for holding the requisitions. If considered neces- sary by the superintendent, the requisitions are referred to the committee on buildings, grounds, and supplies at its next meeting. Protection of property.—The care of all school property is a personal responsibility of the principal. He is expected DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 175 to protect books, apparatus, and the building and its equip- ment in so far as possible from mutilation and injury. In case of damage or destruction of school property by pupils, the principal is required to render bills to parents and to force collection by penalties prescribed by the board and to render account and make return annually or as often as directed for the sums collected pursuant thereto. An annual inventory of school property is required of principals in May of each year. Blank forms are provided for the purpose and a report is made listing all items of property irrespective of conditions. Control of pupils.—The principal is clothed with the power to suspend pupils for gross offenses, but every suspen- sion must be reported without delay to the superintendent, who will investigate and confirm or annul the suspension and report to the standing committee on instruction. The prin- cipal must also notify the attendance director in writing of the reasons when he suspends a pupil. The transfer of a pupil to any of the special schools or classes, such as Binet classes, open-air school, class for the blind, school for crippled children, school for deaf children, sight-conservation classes, classes for speech improvement, or special schools for boys is made by the superintendent. The principal is expected to take the initiative in bringing to the attention of the superintendent the needs of his pupil per- sonnel for the special services provided. Promotion of pupils —The promotion of pupils is a joint responsibility of teachers and principal. Only in cases of doubt does the final decision rest with the principal. Parents may appeal to the principal in cases of pupil failure for re- consideration of decision and if they insist, a final examina- tion on the work of the term, using questions approved by the superintendent, will be administered and promotion will be determined on the basis of the examination results. Pupil guidance.—A department of child guidance is main- tained in the central office for the assistance of principals in the adjustment of pupils experiencing scholastic difficulties. To obtain the services of this department the principal must take the initiative by filling out the appropriate form and mailing it to the central office. He is also responsible for 176 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS notifying the pupil of appointments with the department of child guidance and if necessary for securing the codperation of the parents. When the study of the case is completed, the principal will be furnished a full report and a representative of the department will come to the school and discuss the case with principal and teachers concerned. Administration of attendance.—Non-attendance of pupils must be reported by the principal to the attendance depart- ment, which will make an investigation and report the findings to the principal. In case legal action is required, it is the duty of the principal to submit to the attendance officer on the appropriate form a signed statement of the pupil’s absence and conduct. Since the attendance department is a service agency, its officers work with the principal to effect an adjustment on the part of delinquent pupils rather than to enforce the law on the parent. The character of attendance administration in any given school is determined very largely by the initia- tive of the principal in securing attendance services and the intelligence used in interpreting the findings made available through the attendance department. Control of recreation.—The principal has full authority for the recreation of pupils in school or on playgrounds at all times. The director of recreation is required to consult with the principal at least once a week as to the program to be carried out and to furnish the principal with a copy of the weekly forecast and report. For purposes of organization, the playgrounds and recre- ation centers throughout the system are classified and the programs of activities varied according to the class rating of the school as a playground or recreation center. In case of difficulties in the operation or administration of the play- ground or recreation center, the principal reports to the su- perintendent. Safety patrol—Safety patrols are maintained in each school in Newark. The patrols are organized by the safety officer assigned to the attendance department by the depart- ment of public safety of the city. Assignment of pupils to, and operation of, such patrols are in the hands of the school principal, who directs the activities providing for the safety of pupils on their way to and from school and in and around DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 177 the school building. No child can be assigned to patrol duty by the principal unless the school has received through the attendance department signed consent of the parent with re- spect to the child serving on the safety patrol. Management of funds.—The principal is responsible to the central office for all money collected for handwork mate- rial sold to pupils by teachers, for fines levied because of the loss, destruction, or mutilation of books or other school pro- perty, or received from the use or sale of goods furnished by the board of education. An accurate account of such money shall be kept and remittance made to the secretary of the board. The principal shall give a receipt to each person from whom he receives money in payment of fines and he must keep a duplicate in a receipt book provided for the purpose. Tuition fees shall be remitted to the secretary as soon as received. The principal is also responsible for money raised through entertainments and candy sales for the benefit of the local school. Definite regulations are issued by the central office with respect to the number of such entertainment or sales that may be held in any one year. Library service.—The principal is privileged to call upon the public library either for materials or for bibliographical service in connection with his professional work. The library will also at the principal’s request advise or assist in the de- velopment of school libraries. It prepares lists of books for classroom use and professional reading from which the prin- cipal may order. Both principal and teachers are urged to visit the public library to find out about its facilities as a means of increasing the use of library materials. Upon the request of the principal the library will place a school on a special-trip schedule to receive delivery of requested materials once each week. Opening and closing exercises.—School shall be opened in the morning with the reading of at least five verses of the Old Testament without comment and the repeating of the Lord’s Prayer. Vocal music may be added as a part of the opening exercises at the discretion of principal or teacher. Visitors and agents.—The principal should receive vis- itors and afford them proper accommodations and facilities 178 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS for seeing school work, but with such limitations as shall prevent annoyance or interruption to teachers of classes. Neither principal nor teachers shall permit a salesman to visit the school during school hours for the purpose of commend- ing or exhibiting any book or other article. They shall not distribute circulars, tickets, or advertisements; give notice to the pupils under their charge of any strictly commercial affair, or permit the same to be done on the school premises; they shall not supply lists of the names of pupils for the send- ing of advertisements or for any commercial purpose what- soever. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPAL With respect to teachers.—Teachers are selected by the board of examiners and are listed in order of their rating for assignment to the schools. The teachers are assigned by the superintendent subject to board approval. The principal must therefore accept the teacher assigned but he may request the transfer of the teacher if after a trial period he considers the services of the teacher unsatisfactory. He must make the request for transfer in writing to the superintendent with reasons therefor. The principal is required to rate his teachers twice each year as to (1) personality, (2) professional attitudes and growth, (3) control of learning process, (4) use of objectives, (5) pupil participation and initiative, (6) motivation and inter- est, (7) lesson assignments, (8) measurement of results, (9) organization and control, and (10) mechanics and routine. The rating is expressed in letters A, B, C, and D. A rating of “D” does not carry annual salary increase or entitle a teacher on probation to permanent appointment. The rating of a prin- cipal is a coéperative responsibility in which the judgment of supervisors and assistant superintendent is reflected. Dismissal of a teacher for unsatisfactory service is initi- ated by the principal. If concurred in by the assistant super- intendent the recommendation is passed on by the board of examiners and the superintendent, but actual dismissal is an act of the board of education. Improvement of instruction.—The principal is solely re- sponsible for the character of instruction in his school. He ad SRA ORD Re es PRE PS em pls SR ne COR te BERR peeE AE it 1- e al 1- t- )”? Be Si DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 179 may call upon the directors and supervisors for assistance and may profit from their suggestions, but he is judged as a prin- cipal by the results accomplished in his school whether he follows the supervisory suggestions offered or not. Test data are provided by the bureau of reference and research for use in the grouping and classification of pupils, but the respon- sibility for the adjustment of the pupils rests with the prin- cipal. If he desires, he is privileged to make his own tests or to use tests available through the central office. The principal has the direction and control of all teachers under his charge with respect to the management and instruc- tion of their classes, and receives and transmits to them all instructions and directions from the superintendent. Curriculum and extra-curriculum.—The central-office staff and the school principals are coédperatively responsible for curriculum reorganization and the principal is expected to use with as little change as possible the resulting product. However, with central-office approval, he may modify the curriculum to meet the needs of his school. Such approval would be conditioned by the bearing of the changes desired on the established policies of the school system. Except for athletics and other city-wide activities, the principal has virtually free reign in the organization and ad- ministration of “so-called” extra-curriculum activities. Professional ethics.—The principal tries fairly to inter- pret the policies of the central office to his teachers and com- munity without regard to his personal views, and the central office in turn respects the professional view of the principal. This policy of professional codperation is accredited in part to the influence of the late superintendent of schools, Dr. John H. Logan, and in part to the activities of the Principal’s As- sociation, a professional organization formed in 1869, incor- porated in 1907, and active in the professional life of the schools of Newark for the last thirty years. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The principalship in Newark is a by-product of the super- intendency. The superintendency was created shortly after the public-school system was established. The local ward schools at that time were small and there was little need for 180 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS principals. As the enrolment increased larger schools were provided and with the change came the principal as a local representative of the superintendent. As a result of this peculiar development in school organization and administra- tion, the school principal in Newark has escaped the traditional association with the board of education in local school admin- istration, characteristic of the principalship in many cities. Whether the close relationship between the superintendent and the principal from the beginning is responsible for the exceptional professional status of the school principal in Newark is a question beyond the scope of this investigation to answer. However, the implication that the close relation between these officials is largely responsible for the profes- sional prestige of the Newark principalship, is plausible. The principal is recognized by the central office as the re- sponsible head of the local school and a complete release in teaching duties is granted for the performance of managerial and professional duties. The principal is free to initiate in local matters, but approval by the central office is required as a means of unity within the system. Regulations of the cen- tral office have been codified by the principals to facilitate the managerial aspects of local administration. While procedures in local management are frequently specified by the central office, the principal is always free to present his problems to the head of the school system with a view to securing modi- fication, if such is considered desirable. In professional responsibilities the principal has greater freedom and exercises more authority than in his managerial aspect of local administration. He is held solely responsible for instruction, and while not privileged to select his teachers, he appraises their efficiency and initiates transfer or dis- missal, if the services rendered are unsatisfactory. The central office staff of directors and supervisors are available on call for consultant service with respect to instruction. Curriculum organization is a coéperative responsibility between central- office staff and principals, and although the principal is ex- pected to use the course of study thus provided, he is free to seek approval from the superintendent for modifications to meet the needs of the local school. A salary schedule which places the principalship in Newark on par with leading positions in city school systems DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 181 and universities has contributed much toward making the public-school principalship a worthy position for ambitious men and women desirous of a professional career in local school administration. Apparently, this recognition of the services of the school principal along with the professional leadership provided by executives in the central offce and the professional association of principals is responsible for the successful development of the public-school principalship in Newark. ee er eee CHAPTER XI PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA The findings presented in this study of the relations be- tween school principals and the central administrative office in the public school system of Philadelphia are based on the careful reading of the annual school reports since 1860, per- sonal interviews with representative principals and central- office executives, the replies of 228 principals and 10 district superintendents to a check-list inquiry concerning the rela- tions of principals with various administrative officers, and voluntary statements of a supplementary character made in conference and in the replies to the check list. THE PROFESSIONAL STATUS OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL Prior to 1878 public-school principals in Philadelphia were little more than head teachers. In that year the Central Board of Education adopted a rule by which local schools, at the request of the sectional or district boards, could be organ- ized under supervising principals. A few schools were organ- ized under this rule with very satisfactory results before the establishment of the superintendency in 1882. One of the first duties of the first superintendent was the extension of the supervising principalship. Under the rules of the Central Board of Education the superintendent held an examination for the awarding of certificates to supervising principals in May, 1884. Out of 32 candidates who took the examination 23 passed and were awarded certificates. Nine- teen of these were duly elected to principalships by the sec- tional boards at the beginning of the ensuing year. The superintendent of schools and the supervising prin- cipal in Philadelphia thus became contemporary school officers and their development as professional workers has continued somewhat concurrently since 1885. Up to 1911 the principals were appointed by the local boards and the superintendent was chosen by the central board. The relations of the super- 183 184 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS intendent and the principal were largely advisory, although the principal received his certificate through the central board. Since 1911 the relations of the principal and the su- perintendent have been more direct. As the staff of the super- intendent has expanded with the growth of the school system, the principal has had to establish relationships with the new executives in the central office. The development of administrative relations between the principal and the central office would constitute an interesting chapter in the history of school administration in Philadelphia. Some of the principals and a few of the administrators in the central office have served the schools throughout the period of the new relationship (since 1911). Many, however, have viewed the development of the present official relations only from near vantage points. To them the methods by which the present relations have been attained may seem different from the actual methods as viewed by those privileged with histori- cal perspective. Approximately half of the principals (52.2 per cent) and six of the seven district superintendents interrogated believe that the present relationship between the school principals and the central office has been gradually evolved as a result of mutual interest in common problems. Almost a third of the principals (30 per cent) consider that the present results have been secured through the enactment of rules and regulations by the board of education. A small percentage of the prin- cipals (15.8) and one district superintendent attribute the results to the influence of the superintendent of schools. The remainder (approximately 4 per cent) are virtually equally divided between the views that the present relations have been attained on the one hand through pressure brought to bear by the principals’ organizations on the superintendent and board of education and on the other hand through statutory enact- ments. Without doubt, all the influences considered by the prin- cipals and district superintendents have had some effect on the development of the present relations existing between principals and the central office. That a great evolution in relations has taken place no one can deny. That the interests have been mutual and the problems common no one can ques- tion. That the outcome would be new rules and regulations DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 185 and improved statutory enactments is virtually self-evident. The matter of current importance is the fact that the school principal now occupies a unique position with respect to the central-office organization in the administrative management of the city’s system of schools. Recent changes in the professional relations of the prin- cipal with administrators in the central office.—Sixty per cent of the principals and 50 per cent of the district superintendents responding to the request to indicate any change that had taken place in the professional relations of the principal with the central office during the last five years expressed the view that the relations had become distinctly more professional. Another 25 per cent of the principals supported by 37.5 per cent of the district superintendents, asserted that the pro- fessional prestige of the principal had definitely increased. Thus, we see that 85 per cent of the school principals and dis- trict superintendents regard the relations of the principals with the central office as undergoing recent professional im- provement. Only a small fraction of the principals and district super- intendents, 15.0 and 12.5 per cent, respectively, reacted nega- tively. Eight and three-tenths per cent of the principals stated that the professional prestige of the principal with the central office had declined during the last five years. A few principals (5.4 per cent) and one district superintendent thought that the relations of the principal with educational functionaries in the central office had become more professional but with non- educational functionaries, less professional. Two principals maintained that relations with all functionaries in the central office had become distinctly less professional in recent years. Character of support received by principal from the cen- tral office——The confidence of the central office in the ef- ficiency of the principals is revealed by the character of sup- port accorded the principals on matters of appeal to the cen- tral office. The policy that prevails in cases of appeal, accord- ing to the judgment of 83 per cent of the principals and all the district superintendents consulted, is to refer the complaint to the principal’s immediate superior officer who, with the principal, undertakes to dispose of the matter at issue. Seven principals (3.1 per cent) claim to enjoy the complete confi- 186 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS dence of superior executive officers, insisting that the com- plaints received at the central office from school patrons are referred back to the principal concerned for his sole attention. Three principals gave a slightly different interpretation of the question admitting that, while complaints were referred back to the local principal for final adjustment, the central office made a check on his disposal of the case. A considerable number of principals, 25, or 11.5 per cent, asserted that central-office functionaries disposed of local complaints but not without consulting the principals con- cerned. Two principals declared that the central office dis- posed of complaints from the schools without consultation with principals. In general, the data considered reveal a high degree of confidence on the part of central-office executives in the admin- istrative efficiency of the school principal. The support re- ceived by the large majority of the principals on matters of appeal signifies general recognition by the centra! office of the professional fitness of the principals to assume responsibilities of “headship” in the local schools. Influence of the principal in the determination of the edu- cational policies of the central office.—It is difficult to gener- alize on the influence of the principal in the determination of the educational policies of the central office. Without doubt, some principals exercise much greater influence than others, and committees of principals often exert stronger influence in the development of policies than the entire group. Oppor- tunities are usually provided for the discussion of proposed policies in the monthly meeting of principals with the educa- tional executives of the central office, and criticisms may be voiced with respect to established policies. Fifty-eight and eight-tenths per cent of the principals and 87.5 per cent of the district superintendents who con- tributed information on the question under consideration stated that suggestions from individual principals with re- spect to new policies or changes in established policies were favorably received by the central office. Some principals qualified their statements, however, to the effect that while suggestions were favorably received by the central-office ex- ecutives, it did not follow that these officials would do any- thing about the suggestions. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 187 Considerable disagreement evidently exists among the principals regarding the practice of the central office with re- spect to the discussion of proposed changes in policies with the entire group of principals before changes are announced. Only 40 per cent of the principals considered that this prac- tice prevailed as opposed to the opinion of all the district su- perintendents. A slightly larger group of principals (41.2 per cent) expressed the view that new policies were adopted by the central office without consultation or discussion with principals prior to adoption, and with this view a fourth of the district superintendents agreed. Some differentiation was made by some of the principals (41.7 per cent) to the effect that their influence was greater in securing changes in poli- cies than in bringing about the adoption of new policies. With this view three of the ten district superintendents concurred. Five principals, or 2.2 per cent, took the opposite position, maintaining that the principal exercised greater influence in obtaining the introduction of new policies than in securing changes in established policies. This view received no support from the district superintendents. The evidence seems to indicate that the attitude of the ed- ucational functionaries in the central office toward consulta- tion with principals regarding matters of educational policy is intended to be democratic. From the point of view of the principals as a group the attitude is not as democratic as these officials may think. That the administration of the principals by the central office is benevolent can scarcely be questioned. But benevolent administration is not necessarily democratic administration and it seldom yields the profession- al incentives which persons in subordinate adminstrative po- sitions require. The professional ethics of the principal in the execution of central-office policies.—The status of the principalship in a a school system is determined in no small degree by the stand- ard of professional ethics of the persons who occupy the po- sition. If the school principal is to be recognized as the re- sponsible head of his school by the central administration he must be guided in his relations with the executives in the central office by principles of professional ethics. For the school principal to resort to unprofessional practices in his re- lations with superior officers is to invite certain degradation as 188 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS a professional officer and a debased professional status for his position. In the final analysis, then, of the relations of the principal with the central office, ethical practices play an important part. Data collected from 218 principals on the professional ethics that influence the actions of the principal in his execu- tion of the policies of the school superintendent reveal that approximately two-thirds of the principals (63.3 per cent) are entitled to a very favorable rating in this respect. These principals either try clearly to interpret to teachers and local community the policies of the superintendent without regard to personal views or they interpret and execute to the best of their ability the instructions of the superintendent without personal commitment as to belief in the administrative soundness of his policies. A small group (6.0 per cent), while maintaining a strictly ethical position, lean backward in at- tempting loyally to carry out the superintendent’s policy with- out question. Another group of considerable size (15.6 per cent) incline even farther in the direction of mechanical ad- ministration by accepting as their own the policies of the su- perintendent and by striving to execute these policies with zeal and enthusiasm. The professional ethics of a fourth group of principals consisting of 15.1 per cent of the total number interrogated may be held in question. These principals frankly state that they do not hesitate to oppose privately a policy of the super- intendent considered unsound while officially executing the policy in school and community. The extent to which these principals violate professional ethics largely depends on the character of their private opposition and the indirect effect of such opposition on subsequent relations with their chief ex- ecutive officer. If the views of seven district superintendents reflect the opinions of the educational functionaries in the central of- fice toward what constitutes professional loyalty on the part of principals, considerable lack of agreement must prevail. Four of these officials favor interpretation by the principal of central-office policies without regard to personal views or per- sonal commitment as to belief in the administrative sound- ness of such policies. Three, on the contrary, hold that the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 189 principal should accept as his own the policies of the super- intendent. If a high standard of professional ethics in administra- tion is to be encouraged on the part of principals by the cen- tral office, it is evident that there must be real democracy in the determination of administrative policies. Subordinate administrative officers must be allowed to share responsibil- ities in the adoption of policies, if they are expected to make such policies their own. The imposition by the central office of a routine, “rule-of-thumb” type of administration serves as a poor challenge to creative professional endeavor on the part of school principals. RELATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL WITH THE CENTRAL OFFICE Official status of the principal—‘“The principal is the captain of his ship,” said Dr. Edwin G. Broome, Superintend- ent of Schools, when asked to define the official status of the school principal in Philadelphia. This definition of responsi- bility, according to Dr. Broome, has obtained in Philadelphia since 1921, the time he became superintendent. The definition implies “headship” of the school to which the principal is assigned and general responsibility under state law and official rules and regulations of the central office for the realization of the primary functions of the local school. The evidence collected through conference and the inquiry form indicates that the large majority of the principals (92 per cent) clearly conceive their official status to be that of serv- ing as responsible heads of the local schools or as representa- tives of the central office. A small percentage of the princi- pals (14.2) accept the status of responsible headship literally and undertake to administer their schools virtually as inde- pendent units, consulting superior executives only with re- spect to matters that deviate markedly from the established policies of the central office. A considerable number of the principals (94, or 41.6 per cent) accept the responsibilities of headship with the belief that they are expected to manage their schools in accordance with the rules and regulations issued by the central office. Another group almost as large (82, or 36 per cent), while also accepting the full responsibilities of headship, feel that 190 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS central-office permission must be secured before significant departures are made from established policies. Only a few (18, or 8 per cent) consider themselves as intermediary of- ficers and feel that they are required to govern their actions solely by communications and regulations from the central office. In general, it can be said that the central office wants the principals to be strong executives, that is, individuals who are willing to assume large responsibilities under general rules and regulations and who utilize their superior officers as ad- visers and consultants rather than as commanders. Although accepting responsibility for policies and the céordination of activities, the central officials profess not to seek a standard- ization which discourages initiative on the part of individual principals or which prohibits the development of individual characteristics in local schools. The relations of the principal with the superintendent of schools.—The school principal is responsible to the superin- tendent of schools chiefly through intermediary executive of- ficers. Except through general meetings and the written in- structions issued by the central office under the signature of the superintendent, the principal has relatively few occasions for making a direct contact with the superintendent. The se- quence of line relations in administrative matters is strictly followed. However, in personal or professional matters the line relationship is not observed. Principals are free to con- sult the superintendent on personal matters at any time. To encourage consultation the superintendent keeps office hours on Saturday mornings specifically for members of the staff who desire to confer with him. It is thus possible for the prin- cipal to obtain professional advice from the head of the school system, even though administrative decisions must first be sought from the executive officer immediately above the prin- cipal in the line. The relations of the principal with associate superintend- ents.—Some confusion exists with respect to the relations of the principal to the associate superintendents. This is obvi- ously due to the fact that the associate superintendents have both departmental and functional responsibilities. The rela- tions of a principal with the four associate superintendents are DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 191 thus evidently both direct and indirect. A high-school prin- cipal, for example, is directly responsible to the associate su- perintendent in charge of high schools, although he is indirect- ly responsible to the other associates in charge of special func- tions, such as the administration of the budget, approval of requisitions for special equipment and supplies, and the organ- ization of special classes. In the case of elementary-school principals the relation- ship is somewhat more confusing since they are under the immediate administration of district superintendents who are directly responsible to the associate superintendent in charge of elementary schools and indirectly responsible to other as- sociate superintendents in charge of special functions. In theory the elementary-school principal has no direct rela- tion with the associate superintendents. This conclusion is supported by the opinion of all the district superintendents and 87.7 per cent of the elementary-school principals. Three-fourths of the district superintendents and approxi- mately one-third of the elementary and junior high school principals regard the associate superintendent as an inter- mediary executive officer between the principal and the su- perintendent. The same proportion of district superintend- ents and about 60 per cent of the elementary and junior high school principals consider that the principal’s relations with the associate superintendent may be either direct or in- direct, depending on the nature of the matter on which cen- tral-office advice is required. One-fourth of the district su- perintendents and approximately one-sixth of the elementary and junior high school principals regard the relation of the principal with the associate superintendent as largely consult- ative. Two elementary-school principals were completely bewildered regarding the relationship, stating that the prin- cipal was directly responsible to the associate superintendent only when the associate acted in the absence of the superin- tendent. The evidence shows that the central office in setting up a line relationship consisting of superintendent, associate su- perintendents, district superintendents, and school principals, has introduced long-range administration which makes for confusion, delay, and irritation. Either the organization is 192 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS conducive to confusion or else the relations between the prin- cipals and associate superintendents have not been made clear. The relation of the principal with the district superin- tendent.—The school system of Philadelphia is divided into ten geographical divisions with a district superintendent in charge of each district. This official is virtually the superin- tendent of a city unit, although his authority does not extend over regular and senior high schools. The relation of the elementary or junior high school principal to the district superintendent is one of direct respon- sibility, although it is understood that the principal is free to consult the superintendent or associate superintendent. While 80 per cent of the principals of elementary and junior high schools so conceive their relationship with the district super- intendent, the remaining 20 per cent indicated more or less confusion. A small number (18, or about 9 per cent) regard the district superintendent as the sole intermediary executive officer between the school principal and the superintendent. About the same number look upon the district superintendent as a departmental executive with authority over the principal only in departmental matters. A few principals (3) consider that the principal is required to consult the district superin- tendent only with regard to matters involving modifications in established practices, while four hold that the district su- perintendent functions chiefly as a central-office supervisor and is not an intermediary executive officer between the prin- cipal and the superintendent. The fact that 20 per cent of the elementary and junior high school principals revealed confusion with respect to the official status of the district superintendent indicates great variation in the existing relationship between these principals and their district superintendents. When so large a percent- age of principals manifest such wide variation in their under- standing of official relations with immediate superior executive officers, doubt is raised with regard to the effectiveness of their working relations. Certainly, the state of confusion does not comport with the working relations expected of school ex- ecutives so closely related in theory as are the school principals and district superintendents in Philadelphia. The relations of the principal with non-educational execu- tive officers.—Considerable confusion appears to exist among OO 2 @ 2 we tes me cc x DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 193 the principals as to their relation with non-educational execu- tive officers in the business and building departments. About half of the principals (45.7 per cent) make contacts with these non-educational officers only through their superior educa- tional officers, district or associate superintendents. Approx- imately one-fourth of this group consider that the principal has no direct relations with the business or building execu- tives. On the contrary, 57.6 per cent of the principals express virtually the opposite view. Over half of the principals com- municate directly with non-educational officials regarding matters which require their attention; slightly more than a fourth (27.2 per cent) consider that they have the same rela- tion with the non-educational officer with respect to business matters as with the educational officer for educational affairs; and approximately a tenth (9.1 per cent) confer with busi- ness and building executives as consultants regarding mat- ters of concern to these officials in the local schools. Similar confusion also appears to exist among the dis- trict superintendents with respect to the relations of the principal and the non-educational executives. Five of the dis- trict superintendents maintain that the principal carries on his relations with business officers through superior education- al officers and that the principals have no direct relations with business officials. Two district superintendents, on the contrary, maintain that the relations of the principal with the non-educational officer regarding matters for which these officials are responsible in the local schools are analogous to the relations of the principal and superior educational offi- cers with respect to matters pertaining to education. Obviously, the relation of the principal to the executive officers of the business and building departments should be both direct and indirect. On matters for which office poli- cies are clearly defined, relations can and should be direct; for example, pay-roll matters, requisitions for supplies from standard lists, and emergency repairs. Special requisitions involving expenditures not provided for in regular budget items, matters of permanent repairs, supplies in excess of quota, and the like, should properly be passed upon by superi- or educational officers. Failure to differentiate clearly be- tween routine and exceptional matters in the relations of prin- cipals and business officers by the educational executives in 194 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the central office probably accounts for the existing confusion in the minds of the principals and district superintendents. That conflicts and irritation are avoided under such con- ditions is explained by the fact that adjustments on the part of the individuals involved have evidently been made. Differ- ent procedures are no doubt generally followed by different principals and different district superintendents with satis- factory results. The relation of the principal with central-office super- visors.—The relation of the principal with supervisors in the central office is not clearly defined or generally understood. This conclusion is supported by the fact that marked differ- ences exist in the conception of the principals as to the status of the supervisors in the local schools. For example, approx- imately 65 per cent of the principals regard the supervisors as staff officers who visit on schedule but who place them- selves under the command of the principal while in the prin- cipal’s school. On the contrary, 35.3 per cent of the principals regard the supervisors as executive or Kne officers. Princi- pals in the latter group accept the supervisors as representa- tives of the superintendent charged with the responsibility of inspecting the work in the local schools and of giving advice with respect to improvement. Nearly a fourth of this group claim that the supervisors act as executive officers while vis- iting the local schools and that they offer criticisms and give instructions to teachers without consulting the principals. A considerable difference of opinion also exists among the district superintendents with respect to the official status of the supervisors. Four, or 40%, consider, that the super- visors, although visiting the schools on schedules prepared in the central office, place themselves under the command of the principal while in the principal’s school. Three apparently accept the supervisors as executive officers, regarding them as representatives of the superintendent with power to in- spect and give advice to the principals. One district super- intendent implied that the supervisors possessed executive power but acted as consultants on request of the principal. Since the question of primary responsibility for the char- acter of the work in the local schools is a matter of much im- portance in city-school administration, the present uncertain- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 195 ty with respect to the relative responsibility of principals and supervisors should be removed. The principal cannot be “the real captain of the ship,” if his orders are countermanded by another person in the captain’s own ship. The relation of the principal with the director of the di- vision of educational research and results—The director of the division of educational research and results assumes no administrative responsibility with respect to the activities of principals in the local schools. Consultative service is provid- ed by the director at the request of a principal, or a group of principals, or is tendered by the director when in his judg- ment, with the approval of the administrative officers con- cerned, a service may be either needed or desired. Further- more, studies involving the céoperation of principals either with or without their advice are projected by the director with the approval of the executives concerned in the central office. The purpose of such studies is to identify and appraise in the local schools educational problems that may require the attention of principals or administrative officials in the central office. In no instance, however, does the director of the division assume direct administrative responsibility for the improvement of conditions which his office may have helped to reveal. The nature of the relations between the principals and the director of the division is more adequately revealed by the consensus of principals’ opinions revealed in the following table. RELATIONS WITH DIVISION OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND RE- SULTS AS CHARACTERIZED BY 228 SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Per Cent of RELATIONSHIP Principals Bulletins of the division supply current information which the principal uses in formulating specific su- pervisory programs better to meet the needs of his school The director aids the principal in securing pertinent data relative to pupil progress and in interpreting the data so as to secure maximum educational re- 196 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The director initiates studies within the schools to en- able the principal to make adjustments looking to the adaptation of instructional materials to the needs of individual pupils................---..2---.----.----00---- 64.0 The principal seeks the assistance of the director in the solution of specific instructional problems in the PIII SHIIIII. :: ncissircceetesinaraciietiasicilasieeiaibitmanteediibietsiataationll 41.7 The principal can command the assistance of the direc- tor in carrying on a testing program initiated by the principal for his own school........ ila 38.6 The division summarizes and interprets data which the principal uses in establishing policies relative to class size and the assignments of teachers within TS TEI: sinssasassherssnetinesostabailmsetiiianaeakamenmesmtintah atarall 24.6 The principal exercises an influence in formulating the general testing program carried on by the director Be ID vcisininsinsiiasnsinticaccesuititasesinnsuiantiannniiabaidiiiahiciiieia 17.6 The opinions presented in the table indicate clearly that the director of educational research and results exercises a large influence on instruction and administration in the local schools. Without the exercise of executive authority the in- fluence of the director ranges from the initiation of studies dealing with internal problems in the schools to consultation with individual principals at their own request. The findings further indicate that the great majority of the principals make extensive use of the services of the division in the organiza- tion, administration, and supervision of the work of their schools. RESPONSIBILITIES ASSUMED BY THE PRINCIPAL In the foregoing section the views of principals with re- spect to their relations with officials in the central office have been analyzed and generalizations presented regarding the relationship found to exist. This section approaches the re- lations from the vantage point of the responsibilities assumed by the principals. The data presented should reveal the ef- fectiveness or ineffectiveness of the functioning of the prin- cipal in actual administrative situations under the relation- ships reported to exist in the foregoing section. Responsibility for rules and regulations in the local school. —The School Law of Pennsylvania provides that the Board of DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 197 Public Education in districts of the first class shall define the general policies of the school system and legislate upon all matters pertaining thereto. “This responsibility includes the adoption of rules prescribing and defining the duties of the officers of administration. In the course of years the rules pertaining to the respon- sibilities of a group of officers, such as school principals, are likely to become somewhat cumbersome by the mere process of accretion unless codified from time to time. The rules and regulations governing the schools of Philadelphia were so codified in 1928. According to this code the principal is de- clared to be the administrative head of his school and is re- sponsible for carrying out the rules and regulations of the board of education and the instructions in pursuance thereto by the superintendent of schools. The various responsibilities of the principal enumerated in the enactments of the board require the formulation of rules and regulations by the principal for the administration of his school. The use of the power thus implied is a matter regarding which conflicts may arise between the principal and central-office executives, who formulate school policies and issue orders to be carried out in the local schools. Of the principals interrogated regarding their responsi- bility for rules and regulations in the local schools, 84 per cent indicated that the principal is expected to follow the rules made by the central office, but that he is free to modify ex- isting rules or to initiate new rules to meet the needs of his school, provided that he secures the approval of the central office. A considerable number of principals (33, or 15.1 per cent) evidently do not assume the responsibility imposed by board rules, for they consider that all rules are made by the central office and that the principal is held responsible only for applying the rules. On’ the contrary, two principals ex- pressed the belief that they had full authority to make regu- lations for the administration of their schools. The findings show that nearly a sixth of the principals do not view their responsibilities for the rules and regulations of their own schools in the light of central-office policies, ei- ther assuming too little authority for adapting the legislation of the central office to local needs or assuming an authority not authorized under the existing practices. The remedy for 198 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the situation obviously lies in the direction of more effective supervision and in-service training of school principals. Responsibility of the principal for the organization of his school.—The rules and regulations of the board of education are not specific on the matter of local school organization. While many of the duties of the principal are specified and some of the factors essential to the establishment of the organ- ization of a school are fixed by board rules, the principal ap- parently has considerable latitude in setting up the internal organization of the school under his charge. Since the principal is responsible to superior executive officers, it has probably been assumed by the board that the acts of the principal will at least be supervised if not actually controlled. Hence, only by implication has the board referred to the responsibility of the principal for school organization. This absence of definition of responsibility for local school organization probably accounts for the difference in the views of the principals with respect to their powers. Forty-three per cent of the principals consider that they are free to set up a school organization without securing the approval of central-office executives, provided that the plan of organiza- tion does not conflict with established policies. Twenty-five per cent, however, consider that they must secure central-of- fice approval of school organization. Fourteen per cent hold that the organization of the local school is planned by the principal in céoperation with officials in the central office. A small number, 16, or 7 per cent, maintain that the principal is required to set up an organization for his school prescribed by central-office functionaries. A few, 8, or 3.5 per cent, hold an opposite view, maintaining that the principal is vir- tually unrestricted in planning and setting up his school or- ganization. The district superintendents who are classed as central- office executives also differ in their interpretation of the prin- cipal’s responsibility for school organization. They agree unani- mously in two respects: (1) that the principal is not free to set up an organization without central-office approval; (2) that the organization is not prescribed by the central office. Three of the eight district superintendents state that the prin- cipal must secure central-office approval for his organiza- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 199 tion; three claim that the organization of the local school is pianned by the principal in céoperation with officials in the central office; while two hold that the principal is not required to secure approval for his organization, provided that it does not conflict with the established policies of the school system. Obviously, the principals in Philadelphia vary widely in the responsibility assumed for the form of organization es- tablished in their own schools. Whether the independence re- vealed by some of the principals is really as great as it seems is beyond the scope of this investigation to determine. Possi- bly these principals enjoy their independence because they clearly understand the policies of the central office and exer- cise initiative only within approved spheres. At any rate, it is safe to conclude that some principals assume responsibil- ity for internal school organization and others do not. Asa group, the large majority recognize that the organization of a local school is a céoperative responsibility to be assumed mutually by principal and central-office executives. Responsibility of principal for the selection of teachers.— The principal has virtually no responsibility for the selection of teachers to fill vacancies in his school. The choice of teachers and their assignment to the local schools is a func- tion of the central office. The principal is permitted to make a specific request indicating the grade or subject for which a teacher is desired, but the assignment goes to the first per- son on the qualified list unless requests for transfers are on file from regular teachers in other local schools. The regu- lar teacher with the longest period of service would then re- ceive priority consideration for the position to be filled. An aggressive principal might seek to influence the deci- sion of the central office in favor of one or the other individu- als entitled to consideration for a vacancy in his school, but his efforts would be futile. The rules of the board of edu- cation governing appointment from the eligible list and trans- fer from one school to another are very rigid and the enforce- ment of the rules by the central office is equally strict. Asa matter of fact, teachers are arbitrarily assigned to positions without consideration of special fitness for the position to be filled. In most instances the principal is permitted to place the teacher in the position to be occupied in his school. This responsibility is limited by one requirement, namely, that 200 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS teachers trained for kindergarten work may not be assigned above the third grade. The relation of the principal and the central office with respect to teacher selection is generally understood. While individual principals may question the justice of being held re- sponsible for the accomplishment of teachers whose assign- ment is made without reference to specific fitness for position or school need, the plan may work out better in the end than would be the case if assignments were subject to personal in- fluence and “political pull.” In the course of time, most of the problems created by the arbitrary assignment of teachers to positions in the local schools can be adjusted through in- service training and transfer. Responsibility of the principal for the rating of teachers. —The present plan of teacher-rating in Philadelphia has been in operation since 1921. The plan was adopted for the primary purpose of improving teaching service although a secondary but very necessary purpose was the development of a scheme which would facilitate the evaluation of the serv- ices of teachers eligible to consideration for promotion under the provision of state law and school-board rules. Teacher-rating thus has become a major responsibility of the school principal. He prepares a “Primary Record” of the teacher’s services each year, giving his analysis of efficiency in instruction, management, and cdoperation as observed during a minimum of five class visitations. The “Primary Record” of each teacher in the elementary and junior high school is filed with the district superintendent and in the senior high school with the associate superintendent. In the case of teachers eligible to promotion the data contained in the “Primary Record” are utilized by officials in the cen- tral office in determining a numerical rating on which pro- motion is finally based. A “Cumulative Record” is compiled from the yearly “Pri- mary Records” for each teacher by the line officer next above the school principal. The “Cumulative Record” contains the annual ratings by the principal and the numerical ratings of teachers when considered for indefinite appointment, for pro- motion from one class to another or from one type of posi- tion to another, and when rated “unsatisfactory.” When a DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 201 teacher -is transferred from one school to another, this rec- ord is forwarded to the school to which the transfer is made. Some difference of opinion exists in Philadelphia as to the exact responsibility of the principal for the rating of teachers. That the principal must rate teachers annually, all agree. Nearly three-fourths of the principals (71.7 per cent) regard teacher-rating as a major administrative responsibil- ity but admit that their ratings are subject to review or change by officials in the central office. A few principals (9.3 per cent) regard teacher-rating as a codperative re- sponsibility of the principal and central office but they admit that the final rating of a principal is largely determined in the central office. A still smaller group of principals (7.0 per cent), while agreeing that the responsibility for rating is cdoperative, claim that the responsibility for the annual rat- ing of the teacher rests largely with the principal. Near- ly a seventh of the principals (13.7 per cent) maintain that they have sole responsibility for the annual rating of teach- ers. Difference of opinion with respect to the responsibility of the principal for teacher-rating also exists among the dis- trict superintendents. Of the seven whose views were se- cured, four considered teacher-rating a major responsibility of the principal, but indicated that his ratings were subject to review or change by central-office executives. Three dis- trict superintendents, however, maintained that the central office rated the teachers in céoperation with the principals and that the final rating was largely determined by the cen- tral office. The evidence indicates that the responsibilities for teach- er-rating should be clearly differentiated and definitely fixed, if the functions of rating are to be effectively realized. Con- fusion among those who share the responsibilities will inevit- ably result in indifferent rating and the evasion of duty. That the present status of rating should occasion alarm is clearly revealed by the influence of ratings in teacher dismissals. Responsibility of the principal for the dismissal of a teacher.—By rule of the board of educaton, teachers in Phila- delphia have indefinite tenure after a probationary period not in excess of two years. After this period teachers are dis- 202 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS missed from service only for cause, such as incompetence, neg- lect of duty, insubordination, or improper conduct. The re- sponsibility for bringing about the dismissal of an unsatisfac- tory teacher is somewhat diffused, although the action is gen- erally initiated by the school principal. If the principal rates a teacher “unsatisfactory” and re- quests the transfer of the teacher to another school or recom- mends dismissal, an investigation of the teacher’s efficiency must be made by the executive officer next in line. Usually, the central office rules in such cases that the teacher is en- titled to a transfer, and so the responsibility for the future status of the teacher is passed to another principal. A second rating of “unsatisfactory” may result in another transfer or in the reporting of the case by the superintendent to the com- mittee on schools of the board of education. This commit- tee reviews the evidence submitted, grants a hearing to the teacher if such is desired, and then makes a recommendation to the board which exercises power of dismissal. So much time generally elapses between the initial rat- ing of “unsatisfactory” and the action of the board with re- spect to dismissal, that some principals have come to believe that they have little responsibility for the elimination of in- efficient teachers from the school system as a whole. Al- though exercising responsibility for rating and the right to in- sist on transfer, the principals rarely recommend dismissal, preferring to leave that responsibility to the central office. Trials for dismissal seldom occur. The unsatisfactory teacher is transferred from one school to another until re- tirement is eventually forced. The adoption of this Fabian policy: with respect to dismissals by the central office has re- sulted in the diffusion of responsibility for incompetent teach- ing and the toleration for extended periods of types of service not entitled to tenure protection under the indefinite-serv- ice provision of the school code. Responsibility of the principal for the management of pupils.—The principal is responsible for the general manage- ment of pupils. He is required by rules of the board of edu- cation to keep records of individual pupils on the forms pre- scribed by the central office and to render reports of pupil progress to parents at stated intervals. Other rules and reg- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 203 ulations pertaining to the management of pupils have been adopted from time to time as issues have arisen in adminis- tration requiring established procedures in the local schools. Despite the large number of such rules and regulations, the intent of the central office is that the principal must accept responsibility for the administration of pupils in the local school. In the assumption of the function of pupil administration, the relations of the principal with functionaries in the cen- tral office have necessarily undergone modification from time to time as cases in local schools have arisen involving the in- terpretation of general school policies. As a result, general procedures have been promulgated by central-office executives and board legislation has been enacted which has tended to limit and restrict the responsibility of the principal in the management of pupils. Approximately two-fifths of the principals (41.9 per cent) accept responsibility for the general management of pupils with the understanding that in the handling of exceptional cases central-office approval must be obtained. Another group of similar size (41.9 per cent) consider that the princi- pal has full responsibility for certain phases of pupil man- agement but that other phases, such as the truancy problem and the selection of pupils for special instruction are han- dled by the central office. The remaining one-fifth view the matter in very different ways. A small group (7.4 per cent) consider that the principal is solely responsible for the man- agement of pupils in the local schools. A few (1.8 per cent) hold an opposite view, maintaining that the general plans for the management of pupils are made in the central office and that the principal is responsible only for applying the plans in his school. Midway between these two groups is a small number (13, or 5.7 per cent) who regard pupil management as the responsibility of the principal, subject to approval of his general plans by the central office. The true status of the principal with respect to pupil ad- ministration appears to be that he is fully responsible only for the routine management of pupils in the local schools. If cases arise involving procedures not provided for by general rules or by written instructions from the central office, the principal is expected to seek the advice of his superior line 204 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS officer before reaching decisions. Of course, it is conceivable that the administration of pupils by some principals is so ef- fective that the advice of centra! officers is seldom, if ever, needed. In such cases the responsibility of the principal for the management of his pupil personnel is virtually supreme. Responsibility of the principal for the curriculum.—The curriculum in use in Philadelphia at the present time is largely the result of shared responsibility. It is a product of commit- tee action to which the school principals, subject-matter teach- ers, and educational functionaries in the central office have contributed. To the extent that individual principals or com- mittees of principals have contributed to the making of the curriculum, it is a responsibility of the school principals. Nearly three-fourths of the principals (72.6 per cent) ac- cept the view that the curriculum is a product of céoperative responsibility. About a fifth (19.7 per cent), hold a very dif- ferent view, namely, that the curriculum has been made by the central office and that the principal is responsible only for curriculum administration. Differences with respect to the responsibilities for cur- riculum administration almost as great as those pertaining to curriculum-making are found among the principals. Near- ly half (44.6 per cent) hold the view that the curriculum or- ganization prescribed by the central office must be followed without change by the local principals. Approximately a third (32.9 per cent) consider that central-office approval is necessary if substantial changes are to be made in adapting the curriculum to local needs. The remainder (22.5 per cent) vary more widely than the foregoing groups in their interpre- tation of the principal’s responsibility for curriculum admin- istration. The large majority of this group (50, or 82 per cent) maintain that except for certain set standards of the central office, the principal is free to adapt the curriculum to the needs of the local school. Sixteen per cent of the group consider that central-office approval is unnecessary for curric- ulum modification in local schools, provided that the changes made do not conflict with established policies. One principal (2 per cent) insisted that he was virtually unrestricted by the central office in administering the curriculum in his school. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 205 While principals as individuals may differ greatly in the amount of responsibility assumed for curriculum-making, in the adaptation of the curriculum to local school needs all face the same problem whether they meet the issues with ini- tiative or rely solely on central-office stimulation. The evi- dence indicates that considerable in-service training of prin- cipals is needed for curriculum responsibilities in the Phila- delphia schools. Responsibility of the principal for the improvement of instruction.—The improvement of instruction is an implied responsibility of the school principal. His original release from regular teaching duties was secured on the ground that time was needed for supervision. That the principal under- stands his responsibility for supervision is revealed by the fact that 205, or 94 per cent of the 218 principals interrogated, consider that they are more or less responsible for the improvement of instruction in their schools. Only 13, or 6 per cent, regarded local supervision as the function of the central office and the principal as the executor of supervisory orders from officials in the central office. The principals who accepted supervisory responsibility varied decidedly in the degree of responsibility assumed. Six- ty-eight principals considered themselves solely responsible for the improvement of instruction in their schools, whether they followed the suggestions of central-office supervisors or not. Another group of 23, while avowing that they were not required to follow suggestions from central-office supervisors, declared that in practice they both used extensively, and dis- regarded completely, suggestions received from such super- visors with respect to instructional improvement. A large group, 98 in number, admitted that they were expected to utilize the benefits received from conferences with central- office supervisors and executives in trying to improve instruc- tion in the local schools. The evidence reveals considerable variation in degree of responsibility assumed by the principals for the improvement of instruction in the local schools, ranging from a marked degree of self-sufficiency to near subserviency to central- office direction. Between these extremes are found the prac- tices generally followed by the school principals. The modal practice, which reveals the most satisfactory conception of 206 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the responsibilities of the principals for instructional im- provement, namely, participating widely in supervisory con- ferences and attempting to utilize the suggestions received, has too few adherents (98 principals out of 218). Responsibility of the principal for extra-curriculum ac- tivities——Marked differences in opinion exist among the school principals regarding their responsibilities for extra- curriculum activities. Fifty-four principals out of 221 fur- nishing information expressed the view that they were given virtually a free hand in the administration of such activities. Another group of 46 asserted that central-office approval must ‘be obtained by the principal for the general program of extra-curriculum activities proposed for his school. Two oth- er groups equally large, while agreeing with the first group as to the freedom of the principals with respect to extra- curriculum activities, qualified their views, 50 declaring that freedom of action was restricted in the cases of athletics and city-wide activities and 54 asserting that central-office ap- proval must be obtained for changes in any existing program and for the introduction of activities considered novel or new, and as representing a distinct departure from previous school or city-wide policies. A small group of 9 principals declared that the program of extra-curriculum activities is prescribed by the central office and that the principal’s only responsi- bility consists in adapting the program to his school. The great divergence in the opinion of the principals with respect to their responsibility for extra-curriculum ac- tivities can probably be partly explained by the differences in the attitude of the district superintendents toward the mat- ter. Five out of eight district superintendents hold that the principal must obtain central-office approval for the general program of extra-curriculum activities in his school. The other three insist that the principal is virtually unrestricted by the central office in the administration of extra-curricu- lum activities, except that approval must be secured for changes involving the introduction of new activities or dis- tinct departures from previous school or city-wide poli- cies. Since a considerable number of principals evidently working under district superintendents of the first type re- ported practices at variance with the views of their superior executive officers, it follows that either the district superin- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 207 tendents do not require some of their principals to secure ap- proval for extra-curriculum practices or the principals are not aware that such approval is expected. Responsibility of the principal for equipment and sup- plies.—The principal is responsible under school board rules for the exercise of care in the protection of school equipment and supplies. As the head of a local school he is expected to use his power to requisition from the central office in provid- ing the new equipment and supplies needed in his school. In the discharge of this responsibility he is required to deal with a dual organization in the central office, namely, the depart- ment of instruction and the department of buildings and supplies, the chief executive officers of which are the super- intendent of schools and the secretary-business manager. Under the regulations of the instruction department, the principal deals directly with the department of buildings and grounds only on matters of pay roll. Requisitions for equip- ment and supplies pass through the line of executive officers of the department of instruction. The requisition of a prin- cipal of an elementary or junior high school passes first to the district superintendent and then to the associate superintend- ent in the central office charged with the exercise of final ap- proval before the requisition is sent to the department of buildings and supplies. The same procedure is followed even when requisitions are based on quotas and lists of standard. equipment and supplies. The central officers of the instruc- tion department thus supervise and control the power of requi- sition of the principal for new equipment and supplies. Relatively few of the principals have any misappre- hensions with respect to their responsibilities for the requisi- tioning of school equipment and supplies. Of 227 interrogated only 4 considered that the principal possessed authority to requisition within their allotments standard equipment and supplies without the approval of educational officials in the central office. Through committees of principals changes are recom- mended with respect to the standard lists of equipment and supplies. These changes may pertain to the exclusion or in- clusion of items, to the quality of materials, and to the quan- tity of allotments. The principal is always privileged to make 208 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS an emergency requisition and to urge its consideration by cen- tral officers of the education department. Responsibility of the principal for the promotion of pub- lic relations.—The central office has no highly-developed pro- gram of public relations for the Philadelphia school system. A special “Committee on Public Relations” headed by a dis- trict superintendent acts as a clearing house for city-wide school publicity, but the cultivation of home and school rela- tions in the school communities rests with the principals. The principals vary considerably in the interpretation of their responsibility for public relations. The majority of those interrogated (133 out of 226, or 58.8 per cent) considered that the principal is responsible for initiating the program of public relations subject to the approval of the central office. A small group (28, or 12.4 per cent) insisted that approval is necessary, if the plans of the principal conflict in any way with the policies of the central office. Another group con- sisting of 39 principals (17.2 percent) held that they have full authority to make plans for public relations without se- curing central-office approval. The remaining 26 principals insisted that the responsibility for public relation belongs to the central office and that the principal merely carries out the central-office plan or adapts the plan to conditions in the school community. Under the conditions described it is evident that the plans for home and school relations will vary with the views of the school principals, and that the responsibility of the school principal for the promotion of good public relations will be determined very largely by his own sense of need for community support. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The adjustment of the relations of the school principal with officials in the central administrative office in Philadel- phia is an interesting development in city school administra- tion. The principalship was an established institution in Philadelphia long before the superintendency and the other central offices were even considered. As a result, there had developed local traditions and customs which made the estab- lishment of right relations between principals and central of- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 209 ficers somewhat difficult when the superintendency was creat- ed. The principals had formed the habit of dealing with the lay officers of the district boards and standing committees of the central board. Hence, they were not inclined at first to accept the professional leadership of the superintendent and his central-office assistants. But gradually the superiority of professional to lay lead- ership was recognized by the principals, and with this recog- nition has come professionalization and the gradual improve- ment of the status of the principalship. From head teachers in their local schools the principals were advanced, through the efforts of the different superintendents, to supervising officers and eventually to positions of professional leadership in the local schools. The principals vary considerably in their interpretation of the responsibilities of professional leadership. Some feel that they are merely titular officers whose actions are con- trolled largely by superior executives in the central office; others maintain that they are permitted great freedom in local school administration, being restricted by central officers only in matters that deviate markedly from established policies. However, it can be said in general that the educa- tional executives in the central office want the principals to assume large administrative responsibilities under general rules and regulations and to consult with superior officers freely as advisers before making departures in practices which might result in conflicts with the policies of the central office. While the relations of the principals with functionaries in the central office are generally harmonious and codperative, the findings reveal that improvements could be made in offi- cial relations that would enhance the professional status of the principal without detracting from the prestige of the cen- tral office. In brief, the improvements in relations desired by some of the principals are: 1. Greater partcipation with central administrative offi- cers in initiating, considering, and determining policies that affect the local schools. 2. Direct dealing with central-office executives in all mat- ters coming within quotas, standard lists, and routine admin- istration instead of through intermediary executives. 210 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 3. The right to exercise some latitude in the choice of teachers from the certified list. 4. More aggressive support from the central office in the dismissal of unsatisfactory teachers. 5. More supervisory and less administrative assistance. 6. Allocation of clerical service on the basis of local need instead of by mechanical formulae. 7. Greater freedom of action under adopted rules and regulations. 8. More frequent rotation of personnel on committees to prevent overloading of individuals and to provide a greater number of principals with the opportunity to participate in the solution of problems and the formulation of policies. 9. Amore friendly attitude on the part of central officers in the support of a principal when his administrative acts have resulted in complaints. 10. Better definition of the relations of the school prin- cipal with the different functionaries of the central office and the codification of administrative regulations in the form of a handbook for principals as a means of eliminating misunder- standings, improving administration, and clarifying official relations. CHAPTER XII PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN PITTSBURGH The history of public education in Pittsburgh reveals that principals were important school officials long before the city had a superintendent. A central organization of schools in Pittsburgh was not developed until 1885 and the city super- intendency was not established until 1868. However, the prin- cipal was the chief administrative officer of the local school under the members of the ward boards of education until these boards were abolished and a single central board was estab- lished in 1911. The annual report of the superintendent for 1934-35 con- tains a brief historical account of public education in Pitts- burgh. The data in this report were taken from the First An- nual Report of the Superintendent of Publie Schools written in 1869 by Superintendent George J. Luckey. Superintendent Luckey reported the early development of elementary educa- tion and the beginnng of the high-school principalship in Pitts- burgh as follows: “Previous to the act approved February 9, 1855, each ward of the city was a separate school district, whose school was controlled by six directors, chosen by the people for three years, but having their term so arranged that two went out of office each year. Between these separate ward schools there was no common bond of union; and, though they were in close neighborhood to each other, they were not part of any com- mon system, and were, in their nature and working, as inde- pendent of each other as they would have been in separate townships or counties. At the passage of the above mentioned act, there were nine wards in the city. The city of Pittsburgh was constituted by it an independent school district, and each of the school boards of the nine wards was required to elect, within twenty days after the election of school directors, one person to serve as a member of the central board of education, > 211 212 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS which person must be a citizen of the ward, although he was not required to be a member of the ward board. “The central board was empowered to determine, assess, levy and collect, annually the taxes which were necessary, to- gether with the state appropriation and any other available funds: (1) to provide and maintain high schools, not exceed- ing two; (2) to provide and maintain schools for children of color; and (3) to pay the teachers of the ward schools. sar" . Accordingly, they proceeded to organize one school, and called it The Pittsburgh Central High School. After due advertisement and the reception of numerous applicants, they elected, as its first principal, Reverend Jacob LaGrange McKown, July 23, 1855.’ The status of the principals of the ward schools was not changed by the provision for a central board. Between 1855 and 1911 the organization remained unchanged and principals became “supervising principals” who were virtually superin- tendents of the several ward schools. During this time the residents of each ward continued to elect a ward board which in turn elected a member to serve on the central board. The central board had no administrative control over the ward schools. Because of the lack of centralized administrative authority, the principals of the ward schools were subservient to the ward boards. The organization of public education in Pittsburgh prior to 1911 was conducive to a low type of pro- fessional service and unequal educational opportunities. In the First Annual Report of the Board of Public Edu- cation? for the year ending December 31, 1912, Superintendent of Schools, S. L. Heeter gives a picture of conditions that had existed before his election as superintendent. He reports that the organization was “altogether exceptional and unique.” In 1911 two distinct city school systems (Allegheny and Pitts- burgh) were under the general supervision of independent central boards. Also sixty-one sub-districts existed, each un- der the direct management of a local board of six directors. The local boards held control of the ward schools and had ex- clusive authority in the selection of principals and teachers, 1Annual Report of the Superintendent, Pittsburgh Public Schools, pp. 31-33. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Board of Education, 1934-35. 2First Annual Report of the Board of Public Education School District of Pittsburgh, pp. 20-22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Board of Education, 1912. 213 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS construction and equipment of school buildings, and the dis- bursement of local school taxes. The central board paid all teachers’ salaries, furnished textbooks and school supplies, as- sumed direct control of high schools, and provided general supervision of the special departments, such as music, draw- ing, and industrial training. Superintendent Heeter thought that “this division of re- sponsible authority resulted naturally and inevitably in great diversity of standards, both in school accommodations and teaching efficiency.” In some wards there were empty rooms and even empty buildings while in adjacent wards the rooms and buildings were overcrowded. “In many instances from seventy to one hundred pupils were enrolled under one teach- er. In one instance a primary teacher had one hundred thirty- six pupils on the daily roll.” In another building sixty chil- dren were instructed in a basement room without windows or ventilation. In marked contrast to these undesirable condi- tions, certain districts had almost ideal school accommoda- tions. The general condition is well described by Superin- tendent Heeter’s statement that “each local board became a law unto itself, and each teaching body as a rule reflected the spirit and interest of the board members.” The organization became so involved, cumbersome, and inefficient, that it was changed by legislative enactment in 1911. The city of Pittsburgh was constituted a district of the “first class” by the enactment of the School Code of May 18, 1911. The new code vested the entire management of the public schools of Pittsburgh in a board of public education of fifteen members who are appointed by the judge of the Court of Common Pleas for a term of six years. This organization has been maintained to the present time. The new code made possible the professionalization of the principalship in Pittsburgh. S. L. Heeter, who was selected to head the schools, began the difficult task of reorganization. That he was retained only one year is indicative of the exist- ence, at the time, of a difficult situation in the administration of schools. During his brief service he initiated a policy of placing a principal in charge of each school. In the First An- nual Report of the Board of Education, Heeter stated his pol- icy as follows: 214 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS “The school building, uniting in close relationships the work of principal, supervisors, teachers, and pupils, naturally constitutes the unit in the city school management... . Such recognition of the integral parts of a school system necessitated certain changes in local control. Under the former ward management some principals had supervision over sev- eral schools aided by assistant principals in each separate building. The title as well as the office of ‘supervising prin- cipal’ has been continued temporarily in a number of in- stances, but only until such time as a principal may be placed in charge of each school.’ ‘ Principals grew professionally under the inspiring lead- ership of Dr. William M. Davidson who was appointed to the superintendency in 1914 and who remained in this position un- til his death in 1930. Dr. Davidson developed a line and staff organization in which the principal became an important line administrative officer. During the period between 1914 and 1930 principals were trained to supervise all subjects of the elementary school. The principal became the professional leader of his school with the further perfection of the line and staff organization by Dr. Ben G. Graham, successor to Dr. Davidson and super- intendent at the present time. The program of professionaliz- ing the principalship was stated by Dr. Graham in the Nine- teenth Annual Report of the Board of Education, as follows: “It is very generally conceded by experts in school ad- ministration that the most important officer of the supervisory staff, in direct relation with pupils and teachers, is the prin- cipal of the school. Therefore, the point where our attention should first be centered in improving the supervisory staff is the improvement of the school principal.’’? He explained that for three years past a series of courses for principals of the elementary schools had been given. Large numbers of principals had availed themselves of the oppor- tunity to attend these courses in which ways and means of improving supervision were discussed with various members of the superintendent’s staff. 1] bid., 39-40 2Nineteenth Annual Report of the Board of Education, p. 21. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Board of Public Education, 1930. i ap a @t A DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 216 The principal’s relation to the central staff was stated by Dr. Graham in this report: “An attempt has been made to establish a line and staff organization in which the principal of the school will be the direct representative of the superintendent of schools and will be responsible directly to the superintendent or to the asso- ciate superintendent assigned to a particular group of schools, with the intention of making the principal responsible for all the supervision of all the teachers in his school. This takes the director of special subjects and the subject supervisor out of administration and the duties of an itinerant supervisor and places the director of special subjects and subject supervisor in the field of creative supervision. . . . Naturally, it will take some time to change from a mixed line and staff organization, such as we have had, to a distinct line and staff organization, such as proposed. . . . We have made a fair beginning in this direction and expect to see the transition completed in the course of the next five years.’ The foregoing statement is especially significant in view of the fact that the present report was made only five years after the statement was written. THE INTERRELATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL IN THE PRESENT ORGANIZATIONS The historical background of the development of the prin- cipalship in Pittsburgh reveals that improved organization has made possible the professional growth of principals. The- school code which provided for the reorganization of public education in Pittsburgh, a city of the “first class,” gave the principal legal authority in relation to other school officers. Legal provisions—The school laws of Pennsylvania set forth the organization of public schools in cities of the “first class.” The provisions of these laws affecting the principal’s relationships are as follows: “Section 2223: The board of public education in each school district of the first class shall annually, on the first Mon- day in January, appoint a district superintendent to be des- ignated and known as superintendent of schools, and may 1 bid., pp. 22-23. 216 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS also at the same time appoint a superintendent of buildings, and a superintendent of supplies, and shall prescribe their duties and fix their salaries. They shall be responsible to the board for the conduct of their respective departments, shall make annual reports to the board, and shall from time to time submit such plans as they shall deem expedient or as the board of public education may require: Provided, that the super- intendent of schools may be elected for a term of not more than six years. ... “Section 2224: Supervision of all matters pertaining to instruction in all the schools, under the direction and subject to the approval of the board of public education, shall be vested in the superintendent of schools, associate superintendent, as- sistant district superintendents, and school principals. Asso- ciate and assistant district superintendents may be appointed by the board of school directors, upon the nomination of the superintendent of schools. . . . They shall be under the su- pervision and direction of the superintendent of schools. .. . “Section 2231: The superintendent of buildings shall be responsible for the condition and care of all school buildings and premises. He may appoint such assistants as the board of public education may authorize and approve: Said assistants shall receive such compensation as the said board shall deter- mine, and shall perform their duties to the satisfaction of the superintendent of buildings. All plans for new school construc- tion, additions or repairs shall be approved by the superin- tendent of buildings and shall be submitted to the superin- tendent of schools for criticism, before submission to the board of public education for adoption. “Section 2233: A superintendent of supplies may be ap- pointed by the board of public education as herein provided. . . . He shall be the executive agent of said board, for the purchase, custody, and distribution of all supplies needed for the schools under such regulations as the board of school di- rectors shall prescribe. He may appoint such assistants as the board of public education may authorize and approve. Such assistants shall receive such compensation as said board may determine and shall perform their duties to the satisfaction of said superintendent.” 1The School Laws of Pennsylvania, pp. 155-56. Harrisburg, Pennsyl- vania: Department of Public Instruction, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, re ~ ~ _~_ hm ~ at aA aan. ry DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 217 The School Code, Sections 303 and 318, also provides that the board of public education shall elect a secretary who is not a member of the board. Among other duties prescribed, “he shall have general supervision of all the business affairs of the school district, subject to the instructions and directions of the board of school directors.’”? The principal’s official relationships in the present organi- zation.—The principal has a close relationship with both line and staff officers. Line officers are executives who exercise direct administrative authority. Staff officers function only in an advisory capacity. The principal is a line officer and is the head of the individual school, which constitutes the unit in local management. Administrative authority comes to the principal in a direct line. This authority originates with the board of education. The superintendent of schools, who is the chief educational executive of the board of education, dele- gates authority directly to associate superintendents and prin- cipals. The superintendent of schools is the educational head of the school system. He recommends to the board all sub- ordinates in his department, plans and supervises their work, and shapes the constructive policy of the schools. The superintendent of buildings has general charge of all matters pertaining to the physical school plant, including con- struction, repairs, permanent equipment, and operation. The superintendent of supplies is the general purchasing and distributing officer of the board and has charge of all materials duly authorized for the various departments in school operation. The secretary, who is not a member of the board, is the general business executive of the board of public education. He may, if he so desires, deal directly with a school principal in the discharge of his duties. The accounting department is set up as a subdivision of the office of the secretary but it is the board’s policy to con- sider this department as receiving its authority directly from, and reporting directly to, the board of education. The chief VWbid., p. 25. 2I[bid., p, 27. 218 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS accountant is authorized by the board of education to deal directly with the school principals regarding matters relating to pay rolls. Departmental directors of special branches of education compose a staff, the members of which function as technical advisers to the principal. The principal’s relation with the superintendent.—The principal is directly responsible to the superintendent of schools, even when dealing with one of the superintendent’s subordinates. He always has access to the superintendent and may confer with him on any matter relating to the adminis- tration of the local school. It is the duty of the principal to follow implicity all administrative orders issued by the super- intendent, observe the spirit of such orders, and support the policies of the superintendent at all times. The principal’s relation with coérdinate administrative of- ficers.—Four other executive officers of the board of education are codrdinated with the superintendent to the extent that au- thority comes to each directly from the board of education. These officers, whose functions have been described, are super- intendent of buildings, superintendent of supplies, secretary of the board of education, and the chief accountant. This com- plicated system might easily result in conflicting orders to the principal or at least might present situations where the prin- cipal would be in doubt as to just what procedure to follow. The manner in which the system operates is clearly expressed in the Handbook of Principals: “Notwithstanding the possibilities of conflict inherent in the system provided by the code, unity of action has been maintained for years in the purpose of carrying out the major policies of the board of education and of developing the great- est possible efficiency in the school system as a whole. This unity has been secured by the intelligent direction of these five heads, by the board of education, and also by the spirit of codéperation which each has maintained in his dealings with the others. “There are matters where the superintendent of build- ings, superintendent of supplies, secretary of the board of education, or the chief accountant, deal directly with the school principal. . . . This procedure saves time and reduces the re- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 219 quired work of the principal and of the superintendent. Prin- cipals are urged to appreciate the fine spirit of codperation ex- isting and codperate with all executive officers.”* Actual practice shows that few relationships exist between the principal and administrative officers other than the su- perintendent and associate superintendents. Relation of the principal with superintendent of buildings. —TIn the main, contacts of the principal with the superintend- ent of buildings are made through requisitions. Requisitions are usually checked, unless they involve routine matters, by the education department. The building department in codp- eration with the education department seems to have func- tioned efficiently and harmoniously for many years. It is in- teresting to note that Cubberley in Public School Administra- tion, written in 1916, praised the contribution of the superin- tendent of buildings who is still head of the building depart- ment. He states that “The city of Pittsburgh offers (1916) one of the best examples of the application of good principles in schoolhouse construction.”? The principal’s relation with the superintendent of sup- plies.—The majority of the relations between the principal and the superintendent of supplies pertain to requisitions. The prin- cipal has the authority to requisition all supplies for his build- ing. All requisitions, however, must be approved by the edu- cation department before being filled. An example of the importance of the principal in school administration is shown by the notice in regard to the use of the telephone which appears in every office. The rule reads as follows: “This telephone in this room is for the exclusive use of the school for school business only. Local and long dis- tance toll calls are positively forbidden unless definite permis- sion is granted by the principal.” This notice is signed by the superintendent of supplies. The cafeteria is under the administrative control of the superintendent of supplies but no conflict of authority with the principal is encountered in this respect. 1Handbook of Principals, pp. 21-22. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: The Board of Education, 1931. 2Cubberley, Ellwood P. Public School Administration, p. 388. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1916. 220 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The principal’s relation with the secretary.—The princi- pal comes in contact with the secretary of the board of edu- cation only in dealing with tuition pupils. The school code pro- vides that the board of education may require all non-resident pupils to pay tuition fees. It is the duty of the principal to collect tuition fees and to remit to the secretary of the board of education. Relation of the principal with associate superintendents. —lIt is the duty of the principal to recognize the authority of associate superintendents. The powers and duties of the asso- ciate superintendent have been defined by the superintendent. This authority delegated to associate superintendents is recog- nized by the principal as if exercised by the superintendent himself. The first associate superintendent and an elementary associate superintendent have been placed in charge of ele- mentary schools. An associate superintendent is in charge of personnel and another associate superintendent directs voca- tional education. The superintendent of schools retains direct control of high schools. A codperative relationship exists between principals and associate superintendents. The principals are not dominated by the associate superintendents. They feel free to disagree with the associate superintendents on details of administra- tion. The reasons for disagreement, if sound, will be given a sympathetic hearing. Principals consult associate superin- tendents and seek advice from them on many matters concern- ing the administration of the schools. Relation of the principal with the director of personnel.— Principals are required by rules of the board of education to consult the director of personnel in all matters pertaining to personnel. The functions of the associate superintendent in charge of personnel have been definitely fixed by the board of education. In general, his duties consist of the administration of salary schedules and recommendations to the superintendent of schools concerning the appointment, promotion, demotion, transfer, and dismissal of members of the teaching staff. School clerks are appointed and assigned to buildings by the personnel department. They are under the administrative control of the principal. Their duties consist of routine busi- 221 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ness and clerical matters and any other work that will con- serve the principal’s time. Relation of staff officers with the principal_—The principal has at his call the staff officers who function as technical ad- visers in their respective fields. It has been the policy in Pittsburgh to provide departmental directors in certain branches of education. Directors of the following departments function to a very great extent as advisers and technical assist- ants to principals: Art, compulsory attendance, curriculum study, educational measurements and research, extension edu- cation and adult education, kindergartens, music, science and visualization, household economy, industrial education, trade- training, vocational guidance, primary instruction, handwrit- ing, and commercial work. The director of physical education still continues to conceive his office as having administrative functions, regardless of the efforts of the superintendent and his administrative assistants to develop a staff of supervising specialists. Relation of trade-school principals with the central-office staff—The relationship of principals of the trade schools to the central office is somewhat different from that of principals of other schools. Because of the special nature of the trade school, there is a lack of definite relationship with certain offi- cers of the central organization. For example, the entire cur- riculum of the trade schools has been made by the principals and the teachers of the trade schools. The supervisory staff is not called into the trade school because of the special nature of the curriculum. The major contacts of principals of trade schools with the central staff are with the director of trade training who supervises the work of the trade school. The practice of recruiting principals from trade schools is significant. Five members of the trade schools’ teaching staff have been assigned to principalships within recent years. The principal and school policy.—In the main, the general policy of administration is determined by the board of educa- tion and the superintendent of schools. However, in some de- gree at least, the principal has a part in the shaping of gen- eral policy and the making of rules for his school. An exam- ple of this is shown by the manner in which the Handbook for Principals and High School Administrative Duties were made. 222 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS These handbooks were the result of codperative enterprise on the part of the board of education, superintendent of schools, principals, teachers, and the department of research. The Handbook for Principals is the outgrowth of sug- gestions of the board of education and of a study made by the principals’ club. The publication, High School Administrative Duties, was formulated by high-school principals and teachers in codperation with the research department. All new policies are initiated by the superintendent and are executed by the officers in the line of administrative au- thority. If there is nothing new in a particular proposed pro- cedure, it need not be referred to the superintendent. How- ever, new ideas may be originated by a principal, be referred to the associate superintendent or the superintendent, and after approval be returned to the principal in the form of new poli- cies. The principal and the plan of organization of schools.— The principal is responsible for the proper functioning of the organization of his school. He may make suggestions for the reorganization of his school, or change the organization of his school without consulting his superior administrative offi- cer, if the change is in harmony with adopted policy. The principal assigns the duties of all minor administrative officers in.his school. The principal and the custodian.—The custodian is legally under the direction of the superintendent of buildings but is in practice actually under the administration of the principal. The relations existing between the principal and the custodian are cordial. Principals have no difficulty in securing efficient service from the janitorial staff. The principal and the board of education.—Principals have no direct contacts either individually or collectively with the board of public education in Pittsburgh. THE PRINCIPAL’S RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE LOCAL SCHOOL The complete relationship existing between the principal and the members of the central staff can be obtained only by a rather detailed consideration of the activities of the principal as he works in his school. SS —- Ss Oe Ss >see epee * ee A DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 223 The improvement of instruction—The principal in Pitts- burgh regards supervision as his greatest responsibility. The supervisory staff has been decreased in recent years and the principal’s supervisory duties have been increased. He has full responsibility for the improvement of instruction in his school. All supervisors from the central office have advisory func- tions only and are subject to the call of the principal. The fol- lowing supervisors are, in the main, “on call” and serve as technical advisers to the principal: Art supervisors, supervi- sors of hygiene, kindergarten supervisors, music supervisors, supervisors of science and visualization, supervisors of house- hold economy, supervisors of industrial training, supervisors of primary instruction, and supervisors of handwriting and commercial work. All these supervisors do not function actu- ally as advisory experts. The departments of hygiene, art, and music continue to operate, at least in part, in an administra- tive capacity. The superintendent of schools has attempted to bring all staff departments to a realization of their advisory functions. This program began with the former superintend- ent and has not as yet been fully consummated under the pres- ent administration. Each principal is asked by the superintendent to make a yearly report of a supervisory visit to each of his teachers. The report is of the essay type describing what was observed in the classroom, what was discussed in conference after the visit, and a statement of suggestions made to the teacher. Administration of pupils.—The principal considers pupil administration to be one of his most important duties. He feels that every activity of the school should be justified in terms of pupil needs. He groups pupils homogeneously for more efficient teaching and learning. The ultimate decision concerning promotion rests with the principal. He decides all questions in terms of “What is best for the child?” He may suspend pupils but is asked to report the names of pupils sus- pended to the superintendent immediately. Corporal punish- ment of pupils is not forbidden by state law and may be in- flicted by principals for bad behavior in school. The parents must be notified of the punishment. Corporal punishment is given only after other means of correction have failed to im- prove conduct. 224 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Organization and administration of the curriculum.— Principals do not make the curriculum but are responsible for interpreting the curriculum to the teaching staff. The curric- ulum is prepared by committees of teachers. Principals sug- gest names of teachers who are qualified to work on particular curriculum committees and principals themselves may be chosen for curriculum work if particularly qualified for the work being done. For example, if the arithmetic curriculum is being revised, a principal who has done outstanding work in the field of mathematics may be invited to serve on the com- mittee. The content of the curriculum is determined by the cur- riculum committees in codperation with the department of cur- riculum study and research which functions in an advisory ca- pacity. The principal adjusts the curriculum to serve the needs of his particluar community. The time distribution for elementary schools is worked out in the department of curriculum study and research under the direction of the first associate superintendent and is ap- proved by the superintendent of schools. The time-allotment of subjects in the high school is determined by the principals of the various high schools in codperation with the department of curriculum research and is approved by the superintendent. Textbooks are selected by the superintendent and assist- ant superintendents in codperation with committees of teach- ers. Principals suggest names of teachers who are qualified to serve on particular textbook committees. Principals may also serve on textbook committees if they are especially qualified in the field in which textbooks are being considered. Administration of the teaching staff.—The principal does not select teachers for his school but requests that the person- nel department send him a teacher of a particular type or with certain experience or training. The associate superintendent in charge of personnel has the duty of recommending to the su- perintendent of schools the appointment, transfer, demotion or dismissal of teachers. Suggestions in regard to these matters, when made by the principal to the director of personnel, are favorably received and the principal is often consulted by the director of personnel in the assignment, promotion, and trans- fer of teachers. The principal has direct authority over the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 225 teachers in his building. The exercise of administrative au- thority appears to be greater in the high school than in the elementary school. For example, all high-school teachers are required to “punch” a time clock on entering and leaving build- ings. Principals are asked to rate the teachers in their schools once each year and report to the personnel department. These ratings are used as administrative ratings. The rating scale is also used by principals and teachers to improve teaching procedure. While the teacher is directly under the administration of the principal, it is understood that any teacher may go directly to the superintendent with a problem. Leadership in the community.—The principal in Pitts- burgh is a highly respected community leader. The local school to a very large extent is the social center of the community. The adminisrative policy is to consider school buildings and grounds as belonging to the public and to make these facilities available for meetings, recreational activities, and athletic contests. Permits for the use of school buildings originate in the local school and must be signed by the principal. Permits are issued by the superintendent of buildings for the use of audi- toriums, classrooms or athletic fields upon the request of the principal for entertainments, forum discussions, political meet- ings, concerts, parent-teacher association meetings, community groups, educational meetings, lectures, board of trade groups, health activities, and dramatic groups. The extent to which the local communities in Pittsburgh use their school buildings is shown by the fact that 18,146 meetings were held in school buildings during the school year 1934-35 with a total attend- ance of considerably over a million people. Administration of extra-curriculum activities —The con- trol of extra-curriculum activities in a particular school is en- tirely in the hands of the principal. The principal plans the organization of extra-curriculum activities in conformity with his own administrative policy. The general administrative policy encourages the promotion of extra-curriculum activi- ’ ties but the principal determines the nature of the activities he shall have in his school. The extent to which a school en- 226 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS gages in athletics is a matter for the principal to decide. Whether a given school is or is not in a particular league is determined solely by the principal. The principal is respon- sible for the conduct of athletics in his school. Certain eligi- bility rules have been set up, but the principal determines the eligibility of particular players. Principals very generally promote programs of citizen- ship training by entrusting to pupils an appropriate share of participation in school administration. Student councils and assemblies consider matters affecting pupil welfare, and pupils serve frequently on reception committees, safety patrols, house committees, scholarship committees, etc. Numerous service clubs provide experience in the orderly procedure of deliber- ative bodies. All funds of extra-curriculum activities are under the ad- ministrative control of individual principals. A uniform sys- tem of accounting in the handling of extra-curriculum activity funds is not practiced. Administration of equipment and supplies.—The princi- pal requisitions all supplies for his building. Requisitions are addressed to the superintendent of supplies, are signed by the principal, and are approved by the superintendent or first asso- ciate superintendent. Requests for equipment are made to the superintendent of buildings. All requests for repairs, replacements, alterations, and additions to buildings, grounds, and furniture, go to the building department. In actual practice principals are permitted to make sug- gestions concerning building plans and building construction. Principals may suggest that buildings be remodeled. Remodel- ing plans are submitted to principals for criticism and are usu- ally changed in accordance with the suggestions made by the principals. Administration of guidance.—The principal is responsible for guidance in his school. There is no uniform program of guidance in the Pittsburgh public schools. One particular high school has an outstanding guidance program utilizing six advisers. Each of these advisers is assigned by the principal to a particular class of pupils (e. g., 9B) and remains with these pupils as a counselor until they graduate. As a general DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 227 rule, the principal assigns the guidance work to some one in his building who is particularly trained and capable of doing the job. PRESENT STATUS OF PRINCIPALS The status of the principal in the Pittsburgh public schools is determined by the following practices and conditions. Standards for appointment.—The standards for appoint- ment of principals have not been definitely announced and published. However, the requirements are definitely formu- lated in the minds of those responsible for making appoint- ments. The general rule followed is demonstrated fitness for educational and professional leadership. In brief, principals are selected in the following manner: An eligible list of prin- cipals, classified as nearly as possible in the order of rank or standing is kept in the office of the director of personnel. When a vacancy occurs in a principalship the first associate superintendent, the director of personnel who is an associate superintendent, and a third associate superintendent meet and prepare a list of the three ranking candidates for the position to be submitted to the superintendent. The superintendent selects the principal from the list of three names submitted. If there is objection, on the part of any one of his three assist- ants submitting the list, to placing that particular candidate in the vacancy, the superintendent either does not make the appointment at that time or selects another candidate Examinations, written or oral, are not given to candidates. The eligibility requirements may be summarized as follows: 1. Five years of teaching experience, a part of which must be in the Pittsburgh schools. 2. The Bachelor’s degree for the elementary and junior high school principalships and the Master’s degree for the high school principalship. 3. Superior ratings on experience outside of Pittsburgh and on record in Pittsburgh. 4. Wide experience and previous service actually dem- onstrating leadership and showing fine professional spirit. The service records on file in the personnel department de- termine the assignment of principals. Assignments are made 228 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS by the superintendent and his three associates through at- tempting to fit the individual principal to a particular princi- palship without regard to order of rank or eligibility. Per- sonal and social qualifications play a large part in determining assignments. All principals in Pittsburgh give their entire time to ad- ministration and supervision. They have no teaching duties. Thirty-eight principals are assigned to more than one build- ing. These thirty-eight principals have charge of ninety of the one hundred sixty-one schools. Twenty-two schools have head teachers who do not have the standing of a principal and are under the administration and supervision of principals as- signed to more than one school. Salary schedules for principals.—The salaries of elemen- tary principals as shown by salary schedules operative at the present time are as follows: Teaching +s Annual Automatic Groups Units Minimem Increment Maximum A 6-9 $2,350 2-$200 $2,750 B 10-15 2,650 3-$200 3,250 C 16-19 3,150 3-$200; 1-$100 3,850 D 20 and over 3,150 5-$200; 1-$100 4,250 All super-maximum provisions are inoperative at the present time. | The schedule of salaries for high-school principals, junior high school principals, training-school principals, principals of boys’ and girls’ trade schools, and continuation-school princi- pals is as follows: The minimum salary is $4,250 and the au- tomatic maximum salary is $5,750. Change of status of principals—Promotion, demotion, and dismissal of principals is recommended to the superintend- ent by the director of personnel. The personnel department classifies principals on the basis of the success with which they plan, organize, and direct, the operation of their schools and the equitable distribution of the teacher load among the different members of the teaching staff. Special emphasis in such classification is placed on a principal’s ability to evaluate quality of teaching as shown by the ability of the different teachers under his supervision and DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 229 on his ability to effect the professional improvement of his teaching staff. Legal status of the principal—The principal enjoys a le- gal status in Pittsburgh. Supervision of instruction is vested coordinately in the administrative staff and the school prin- cipal under the direction and subject to the approval of the board of public education as stated in “Section 2224.” The law further provides in this section that the district superin- tendent in conjunction with the school principal shall inquire into and supervise all matters relating to the government, courses of study, methods of teaching, discipline and conduct of schools in their respective districts, and shall report the same when required to the superintendent of schools. Difference in status of elementary and secondary princi- pals.—The principals in both elementary and high schools have equal status except in the matter of salary. Each principal understands that he is responsible for everything that goes on in his school and regards himself as the professional leader of his school. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Before 1855 there was no central organization of the schools in the city of Pittsburgh. The period between 1855 and 1911 was one in which the several principals of the ward schools were virtually superintendents of schools in their local districts and were virtually independent of the central organi- zation. Previous to 1912 the ward with its “supervising prin- cipal” was an independent and therefore significant unit of educational organization. When the school code was adopted in 1911, it placed all local units under central control but recognized the former sig- nificance of principals by giving them a legal status. The code provides five executive officers with codrdinate legal adminis- trative authority, a plan which possesses inherent possibilities of administrative difficulties. However, because of the high type of executives found in these offices, the principal’s work- ing relationships with the central offices have been exception- ally good since 1912. The principal is a line officer, whose authority comes directly from the superintendent. He is the responsible head 230 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS of the local school, and as such has complete charge of, and is responsible for, his building and all that goes on therein. The members of the central-office staff function in theory as specialists in an advisory capacity to the principals but all administrative officers agree that further progress in practice can and should be made. A study of the duties performed by the principal in the local school, reveals the fact that the principal has rather large powers and responsibilities. In the main, principals accept these responsibilities, and use their administrative power wisely. The school, under the leadership of the principal, serves a vital function in the social and intellectual life of the local community. The principal has attained in Pittsburgh a unique status in educational leadership. A financial distinction in salaries exists between elementary and secondary principals, but other- wise, the elementary principal stands as high professionally as the high-school principal. The principal is generally recog- nized as the professional leader of his school. Certain outstanding existing conditions have made possi- ble the professional development of the principalship in Pitts- burgh. (1) The public schools are singularly free from poli- tics because of the method of appointment of board members under the school code; (2) the schools being divorced from politics has made possible the selection of an administrative personnel of high order. CHAPTER XIII PORTLAND, OREGON GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION A rule of the board of directors of the public schools of Portland definitely commits the system to a unit plan of admin- istrative organization. “The city superintendent of schools is the administrative officer of the district and exercises general supervision of all schools and departments.” Despite the rule, conversations with members of the cen- tral-office group and with a number of principals indicated that when the investigator visited Portland in September, 1936, the type of organization was, for all practical purposes, a multiple plan, with at least four more or less codrdinate offi- cers reporting on some matters directly to the board of edu- cation. Among the first evidences of the absence of unit authority is the presence of a budget director, responsible directly to the board, who was first appointed in 1936. Principals stated that up to the time of this study, budget requests had come to them in the name of the superintendent, but they indicated that if a request came directly from the budget director, they would look upon it as an order of the board of directors and would act accordingly. Some difference of opinion existed among the persons in- terviewed as to how much of the board’s business is conducted by standing committees, three of which have as members, re- spectively, the superintendent of schools, the school clerk as head of the business department, and the superintendent of properties. These department heads meet with their respec- tive committees, ostensibly as advisers though nominally as committee members, and committee recommendations are made to the entire board. The implication is that some of the board’s routine business, at least, is transacted in committee and is approved perfunctorily by the board. 231 232 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Both the clerk who, according to the Oregon Code, is con- sidered an officer of the board of directors, and the superin- tendent of properties, recognized the leadership of the superin- tendent of schools, but indicated that on many matters they are independent of him and might refer problems directly to the board. Although the present clerk seems to have no dis- position to do so, he apparently has the authority necessary to veto requisitions without giving his reasons, in case he could get no decision from the superintendent of schools. Likewise, the superintendent of properties may carry matters rejected by the educational officers directly to the board. The present budget director indicated that, as long as a favorable balance remained in a given fund, he had no veto power on a requisition drawn against the fund but that, if funds were exhausted, he did have such power. One of the foregoing officials declared that in his opinion the business manager of a school system should be responsible to the superintendent, but should also have direct access to the school board whenever he considered such access necessary. It is not the function of this investigation to consider the efficacy of an organization that has as many possibilities for incodrdination and the play of “school politics’ as has the Portland situation. Nevertheless, since the relationships of the principal with the central-office executives under present conditions in Portland are likely to be less of the sort found in a system organized on a unit plan and more of the kind found in schools organized with multiple departments codrdinately responsible to the board, the type of central organization in use must not be overlooked. BOARD REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PRINCIPAL Board regulations specify in great detail the duties of the school principals; reference will be made to specific regula- tions in the course of the report. At this point but two will be mentioned. One duty enumerated for principals is “to see that the school buildings are open at 8:30 A. M. and to call the roll of their teachers.” Principals no doubt have adequate means of ascertaining the presence or absence of teachers without calling the roll. At least, the investigator who was present two or three mornings at the opening sessions of as Cd 233 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS many schools did not see any principal actually “call the roll” of his teachers. The second to be mentioned here is that of the principal being required to instruct teachers and pupils as to their con- duct and duties in case of fire, and the requirement of a weekly fire drill. Without question, this may be considered a reason- able duty for principals to perform. The interesting feature in connection with the rule is the penalty attached to its non- enforcement. “In case any principal fails to hold a fire drill during any school week, a fine of $2.00 for each such omission shall be deducted from his monthly pay next due, which fine shall not be remitted.” THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN PORTLAND Method of appointment.—The formal appointment of school principals in Portland is made by the board of directors, on recommendation of the superintendent of instruction. At present both written and oral examinations are given prospective principals. Thus far, according to the central- office executive furnishing the information, only elementary principals have taken the examinations. The oral portion con- sists of an interview held “for the superintendent’s office” by members of a special examining committee usually composed of principals and supervisors. Candidates passing both the written and oral examinations are placed on an eligible list from which subsequent recommendations are made. Although both principals and administrators who were interviewed indicated that the appointment of principals is fairly free from “school politics,” admissions were made that “outside influences have their power,” and that in the case of several good candidates, the appointment would probably go to to the candidate having strongest support from members of the board of education. Principals felt, however, that the situ- ation at present as to political pressure in appointments showed improvement. A justifiable conclusion concerning the appointment of principals is that merit now apparently carries more weight than formerly. The value of the oral interview, however, as it is now given may be questioned, on the ground that the in- terview adds little to what is already known about the candi- 234 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS dates. The plan evidently places considerable authority in the hands of the interviewing committee. Method of assignment.—Recommendations for assign- ment of principals by the board of directors seem to be the outcome of conferences of the superintendent with his assist- ant superintendents. Aside from general qualifications, the criterion for assignment seems to be the fitness of the candi- date for the vacant principalship. The principals interviewed indicated that recently con- siderable interference on the part of certain board members had been manifest in the assignment of principals. One prin- cipal characterized the situation as “very bad.” Another cited board interference, more often in the matter of teacher-ap- pointments than in the appointment and assignment of prin- cipals. When an individual already occupying a principalship is an applicant for a transfer to a better position, seniority and efficiency exercise a strong influence, although here, too, polit- ical pressure is considered not entirely absent. Changes in the principal’s assignment.—Promotion is ac- complished by transferring principals from smaller to larger schools, or automatically in the case of an increase in the en- rolment of a school. In general, elementary principals are not promoted to the high-school field, although such promotion is not unknown in Portland. Once established, the principal may usually expect to be promoted more on the basis of his efficiency and perhaps his seniority than on political influence. The latter factor is ap- parently not entirely divorced from the problem. One prin- cipal indicated that seniority, efficiency, and “school politics” all have a part, one being in the ascendancy in a given case, and another in another case. The feeling of those interviewed, however, was that merit possessed greater influence, in gen- eral, than the other factors mentioned. Since principals are subject to the state tenure law, dis- missal is rare, but demotion is occasionally accomplished. Thus, in case of inefficency as a principal, the individual is us- ually returned to a teaching position unless charges of ineffi- ciency as a teacher, or other legal grounds, are substantiated. While it is not the purpose of this study to evaluate the - DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 235 working of the tenure law in Portland, the evidence available indicates that in the application of the law in cases of inef- ficiency, not the individual concerned but the administration must stand trial. In none of three cases tried during 1935-36 in Portland was the administration upheld by the board of directors. With such support from the board any administra- tion would probably condone inefficiency that it would other- wise never countenance in the principalship and the teaching corps. Transfer of principals is generally made in Portland for two reasons, namely, promotion and the correction of malad- justments between principals and their communities or their teachers. Principals who were interviewed were inclined toward the belief that they were fairly well protected from outside in- terference in the administration of their schools and that po- litical considerations weighed less heavily here than in cer- tain other phases of their relationships, as heretofore men- tioned. Without question, the principal is decidedly more sure of his position than are the officials in the central office, since the latter are employed on a contractual basis, whereas principals have the protection of the tenure law. For the same reason, principals who have become established in the system do not feel themselves at the mercy of their superior officers. Proportion of principals teaching.—Only in the smaller buildings do principals teach. Buildings with fewer than 10 teachers have “teaching principals” who, according to the cen- tral-office executive interviewed, teach part time. In very small buildings a head teacher teaches full time. The number of teaching principals and head teachers is comparatively small. Salary schedules for principals—Salary schedules for principals in Portland are based on a rather fine classification of enrolments at the elementary level and broader enrolment classifications at the high-school level. In the elementary schools the salaries of principals range from $1,856 to $3,130, the median being $2,240. The salaries of the high-school prin- cipals range from $3,000 to $4,000, the median being $3,480. RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS THE PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONSHIPS Official status of the principal in his school.--Although board regulations do not state specifically that the principal is the responsible head of his school, the list of duties indicates that he is actually so considered. The most general duties of principals are the following: “.. To be responsible for the organization, discipline and supervision of their respective schools.” The position of the present administration is that the prin- cipal is the responsible head of his school, but is required to obtain permission from the central offce before making sig- nificant administrative changes involving established proce- dure or regulations. Actual practice, as indicated by replies of principals, is in accord with the foregoing theory. Official relations with the superintendent.—The adminis- tration and half of the principals interrogated in this study agreed that the principal is responsible to the superintendent through an intermediary executive officer for both educational and business matters. One principal claimed that he was di- rectly responsible to the superintendent; others felt that they were directly responsible to the superintendent in educational matters, but not in business affairs; and still others held that in matters of curriculum and the extra-curriculum, the respon- sibility was through an intermediary staff officer. Some of the principals were not fully aware of the execu- tive powers of the assistant superintendents as line officers, considering them in a staff (advisory) capacity, or failing to differentiate clearly between the authority of staff and line of- ficers. Principals indicated that they receive communications di- rectly from other offices than the education department, and comply with any requests contained therein “because it is a help,” and because they feel that such communications would have the approval of the superintendent of instruction. De- spite the fact that there seem to be elements of divided author- ity in the administration of the Portland schools, the prin- cipals evidently look primarily to the superintendent of in- struction for final orders in case of any dispute. The fact, however, that several principals believe that they are respon- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 237 sible directly to the superintendent of instruction for educa- tional matters suggests that this issue should be clarified. Official relations with central-staff officers —Supervisory staff officers visit schools as representatives of the superin- tendent, inspect the work, and give the principal advice with respect to improvement. About half of the principals whose views were secured for this study agreed to the foregoing def- inition of the relationship; the others regarded the supervisors as consultants only. In addition to the statement made in the preceding para- graph, the superintendent of instruction indicated that he con- sidered the principal to be the chief executive in the local school, but in matters of method and procedure he apparently considered the central-office supervisor superior to the prin- cipal. Principals cited the inevitable supervisor who oversteps authority as being found occasionally in the Portland system. In spite of the fact that the supervisor is regarded as being in charge of a given subject with respect to method and proce- dure, both principals and central administrators were agreed that no order should go direct from the supervisor to the prin- cipal or teacher. However, an assistant superintendent may issue an order for the execution of a recommendation of a su- pervisor if he considers the supervisor’s recommendation to be correct. Despite the fact that central administrators and the prin- cipals are fairly well agreed in their understanding of the su- pervisor’s locus of responsibility, principals cited instances of orders issued by supervisors to teachers to attend meetings and in these meetings gave directions to teachers to do certain things regardless of the program of the school. A study was reported to have been made by members of the Portland school system on the matter of professional rela- tions, results of which may have been put into force during the school year. Up to the time of the investigator’s visit, nothing apparently had been done about the study, although it had been presented to the superintendent. Some principals indicated that the relationship with the supervisors depended considerably on the attitude and vigor of the principals, themselves. One principal declared that un- RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 238 less supervisors were checked, they would “put their programs across” without telling anyone. The findings indicate that the relations of the school prin- cipals and supervisors in the central office are considerably confused. Unless the relationship is clarified, conflicts will in- crease and the purposes of central-office supervision will be impeded. Official relations with non-educational executive officers. —Both the central administration and the principals agreed that in theory and practice, the principals have a direct rela- tionship to the non-educational executive officers. This is borne out in the earlier discussion on the matter of the organi- zation of the Portland school system. One principal’s explanation of the situation summarizes fairly well existing relationships. He thought that committee- administration by the board of directors had weakened the in- fluence of the superintendent as an executive officer, with the result that the board had assumed administrative responsi- bilities for matters that properly belong to its executive offi- cer. Principals reported that orders came direct to the local schools from some of the non-educational executives, and that the principal may or may not report such matters to the super- intendent for final instructions. Since the superintendent of properties and the school clerk, at least, possess the power to veto the requests of a principal in matters concerning their de- partments, there seems to be a division of authority which af- fects the principal. The education department still rules on the educational value of property requests, but does not give consideration to the accuracy of estimates included with the requests. Although the educational officials in the central office hold that the principals are supreme in their schools, it seems that in some cases they are not. The following duty of the school principal is enumerated in the board regulations: “... (e) To be responsible for the care of his respective building during school sessions and at such other times as he is in the school building. At all other times the janitor shall be responsible.” According to the superintendent of properties, janitors are required to be codperative with the principals. The prin- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 239 cipals interviewed had the general idea that they were supreme in their buildings, qualifying the statement in one instance with “while school is in session.” The principal, however, may not set the working hours of the janitors in his building. While the principal has final authority in the building in most in- stances, in the matter of properties the superintendent of that department “has the last word.” The evident conclusion is that the board considers the principal supreme in his building. However, since the janitor is responsible to the superintendent of properties and not to the principal, a possibility for friction arises, especially in the case of aggressive janitors. The statement of the superin- tendent of properties that janitors “must” codperate seems to be borne out in practice. The general conclusion is that the principal has direct re- lationships with non-educational executives, and while he owes them no allegiance in theory, in practice they may exert more or less executive power over his requests. From discussions with principals and certain of the ex- ecutive officers, it is apparent that, although board members seem not to interfere frequently, if at all, with the actual oper- ation of a school, certain members of the board are consid- ered overactive. One of the individuals interviewed said that at the time of the investigator’s visit there was considerable activity on the part of several board members—“more than ever before.” “Principals,” he said, “do not encourage it.” Some principals, however, do have direct relationships with board members. The evidence indicates that certain members of the board of directors assume executive functions in the school system, and that perhaps certain principals are not entirely blameless in their part in the relationship. Influence of the principal on educational policies.—Most of the principals agreed with the central administration that proposed changes in policies are discussed with the principals as a group before such changes are announced. In interviews, some said that in certain matters arbitrary decisions were made in the central office, but ordinarily consultation with principals is the rule. The general tendency indicated in the comments of prin- cipals is that the suggestions from principals are well received, 240 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS that the relationship between the principals and the central office is improving in respect to talking over policies prior to the announcement of policies, and that, in a broad sense, prin- cipals help to determine school policies. Evolution of present relationships.—The central adminis- tration indicated that present relationships resulted from a gradual evolution based upon mutual interests in common prob- lems. The principals were fairly evenly divided in their re- sponses. A few agreed with the foregoing statement; about as many others felt that present relationships were the result of rules and regulations of the board of directors, and about the same number thought that the present relationships were a direct result of the influence of the superintendent. Some asserted that pressure brought by the principals’ organization on the superintendent and on the board of directors was re- sponsible for present official relationships between the prin- cipals and the central office. The divided opinions of the principals seem to reflect the play of “school politics” which was in evidence at the time the investigator visited in Portland. _ Support received by principals from the central office.— The administration and most of the principals agreed that com- plaints brought to the central office are referred to the princi- pal’s superior who, with the principal, disposes of the matter. Some principals, however, indicated that such matters are referred back to them for their sole attention, while others claimed that such complaints were handled by the central office with or without consultation with principals. The conclusion is that most complaints are handled coép- eratively, but that some principals are permitted to do more in the adjustment of complaints than others. Perhaps the practice varies with the seriousness of the complaint. Execution of the policies of the superintendent.—In this relationship, the central administration considered that the principals interpreted and executed as well as possible the policies of the superintendent without personal commitment as to their own belief in the administrative soundness. A minor- ity of principals agreed to this interpretation. i ahd ety See 5 ee DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 241 Most of the principals coéperating in this study indicated that they would not hesitate to oppose privately a policy of the superintendent which they considered unsound, at the same time officially executing the policy in the given school or com- munity. RELATIONS OF PRINCIPAL WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL SCHOOL Responsibility of the principal for his school organization. —Rules and regulations of the central office generally must be followed by the principals, but may frequently be adapted to the local schools, subject to central-office approval. In sub- stance, the foregoing statement was agreed to by both central administrative officers and most of the principals interviewed. The principal and his teachers.—The principals in Port- land apparently have little authority in the selection of their teaching personnel, most of the teachers being selected and assigned by the central office. That principals are not en- tirely without voice in the matter is indicated by the answers of some, who said that the principal may recommend the as- signment of certain teachers to his school but that his recom- mendation may or may not be followed. Doubtless the vigorous principal, who is aggressive enough, may have some voice in the selection of his teachers, although the central office does not consider itself bound to consult him. Since teachers after a probationary period are protected by the Oregon tenure law, dismissal can be accomplished only after a certain legal procedure is followed. Principals agreed that in general this procedure is recommended by the princi- pal only after consultation with central-office executives. Some of the principals interviewed considered that on them rested the sole responsibility for recommending the dismissal of teachers. The board of directors makes teacher-rating in a broad sense definitely a duty of the principals, laying down the fol- lowing rule: “.... (g) To make written reports to the board on April 1st of each year on the efficiency of their teachers. All such reports will be treated as strictly confidential ; but each teacher 242 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS is to be furnished with a copy of the report on his or her indi- vidual work.” The principal and equipment and supplies.—About half of the principals participating in the study agreed that princi- pals may requisition what they need whether it is on a stand- ard list or not, but that each requisition is subject to central- office approval. Principals are required to send to the central office an annual statement of receipts and disbursements of funds, but they are not required to support their financial reports with receipts for money paid out. Cafeteria accounts, however, are audited by the central office. Cafeterias are managed by an individual employed by the principal, faculty, and student body, or a committee from the given school. Cafeteria man- agers are not required to make a profit, but are expected to establish a capital fund in the clerk’s office to cover equipment and replacements. Except for keeping this fund at certain established figures, managers are expected to sell as near cost as possible. In the matter of the replacement fund and in the auditing of cafeteria accounts, the principal has direct rela- tions with the business department of the central office. No perpetual inventory as such seems to be required, but the amount of supplies on hand must be given when requisi- tions for the subsequent year’s supplies are made. Principals last year were called upon to prepare building budgets by the newly-appointed budget director, who made the request in the name of the superintendent of instruction. The principal and his pupils—Board rules in connection with pupils’ management include the following: As a duty of the principal—“. . . . (c) To be responsible for the organization, discipline and supervision of their re- spective schools.” “To report on attendance, promotions, and other matters as required.” “... Principals only shall have the power to suspend. In all cases of suspension the principals shall immediately notify the parents or guardians and also the superintendent of schools.” “Whenever, in the opinion of a principal, the reputation of a pupil is so bad that his re-admission to school would prove —s = A= nNrtrano DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 243 detrimental to the best interests of the school, such applicant may be refused admission. When admission is refused under this rule, the principal shall send a written notice to the city superintendent of schools and, also, to the parent or guardian with the reasons for such refusal.” Board rules cover in considerable detail certain matters called “Duties of Pupils” (of which the last two of the fore- going references are a part), indicating the board’s tendency to add to its policy-making function a considerable portion of the executive function ordinarily thought to be delegated to the superintendent. The view of the present administration is that the princi- pal has, as is implied in the foregoing rules, a full responsi- bility for the management of his pupils in certain phases of the problem, but that in other matters the central office is privileged to step in. About half of the principals interviewed did not acknowl- edge any responsibility to the central office beyond conforming to board rules. They indicated that they were fully responsi- ble, without qualification, for the management of the pupils in their schools. The other half of the group interviewed felt that more or less of their pupil administration depended on central-office approval. It is possible that, because of long fa- miliarity with the routine of pupil administration and the ha- bitual treatment of exceptional cases in accordance with estab- lished practice, the first group of the principals noted consider their relation with the central office in this respect as a matter of course. The principal and the curriculum.—Curriculum-making in Portland, both in theory and in practice, seems to be a codper- ative activity. What difference of opinion exists, as indicated by the replies made by those interviewed, is in the admin- istration of the curriculum. Some of the principals felt relatively free to omit central- office approval for changes they might make in fitting the re- sulting product to their school communities. Most of the prin- cipals, however, felt that more or less approval was needed, the consensus of opinion being that certainly in the case of sub- stantial changes, central-office consent is needed. 244 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS It is fair to conclude that principals are given considerable freedom in adapting the curriculum to the school community, but that the administration maintains a suitable, though not entirely effective check, in requiring the approval of changes. The principal and the extra-curriculum.—In matters per- taining to the extra-curriculum there is general agreement be- tween the administration and the principals interviewed. The principal has virtually a free rein, except for athletics and other city-wide activities. A large proportion of the principals interviewed consider that central-office approval is required for new, novel, or distinct departures from previous school or city-wide policies. The principal and improvement of instruction.—Board rules take cognizance of the responsibility of principals to improve instruction, prescribing the following duty: “.... To hold once each month at least one educational meeting of all the teachers in the respective buildings, and as many other meetings as is necessary. The educational meet- ings should be held at the close of the afternoon session.” The present officers of administration indicated that the principal is considered solely responsible for the improvement of instruction in his school, whether or not he follows sugges- tions of central-office supervisors. The principals agreed to this statement of the situation, about half of them indicating that they could use the advice of some supervisors as exten- sively as they wished and disregard that of other supervisors. This attitude is not quite in accord with the policy of the cen- tral office, that the supervisor is in charge of his subject as to method and procedure. A fair conclusion that may be drawn is that, while a prin- cipal is rather definitely expected to use the advice of the su- pervisors, if he does not do so the burden of proof is placed emphatically upon him to justify his method or procedure in the subject in question. Supervisors in Portland seem to be considered advisers, but advisers whose advice the central of- fice expects to be followed. The principal and public relations.—The central adminis- trative officers and the larger proportion of the principals agreed that the principal initiates his own public-relation plans, subject to approval by the central office. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 245 A sizable group of the principals interviewed felt, how- ever, that the principal has full authority, and that central- office approval is not necessary. If the general practice in this regard is actually what the dissenting principals believed it to be, certain educational measures on the part of the central office might well be undertaken to acquaint the entire group of principals with the practices the central office expects them to maintain in the matter of public relations. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The school principal in Portland at the time this study was made enjoyed considerable freedom of initiative in the management of his schools. After a period of successful pro- bation, he is protected in his status as teacher, at least, by the Oregon tenure law, a protection which the local board of school directors seems especially disposed to recognize. In an apparent attempt further to professionalize the status of the principalship, a method of written and oral ex- aminations has been inaugurated for the selection of candi- dates. While the plan in operation exhibits certain weak- nesses, it also possesses some merit. Assignment of principals to specific schools is based on the suitability of the candidate for the vacant position, and, in case the assignment is in the nature of a promotion, efficiency and seniority are also con- sidered. Here, as in certain other aspects of the situation in Portland, there are indications of the play of “school politics” and a more than usual interest in local school administration on the part of some directors. Although the school system is organized nominally on the unitary administrative plan, the principals have certain direct relationships with non-educational executives in the central office. An added evidence of the indicated exercise of direct authority on the part of these officials is the fact that some of the principals consulted claimed responsibility to the superin- tendent on educational matters only. Consultations with both central administrative officials and principals revealed the use of at least some executive power by the non-educational execu- tives. The existence of direct relationships with board mem- bers was admitted by persons interviewed, and a somewhat unusual interest regarding matters of central administration, at least, was cited on the part of certain directors. 246 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS That the principal is the responsible head of his school is acknowledged by both board rules and by the central admin- istration. He is ordinarily consulted in connection with new policies, and his suggestions are well received by the central executives. In this respect, according to the principals con- sulted, relationships are improving. In organizing his school, the principal is expected to follow the rules of the board of directors, but these may be varied with the permission of the central administration. He has comparatively little voice in the selection of his teachers, but is responsible for their rating. Recommendations for dismissal are made coéperatively by the principals and the central administration. In general, the principal is responsible, within a fairly detailed group of board rules, for pupil-administration, but the final disposition of exceptional cases may be made by the central-office executives. Though supervisors do not give orders directly to the principal as a general rule, instances were cited in which di- rections having virtually the force of orders were given by staff members. If the principal does not follow the suggestion of the supervisor, the burden of proof is upon him to justify his course of action. The central administration has implied to supervisors a position somewhat above that of consultants in authority. In general, the relationship between the super- visor and the principal seems to be one in need of definition and clarification. The principal is in charge of his building during the school day, but at other times the custodian is in charge. Jan- itors are required, according to the superintendent of proper- ties, to codperate with the principals, but the fact that the jan- itor is responsible to the properties department, which in prac- tice occupies a somewhat independent position, is a source of possible friction, especially in the case of over-aggressive cus- todians. The greatest weakness in the relations between principals and the central office in Portland is the uncertainty which ex- ists with respect to the status of the supervisors in the local schools, the authority of the superintendent, and the executive powers of the assistant superintendent. CHAPTER XIV PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND EARLY SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION IN PROVIDENCE The amount of progress made in the professionalization of the principalship, as well as of other educational offices, in the Providence school system may best be ascertained by com- paring past administrative practices with the practices of to- day. The relationship of the principal to executives in the cen- tral office depends upon how much authority is vested in the central educational officers themselves. The superintendent and his administrative staff cannot delegate to school prin- cipals authority which the central officers do not themselves possess. Fifteen years ago in Providence matters concerning school finance, school buildings, recreation, and health were almost entirely in the hands of the city council; not even the school committee controlled such affairs. School committee.—Much of the other educational admin- istration was largely in the hands of a school committee com- posed of thirty members elected from the ten wards of the city. Three ex-officio members, the mayor, president of the common council, and the chairman of the joint standing com- mittee on education of the city council also served on the school committee. Standing committees.—Such a large membership on the school committee naturally resulted in the allocation of duties and responsibilities, rightfully belonging to the superintendent of schools and his administrative staff, to numerous standing committees. The executive committee was the most important. In addition, there were seventeen other standing committees attempting to perform duties of an educational nature. Con- sequently teachers, principals, and other school officials were often in doubt as to whom they were responsible in the per- formance of their duties. 247 248 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Control over school buildings.—The lack of control of school officials over school property was conspicuous. A super- intendent of school property was elected by the school commit- tee and held responsible to a standing committee on school- houses. Consequently the school principals had no voice of authority in the janitorial service of the buildings in which they supposedly were in charge. Purchase of school supplies —No educational officer par- ticipated to any great extent in the purchasing of supplies. A purchasing agent, entirely free from the control of the super- intendent of schools, was authorized to make purchases of school supplies. The haphazard way in which purchases were made is described in a survey report: “When the annual apportionment is made, there is no provision made for supplies as a separate item in the budget. There is no allotment to various buildings, or even to the separate kinds of schools, such as elementary and high schools. The amount of supplies received in a building depends upon the initiative of the principal. Thus, when supplies are slow in arriving, some principals make a special trip to the ware- house personally. No limit is placed upon any school in ad- vance... .”2 Supervision of instruction.—The early organization made no adequate provisions for the supervision of instruction throughout the system. Some provision was made for general supervision on the part of directors and supervisors in special fields. Because of the large number of schools, however, super- vision was necessarily inadequate. Many of the elementary- school principals taught classes and had little or no time for the supervision of instruction. It was extremely difficult to locate responsibility. The survey report stated: “. . . the supervisors feel understaffed and disconnected. The majority of the principals have no time in which to help with the problems of the teachers. And the teacher can justly claim that she receives but little help from anybody in the school system. The superintendent, therefore, can hold no one responsible for defects in the instruction. On the other hand, teachers are not entirely certain to whom they are re- 1Strayer, George D. Report of the Survey of Certain Aspects of the Public-School System of Providence, Rhode Island, 1923-1924, p. 37. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 249 sponsible. Some of them indicate that in case of a difficulty they would go to the principal; others that they would go to the supervisor.”? PRESENT ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF SCHOOLS A notable contrast in the present organization of the pub- lic-school system of Providence with that of fifteen years ago concerns the allocation of responsibility. Instead of the intri- cate multiple system with authority distributed among several different independent persons and committees which previous- ly existed, the single-unit system is now on force. The super- intendent of schools is the chief executive to a school commit- tee, composed of seven members, for all educational and busi- ness affairs of the entire school system. The superintendent of schools takes a prominent part in the selection and organiza- tion of his administrative staff, the members of which are subordinate and responsible to him. Direct lines of authority have been determined. Each officer of the school system whether he be a deputy superintendent, assistant superintendent, director, principal, or teacher apparently knows for what and to whom he is re- sponsible. This is signficant in consideration of the fact that there is a noticeable paucity of printed rules and regulations defining specific duties and powers of the respective officers of the Providence public school system. The by-laws and regulations of the school committee, last compiled in 1930, are brief, general, and comparatively few. This feature of school administration is considered desirable. It permits quick change of policy to fit individual needs and allows for initia- tive on the part of principals and other school officers. On the other hand, many changes in the personnel of the administra- tive staff could cause considerable confusion and doubt as to existing policies and relationships between school officials of different rank. This difficulty, however, is largely eliminated in Providence because of the fact that, in general, the admin- istrative officers are trained in the system and thereby gradu- ally become acquainted with policies. Moreover, the periodic administrative meetings are, in many respects, more explana- tory than are printed rules and regulations. 1bid., p. 48. L stsedzouzug | [ stedzouzag | . . S4yay [enue Ppa *siy byucquesubande ‘ eben 4 Ke per phd quepuejuzuedn pres WoTa eae oysn seme werd = Log | Lae eet aon aud L | " se UTE | ee ak a aici 0m SouBpue ze pu Scotian hentne seuteng ‘gousptnes ‘yousese SEOTATOS JJBIE JO J10300ITG ‘eqdns quBqetssy feqdng £4ndoq | | quepuezutdedns RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 933 FUWOD TOOYS 250 ‘STOOUSS OFTANd eoUuepTAcdg oyy Jo UOTIEZTUBBIO 251 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Organization chart—The present organization of the Providence public school system was planned along the lines proposed in the survey report of 1924. The most recent chart is contained in a compilation of by-laws and regulations of the school committee in 1929. Since that time, however, numer- ous changes have been made in the organization of the ad- ministrative staff. The accompanying chart is drawn upon the information supplied by the superintendent and the deputy superintendent in charge of instruction. A recent and significant development in the organization of the superintendent’s administrative staff has been the ad- dition of a second deputyship. Beginning with the present school year one deputy superintendent acts as a line officer of the superintendent and is responsible to him for the in- structional aspects of the entire school system. The other deputy superintendent holds a unique position in the adminis- trative organization. He is an executive of both educational and non-educational functions. He is both a line officer and a staff officer. As a staff officer he has general control over special fields and coérdinates the work of the directors of these special fields. As a line officer he is in complete charge of plant operation and plant construction and is held account- able for these functions only to the superintendent of schools. In general, it can be said that such an arrangement does not conform to the best administrative practices, since it is unlikely that one person would be an expert in two fields which are so remotely different. In the particular instance, however, it appears that both functions are very satisfactorily performed by the one officer. The position was defined to fit a man rather than a man selected to fit a position. One assistant superintendent is in charge of research, guidance, and attendance. He is directly responsible to the superintendent of schools. Two other assistant superintend- ents, one in charge of elementary schools and one in charge of secondary schools, are responsible to the superintendent through the deputy superintendent who is in charge of instruc- tional services. Lines of authority extend from these two as- sistant superintendents to elementary- and high-school prin- cipals. Another position in the organization is that of director of business administration. A more appropriate title as deter- 252 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS mined by functions performed would be that of “purchasing agent.” He is also directly responsible to the superintendent of schools. STATUS OF THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL Appointment.—Principals for the schools of Providence are elected by the school committee. All nominations are made by the superintendent of schools and become effective after having been approved by a majority vote of the members of the school committee. _ There are three different classes of principalships accord- ing to salary levels—elementary, junior high school, and senior high school principalships. The superintendent may assign or transfer within a single class as he and his staff see fit. A transfer from one class to another, however, constitutes a new appointment and would require the confirmation of the school committee. Candidates for the principalship are not required to take examinations. They are appointed on their records as deter- mined by the superintendent and his staff. In recent years nearly all appointments have been made from candidates taken out of the local school system. There are but few formal requirements in the by-laws and regulations or elsewhere with respect to experience and degrees. In general, however, a candidate would be required to have a Master’s degree before receiving serious consideration by the administrative staff. Tenure.—The rules governing tenure are considered to be very flexible for school employees in Providence. All teach- ers, including principals, are elected on probation for a period not exceeding three years, to be determined by the superin- tendent. Principals have no tenure as principals; they may be de- moted to teachers. However, if a principal is demoted to the rank of a teacher his salary must remain the same. Only the superintendent is under contract. Other cen- tral-staff officers are merely elected without contract. In prac- tice, though, the tenure rights of staff officers are equivalent to those of principals. Change in status.—Promotion or demotion of principals in the schools of Providence may be executed in two ways. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 253 First, the superintendent may transfer within each of the ele- mentary, junior high school, or senior high school divisions without the approval of the school committee. The change in status is determined by the size of the school to which the principal is transferred, since salary and responsibility are comparable to the size of the school. Second, the superintend- ent may cause a change in the status of a principal by recom- mending that he be appointed from one to another of the di- visions. His recommendation in such an instance would re- quire the approval of the school committee. The policy apparently is to require experience in the prin- cipalship of an elementary school before promotion to a prin- cipalship in the high school. At present all principals of the junior high schools have served in the same capacity in ele- mentary schools. Salaries—The salary schedule for teachers, principals, and other school employees in Providence is unique and is considered to be very satisfactory. There are three separate schedules. Principals in the elementary schools fall under Schedule A; those in junior high school, in Schedule B; and those in senior high schools, in Schedule C. The basic annual salary in Schedule A is $1,000 with an annual increment of $100 for thirteen years after which the rate of increase diminishes. Elementary-school principals receive more than the basic salary; the amount of additional salary depends upon the number of teacher units. Principals of elementary schools of six-teacher units or less receive $200 above the schedule. The amount increases along the scale so that principals of elementary schools of more than fifty- teacher units receive $1,800 above the schedule. The basic salary in Schedule B is $1,200 with an annual increment of $100 for the first fifteen years after which the rate of increment decreases. Principals of junior high schools receive $2,000 above the schedule. The basic salary in Schedule C is $1,400 with an annual increment of $100 for the first seventeen years. Principals of senior high schools receive $2,400 above the schedule. Academic qualifications—Recent amendments to rules and regulations governing the issuance of teachers’ certificates stipulate that the professional standard of qualifications for 254 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS all regular teachers in public elementary and high schools shall be as follows: a. Graduation from approved secondary schools or equiv- alent. b. Graduation from approved collegiate course of four years. ; c. Professional preparation of 400 clock hours in the study of education and also 400 clock hours of practice teaching. Qualifications of principals are no less than those of teach- ers and, in addition, principals must hold a principal’s certifi- cate, which may be obtained on examination or the presenta- tion of evidence of having completed at least thirty-six clock hours in the study of the administrative and supervisory func- tions of a school principal. As a matter of fact most principals in the high school and some in the elementary school hold at least the Master’s de- gree. In all cases the superintendent and his staff determine whether or not the academic qualifications of a candidate meet the requirements for a particular principalship. Administrative responsibility —The by-laws and regula- tions state that “principals, under the supervision and direc- tion of the superintendent and his assistants, shall have im- mediate charge of the schools to which they have been ap- pointed.” In Providence, as in most cities, certain principals have positions of greater administrative importance than others. In general, principals who have been in the system for a great length of time and have proved their administrative ability are given considerably more freedom in the management of their schools than are the principals who are new in their positions. Moreover, the size of the school frequently determines relative responsibilities of the principals. The smallest ele- mentary school in Providence has less than a hundred pupils enrolled; whereas, the largest has over 2,500. Many of the elementary schools are housed in small buildings with six or fewer teachers. The principals in these buildings are often required to teach and therefore do not devote full time to ad- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 255 ministrative and supervisory functions. The appointment of unassigned teachers as substitute teachers or temporary assist- ants aids considerably in relieving “teaching principals” from their teaching duties long enough to perform necessary ad- ministrative and supervisory functions. The number of “teach- ing principals” is being reduced as rapidly as possible. Never- theless, more than thirty elementary-school principals still do some teaching. No high-school principals teach, but junior high school vice-principals are required to do some teaching. Participation in determining policies.—Although the prin- cipals are expected to and do carry out the educational policies of the central office, they themselves aid considerably in the formulation of the policies. Numerous meetings throughout the year, in which principals participate, have considerable influence in the formulation of policies. A supervisory staff meeting is held once a month during the school year. The superintendent of schools presides over these meetings, which are attended by the deputy superin- tendents, assistant superintendents, directors, supervisors, and principals. With so many persons in attendance at these meet- ings there is not much opportunity for exchange of opinion. The time is therefore usually utilized by the superintendent or some of his staff in describing and explaining certain poli- cies. When this investigation was being made the week pre- ceding the opening of school, such a meeting was held. The superintendent described in detail the existing administrative organization, showing the proper channels through which authority was expected to flow. At some of the other meetings principals are afforded a better opportunity of expressing their views with respect to practices and policies. Separate monthly meetings are held for senior high school principals, junior high school principals, and principals of six-year elementary schools. Meetings for “teaching principals” of elementary schools are conducted about four times a year. The deputy superintendent of instruc- tion attends the principals’ meetings but usually designates the appropriate assistant superintendent as presiding officer. The responses of principals and central-staff officers to the query concerning the influence of the principal in the deter- mination of the educational policies of the central office are 256 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS illuminating. The deputy superintendent of instructional services, who formerly was an assistant superintendent, stated that proposed changes in policies are discussed with the prin- cipals as a group before such changes are announced. Ten of twelve principals who were consulted concurred in this opinion. The other two, both of whom have been elementary- school principals for more than ten years, believe that new policies are adopted by the central office without consultation or discussion with principals prior to adoption. RELATIONS WITH EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS Superintendent.—The by-laws and regulations of the school committee specify that “except as otherwise provided, all employees of the committee shall be under the immediate control of the superintendent.” Since the regulations make but little exceptional reference to the principal’s authority, the superintendent’s control over the principal is assumed to be practically complete. It is not to be inferred, however, that principals deal di- rectly with the superintendent in educational and business matters. In a large city system, that would be impracticable and impossible. The superintendent’s authority over principals is mainly exercised through intermediary officers. Two central-staff officers and eleven principals were asked to give their opinions concerning the official relations of the school principal and the superintendent. Everyone replied that the principal is responsible to the superintendent through an intermediary executive officer for both educa- tional and business matters. The statement was made by one executive officer, who has served for many years on the ad- ministrative staff, that ‘““whenever a principal jumps over one person or other to get to the superintendent there should be a very good reason.” The principal may have direct contact with the superin- tendent when his problem is of such a nature that intermedi- ary officers, not wishing to assume the full responsibility of advising the principal, would refer him to the superintendent. Deputy superintendents.—The relations of deputy super- intendents to principals are determined by the superintendent. The regulations provide that “the deputy superintendents shall DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 257 represent the superintendent in matters of administration and supervision of the schools in accordance with powers and duties assigned to them by the superintendent.” One deputy superintendent is a line officer and is held directly responsible to the superintendent for all instructional services of the entire school system. The other deputy super- intendent is a staff officer as far as educational functions of the school are concerned; in business affairs he is a line of- ficer. His educational responsibilities are mainly to direct, coérdinate, supervise, and advise in the special fields of visual education, music, art, health and physical education, and manual art. This part of the organization appears to be complicated and results in a roundabout way of exercising authority in the special fields. A hypothetical case will illustrate. A prin- cipal observes that there is faulty teaching in the field of art. The principal would be expected to consult his assistant su- perintendent who, in turn, would consult the director of art. If the case demanded action, however, it would be necessary for the principal or assistant superintendent to consult the deputy superintendent of instruction who, in turn, would con- sult the deputy superintendent in charge of art and tell him what must be done. It is believed by the deputy superintendent of instruction that this procedure avoids clashes between the instructional force and the directors of special fields. Assistant superintendents.—An assistant superintendent, directly responsible to the superintendent, is in charge of re- search, guidance, and attendance. Much of the efficiency of the Providence schools is attributed to the personnel and ad- ministration of this office. Principals have not only been relieved of many grave problems which consumed a major part of their time but are now furnished with data and serv- ices which were not obtainable without a centralized guidance program supervised and administered by a trained personnel. The effect of this office upon the principals and the con- duct of their schools is manifested in the changes which have taken place with respect to discipline. Ten years ago there were in Providence sixteen disciplinary schools. If a principal had a disciplinary case he would refer it to the central office and usually, without investigation, the pupil in question was SE eet enti 258 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS transferred to a disciplinary school. After a guidance pro- gram was established, individual cases were studied and trans- ferred to schools most adaptable to their needs. Since most of the cases were cleared in this way, the disciplinary schools, being only partially filled, became too expensive to continue and were finally eliminated. At first principals objected to the elimination of the disciplinary schools because they had served as “dumping grounds” for those children who did not easily fit into the traditional school program. Now, how- ever, principals are heartily in favor of the present arrange- ment. It should not be inferred that principals do not deal with discipline at all. They handle the discipline of their own schools as far as possible. The following statement of an elementary-school principal is illustrative: “If I have a tru- ancy or discipline case, I work with it up to the place where I see I am making no more progress, and then if the case still needs more attention I would refer it to the office of the assistant superintendent in charge of guidance.” High-school principals are aided considerably in disci- pline by counselors. Each high school has six counselors who are selected upon agreement of the principal, assistant super- intendent of secondary schools, and the assistant superin- tendent in charge of guidance. The effectiveness of this plan is evidenced by the fact that out of 44,000 pupils enrolled fewer than one hundred cases of discipline were referred to the central office last year; all other problems pertaining to the pupil personnel were satisfactorily handled by principals and counselors. The guidance functions of the secondary-school principal, as interpreted by the assistant superintendent in charge of guidance in the Providence public schools, are as follows: 1. Organization of guidance program and department. 2. Selection, training and supervision of advisers. 3. Supervision of subject and home-room teachers. 4. Spirit and morale of the school. 5. Continuous revision of school program and curricu- lum. 6. Development of extra-curriculum program. 7. Problem cases referred by advisers. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 259 Two other assistant superintendents, one for elementary and one for high schools, have charge of the administrative and supervisory functions in their respective divisions in ac- cordance with powers and duties assigned to them by the superintendent. They are responsible to the superintendent through the deputy superintendent in charge of instruction. Principals have many contacts with the assistant super- intendent since they are directly responsible to him in educa- tional matters. However, the assistant superintendent has no more control over the principals than what is permitted by the deputy superintendent and finally the superintendent of schools. From information gathered through interviews it appears that assistant superintendents and principals in the Provi- dence schools work harmoniously in a common cause. Assist- ant superintendents often preside at principals’ meetings but do not dominate the discussion. + Codperation between the assistant superintendent and his principals is manifested in curriculum-building. The as- sistant superintendent usually chooses a curriculum commit- tee composed of principals, heads of departments, supervisors, and teachers in an attempt to determine the curriculum and to standardize work on separate levels. Most of the principals’ reports which ultimately are re- ceived by the deputy superintendent and the superintendent first pass through the hands of the assistant superintendent. Directors and supervisors.—The directors of visual edu- cation, music, art, health and physical education, and manual arts are staff officers and, as such, act in an advisory capacity only. They do not have administrative authority. If a prin- cipal needs authority given to him in any of these fields, it would flow from the deputy superintendent of instruction. Supervisors in the special fields are likewise staff officers. However, the assistant superintendent of high schools has one general supervisor, and the assistant superintendent in charge of elementary schools has four general supervisors. These general supervisors render administrative services only when so specified by the assistant and deputy superintendent of in- struction. Otherwise they also serve in an advisory capacity. Heads of departments assume much of the responsibility of supervision. They work in their own schools only and act 260 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS as assistants to the principal with respect to supervision and the improvement of instruction. Principals hold the same con- trol over their supervisors as they hold over their teachers. The general supervisors of the elementary schools assume the major responsibility in making up the spring examina- tion. One principal of an elementary school reported that the early practice was for the supervisors to make up the exam- inations; later, the principals aided the supervisors; but the last school year the supervisors prepared the examination without the aid of the principals. . Teachers.—Principals have but little responsibility and participation in the selection of their teachers. All teachers are selected by the central office mainly on the basis of exam- ination results and are assigned to teaching positions in order of their positions on eligible lists. Every candidate for a teaching position in the Providence schools is required to take objective examinations which will show qualifications in culture, scholastic aptitude, professional preparation, and at least two subject fields of instruction. The results of the examination count a possible 500 points out of a total 1,000. Of the remaining 500 points, 200 pertain to training and experience based upon a questionnaire filled out by the candidate. The remaining 300 points represent a group rating in teaching personality. Principals, assistant superintendents, and the deputy superintendent of instruc- tion gather together in making a composite rating. Judging from the few interviews held with principals, the estimates of high-school principals bear more weight with the central office than do those of elementary-school principals. A high- school principal stated that the ultimate rating is done at the central office but at the time of the rating a great deal of weight is given to the principal’s estimate. An elementary- school principal reported that he sends his rating to the cen- tral office, and that he has no idea of how much weight is placed upon it. Only student teachers and unassigned teachers on proba- tion are rated. After teachers have served the probationary period, not exceeding three years, as determined by the super- intendent, they are no longer rated. Although there is no law providing for tenure of teachers, a teacher’s position in the Providence schools is quite secure DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 261 after having passed the probationary period. Dismissals are very rare and would be resorted to only after all possible means of adjustment had failed. RELATIONS WITH NON-EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS Deputy superintendent in charge of plant.—As has been explained one of the deputy superintendents is an educational officer by\ virtue of performing staff services in the special fields of education. He also has the authority of a non-educa- tional line officer in charge of plant operation and plant con- struction. Director of business administration—The other non- educational executive position on the superintendent’s admin- istrative staff is that of director of business administration. This officer performs the regular duties of a purchasing agent. The director of business administration and the deputy super- intendent in charge of plant are both directly responsible to the superintendent. Opinions of relationship.—There is not complete unanim- ity of opinion among school principals as to the existing relations of the principal with non-educational executive of- ficers. Two principals indicated that they believe the principal has no direct relations with non-educational executive officers. Three principals stated that the principal’s relations with non- educational officers are always carried on through educational officers in the central office. The majority of responses, how- ever, indicate that in business affairs, the principal notifies the non-educational executive officers in the central office regard- ing matters which require their attention. As a matter of fact, the nature and magnitude of the business transaction usually determines whether or not the principal deals directly with a non-educational executive officer. This is illustrated in the practice of purchasing. Purchases.—One high-school principal stated that req- uisitions are sent directly to the purchasing agent for small orders, but that on large orders requisitions must have the approval of a deputy superintendent. The secretary of the school committee, who formerly was an assistant superintendent, explained that for books and 262 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS supplies principals make out the requisitions and the requisi- tions are approved by the deputy superintendent in charge of instruction. A requisition for equipment, on the other hand, requires the approval of the deputy superintendent in charge of plant. One deputy superintendent is in charge of instruc- tional supplies; the other is in charge of non-instructional supplies. There are limitations on the quantity of supplies a prin- cipal may procure for his school. In general, supplies are allocated on a per-pupil basis. The per-pupil allowance is different for elementary and high schools and for academic and commercial schools. In ordering books, the principal is confined to a standard list prepared by a textbook committee. However, if a prin- cipal wishes to try out a new book not on the standard list, he might obtain permission and have it paid for out of a fund specially provided for that purpose and in charge of the super- intendent. For supplies other than books the principal merely states the item and quantity wanted. The purchasing agent deter- mines the quality and brand. School buildings—In matters concerning the school building, the principal deals directly with the non-educational officers of the central office. If a principal should want a major change in his school building, he would consult the deputy superintendent of plant directly. The custodian of school property, who is under the deputy superintendent of plant, may be consulted for minor repairs of the school build- ing or its equipment. Final authority, however, is vested in the deputy superintendent subject to the superintendent’s ap- proval. The principal is responsible for letting school buildings out for non-educational purposes, but in so doing must secure the approval of the deputy superintendent in charge of plant. Regulations of the school committee stipulate that “under the direction of the superintendent, principals shall have authority over the janitors and matrons in their buildings and shall enforce the rules relating to their work.” The prin- cipal is held responsible for the condition of his building and therefore has complete authority over his janitors after they ~_ -~> —_— ——- es Fp ~S of &- 4 4 = & mM jo & DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 263 have been assigned to him by the deputy superintendent. It is necessary for the principal to deal only with the head janitor who is responsible for his help. If friction should develop be- tween the principal and a janitor, either would have the right to appeal to the deputy superintendent who would attempt to adjust the difficulty. One of the requirements of the deputy superintendent is that principals hold janitors to a fixed schedule. Particular things must be done at certain times of the day. Reports indicate that, in general, a friendly and codper- ative relationship exists between janitors and principals of the Providence public schools. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Within the past fifteen years the school administrative organization of Providence has changed considerably. In con- trast with a decentralized system where principals and other school officials were responsible to numerous standing com- mittees and independent executives, a centralized system with the superintendent of schools as the chief executive in both business and educational functions now exists. The by-laws and regulations of the school committee con- cerning the principalship are few, brief, and general. More- over, the school committee is guided by the superintendent in the drafting of regulations. Consequently, the status of the school principal and his relations to the central office are mainly determined by the superintendent. Fortunately for the schools of Providence, the liberal powers delegated to the superintendent have not resulted in autocratic administration. School principals are given the greatest possible freedom in managing the affairs of their schools. The superintendent seeks the aid of school principals and other members of his staff in determining educational policies. Despite the freedom permitted principals in governing their own schools, there are direct lines of authority by which the superintendent’s plans and policies are executed by all members of the administrative staff. One of the two deputy superintendents represents the superintendent in the admin- 264 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS istration of instructional activities. Under him are two as- sistant superintendents in charge of elementary and secondary education, respectively. Next in line to the assistant super- intendents are the school principals. Another deputy superintendent is a line officer in charge of school buildings. In all matters concerning school build- ings, principals deal directly with the deputy superintendent. Principals deal directly with a director of business ad- ministration when small purchases are ordered. The larger orders, however, require the approval of the proper deputy superintendent. After janitors are assigned by the deputy superintendent of plant they are entirely under the control of the principal who is responsible for the condition of his building. In general, the principal is responsible for supervision of instruction. Directors of special fields and general super- visors aid in this function in an advisory capacity. Heads of departments also aid the high-school principals considerably in supervision. Many principals in small elementary schools are limited in the time which they can devote to supervision since they are required to do some teaching. Principals are relieved of many of the ordinary respon- sibilities concerning discipline through an effective guidance program carried on under the direction of an assistant super- intendent who is responsible to the superintendent. This investigation revealed that an unusually friendly and codperative attitude exists among the personnel of the central office. Interviews with a number of school principals indicate that this attitude permeates the entire school system and consequently the relations of the principals to all members of the central office are harmonious and professional. CHAPTER XV SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION The schools of San Francisco are organized under pro- visions of the general law of California, which implies the existence of three separate school districts—an elementary, a high-school, and a junior-college district—boundaries of all being coterminous and coinciding with those of the city and county governments. All three districts are now operative, with control vested in one board of education appointed by the mayor, and ratified by a majority of the electorate. Under the plan of selecting board members, the mayor and his group have an opportunity to exert a strong influence over the board of education, and this in turn, affects the rela- tionships between the principals and the central office. The government of San Francisco operates under a char- ter applying both to city and county. Several pages of the charter are devoted to the schools, which, according to the secretary of the board of education, are virtually a department of the municipal government, although not so by law. Because of the close connection between the city admin- istration and the school board, an unusual amount of control over the financial administration of the schools is held by municipal authorities, with the city comptroller having a large measure of responsibility. To a certain extent, the foregoing situation affects the relationship of principals with the central office, although the strength of the control mentioned is felt more particularly by the central administrative officers than by the principals. Repair work required for the maintenance of the school plant and its equipment is done under the direction of the city’s maintenance department. Supply and equipment pur- chases for the schools are made by the city purchasing agent. Both of these arrangements are voluntary, and both have some 265 et aibaantiebaaeaetein 9 266 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS effect on the relationships between the principals and the cen- tral office. Employees of the board of education, other than teachers, librarians, and attendance officers, are under the civil service commission of San Francisco. According to the secretary of the board of education, these non-certified employees, including clerks and custodians, are under his supervision. The codper- ative arrangement is effective, however complicated the ad- ministrative relations appear to be. In educational matters, at least, the San Francisco school system is organized on the “unit plan.” The superintendent of schools has the responsibilities ordinarily imposed on a county superintendent in California, and his duties and powers are defined by state law. A chief deputy superintendent, with both “line” and func- tional duties ; four deputy superintendents; and seven directors serve as intermediaries between the superintendent and the principals. There is also a staff of supervisors. Directors and supervisors are jointly listed in the same section of the public- school directory. The fields of activity of the deputy superintendents and the directors responsible to the superintendent are: 1. In charge of senior and junior high schools 2. In charge of elementary schools 3. In charge of physical properties, junior traffic police, and military science. (This deputy is apparently looked upon by principals as “business manager.’’) 4. In charge of personnel 5. In charge of research and adult education (director) 6. In charge of educational publications (director) Directors responsible to the chief deputy superintendent are: Art Music Physical education Industrial arts Home economics From the outline just given it will be seen that the San Francisco school organization is a combination of the “line and OUP 99 Po *qwmpuequzsedns em 267 YInosgy WOFZBONPS JO PVE OF ABETO feoje Suotstasedns fuoTzerystUpUps Sooueuty *Aottod Buzus9ecuo: $10938u TIV *SUOTSTATP [TV @AtOS 8 .107001TG *suotstatp seu jo wotstasedns pue uoTQerQeTUTUpPS 105 quepuequtsedns ey z 0% etqtsucdses ATjOe1tp ore sotqndeg en | peddvotpusy 103 sSessBTD JuyuUyVsl-seyoue] SOT IVIATT pus s3xe] setzsedosy eonpa TecpsfAus Teortshuy oysnn *@oueTtos $32y [¥t14SNpPUL AOU soymouc[g suloy guct *eotto”d SSBID CTzsoureTG TOF ZB ONT @BOT LAN OFS sVLL Apngg wn loping stooyos Wty sotune 3Impy pus Twu0T3 Joumosteg azoyune ze eous pus337 sTooyos UITY sO; UEg yorecsey etonpg | |5° @3 zeyo 03 uy} Vv jo eFzeyo 1030017 10300130 °7Zdns Tandon ng eg jo e3xreyo Ul ee eq T T T T quepuezuyaedns T e ° | quepueyzzredns | =_ a (eges0q0eTe ey; Aq pourtsaoo *zofeu_eyy Aq peguzoddy ) woTzwonpy JO pavog nn — < =| 3) e oo Oy 3 x oS os E a w nN Ge (~) & vA & e --] < A a5) A SIOOHOS OI 1aOd OOSIONVEA MVS SHL 40 NOI LVZINVSHO 268 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS staff” and “functional” types. Principals have more or less direct relations with each of the deputies and directors. With the appointment of a new superintendent on July 1, 1936, it is possible that some of the relationships described in the following pages may have been changed. However, the policies reported were obtained as far as possible from the present chief deputy superintendent, a recent appointee, and from other central-office executives. REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PRINCIPAL ‘Rules and regulations of the San Francisco board of edu- cation had not been compiled for publication at the time of the writing of this report. These enactments included, according to the secretary of the board, thirty-seven sections referring to the principal. Certain sections of a general nature will be cited in appropriate places in the report. The State School Code of California, Division V, Part III, covers the duties of principals and teachers. Running through the code in various places are forty to fifty definite items cov- ering requirements and duties of school principals. The Rules of the State Board of Education also treat the establishment of the principalship, the principal’s functions, and the relations of teachers to the principal. The tenure of the principal in his position is prescribed in the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, and will . be cited later. THE PRINCIPALSHIP IN SAN FRANCISCO Method of appointment.—Actual appointment of princi- pals is made by the board of education, acting on the recom- mendation of the superintendent of schools. In arriving at his own recommendation, the superintendent considers the rec- ommendations made by the deputy of personnel and the deputy in charge of the particular division in which the position is to be filled. According to the central-office executive consulted, a cu- mulative file containing data on the training and study, expe- rience as a vice-principal, personality data, deputies’ reports, and other information is kept by the deputy of personnel. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 269 These files are studied by the deputy of personnel and the dep- uty of the particular division in which the appointment will be made before the recommendation is handed to the superin- tendent. No formal written or oral examinations are held. The bases of appointment, according to the principals in- terviewed, include general merit; contributions to the school system ; the record of the prospective nominee as a vice-princi- pal, which is apparently given considerable weight; and, ac- cording to several of those interviewed, “school politics,” which was indicated to be, if not the most important factor, at least one carrying considerable force. The matter of politics, as it affects the principalship in particular and the school system in general, seems to present a real problem. Its presence was commented upon in varying degrees by those interviewed, some saying it was occupying a less prominent place in appointments than formerly, others indicating its presence in virulent form. Some of the persons interviewed thought that, beyond the inevitable play of personalities, little if any politics existed and that any political pressures remaining were on the decline. At the other extreme were individuals who stated frankly that the appointments of principals and even vice-principals were for the most part based on political preferment; that pressure is exerted on the deputy superintendents to make the “proper” appointments. The “politics” referred to includes not only the “school” variety, but that of the city government, which, through the mayor’s appointment of board members, has a very close connection with the administration of school af- fairs. Being “in right” was cited as one of the desirable quali- fications for a prospective principal. An interesting sidelight on this apparently vexing situa- tion is that one group among the principals interviewed were emphatic in their declarations concerning the relative absence of “pull” in the appointment of principals; an equally emphatic group believed political preferment to be of considerable, if not first, importance. If the emphasis on the political aspects of appointment to principalships is as strong, even, as suggested by the more reti- cent and less emphatic persons interviewed, it would seem de- sirable for the best interests of the school system that more 270 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS objective means of selecting principals replace, in so far as possible, certain subjective features of the present method of appointment. Method of assignment.—The expressed desire of the pres- ent administration is to fit the prospective principal to the community and position vacant. Hence, the assignment of a new principal is a part of the appointment recommendation upon which the board acts. In the elementary field the initial assignment is usually to a smaller school, although the assignment may depend upon the particular vacancy and the candidates available to fill it. Here, again, the feeling that politics plays more than a minor role in appointments was expressed by some of the persons inter- viewed. In one instance it was said that, although the actual assignment is made by a deputy superintendent, a “power be- hind the scenes puts the pressure on.” Another said that in recent appointments the deputy had no real voice in the mat- ter. Still another said that the larger appointments had gone to the group “in right,” but that there was some scattering, the “outs” getting, in general, the poorer assignments. Changes in the principal’s assignment.—Promotion in the elementary field is accomplished by transferring principals from smaller to larger schools, which carry higher salaries. Although there is apparently no stated policy against the transfer of an individual from the elementary to the secondary principalship, it has not been done in the case of women. Women elementary principals, however, may be assigned as secondary-school vice-principals. Men principals in the ele- mentary schools may be transferred to principalships in sec- ondary schools. In the high-school field, relatively little transferring was reported among the principals. It would not be impossible for a principal placed in a smaller high school to remain there in- definitely. Bases of promotion are, according to the administration, much the same as for original appointment, with general merit and fitness to the available position the determining factors. Again, hewever, certain individuals interviewed emphasized the influence of politics and at least one other factor hitherto not mentioned—religion. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 271 Principals in San Francisco after their probationary pe- riod of three years, have double protection. As teachers they are protected by the California tenure law; as principals they are protected by local charter provisions. “All teachers, heads of departments, vice-principals, prin- cipals, supervisors, and directors shall be classified as perma- nent employees in their respective positions after they have been successfully employed in such positions in the school de- partment for a probationary period of three years.”? The effect of the double protection is that, although charges against an individual as a principal might be sus- tained, unless the charges also disqualify him as a teacher, he would be returned to teaching status. One principal declared, however, that in case of substantiated charges of inefficiency against a principal, public pressure would very likely force him out of the system. Because of double protection, dis- missal has been rare. Demotion might affect a principal in two ways. (1) In case charges of incompentency were proved against a princi- pal, he could probably resume his former status as a vice-prin- cipal or as teacher. (2) If the enrolment of a school should drop sufficiently to cause the removal of teachers, the classi- fication of the school might be lowered, and the principal, with- out being moved from the school, would suffer a demotion in so far as a salary reduction constitutes demotion. Some hint of the manipulation of school boundaries to lower enrolments, and thus lower the number of teachers needed in a school, was given, the indicated purpose being to “punish” the principal. Whether such manipulation has been resorted to or not, the possibility, of course, exists. On the contrary a special adjustment was made by the board concern- ing the classifications of schools affected by the introduction of a new junior high school, specifically, the Marina Junior High School. When the specified grades were removed from the ele- - mentary schools feeding this junior high school and the lower grades of the senior high were taken into the junior school, the principals affected were permitted to retain the salary of the higher classifications. Principals may be transferred, in addition to purposes of promotion or demotion, because of their own requests or be- 1Charter of the City and County of San Francisco, 1935, Section 135. 272 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS cause of community relationships. All transfers, however, for . whatever reason are made formally by the board of education, upon recommendation of the superintendent of schools. The principal is held to be more certain of his position than are the deputy superintendents and the superintendent. He must be proved incompetent as a principal, whatever the cause of the incompetency ; and to be dropped completely from the system, he would also have to be disqualified as a teacher. The deputies and the superintendent hold tenure as principals and the vice-principals under charter provisions, and would be returned to the position held before their elevation. Their status in the higher positions is not protected by law, except that according to the California statutes, the superintendent is supposed to be elected for a four-year term. Relative to the instability of the superintendency, Dr. Edwin A. Lee, who resigned as of June 30, 1936, has this to say in his annual report: “The school code specifically provides (Sec. 2.92) that school superintendents shall be elected for a four-year term. The San Francisco Charter provides that the superintendent shall serve at the pleasure of the board of education. I believe that if brought to issue the school code would be found to have priority over the charter. Whether or not this would happen, it is neither wise nor proper that a great city should place its superintendent in such a position... . It is questionable whether or not a man qualified to carry the responsibility in- volved should be required to accept appointment except on terms such as are implied in the school code. “The board should immediately take the proper steps to see that a suitable amendment to the charter is prepared and presented to the electorate at the next election.”! In all tenure cases, the board of education sits as a pre- liminary court, but there remains a right of appeal to the civil courts if the board decides against the individual aggrieved. Salary schedules for principals.—The following classifi- cations and salaries are in force in San Francisco, effective July 1, 1936: 1Report of the Superintendent of the San Francisco Public Schools, June, 1936, p. 10. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 273 Senior high schools, 61 or more teachers $5,100 * © ” 60 or fewer teachers Junior high schools, 30 or more teachers nm , - 29 or fewer teachers Continuation school Elementary day schools, Class A ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” ” THE PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONSHIPS Official status of the principal in his school.—The San Francisco board of education, by means of two general rules, has recorded its opinion as to the official status of the prin- cipal in his school: “The principal shall be held responsible for the enforce- ment of the State School Code, the Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Education, and of these rules and regula- tions, so far as they may affect the school under his juris- diction.” “The principal shall be held responsible for the general management and immediate educational direction and super- vision of the school...” The second of the foregoing rules, emphasizing as it does the “educational direction” of the school, implies a certain limitation in the authority of the principal in his school. The central-office theory of the principal’s status in his school is that the principal is the responsible head of his school, but before making significant administrative changes involving established procedure or regulations, he must have central-office approval. That this theory is carried out in practice is the view of virtually all persons consulted in the preparation of this report. Official relations with the superintendent.—Most of the principals consulted agreed with the central administration that the principal is responsible to the superintendent through an intermediary executive officer for both educational and business matters. The few who dissented from this view, held that in matters of business, the principal is not responsible directly to the superintendent. 274 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Apparently, the secretary of the board of education is in a position to exercise some direct authority over the principals in matters concerning finance as well as other phases of the schools not directly educational in nature. The pay roll, for example, was said to be handled coéperatively, although the principals are required to follow the secretary’s directions. In business matters, a divided authority between the secre- tary and the “business deputy” seems to exist, one principal indicating that in some matters of property the secretary “tells the principal what to do,” and in other matters, the re- lationship is with the business deputy. ; A clearer definition of the duties of the secretary of the board and of the business deputy would prove helpful to the principals. Although principals in general seem to know to which of the foregoing officials to refer various business mat- ters, the definition of duties would expedite the handling of new business for which precedents may not have been estab- lished through actual experience. Official relations with central-staff officers——The central office regards the supervisor as a “representative of the super- intendent” in his visits to the schools. The supervisor is ex- pected to inspect the work and to give advice to the principal with respect to improvement. The principal, however, is free to accept or to reject what the supervisor may advise. That the practice in San Francisco is not entirely in ac- cord with the theory is clear from the expressions of opinion of several of the principals. In the junior high school field, for example, one principal stated that the supervisors seemed fairly independent, although he indicated that he might not always follow a supervisor’s suggestions. This principal and another in the same field independently agreed that supervi- sors and teachers have direct relationships in which the prin- cipal does not enter. Such relationships may result in admin- istrative conflicts between principals and supervisors. How- ever, the principals declared that no difficulties had resulted, largely because the authority of the principal in his school had been recognized. These principals, however, were diametrical- ly opposite in their feeling toward the support of the prin- cipal by the central office. The first held that, in case of a dif- ference of opinion, the supervisor would be sustained by cen- tral-office authorities; the other, that, if the principal could 4 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 275 justify his procedures, he and not the supervisor would be sustained. Another principal characterized the relationship as badly in need of clarification. He indicated that, although most of the supervisors report to the principal when they enter the building and usually report before they leave, some go direct- ly to the teacher and do not stop to see the principal before they leave the building. Elementary principals, especially, seemed to feel that the supervisor has executive authority. One of the principals in this field maintained that supervisors “tell the principal what to do;” another said that a principal could not change the pro- gram laid down by the supervisors; still another said that it was good policy to follow directions of the supervisors. In the elementary field, it is evident that supervisors act with consid- erable authority. In the senior high schools, on the contrary, the principals interviewed felt themselves superior to the supervisors who come to their schools and declared that in this they would be sustained by the central office. One indicated definitely that a wholesome spirit of cdéoperation existed between the high- school principals and the supervisors. From the foregoing differences in opinion, it appears that the function of the supervisor should be defined, since not only do the principals on the several levels of instruction differ widely in the interpretation of their relations with the super- visors, but the majority opinion of the principals interviewed is not in accord with central-office theory. Official relations with non-educational executive officers. —The central administration holds that the non-educational executive officers in the central office bear the same relations to principals regarding matters for which they are responsible in local schools as education officers in the central office. The principals consulted generally agreed to the foregoing state- ment of central-office opinion. Interviews with various principals brought out a number of examples of the relationship with non-educational officers. Requisitions for supplies, for instance, go direct to the deputy in charge of properties. In the event that he vetoes a requi- sition, the principal may request the deputy in charge of this 276 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS division to take up the matter with the proper deputy, but the former has no authority over the latter, and in case of con- tinued difference of opinion, the matter would have to be set- tled by the superintendent. School clerks are under the civil service commission of the city, and are directed by the secretary of the board. In the local schools, however, clerks are responsible to the principal. The latter, however, has no authority to discipline a clerk, but the secretary of the board does have such authority. In case of necessity, the principal would be expected to report the shortcomings of the clerk to the secretary, who would, if he saw fit, impose the proper discipline. Principals also have direct relationships with other non- educational executives, including the attendance department and the director of research. Although the assistant to the superintendent has no executive power, his word is generally accepted in such contacts as he has with principals. Engineers and custodians, like the clerks, are under the civil service commission, but are responsible to subordinate officials under the deputy in charge of properties. Principals rate the janitorial staff somewhat as they rate teachers. Engi- neers and custodians, although not directly responsible to prin- cipals, are thus obliged to céoperate. In case of a clash, the matter may be reported by the principal to the deputy in charge of properties, with the chances favoring the removal or transfer of the janitor and support of the principal. The central office indicated little direct relationship be- tween principals and board members. Principals agreed that contacts with the board of education should not be initiated by them, but some felt that such direct relationships did exist, although not as a general thing. Such pressure as board mem- bers might bring to bear, it was indicated, would probably be on the deputy superintendent rather than on a principal. Influence of the principal on educational policies.—In educational matters, proposed changes are talked over with principals before final decisions are made. The new chief deputy said that in all probability the new superintendent would base his recommendations on the reports of committees _ of teachers and principals. In business matters, arbitrary decisions are made. the on- set- he te Is ri- n- 1e in al ~~ ee eS a | DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 277 Most of the principals agreed that they exercised some influence in the determination of educational policies. One thought that the principals were not taken into the confidence of the central office enough; another said that committees make recommendations that are sometimes acted on by the central office and at other times not; still another claimed that the principals’ opinions have been brought out “sometimes” in the discussions after the downtown office had already made its plans. Evolution of present relationships—Some of the prin- cipals felt that present relationships between the principal and the central office had gradually evolved as a result of mutual interests in common problems, which was the position taken by the central-office executives interviewed. Others thought that the present relationships were attained through the adoption of rules and regulations by the board; a few held that the influence of the superintendent of schools was largely responsible for present relationships. Change in relationships.—The central administration thought that relations between principals and central-office functionaries had become distinctly more professional in re- cent years. Several of the principals interviewed held that the opposite was true—that relationships had become distinct- ly less professional. The majority of the principals, however, insisted that the relations had improved. Support received by principals from the central office.— Most of the principals claimed that complaints brought to the central office were referred to the principal’s immediate su- perior, who, with the principal, disposes of the matter. Some of the principals believed that complaints were handled entirely by the principal, and others, that the central office made the final decision. In every instance, however, _ the principals consulted agreed that they had some voice in the adjustment of complaints. Execution of the policies of the superintendent.—All the principals interviewed agreed that they try clearly to interpret to teachers and local school communities the policies of the su- perintendent without regard to personal view. scetesineameeetansenias dithnattnancee a tn a. stern 278 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Responsibility of the principal for his school organiza- tion.—The central office indicated that principals are expected to follow the rules and regulations in the organization of local schools, but that adaptations would be approved in particular situations. With this statement most of the principals agreed; however, there was some expression of feeling that principals had virtually no choice other than to apply the central-office rules. The principal and his teachers.—Although the central of- fice and some of the principals interviewed insist that the prin- cipal is given almost no choice in the selection of teachers, other principals believe that they have more or less voice in the matter. The conclusion is warranted that aggressive prin- cipals who have demonstrated their fitness may exercise pre- rogatives not permitted to weaker and less efficient principals. Actual dismissal of a teacher because of the tenure law, can be accomplished only by trial before the board of educa- tion, subject to appeal to a civil court if the dismissed teacher insists. Recommendation for dismissal, according to both the central office and the principals interviewed, is made by the principal after consultation with central-office executives and supervisors. The principals consulted were divided as to the policy of the central office in the matter of rating teachers. The central- office theory is that rating is a céoperative undertaking with the staff, higher executives, and principals codperating. Some of the principals stated that rating was solely their respon- sibility, and some evidence was given that, although codpera- tion is encouraged, the final rating is largely determined by the central office. The principal and equipment and supplies —The chief deputy superintendent indicated that a principal has authority to requisition any supplies and equipment needed, whether on a standard list or not, subject to central-office approval. The principals codperating in this study all admitted the necessity for central-office approval. While it does not affect the actual requisitioning of equip- ment and supplies, the fact that the city of San Francisco, by voluntary arrangement with the schools, purchases school materials complicates the problems of the principal. For ex- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 279 ample, slowness on the part of the city officials in filling requisitions was cited as a hampering element. Although the city comptroller has no right to question the validity of a re- quest from the schools, one of the persons interviewed said he occasionally did so. The principal and his pupils.—Most of the principals con- sulted agreed with the central office as to the responsibility of the school principal for pupil administration. In certain phases of pupil management, the principal is solely respon- sible; in matters concerning exceptional cases, the central of- fice reserves the right to approve. The principal and the curriculum.—Curriculum-making is a codperative responsibility of the central office and the principals. Principals are expected to make use of the curricu- lum formulated with as little change as possible, and when substantial changes are desirable, central-office approval is required. Some of the principals indicated that except for certain set standards, they might adapt the curriculum to the needs of their schools, apparently without central-office ap- proval. This is not the interpretation of the central office, which specifically indicated the necesity of central-office ap- proval for substantial changes. Programs of extra-curriculum activities do not require central-office approval. In fact, most of the principals indi- cated a feeling of complete freedom in administering the extra-curriculum, except in the matter of city-wide activities or in the matter of novel departures from previous policies. The principal and improvement of instruction—The theory of the central office is that principals are responsible for the improvement of instruction, but that they “should cooperate in following suggestions by supervisors of sub- jects.” , Several of the principals interviewed were emphatic in their belief that supervisors’ suggestions must be followed. Others considered that they were at least “expected” to accept the results of city-wide conferences in which principals and subject-supervisors took part. The principal and public relations.—The central office grants relative freedom to principals in public relations, with 280 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS its approval reserved in cases of apparent conflict with cen- tral-office policy. Most of the principals agreed to this state- ment, although a few felt that no approval was necessary from central-office executives. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The principal in San Francisco is recognized as an official of importance in the rules and regulations of the board of edu- cation. He is held responsible for the general management, educational direction and supervision of his school, with rea- sonable restraint in the form of approval by the central ad- ministration required when significant administrative changes are sought in adapting the rules of the school system to a particular situation. Appointment to the principalship is made by the board on recommendation of the superintendent, who is no doubt influenced in his choice by the recommendations of the deputy in charge of personnel and the deputy in charge of the partic- ular type or class of school in which the vacancy exists. A sharp division of opinion was observed among the principals interviewed as to the extent of “school politics” involved in original appointments, and the effect on subsequent changes in assignment. The tenure of principals is protected by the city charter and the California statutes. Principals in San Francisco generally do not teach. Sala- ries are depend: nt upon the enrolment of the various schools, but special adjustments have been made to minimize the effect of lowered enrolments caused by the introduction of the junior high school plan. The principals function directly under their deputy super- intendents, but they also have some direct relations with other educational and non-educational executives in which the lines of responsibility are not clearly drawn. The relationship be- tween the supervisor, who visits the school as a representative of the superintendent, and the principal likewise are not clear- ly established in practice, and not uniformly followed at the various levels. At the elementary level, the supervisor ex- ercises an authority bordering closely on that of an executive; in the senior high school, the principal’s authority is supreme. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 281 Custodians are not directly responsible to the principal, yet they are rated in efficiency by him. Principals exercise some influence with the central office in the determination of educational policies. Professional relations between the principals and the central office are re- ported to have been improved somewhat within recent years; however, not all principals consulted were in agreement on this point. In organizing his school the principal is expected to fol- low the rules of the central office, but adaptations may be approved. Principals are given varying authority in the se- lection of teachers for their staffs, but in recommending the dismissal of teachers principals are required to consult with superior executives. The responsibility for teacher-rating is not clearly understood, although it is expected by the central administration to be a codperative duty of the principal, the staff, and the central-office executives. In all but exceptional matters, the principal is responsible for the administration of pupils in his school. Principals are expected to use with as little change as possible the curriculums formulated through coéperation with the central administration, and to make adaptations of curricu- lum materials only with central-office approval. In extra-cur- riculum matters the principals enjoy complete freedom except in city-wide activities or in novel departures from previous policies. CHAPTER XVI SEATTLE, WASHINGTON GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION With the beginning of the school year, 1936-37, Seattle had completed a cycle of administrative organization, depart- ing some years ago from the “unit type” to the extent of hav- ing as many as seven codrdinate departments reporting di- rectly to the board of education and returning’ again to the unit plan. Recent history of changes in the organization at Seattle shows that in 1932 the board of education elected by the peo- ple, decided to consolidate some of the departments existing at that time. The medical department, accordingly, was placed under the jurisdiction of the superintendent in charge of instruction, and all other departments were placed under the control of the business manager, who was coérdinate with the superintendent. Prior to this board action, the superin- tendent of instruction was said to have dominated the other departments. Subsequent to 1932, the comptroller’s department had been made directly responsible to the board of education. With the resignation of the incumbent in that office in the spring of 1936, the board decided to consolidate the organi- zation still further, the superintendent of instruction becom- ing the administrative head of the entire school system with four assistant superintendents. The position of “assistant su- perinendent and business manager” was created and filled by the appointment of the superintendent of one of the smaller school systems of the state. This officer is directly responsi- ble to the superintendent. The present organization may be characterized as a com- bination of “line and staff” and “functional” types. The fields or functions of the four assistant superintendents are as fol- lows: 283 284 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. In charge of curriculum and research, to whom “di- rectors” and supervisors are responsible, and in charge of the child-guidance clinic, with a research assistant. 2. In charge of elementary, junior high, and special schools as to organization, administration, and personnel; with an administrative assistant in charge of the kindergar- ten-primary division and special educaton. 3. In charge of high schools and vocational and adult education as to organization, administration, and personnel; and also in charge of attendance and welfare. _ 4, In charge of purchasing, accounts, plant, operation, and maintenance. Supervisors are considered staff officers, with only ad- visory relationships. It is obvious that such an organization as outlined in the foregoing paragraphs has notable and direct effects upon the relationship of the principals to the central office. REGULATIONS AFFECTING THE PRINCIPAL The board of education has authorized the compilation and publication of rules and regulations concerning the public schools of the city in a volume entitled The Principal’s Hand- book, which was brought up to date and re-issued in 1936. This handbook is an excellent guide for the principals, having as its aim the acquainting of “principals, teachers, and em- ployees of the Seattle Public Schools with the policies and regulations of the board of directors governing the conduct and maintenance of the schools. . . . Uniformity of observance of general principles and policies is essential in a metropolitan school system. The full codperation of all principals is there- fore requested to the end that embarrassment to the schools may not result and that energy needful for strengthening edu- cational service may not be subtracted for the adjustment of matters which to the patrons and the public appear to repre- sent objectionable inconsistencies.” THE STATUS OF THE PRINCIPALSHIP Method of appointment.—Under the present method of selecting elementary-school principals the superintendent of DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 285 schools invites the central-office staff to submit names of teachers regarded as deserving of promotion. These pros- pective principals are considered by the superintendent and his assistant superintendents in an administrative conference, and the various qualifications of the several candidates are studied and weighed. Among the criteria used in making se- lections are the particular needs of the school to which the ap- pointment is to be made, record and professional attitude of the candidate, and past relationships with all persons con- cerned. Although the route to the principalship, in the high school at least, is usually from within the system via the as- sistant principalship, new blood is occasionally brought into the system from outside. Within the past two or three years, three young superintendents from without the system have been brought in with the tacit understanding that they might expect ultimate promotion to a principalship. In conclusion, it is fair to say that, although the Seattle method of appointment of principals is more a subjective than an objective process, yet merit seems to be the controlling factor in virtually all appointments to princiralships. Method of assignment.—The administration is governed by a simple principle in assigning persons to principalships: “Ts the person fit for the job?” In the high-school field, the route to the initial principal- ship seems to be through an assistant principalship, but not necessarily from the assistant principalship in a particular school to its principalship. It is more likely, however, that the assistant principal of a large school would have a better chance to become its principal than would a principal already functioning in a smaller high school. Principals indicated that the following criteria, among others, seemed to govern the assignment of a principal to his first school: general merit, personality and fitness for the community, experience and training, ability to advise and to lead, and special fitness for the particular job. Changes in the principal’s assignment.—The status of the principal may be affected by promotion, transfer, demo- tion, or dismissal. Promotion may be automatic if the enrol- ment of the school increases, or it may be the result of a shift See SY MS Sa: SR tigy 286 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS from one field to another, i. e., elementary to junior high, etc., or from a smaller to a larger school. While no established line of promotion seems to exist, the tendency seems to be through the assistant principalship to the principalship. There is ordinarily little shifting of a principal from one school to another. In the high-school field, at least, there seems to be little chance for promotion from a smaller school to a larger, except by the automatic factor of increased enrolment. In general, principals have not been moved from the ele- mentary ranks into the high-school field or from junior to sen- ior high school. According to one principal, many of the high-school as- sistant principals would be interested in advancement to the junior high school principalship, but the practice obtains of promoting the assistant principal in the junior high school. Promotion to a principalship has not always been made from within the system, although this tendency seems to pre- vail. If, however, no one in the system is suitable for a par- ticular principalship, one principal indicated that the adminis- tration would be disposed to “cast about” elsewhere to find the suitable person. Promotion is not always regarded from the vantage point of increase in salary. To be changed from a less desirable to a more desirable district in the same salary classification would be considered a promotion. Criteria used in determining promotion seem to be gen- eral merit, length of service in a particular enrolment classi- fication, and fitness for the vacant principalship. The principals interviewed were not in complete agree- ment as to the reasons for transfer from one principalship to another, especially in the elementary field. Fitting the prin- cipals to the available positions and community pressure, evi- denced either from the community itself, or from a request by the principal for a transfer, seem to be the compellins mo- tives in making transfers. Promotion may be another element in the transfer situation. One principal ventured the opinion ~ that there is considerable transferring but not enough drop- ping of inefficient principals. Oe a ee DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 287 In the high-school field, as has been mentioned previously, there is relatively little transferring of principals from school to school. Dismissal of principals seems to be so rare as to confound those who were asked questions about it. Transfer for the purpose of finding where a principal, who was apparently care- fully selected before his appointment, can work best seems to be the procedure ordinarily followed, except in cases where immorality or misconduct can be proved. In extreme cases of inefficiency, the route seems to be toward demotion to a vice- principalship rather than to dismissal. In the case of school consolidations, the principals eliminated have been given the opportunity to return to teaching positions. In the case of dismissal for immorality, misconduct, or gross inefficiency, the opinion was common that the person would naturally be re- quired to leave the system. Without exception, the tenure of the principal is believed to be much more certain than that of the superintendent. One principal expressed the common opinion that “principals seem to outlive one superintendent after another.” Nor do principals feel that they are at the mercy of their immediate superiors. One principal said that the board of di- rectors would have to be pretty thoroughly convinced before a principal would be removed. Another said that principals were not at the mercy of anyone, but rather, that a princi- pal’s tenure depended on “giving' satisfaction.” In case of a personality clash between a principal and a superior, it was felt that adjustments would be attempted before dismissal or demotion would be made. Another principal stated that while nominally a principal in Seattle is at the mercy of his central-office superiors, the latter are very tolerant. Proportion of principals teaching.—lIn the five elemen- tary buildings with an enrolment of 280 pupils or fewer, a head teacher is in charge, and teaches full-time. In addition, head teachers in the adjustment schools and in the sight-sav- ing school also teach full-time. The rest of the principals are expected to devote full time to administration and supervision. Salary schedules for principals.—Salaries of principals in Seattle are based on the enrolments of the schools. At pres- ee 288 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ent, the schedule is 8 per cent below the 1928-29 salaries, and is as follows: High-school Principals 1936 Class A—Supervising 2,000 or more pupils.............. $4,508 Class B—Supervising 1,500 to 2,000 pupils............ 4,324 Class C—Supervising 1,000 to 1,500 pupils.............. 4,140 Vice Principals Class A—Supervising 2,000 or more pupils.............. $3,404 Class B—Supervising 1,500 to 2,000 pupils.............. 3,220 Class C—Supervising 1,000 to 1,500 pupils.............. 3,036 Intermediate-school Principals Class A—Supervising 1,000 or more pupils.............. $4,011 Class B—Supervising fewer than 1,000 pupils........ 3,827 Elementary-school Principals Class A—Supervising 650 or more pupils....$3,459-$3,643 Class B—Supervising 465 to 650 pupils........ 3,091- 3,275 Class C—Supervising 280 to 465 pupils........ 2,723- 2,807 THE PRINCIPAL’S RELATIONSHIP Official status of the principal in his school.—According to The Principal’s Handbook, “The principal, or head teacher is the responsible head of the school.” More definitely, the principal is considered by the present administration to be the responsible head of the local school, but is required to obtain permission from the central ‘office before making significant administrative changes involving established procedure or regulations. To this definition of general status most of the principals consulted agreed. One, however, believed he was the official representative of the central office in the local community, and was expected to manage his school in accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the central office. While this statement has some of the elements of the definition given by the superintendent, it seems to show more dependence upon the central office and less independence on the part of the principal himself. In general, it may be said that the principal is expected to be responsible for his school within reasonable limits, but DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS crat in his school but rather an important link in a codrdinated system. Official relations with the superintendent.—The organiza- tion plan of the Seattle schools indicates that the official rela- tions of the principal with the superintendent are through an intermediary executive officer for both educational and busi- nes matters. The principals interviewed, however, were not in complete agreement on this point. The fact that there was dissent among the principals from the administration’s theory as to the official relationship between themselves and the superintendent indicates that ei- ther the principals were not fully aware of the executive pow- ers of the assistant superintendents as line officers, consider- ing these officials in staff (advisory) capacities only, or that the principals dissenting were unaware of the essential differ- ence between line and staff functions. Official relations with central-staff officers ——The super- intendent indicated that staff officers exercise “supervisory” responsibilities only. He elaborated on the term “staff” by indicating that such officers visit the local schools as his rep- resentatives to inspect the work and give the principals advice with respect to improvement. Most of the principals agreed to this definition with the added qualification that staff officers act as the principal’s consultants with respect to work carried on in the local school. The Principal’s Handbook states that “The principal . . . is expected to codperate fully with the superintendent’s staff.” Discussions with the principals indicate that, while in theory the supervisor is an advisory officer, it is generally felt that the supervisor’s suggestions should be followed, and that in case of conflict of ideas, the burden of proof is on the princi- pal. The inevitable difference in personalities among super- visors also came in for comment, some being cited as more aggressive in their methods than others. In reference to a spe- cific difference of opinion, one principal indicated that if the supervisor could not be convinced, she (the principal) would ask what she “should do” and would then indicate to both teacher and supervisor that she was following, but not agree- 289 is not entirely free to do as he likes in every instance. He is not, nor, in general, does he consider himself to be, an auto- Ya. ADEE eT SEN: a 28h pera EEK a eer 290 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ing to, the supervisor’s plan, and that she would later bring the matter to the attention of the proper assistant superin- tendent. The conclusion may be drawn that, while supervisors oc- cupy the role of advisers, their suggestions are virtually equiv- alent to commands, and that when differences arise between a principal and a supervisor, the burden of proof is on the principal, although at the time the difference of opinion arises, the principal is supreme. Since the administration views the supervisor as a “representative” of the superintendent, the im- plication is that something bordering on executive power is inherent in the supervisor’s status—that the supervisor is per- haps a little more than a consultant whose advice may or may not be followed by the principal. Official relations with the non-educational executive offi- cers.—Direct relationships are maintained between principals and certain non-educational executives in the central office, principally the medical and attendance staffs. Relationships are maintained in matters of business, care of the plant, etc., through the intermediation of educational officers in the cen- tral office. The data submitted on this topic indicate that some prin- cipals believe that no direct relationships whatever exist be- tween themselves and non-educational executives in the cen- tral office. On this issue, however, The Principal’s Handbook gives the following instructions: “The principal is responsible to the superintendent for the proper care and economical operation of the school plant, for the efficient management and avoidance of waste in school equipment, supplies, and textbooks, and for the proper ac- counting for all school materials and funds under his con- trol.” “The principal, in codperation with the business manager, shall have general supervision of the work of the custodian and the custodian shall be responsible to the principal for the quality of the janitorial and custodial service.” Influence of the principal on educational policies.—Sug- gestions from individual principals with respect to new poli- cies or changes in established policies in Seattle are favorably received by central officers; and changes in policies are dis- © oUt Oh co DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 291 cussed with the principals as a group before such changes are announced. Before important issues are decided, the matter is gen- erally referred to a committee of teachers and principals. In some cases the issues are discussed before the various groups of teachers and principals. The final committee report is sub- mitted to the superintendent’s cabinet, which apparently re- tains final veto power. Some matters, such as city-wide pageants, are not dis- cussed with the principals. This seems to be the exception rather than the rule. The conclusion seems justified that in most matters, espe- cially those concerning important issues, the principals and teachers have a voice in the ultimate decisions, and that prin- cipals’ suggestions are favorably received in the central office. Evolution of present relationships.—Both in theory and apparently in practice, the evolution of present relationships between principals and the central office has been gradual and has been based on mutual interests in common problems. A minority of the principals participating in this study indicated that the evolution had been partially, at least, a direct result of the influence of the superintendent. Change in professional relationships—The present ad- ministration feels that relations of the principal with all of- ficials in the central office have become more professional, and that the professional prestige of the principal with the central office has been definitely increased in recent years. To the first part of the foregoing statement, virtually all the principals concerned agreed. The increase in the profes- sional prestige of the principal was scarcely mentioned by principals. Support received by princpals from the central office.— Although the administration feels that complaints brought to the central office are disposed of through codperative effort of the principal and his immediate superior, the principals hold a different view regarding the matter. Some of them evidently feel that the principal is solely responsible for the disposition of complaints referred back to him by the central office. Others agree in general to the idea rehehiaee aipee es iene ME a ee - ” " ‘. w BR Septet mem, 292 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS that such matters are settled codperatively with central-office executives. A few feel that there is codperation, but that the final settlement is the work of the central-office executive. A reasonable conclusion that may be drawn from these apparently diverse opinions is that in some matters the prin- cipal is given a relatively free hand in settling disputes, but that if the complaint is of such a nature as to require more than the decision of the principal alone, the central office co- éperates with him, and occasionally makes the final decision. Execution of the policies of the superintendent.—“The principal is responsible to the superintendent for the execu- tion of administrative policies of the board of education and the superintendent of schools, as embodied in these rules and regulations and in the superintendent’s bulletins and instruc- tions.””? The foregoing statement sets forth the central-office pol- icy. In addition, the present administration believes that the principal should try to interpret clearly to teachers and local school communities the policies of the superintendent without regard to personal views. In this there is general agreement among the principals, whose replies indicate common loyalty to administration policies. Responsibility of the principal for his school organiza- tion.—Rules and regulations of the central office must gen- erally be followed by the principals, but adaptations, subject to approval by the central office, may be made. With respect to this policy the administration and most of the principals generally agree. However, one principal felt that he had full authority to make all rules for the administration of his school. In the matter of a specific school organization, the prin- cipals interviewed have a different opinion from that of the central administration. They believe they may set up their school organizations without securing approval of the central office, provided that the organization does not conflict with the established policies of the school system. Some principals con- sider themselves to be virtually unrestricted in planning and setting up their school organizations. 1The Principals Handbook, p. 146. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 293 The view of the central administration on the matter of organization is that the organization is a codperative plan. It is likely that the general knowledge of central-office policy in this respect is so basic that principals have not realized the extent to which the central-office executives believe they co- éperate. It is likely that the differences of opinion expressed are those of detail rather than of basic importance. The principal and his teachers——The principals are di- vided as to the method of the central office in the assignment of teachers. Most of those participating in this study claimed that the selection and assignment was entirely a central-office responsibility, and that principals had to make what use they could of the teachers sent to the schools. Others thought that the principal was given some voice in the matter, but that in emergencies or otherwise the central office might make its own choices if it so desired. The view of the central administration in the matter is that the principal may recommend that certain teachers be assigned to his school, but that the central office is free to follow or not to follow the recommendation. The conclusion seems justified that the more aggressive principals have a voice in the assignment of teachers to their schools, but that most of the principals do not exercise this privilege. In connection with the dismissal of teachers, the central- office policy is that the principal may request the transfer of a teacher from his building, but that the central office takes sole responsibility for recommending dismissal. To this statement, none of the principals agree. Most principals believe that dismissal is recommended by the principal after consultation with supervisors and central- office executives, or after an investigation by the central of- fice. In effect, this may mean that the recommendation for dismissal of the teacher from the given school may be made by the principal, but the recommendation for dismissal from the service is entirely another matter. Teacher-rating, it is generally agreed by both principals and central administration, is finally a function of the princi- pal. Some of the principals indicated that their ratings of teachers are subject to review or consultation with central- is Ue i a A a i ie "4 pe 294 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS office administrators. On this matter, The Principal’s Hand- book states: _ “Principals shall give advice and direction to their teach- ers in any emergency. As often as practicable they shall, by examinations or other means, satisfy themselves of the prog- ress of the classes of the several grades. They shall promptly report to the assistant superintendent in charge any serious deficiency on the part of teachers.” The principal and equipment and supplies.—Most of the principals agree with the view of the central administration that requisitions may be made within the school’s budget and from a standard list, but that each requisition is subject to central-office approval. A per-capita allowance for books and supplies for the year is supplied each school the first of October and subsequently a monthly statement showing budget balances for each school is furnished. Under the present organization, the assistant superin- tendent in charge of business affairs has no direct authority over the principals. Decisions as to educational supplies are to be made by the instructional officers, “at least in the be- ginning,” according to a statement by the present superin- tendent. Principals were not agreed as to whether a periodic and perpetual inventory is required. The newly-appointed assist- ant superintendent in charge of business said that plans for a permanent inventory system were under way. The apparent conclusion, based upon statements of the principals interviewed, is that some principals have been fol- lowing the practice of making an annual inventory and that others have not, but that the practice may be expected to ex- tend to all the schools when the plans of the present business manager have been finally perfected. The principal and his pupils —Principals and the central administration are not in agreement as to the responsibility of the principal in the management of pupils. The following quotations are taken from The Principal’s Handbook: “Principals shall be responsible for the discipline of their respective schools. They may suspend pupils for not more DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 295 than twenty-four hours for any flagrant or persistent viola- tion of the rules... . “Principals shall provide for the supervision of the play activities of the pupils in the yard, of their conduct in the vi- cinity of the schoolhouse during recesses and intermissions, and while going to and from school, and train them to respect the rights of others in the neighborhood. “Children are required to be neat and clean, both in dress and in person; when unfit to appear in school, they may be sent home by the principal to be prepared for school. Note— the last-named action should be considered as a last resort, and the principal should either confer with the parent by tele- phone, or send a suitable note of explanation with the child. . .” According to the central administration, the management of pupils is the responsibility of the principal, subject to ap- proval of his general plans by the central office. Principals, however, are apparently not fully aware of the need for approval of the general plans on the part of the cen- tral office, but feel that except for unusual matters, the man- agement of pupils is their full responsibility. The principal and the curriculum.—A general statement of the principal’s relation to the curriculum problem is found in The Principal’s Handbook: “The principal is responsible for the successful function- ing within the individual school of the prescribed curriculum in both academic and special branches... .” The curriculum is made by committees of teachers and principals representing all grade levels, working with the cen- tral office. The principal may modify the curriculum to suit local needs with central-office approval. Principals participating in this study were virtually agreed that the making of the curriculum is a codperative un- dertaking, with the principals, themselves, taking a more or less active part. They agree that the resulting product should be used with as little change as possible, that adaptations may be made to suit the local school-community, and that such changes as are made require central-office approval. The general conclusion from the statements of the central administration and of the principals is that the principal is 296 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS given a rather free hand in curriculum matters, but that the necessary restraint is exercised by means of the essential ap- proval by the central office of significant changes. In matters pertaining to the extra-curriculum, the cen- tral office gives the principal virtually a free rein, except that reasonable restraint is exercised by requiring central-office ap- proval for activities “new, novel, or a distinct departure from previous school or city-wide policies.” To this general state- ment, most of the principals participating in this study agreed, although several of them apparently did not feel that the re- straint of central-office approval for new activities was strong enough to require specific mention. The principal and improvement of instruction.—Full re- sponsibility for the improvement of instruction is placed upon the principal, whether or not he follows suggestions of central- office supervisors. This statement bears out the relationship expressed in an earlier section of the report to the effect that if the principal did not wish to follow the advice of a super- visor, the burden of proof was upon him to show that his method or plan was as good or better than the one proposed by the staff member. Very few principals agreed with the statement of the cen- tral office as here given. The larger number of those partici- pating in this study noted the principal’s participation with supervisors in city-wide conferences and the expectation that principals make use of results in their schools. A justifiable conclusion regarding the disparity between statements of the central office and the practice in the schools is that principals are given a fairly free hand in following the advice of supervisors, that they actually do follow such advice in most instances, but that if they do not, the burden of proof is upon them to justify their own procedures. The principal and public relations.—The central admin- istration allows the principal a relatively free hand in his pub- lic-relations plans, subject to approval only in case of activities in apparent conflict with those of the central offce. The prin- cipals interrogated are somewhat divided in their understand- - ing of the relationship; however, most agree to the spirit of the policy here expressed. Th we ra a ane DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 297 The group which differed in their interpretation of the foregoing statement held that the public-relations plans were a product of the central office, and that the principals were responsible only for applying or for adapting the plans to their communities with central-office approval. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The present organization of the central office in Seattle is more favorable to the school principals than at any time in recent years. The superintendent, who has been made the chief executive officer of the board of education in the newly constituted unit organization, was formerly an outstanding school principal and is thoroughly conversant with the prob- lems of administration in the local schools. As a result prin- cipals feel that problems arising between them and the central office will be fully understood and solved in a professional way. As a means of improving local school administration, a volume entitled The Principal’s Handbook has been reissued under date of 1936. This handbook explains the regulations of the central office with respect to the management of the schools. Through its use a uniform observance of policies and principles so essential in the administration of a metropolitan school system is secured. The principal is recognized as the responsible head of the local school, but he is not regarded as an autocrat whose de- cisions may not be questioned by the central administration. As a matter of fact, he is expected to formulate his plans in accordance with central-office policies and to secure the ap- proval of his superior executive officers before attempting in- novations in organization, administration, and supervision. The principal is selected by the superintendent with the advice of his central-office staff. The specific qualifications sought in the prospective principal are broad experience, ex- cellent academic and professional training, and wholesome pro- fessional attitude. The needs of the individual school are also taken into consideration in the selection of the principal. While principals are recruited largely from the teaching staff in Seattle, the superintendent occasionally goes outside for candidates who give promise of adding strength and new pro- fessional ideas to the system. BY io } 5 Wwe pe - ng REG? 298 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The transfer of a principal from one school to another is resorted to both as a means of promotion and to improve the administration of a local school. As in appointments, the spe- cial qualifications of the principal and the needs of the local school are considered. Promotions to the principalship are usually made from vice-principalships. Qualifications for pro- motion are virtually the same as those considered in making original appointments or transfers with the added prerequisite of length of service within the classification from which the assignment is made. There is very little transferring among the principals in the high school. Dismissals at any level are rare. The principal wields a large influence in the local schools. In matters pertaining to instruction the principal is held re- sponsible for results, whether he accepts the advice proffered by the central-office supervisors or not. He is, however, ex- pected to use the suggestions of the supervisors unless he can demonstrate to his superior executives that his own plans are, at least, of equal value. In curriculum-making the principal participates with the central office, and he is expected to use, with as little change as possible, the curriculum materials ap- proved. He is permitted to adapt the curriculum material to the needs of his school, providing central-office approval is se- cured. Some responsibility is granted to the principal in the se- lection of his teachers, although his recommendations may not always be followed by the central office. He may recommend the transfer of a teacher from his school, but the recommenda- tion for dismissal is made to the board of education by the superintendent. In theory, the principal deals with the central office largely through intermediary executive officers or directly with the superintendent. Dealings with non-educational cen- tral-office executives, such as the medical and attendance de- partments are largely direct. As the various relationships with the central office un- dergo modification because of the re-establishment of the unit type of organization, the status of the principal as the respon- sible head of the local school will likely improve. CHAPTER XVII TORONTO, ONTARIO THE CENTRAL ORGANIZATION The schools of*Toronto are administered by a municipal board of education provided under the Revised Statutes of Ontario of 1914 and subsequently revised in 1927. Under these 4 statutes a city of 50,000 population or more may determine a by public election called by the common council whether or fe not the voters desire to have their public schools (elementary) ti and secondary schools administered by a single board instead of independent boards. The members of the municipal board of education are elected by wards and serve for a term of one year. The pres- ent board consists of eighteen members, one of whom serves as chairman. Two representatives of the separate school board (church) are allowed seats on the municipal board but are not allowed to speak or vote on the questions dealing exclu- sively with elementary schools. In case vocational schools are established, the law provides for the organization of an ad- q visory vocational committee consisting of the chairman of the ' municipal board and five other members, one of whom shall . be a representative of the separate school board, and six per- fs sons not members of the municipal board appointed in accord- im ance with the provisions of the Vocational Education Act of a 1930 and amendments thereto. The chief educational officer of the municipal school board is the superintendent of schools. Other executive officials are the business administrator and the solicitor. The choice of a superintendent is contingent upon the approval of the pro- vincial Minister of Education, who bases his opinion on the i academic and professional qualifications and the experience of a the person in the provincial school system. The tenure of the é superintendent is indefinite and removal from office can be effected only with the concurrence of the board of education and the Minister of Education. + 299 800 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS The business administrator is codrdinate in authority with the superintendent. He is appointed by, and is directly responsible to, the board of education. The organization pro- vided is thus of the dual type. The board of education functions largely through stand- ing committees, four being specified in the by-laws, namely, fi- nance, management, property, and the advisory vocational committee previously mentioned. While the committees are granted large responsibility by the board, they exercise their power chiefly through the executive officers, the superin- tendent of schools and the buiness administrator. A diagram of the administrative and supervisory organi- zation of the Toronto school system is shown on the follow- ing page. Administrative relations are indicated in the dia- gram by a solid line; advisory relations are shown by a dotted line. Relations that are both administrative and advisory are indicated by a broken line. For example, the relations of the provincial Department of Education to the various officials charged with educational responsibilities are both adminis- trative and advisory. The business administrator has both types of relations with school principals and the school prin- cipal in turn has similar relations with custodians. The rela- tions of the superintendent and business administrator are advisory only. There are numerous points of attrition in this organiza- tion fraught with possibilites for misunderstanding and strife; for example, board of education and standing commit- tees, standing committees and executive officers, superin- tendent and business manager, principal and business man- ager, principal and caretaker, inspector and principal, and in- spector and special supervisor. That conflicts in relations are avoided is explained by the facts that (1) petty politics are apparently reduced to the status of nil in the administration of the schools, (2) the provincial Minister of Education exer- cises an over-professional control of the educational aspects of the school system, and (3) the board of education has se- lected a strong superintendent and a superior business admin- istrator for the chief executive positions. The last mentioned fact no doubt explains the harmonious relations in the in- ternal operation of the school system and accounts for the ef- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 801 ORGANIZATION OF THE TORONTO SCHOOLS Provincial Department of City of Toronto Education Board of Edtication Punctions largely through four standing committees ' I b ..: eee 1 Superintendent Business Manager Fes | Special Inspectors supervisors Sighs agate i —-—s oe Custodians ee | 7 | Line of authority ——-——Both authority and advisory relations oor —~-AdVi sory relations ee | ae a By a i i Ei i i 802 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS fective functioning of a central organization that possesses inherent possibilities for maladministration and dissension. OFFICIAL RELATIONS OF PRINCIPAL With the provincial Department of Education.—The rela- tions of the principal with the provincial Department of Edu- cation are largely indirect, since the purpose of provincial laws pertaining to schools is to grant local autonomy to the people of a municipality through their elected representatives. Local autonomy must be exercised, however, within the area pre- scribed by the law and by the rules and regulations of the pro- vincial Department of Education. In order to avoid confusion in administration the Minister of Education issues for the guidance of the local school authorities specific regulations pertaining to the organization of different types of schools, the responsibilities and powers of the board of education, and the duties of the board’s employees. The principal comes within the scope of these regulations, for he is recognized by the Minister of Education as having a great deal to do with the realization of standards desired by the minister for the schools. The secondary school principal enjoys a legal status under the ministerial regulations, “On the staff of every high school there shall be a principal. .... 1 The provincial Department of Education grants a high-school principal’s certificate, which qualifies the holder for life as principal of a high school or collegiate institute. Special certification is required for prin- cipals of vocational schools. Principals of the public or ele- mentary schools are regarded as head teachers and are re- quired to have the status of a properly certificated teacher. While exercising inspectorial functions over local schools of city systems and direct control over the certification of principals, the provincial Department of Education holds the superintendent and board of education responsible for the se- lection and administration of the principals. In a sense its administration is direct, for the superintendent is in reality an official of the department as well as the executive of the local school board. » 1Ontario Department of Education, Regulations of the High Schools and Collegiate Institutes (1936), p. 7. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 303 The principal is expected to observe the regulations of the provincial Department of Education in the organization and administration of his school. Although specifying that the authority of the principal shall be supreme in all matters of organization, management and discipline, the rules qualify this broad grant of local authority in specific instances by the proviso, “subject to revision by the inspector,”! meaning the local superintendent or one of his representatives. For ex- ample, one of these rules specifies that the time-table for the different forms and grades of the school shall be prepared by the principal or, subject to his direction, by his assistants, and shall be submitted to the inspector, who shall make such modifications therein as he may deem expedient.” For the convenience of the principal, the ministerial regu- lations specify the powers and duties of teachers and pupils and indicate both general and special requirements of the provincial Department of Education. Provincial inspectors visit the high schools annually to appraise the conditions in the schools and to evaluate the progress being made. With the chief inspector or superintendent of schools.— The school principal is directly responsible to the superintend- ent of schools for the way the local school is administered under the principal’s charge. The power of the superintendent over the principal is limited only by the authority conferred by the board of education with the approval of the Minister of Education, not inconsistent with provincial statutes and general ministerial regulations. In general, it appears that the executive power of the superintendent in Toronto com- pares favorably with that conferred on public school superin- tendents in American cities. The difference between the ex- ercise of power with respect to school principals in Toronto and in comparable American cities is the omission of inter- mediary executive officers. There are no deputy superin- tendents, assistant superintendents, or district superintend- ents in Toronto to be consulted by principals before reaching the superintendent. This direct relationship tends to eliminate much of the waste and delay occasioned by long-range administration. If 1Ontario Department of Education, General Regulations (1935), p. 1) 2Jbid., p. 11. prise 1a pein een, Sa - rete 0; 7s 4 3 pastes yeaa 304 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the superintendent chooses to exercise large powers, he can settle the requests of a principal quickly and thus place the responsibility for promptness of execution of the requests in question on the principal of the local school. The immediacy of the relationship between the principal and superintendent should eliminate much of the inertia of administration charged to complicated and top-heavy central organizations in Amer- ican cities. Since the superintendent is regarded both by the provin- cial Department of Education and the local board of education as a professional leader and is bound by relatively few rules, he is reasonably free to regulate the activities of principals in the local schools virtually as he sees fit. His orders go di- rectly to principals and are not subject to interpretation by intermediary executive officers. Thus, it is possible for the superintendent to exercise a large personal influence on the administration of the local schools in a comparatively short period of time. The principal is nominated in Toronto by the superintend- ent and elected by the board of education from the teachers who have served at least eight years in the local city schools and who hold at the time of nomination a permanent first- class certificate. After a year of probation, the person ap- pointed becomes a member of the staff unless the period of probation is extended. The superintendent is empowered to suspend principals for neglect of duty or misconduct and the board may termi- nate its contractual agreement on one month’s notice. Hence, there are apparently no insurmountable barriers to the estab- lishment of effective working relations between the superin- tendent and his school principals. With the inspector.—The inspector is a general supervisor of instruction for a portion of the city. He is comparable with the district superintendents of certain American cities, except that his duties are restricted to supervision. Toronto has eight inspectors accountable to the superintendent and, through him, to the provincial Department of Education. These officials visit the schools and work with the principals and teachers to improve instruction. They regard themselves as colleagues of the principals in their districts, although they DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 805 rank in position and influence above the principals. In case of disagreement or conflict with principals the inspector re- ports to the superintendent, who is clothed with the admin- istrative power to deal with the principals. The inspectors are required to prepare reports of their inspection or supervision of the schools of their districts in accordance with the regulations of the provincial Department of Education and the local school board, and to direct the work so that the best results for the pupils may be secured. They spend the major portion of their time in the schools demonstrating and conferring with teachers and principals. The inspectors are allowed considerable latitude by the superintendent in developing types of work in the schools of their districts in accordance with their particular pedagogical interests and personal views. This variation was revealed to the writer of the report in his inspection of the school ex- hibit at the Canadian National Exhibition in September, 1936. The practice merits commendation, for it acts as an antidote to the demoralizing effect of provincial standardization on teacher initiative. The inspectors rate the efficiency of the principals and teachers and aid the superintendent in the preparation of the confidential report on the educational personnel of the school system for the consideration of the management committee prior to submission to the board of education in May of each year. On the basis of this report appointments, suspensions, dismissals, retirements, reappointments, tranfers, and pro- motions of teachers and principals are made. With special supervisors.—All supervisors are directly re- sponsible to the superintendent of schools and they visit the local schools as his representatives. In dealing with principals they act as advisers and consultants rather than officials clothed with administrative power. In rank the supervisor and principal are about equal, although their relative status ~ is not established by rule. They are expected by the super- intendent to work in harmony with the principals for the best interests of the pupils and teachers. Special supervisors are employed for physical education, music, art, manual training, and household science. It is in- tended by the central office that these specialists function in We ee ee ere . ities tn ater Z APNE cs tet tetany 306 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS the local schools as supervisors and directors of instruction rather than as special teachers. They are expected to supple- ment the supervisory efforts of the principal by placing at his disposal their services as specialists in the curriculum fields for which they are employed. With non-educational executives.—The principal notifies non-educational executives in the central office regarding matters which require their attention and he may confer with them regarding matters of concern in the local school. How- ever, most matters involving educational and business mat- ters in the local schools are settled between the superintendent and business administrator. The principal is required by rule to report immediately in writing to the business administrator, all accidents which may happen to teachers, pupils, and others in the school or on the school grounds and to notify the basiness administrator of the absence or neglect of duty of any caretaker. In case of difficulty in raising the temperature of his school building to 65 degrees Fahrenheit on any day the principal is expected to notify the business administrator. The architect and superintendent of buildings go over the local school building with the principal and head caretaker and prepare lists of improvements, alterations, repairs and re- placements for consideration of the superintendent and the business administrator in the preparation of the annual bud- get. Caretakers are under the business administrator but they are expected to codperate with the principal and to carry out his orders unless the orders are contradictory to established procedures. If the caretaker is not satisfactory the principal can file a complaint with the business administrator. The principal is considered by the central office to be in charge of the school during school hours. Direct relations are also maintained by the principals with attendance officers and the officials of the health depart- ment, physicians, nurses, psychiatrists, and psychologists, who function under the city council. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 807 PROFESSIONAL STATUS OF PRINCIPAL Historical development.—The principal was regarded merely as a head teacher in the local school in Toronto until around 1875. Up to that date the public schools had been un- der the guidance of only two inspectors, George A. Barber, 1844 to 1850, and Rev. James Porter, 1858 to 1875. Both of these men had been trained in Europe and reflected the views of education characteristic of the English. At the time Mr. Barber took charge of the school in 1844, Toronto was a city of 18,500 population. The public schools had an attendance that year of 1,194 pupils and were taught by 12 teachers. The average daily attendance per teacher was approximately 100 pupils. By 1858 the city had increased in population to 47,500 and the average daily at- tendance in the public schools to 1,978. The staff of teachers had been increased to 36 and the size of class reduced so that the attendance averaged only 55. The schools were ungraded and the teachers taught many classes. Each building had a head teacher who in addition to teaching full time also ex- ercised general managerial control over the school. In 1874, the date marking the close of the administration of the second superintendent, Toronto had grown in population to 62,000 and the average daily attendance in the public schools to 4,814. Seventy-five teachers were employed, 18 of whom were men and 57 of whom were women. The 18 men are listed in the report of the inspector as head masters and the women as lady teachers. The head masters obviously taught full time as the average daily attendance per teacher employed was 84. The report states that an attempt had been made that year to grade the pupils into five divisions as a means of reducing the classes per teacher and of improving the discipline and instruction. Evidently, these improvements in the schools were brought about by the inspector rather than the head masters. Some change must have taken place in the conception of the duties of the head masters of the public schools between 1874 and 1877. The head masters are listed in the inspector’s 1Sixteenth Annual Report of the Inspector of the Public Schools of Toronto, p. 37, 1874. 8 Fe 808 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS report' for the latter year as principals. In the three-year period the population of the city had increased 5,000 and the average daily attendance jn the schools 1,682. Inspector Hughes reported an increase in the staff of masters and teach- ers of 53 and a lowering of the average daily attendance per teacher to 59. Schools were conducted in 23 buildings and the average number of teachers per building was 5.6. The impli- cation is that the duties of the head masters were increasing on account of the growth in the size of the local schools and the improvement of standards of instruction brought about by the introduction of divisional examinations. The evidence avail- able indicates that the principals were regarded by Inspector Hughes merely as successful teachers and as his representa- tives in the performance of certain managerial duties in the local schools. From an average daily attendance of 6,860 pupils in 1877 the schools of Toronto have increased to over 100,000 today. The size of the buildings has steadily been increased with the growth of the population. This development has exercised an important influence on the duties of principals and the de- pendence of the central office on the principals for administra- tive leadership in the local schools. Now, principals of schools with over 900 pupils devote full time to administration and supervision, while principals with fewer than 900 pupils give half time to such responsibilties. The zoning of the city for the location of collegiate institutes, technical high schools, and commercial high schools has contributed to the size of the secondary schools and has been responsible for significant changes in the duties and activities of the secondary-school principals. Present status.—The school principal occupies a promi- nent professional position in both the public (elementary) and secondary schools of Toronto. The principal is the chief administrative representative of the superintendent and board of education in the local school. At present the school system has 100 elementary-school and 18 secondary-school principals. The organization of these schools is shown in the following diagram: 1Annual Report of the Inspector of the Public Schools of Toronto, p. 38-44, 1877. Coll ci: ti je DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 809 — 100 lementary school jeading to | ees < 4 10 ] Collegiate Inetituted echnical | igh Schools of prevaring for training oo la trainin ngineers unior Clerks rchitects tenographers urses ecretaries ietitians ccountants killed etic usiness Agents ommercial Artist usiness Managers ostume Designers ecutive Position The principal regards himself as the head of his school and feels that it is unnecessary to consult with the central office about matters therein, except when the procedures to be followed deviate markedly from established policies. The central office, however, would expect him to secure approval before making significant changes involving established pro- cedures or practices. Inasmuch as most principals have served within the system as teachers a number of years before be- ing promoted to administrative positions, it is generally as- sumed that they recognize the necessity of ordering their ad- ministrative plans in accordance with the rules of the board of education and the regulations of the central office. Principals generally are highly regarded by their facul- ties, pupils, and supporting communities. Respect for con- stituted authority is a tradition in English schools, and the principal more than any other school official is the beneficiary of this English tradition. In schools with more than one teacher, the title of the responsible head is “principal.” In case the principal is as- signed to more than one school, the title is “supervising prin- cipal.” His authority in his school according to the regula- — tions of the provincial Department of Education is supreme in all matters of organization, management, and discipline. He may determine the number of grades, number of pupils to be assigned to each grade and class, and the order of the sub- jects to be taken by the pupils subject to the approval of the superintendent. 310 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Influence of principal in determination of central-office policies.—Most of the principals who responded to the ques- tion under consideration indicated that suggestions from indi- vidual principals regarding new policies or changes in estab- lished policies are favorably received by the central executive officers. Two principals claimed that new policies are adopted by the central office without consultation or discussion with the principals. The inspectors, however, insisted that pro- posed changes in policies are discussed with the principals in a group before changes are announced. The evidence indicates that the principal exercises an in- fluence on central-office policies if he chooses to do so. Since so many responsibilities of the principal are specified in the rules of the board of education and in the regulations of the Minister of Education, obviously, the need for change in poli- cies would be much less than in school systems operating under relatively few established rules and regulations. The principal in school systems of the latter type would therefore be con- sulted more frequently with respect to changes in policies than in a school system such as that of Toronto. This does not mean that the central administration in Toronto is less demo- cratic in its relations with the school principals than the sys- tems with which comparison is made. The principals are con- sulted less frequently regarding change in policy simply be- cause fewer changes are made. The explanation is to be found in the centralized, professional over-control of the provincial Department of Education. Support of principal by central office——The principal re- ceives reasonable support from the central office when appeals are made from his decision in the local school. Complaints brought to the central office are either referred back to the principal for his attention or are disposed of by the central executive after consultation with the principal. No complaint was made by the principals regarding the support given their rulings by the superintendent. Of course, if such rulings were unjust, the superintendent after consultation with the prin- cipal concerned would doubtless nullify the ruling in question or would allow the principal to modify his decision. The attitude of the superintendent and business admin- istrator toward the principal is thoroughly professional. The principal is regarded as an associate in carrying on the ad- i i DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ministrative work in the local school. If complaints are made regarding the principal, the central-office executives are not disposed to form a judgment in the matter until the principal’s side of the case is heard. The principal is invariably sup- ported by the central office if his rulings are within the regu- lations of the Minister of Education and the local board and his decision has been determined by a desire to promote the welfare of all parties concerned. Ethics of principal-central office relations—The school principal in Toronto is governed in his relations with the cen- tral office by a high standard of professional ethics. He is always willing to give the policies of the central office a fair, unprejudiced trial. He endeavors to act toward his superior executives with the same loyalty that he expects from his teachers. The policies of the central office are accepted by the prin- cipal as his own and he strives to execute these policies with zeal and enthusiasm. If the principal believes a policy of the central office to be inimical to the best interests of his school, he will go to the superintendent regarding the matter and try to convince the superintendent of the necessity of modifying the policy, at least to the extent that the serious objections are removed. He would not oppose privately a policy of the cen- tral office while striving to execute it loyally and efficiently. The superintendent does not desire a loyalty on the part of a principal that would cause him to execute without protest a policy of the central office considered derogatory to the wel- fare of the local school. The superintendent exercises the same concern for the interests of a local school as for the sys- tem as a whole. He views city school administration as a mu- tual responsibility of central office and local administrator, and believes that ethical standards are essential to successful achievement among professional workers. LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPAL With respect to rules and regulations for the control of the local school.—The basis of local school control in Toronto is the rules and regulations of the provincial Department of Edu- cation and the municipal board of education. All principals are expected to observe the spirit of such rules and regulations 811 a ee a eee ME en geri ote 9: oye oS Ra ratty hes dey ne oe eee eee et ce 312 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS and to secure central-office consent before making changes to meet local needs. Still, principals are allowed considerable latitude in the control of their schools, some maintaining that they enjoy full authority to make needed rules and regulations. A few principals expressed the view that school rules are made by the central office and that principals are responsible only for applying the rules. The latter view is not supported by the facts as the rules and regulations of the board of education grant the principal much latitude in the management of his school. In the organization of the local school—Under the gen- eral regulations the principal is allowed much initiative in planning the organization of his school. Obviously, he must avoid conflicts with central-office policies and with provincial regulations. In the case of a conflict in local school policies an elementary-school principal would need only to secure the ap- proval of his local superintendent; however, in a secondary- school conflict the principal would be required to conform with provincial regulations. To avoid both local and provincial criticism, the principal should obtain central-office approval before attempting to execute any plan for his iocal school at variance with official policy. In the selection of teachers.—The school principal is per- mitted to select his teachers from the eligible list subject to the approval of the superintendent of schools. No appointment is ever made by the superintendent except in an emergency without the approval of the principal of the school to which the teacher is assigned. Prior to appointment or reappointment the teacher must submit evidence of good health and proof of age. The rules of the board of education prohibit the appointment of teachers of 35 years of age and require male teachers to retire at 65 and female teachers at 62. In the dismissal of teachers.—Teachers may be dismissed from the service only by action of the board of education on the recommendation of the superintendent. Dismissal is gen- erally initiated by the principal, who makes the complaint against the teacher. The complaint must be concurred in by the inspector and the superintendent before it is brought to the attention of the board. Power of suspension rests with the DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 8138 superintendent, but termination of service must be acted upon by the board. A thirty-day notice in writing must be given by the board in terminating an agreement with a teacher or in lieu of such notice the payment of one-tenth of the annual salary of the individual dismissed. In the rating of teachers.—Teacher rating is not a direct responsibility of the school principal. Rating is a function of the inspector who acts in the capacity of a representative of the provincial Department of Education. The inspector in- variably consults with the principal in rating but is not re- quired to do so. With respect to instruction.—The principal is responsible for the character of instruction in his school and is expected to contribute definitely to instructional improvement. In dis- charging his responsibility he has the assistance of the in- spector and the special supervisors from the central office. He is not required by rule to accept the suggestions or advice of the inspector or special supervisors, but he has to account to the superintendent for the results obtained through the meth- ods which he employs. The duties of the secondary-school principal with respect to instruction are not specified in rules, but are subject to the policies of the superintendent, who in the end must accept responsibility for the efficiency of the principal. The principal of the public or elementary school is re- quired by board rule to examine every class under his charge at least once in each year and to spend at least half the time not engaged in teaching in his own classroom, visiting the classrooms of other teachers. The rule specifies that he is to exercise a strict supervision over the work and discipline of the various classes in his school and to call his teachers together at least once a month for an hour after school to consider mat- ters relating to teaching, management, and discipline and to keep a record in a book provided for the purpose, showing the the names of the teachers present and the business transacted. With respect to the curriculum.—The principal has virtu- ally no responsibility for curriculum making. The school cur- riculum is prepared by the provincial Department of Educa- tion and the central office and local principals are expected to use the curriculum with as little change as possible. The cen- - 314 - RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS a ee 2 i Pi 3 ae aed Ne RURIOY s neeae ceepee ea, tral office is privileged to elaborate the curriculum and to specify in detail the work to be taken up month by month in the several grades as a means of promoting uniformity of in- struction and of facilitating the transfer of pupils between local schools. With the consent of the provincial department, the central office and the principal may make modifications in the curriculum for local schools. In the organization and administration of extra-curricu- lum activities —The principals interrogated regarding their status with respect to extra-curriculum activities were virtu- ally unanimous in the belief that they were free to formulate and carry out a program of activities in accordance with the interests and needs of the pupils of their respective schools. Only in the case of radical departures would they feel con- strained to consult with or to obtain the approval of the super- intendent of schools. The principal is not bound by rules in providing activities for pupils. He is judged, however, by the 4 central office on the morale of his student body and on his abil- fi ity to provide for the pupils a natural and normal school life. In the management of pupils.—Opinion differs consider- H ably among the principals with respect to their authority in : the management and control of pupils. All interrogated agreed ey that they were responsible for the pupil personnel in the local schools, but they differed regarding the scope of their author- ity. Some claimed that they were solely responsible for cer- tain aspects of management, but that the central office ac- cepted responsibility for other aspects, e.g., the truancy prob- lem. Others claimed that it was necessary to secure central- office approval in the handling of exceptional cases. Still others held that they were responsible for the management of pupils, subject only to approval of general plans by the central office. The conclusion is warranted that the principal is respon- sible for all phases of pupil management, but that he is re- quired to report suspensions to the central office and also cases of truancy if his own efforts are ineffective. In the administration of equipment and supplies.—The principal has the authority to requisition, within his budget, any supplies and equipment needed, whether on a standard list or not, subject to central-office approval. The question of ap- Se ate a >> Pee DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 315 proval is governed very largely by financial exigencies, but the principal is expected to use good judgment and to base his requisitions on actual needs. Each principal is required by rules to keep an accurate record of the amount and kind of supplies, apparatus, and books in his school and to furnish the superintendent at the close of each financial year an estimate of the probable require- ments for the ensuing year. He is responsible for the preser-' vation and care of the school and its equipment and for its maintenance in a clean, neat, and proper condition. If care- takers are absent or are found to neglect their duties, the prin- cipal is required to notify the business administrator immedi- ately. In promoting public relations—The development of ef- fective codperation between school and local community is an implied responsibility of the principal. He is free to initiate plans which may bring the school and community together after school hours, providing the board of education will grant the use of the building. If his plans involve the use of school time he must naturally consult the superintendent. The use of publicity devices for the purpose of influencing the public with respect to school policies receives little atten- tion from principals or central office. It is generally believed by all these officials that public interest and support for good schools can be obtained without resorting to propaganda or organized publicity. The formation of school and home associations is en- couraged by the central office, but the local principal is re- sponsible for the direction of the activities of such organiza- tions. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The principalship in Toronto, especially in the secondary schools, is a position of local influence and responsibility. The principals in both the elementary and secondary schools are more closely identified with instruction than principals in American schools of similar status. This difference is prob- ably accounted for by two facts, namely, (1) the tradition in English schools that principals should teach, and (2) the ac- tive interest taken by the provincial Department of Education ‘ 316 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS in instructional matters. The further fact that the inspectors from the central office of the city system devote themselves almost exclusively to instruction in the local schools may also influence the instructional emphasis of the school principals. The relations of the principals with executives in the cen- tral office are decidedly professional. Petty political and per- sonal jealousies between central officers have been virtually eliminated in spite of the fact that numerous points of attrition exist which might complicate the relations of the principals with superior officers. As matters stand, the relationships of the principals are very generally defined in provincial regula- tions and local rules. In cases of doubt the personal relations of the principals with the central office are such as to prompt them to seek a personal explanation for any issue in question and a modification in practice if such seems required. Principals exercise considerable influence in the forma- tion of central-office policies, and are shown consideration in the selection of teachers and in local school organization. How- ever, in the modification of the curriculum and in the rating of their teachers they have little, if any, responsibility. They are virtually supreme in the organization of extra-curriculum activities and in the management of pupils. With respect to caretakers, the principals can only advise and report. Local home and school organizations are encouraged but the prin- cipal is held responsible for directing the activities in which such organizations desire to engage. In the relations between the school principal and the cen- tral office a high standard of professional ethics appears to prevail. Administration is viewed as a mutual responsibility which both parties seem willing to assume. As a result the interests of the local school and the general welfare of the system are advanced simultaneously through frankness and sincerity in official relations. 1 = m= + wp fF hee ACU a . 4 CHAPTER XVIII VANCOUVER, B. C. GENERAL FEATURES AND ORGANIZATION In contrast to the generally decentralized character of state systems of schools in the United States, the administra- tion of education in British Columbia presents a relatively high centralization of authority that has certain implications and effects on the organization and operation of the city schools of Vancouver. H. B. King, summarizing the adminis- tration of education in the province, says: “By section 93 of the ‘British North America Act,’ educa- tion is a function of the provincial government. The legisla- tion for the operation of the schools is provided by the ‘Public Schools Act.’ .... This act constitutes the Council of Public Instruction as the authoritative administrative body in charge of the schools. The Council of Public Instruction is virtually the government of the day dealing with school affairs, with a superintendent of education as its secretary ex officio. “Education is administered through the Department of Education, which now constitutes a separate ministry under a Minister of the Crown who is an elected member of the legis- 991 lature. The Council of Public Instruction, which, as Mr. King says in the foregoing summary, is the provincial governing agency for education in British Columbia, is composed of the Minister of Education and other members of the provincial cabinet, with the superintendent of education its ex-officio secretary.2, The Public Schools Act gives a wide variety of powers to the council, including such activities as creating- rural school districts in addition to those already existing; ap- pointing an official trustee to conduct the affairs of any school 1King, H. B. School Finance in British Columbia, p. 1. Victoria, B. C.: Province of British Columbia, 1935. < 2Manual of School Law and School Regulations of the Province of Brit- ish Columbia, p. 11. Victoria, B. C.: Province of British Columbia, 1936. 317 318 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS district; and acquiring by purchase or otherwise, prescribed textbooks and other school supplies which it may “supply free or sell to boards of school trustees, teachers and pupils .. .” In specific relation to matters of this study, the council has the power: “To make rules and regulations for the conduct of the public schools, to prescribe the form of contracts of engage- ment of teachers to be entered into between boards of school trustees and teachers, and to prescribe the duties of teachers: “To determine the grades and classes of teachers’ certifi- cates and the qualifications required for all grades and classes of teachers’ certificates, and to determine the qualifications re- quired for certificates for provincial inspectors and municipal inspectors of schools and directors of education; and to make rules governing the granting of all such certificates: “To prescribe courses of study and select, adopt, and pre- scribe a uniform series of textbooks and authorize supple- mentary readers for the public schools ... . of the Province:' “To determine all cases of appeal arising from decisions of boards of school trustees, and to make such orders thereon as the council may think proper; .. .””” British Columbia is divided for local administration into several classes of districts that elect their own boards of school trustees. Vancouver, because it has more than one thousand pupils in average daily attendance, is in the first class of municipal districts, and its public schools are governed lo- cally by a board of seven elected members. The act further specifies that an officer known as the “Su- perintendent of Schools, Vancouver,” may be appointed by the board of school trustees of the Vancouver district. His pow- ers are: “Aiding the superintendent of education in carrying out a uniform system of education, and generally in giving effect to this act and the regulations of the council of public instruc- tion: “Transmitting to the superintendent of education, within three days after the completion of the final inspection for the school year of each public school, a report respecting the teach- - ‘bid., p. 13. 2Jbid., p. 13. Ce es ee ~~ —_~aeiiet - el = oe ee ee ee ee — et DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 819 ing ability and efficiency of each teacher employed in the school, and mailing one copy of such report to the board of school trustees and one copy to the teacher named in the re- port: “Performance of such other duties as may be assigned to him by the board of school trustees.” The Public Schools Act also states that appointments to the office of “Superintendent of Schools, Vancouver,” and revocations of such appointments, may be made by the Van- couver Board of School Trustees, subject to the approval of the Council of Public Instruction. The implications of these requirements will be commented on in their appropriate place later in this report. Schools of British Columbia are inspected or supervised by government inspectors and by the directors of home eco- nomics and technical education whose functions are advisory rather than executive. The act permits local inspection in Vancouver, the provisions of the law being as follows: “The board of school trustees of the municipal school dis- trict of Va: couver, subject to the approval of the Council of Public Instruction, may appoint one or more inspectors of schools for that school district, who under the direction of the ‘Superintendent of Schools, Vancouver,’ shall perform such duties as may be assigned to them by the board of school trus- tees, with the approval of the Council of Public Instruction; and the board of school trustees, with the approval of the Council of Public Instruction, may revoke any appointment so made.’”? The municipal school district of Vancouver is organized at present on the “unit plan” of administration, with the su- perintendent the chief officer in the organization. Though re- sponsible to the local board of school trustees, the superin- tendent owes a certain amount of responsibility to the provin- cial Department of Education, since he must aid the superin- tendent of education for the province in carrying out a uni- form system of education, in applying the regulations of the Council of Public Instruction, and he must submit a report on the efficiency of teachers to the provincial department. 1] bid., pp. 33-34. 2/bid., p. 34. tet s SO Ot ty) Zuyssyomg}] | 7 pue pus A2r2702005 que qunoccoy £.re 701005 Butppr0cey : quezstssy E 5 C3 = z ‘ =] P| al 5031S eousuequ TER Ay i 3 eousu apumorp pus 3 -0qU TH | sxeyoves | s2utptrng | z 3 = @ susto}| Ie1tcedecug sessvto Ss 2S & | beotsso] | os.mg] F-t4300 Tg] | 2 s100u, Teyoods re jes 3 | | teau0d #9103915 -y3ug ® 3503S oO o- 3 peey || peeq = — = 45 4 A = 45 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 349 quirements for principals. Teachers in the elementary schools are required to have a Bachelor’s degree, so principals must have at least the equivalent. Likewise, in the high schools, principals are expected to have the Master’s degree, which is required of high-school teachers. Academic qualifications are given a great deal of weight in consideration for an appoint- ment to a principalship. Administrative responsibilities—In general, principals in the Washington public schools are recognized as the respon- sible administrative heads of their respective schools. In ex- ercising authority, however, they are required to observe the rules and orders of the board of education. These rules and orders are comparatively few and general, so the principal possesses considerable discretion in determining the scope of his authority. Obviously, certain types of principals have greater admin- istrative authority than do others. The supervising principals who are quite similar to district superintendents possess the greatest amount of independent authority. High-school prin- cipals devote a greater share of their time to actual adminis- trative and supervisory work than do elementary-school prin- cipals. Only the teaching principals are required to teach classes; other principals may teach if they choose to. As long as the principals in the smaller schools are required to teach, the supervising principal will have to assume a great share of the administrative responsibility in their schools. Apparently, the small school buildings are being eliminated as rapidly as possible, so eventually the position of teaching principal in the Washington schools will disappear. Some administrative principals in the elementary schools express the opinion that they do not have sufficient time for administration and supervision, due to the fact that much of _ their time is occupied in performing clerical duties. In gen- eral, neither teaching nor administrative principals have office clerks. If an elementary-school principal should want to send a notice to patrons of the school a request for clerical aid might be made to the proper supervising principal. The super- vising principal, however, could not grant many such requests for the reason that he is supplied with only one clerk. Congress ee ree Ts 350 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS failed to make appropriations for the employment of clerks in the elementary schools mainly because a committee of Con- gress asks that clerical work be done with W. P. A. aid. More adequate clerical assistance is provided for high- school principals. A principal of a junior high school is pro- vided with at least one clerk regardless of the enrolment of his school. An administrative principal of an elementary school, on the other hand, is denied the aid of a regular clerk even though the enrolment of his school exceeds that of a junior high school. As expressed by one administrative prin- cipal, this is particularly discriminating against those elemen- tary schools which have a large number of junior high school pupils enrolled in grades seven and eight. Participation of principals in determining educational policies.—Educational policies adopted by the superintendent and his staff are of no avail unless executed by school prin- cipals. It is therefore essential that established policies re- ceive the sanction of the principals who are expected to execute the policies. Perhaps the most effective means of obtaining the principal’s approval to educational policies is by permitting him to participate in the formulation. This is accomplished in Washington through principals’ meetings. The superintendent calls monthly meetings of all the ad- ministrative and supervisory officers of the entire school sys- tem. These meetings are considered very effective in unifying educational policies. Principals have still greater opportunity of expressing individual viewpoints at smaller meetings called by their assistant superintendents. All senior high school principals (white and colored) meet together with the first assistant superintendents. The same plan is followed by junior high schools and vocational schools. It was reported that junior high school principals also meet on their own volition. These meetings are unofficial but often result in solving difficult educational problems. The assistant superintendents in charge of elementary schools hold meetings with their supervising principals and di- rectors. Moreover, all elementary-school principals meet periodically with their proper supervising principal. The meet- ings of supervising principals as well as elementary-school principals are held separately for the white and colored di- visions. DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 351 After educational policies are finally adopted the prin- cipal is expected to execute the policies without question or criticism. That this expectation is, in general, fulfilled is at- tested by the fact that twelve out of fourteen principals report that they strive to carry out policies of the superintendent re- gardless of personal views. Two principals, however, state that they would not hesitate to oppose privately a policy of the superintendent or an assistant superintendent if they con- sidered the policy to be unsound. RELATIONS WITH EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS Superintendent of schools.—The relations of principals to the superintendent and other central-staff officers have, in most part, been described in the foregoing sections dealing with the development of administrative organization and the status of the school principal. The original act of 1869 creating the office of superin- tendent of public schools provided that the superintendent should visit, at least once a month, every school under the charge of the trustees. He was further charged with the re- sponsibility of directing “all matters relating to the govern- ment and course of instruction, books, studies, discipline and conduct of schools.” The practice continued long after the establishment of the principalship. At present the superintendent exercises as much or more control over the administration of schools than formerly. However, it is now neither possible nor practicable that the superintendent visit each school once a month or attend per- sonally to administrative details. Because of the great growth of the school system, it is not even feasible for the superin- tendent to deal directly with each school principal. The near- est approach to such dealings is the superintendent’s monthly meetings which all principals attend. 4 The principal is responsible to the superintendent through intermediary executive officers. Thirteen out of fourteen principals reporting concurred in this opinion. Only one prin- cipal was of the opinion that he was directly responsible to the superintendent for educational and business affairs. The superintendent takes a very active part in the selec- tion of principals. He studies carefully, with other adminis- ae & tear ties 352 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS * trative officers of his own choosing, all the credentials and qualifications of a candidate before recommending him for appointment to a principalship. After the appointment is once made, however, intermediary officers are responsible for the FF appraisal of the principal’s fitness to his position. Such ap- a ii praisals ultimately reach the superintendent’s office. Wie ise ne ee one PE ee - YG i Intermediary officers.—The various intermediary officers and their functions have been described in the section dealing with the administrative organization. In general, principals mm o' are expected to consult the administrative officers immedi- If | ately superior to them in all matters which require the ap- i proval of the central office. Elementary-school principals therefore consult the supervising principal and in turn the supervisory principal consults the first assistant superintend- a ent in charge of elementary schools in all matters which re- i: quire the approval or decision of superior officers. Likewise, 1% high-school principals first consult their proper assistant super- intendent when seeking advice or approval concerning admin- (8 istrative problems. In some cases the intermediary officers may t refer the principal on to the superintendent or even the board ie of education. Generally, however, direct lines of authority are maintained and it is only seldom that school officials vol- ‘ untarily go over the heads of their immediately superior of- ag ficers to approach the superintendent with regard to educa- ‘ 13 tional affairs. Efficiency ratings——Every official in the Washington public school system except the superintendent is rated with respect to efficiency. Principals are rated by administrative officers who are directly over them in the administrative organization. For instance, the supervising principal rates the elementary-school principals, and assistant superintendents rate the high-school principals. High-school principals rate their teachers and directors. Teaching and administrative principals of the elementary schools act only in an advisory capacity to the supervising principal in rating elementary- school teachers. All ratings made by principals are subject to review by the central office. Each teacher is supplied with a record of her rating? If dissatisfied with the rating given by a principal, an appeal may be made to an assistant superintendent, the superin- eS Pes | 358 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS tendent of schools, or finally to the committee of complaints and appeals of the board of education. Supervisory officers—Rules approved by the board of education in 1933 specify that “each principal except teaching principals shall, under the direction of the administrative of- ficer immediately above him, supervise the work of teachers in his school.” Supervising principals are responsible for the improvement of instruction in elementary schools with the assistance of administrative and teaching principals. High- school principals have been aided considerably in the super- vision of their schools since the creation of assistant prin- cipalships. Although principals are generally held responsible for the supervision of instruction in their schools, a number of positions have been established whereby expert advice in special fields may be submitted to both principals and teach- ers. The first assistant superintendent, who is responsible for the administration of elementary: schools, states that assist- ing him is a director of elementary supervision who has four assistant supervisors. One is a kindergarten specialist; one is a specialist for first and second grades; one, for third and fourth grades; and one, for fifth and sixth grades. Principals of high schools are assisted in supervision by heads of departments. These department heads perform city- wide functions in the following fields: business practice, Eng- lish, health and physical education, history, Latin, mathe- matics, modern language, and science. There are also directors in the following special subjects: art, elementary instruction, science and school gardens, home economics, kindergarten, music, visual instruction, and manual training. Reference was made earlier in this report to the early - misunderstanding of heads of departments and principals re- garding their intended relationships. By a redefinition of duties it is now generally conceded that directors, heads of departments, and supervisors are considered staff officers. Principals are considered superior to the staff officers and may accept the suggestions and criticisms of such officers as they see fit. If there is harmony between a head of a depart- 854 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS ment and a principal concerning any problem no report need be made to the central office. If there is a difference of opin- ion, however, it is the practice that each send a report to the central office. The majority of responses from principals indicate that staff officers visit local schools on schedule but place them- selves under the command of the principal while in his school. The situation, however, is reversed with respect to the super- vising principal in charge of an elementary-school division. RELATIONS WITH NON-EDUCATIONAL OFFICERS First assistant superintendent in charge of business af- fairs.—The relative position of the first assistant superin- tendent in charge of business affairs may be inferred from the rules of the board in which it is provided that he “is subor- dinate in rank to the superintendent of schools; he is equal in rank to the other first assistant superintendents; in business affairs he is superior in rank to every other administrative and supervisory officer in the school system.” Teaching and administrative principals of elementary schools do not deal directly with business officials. All busi- ness affairs of the elementary schools are taken to the central office by the supervising principal. In the high schools, the procedure is different. There is no intermediary officer between the high-school principal and the first assistant superintendent in charge of business affairs. For example, if a high-school principal should have some problem relating to furniture, plumbing, or any other aspect of business, he would not con- sult the assistant superintendent directly above him in edu- cational affairs but would deal directly with the business executive. The first assistant superintendent in charge of business affairs expressed the opinion that the method employed in the elementary schools of having supervising principals deal di- rectly with the central office was preferable to the practice in high schools where each principal deals individually with the central office. He believes that many of the business problems are common to all high-school principals and could be handled more economically and adequately if brought collectively to the central office by an assistant superintendent of schools. SS 2 2 oe fe oe DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 355 Equipment and supplies —Elementary-school principals make it clear that their orders for supplies are subject to the approval of the supervising principal before being referred to the business office. According to information supplied on check sheets there is not much unanimity of opinion among high-school prin- cipals as to the method of securing equipment and supplies. The majority of high-school principals believe that the prin- cipal may requisition, within his budget, from a standard list but that each requision is subject to approval of the central office. Several principals believe that the approval of the cen- tral office is not required provided the principal stays within his budget and orders from a standard list. There is also variance of opinion as to whether or not the principal is con- sulted in the formulation of a standard list. One principal indicated that it was not even necessary to abide by a stand- ard list in submitting requisitions for supplies and equipment. According to the explanation of the first assistant super- intendent in charge of business affairs, a standard set of equipment has been approved by the board of education. Prin- cipals may therefore have their requests granted if made within the range of the type of equipment approved. The business executive also pointed out that principals merely make their requests for supplies which are included on standard lists, and the business office makes out the requi- sition which passes through the purchasing office. Allotment of supplies is made on a per-pupil basis. Books are selected by principals from approved lists compiled by textbook com- mittees. There are no periodic inventories of supplies, but an opinion was expressed that such inventories are needed. Budget-making.—In 1921, a board of apportionment, con- sisting of several members of the central office, was created. In 1929, the name of the board was changed to advisory com- mittee on business affairs. The intended function of this com- mittee was to receive from principals and other school officers applications for the allotment of appropriations and to make recommendations to the superintendent after considering the applications received. The first assistant superintendent in charge of business affairs states that at present the superintendent invites prin- ESSE BET NI RIOR 356 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS cipals to send in suggestions for consideration regarding budget items of their respective schools. The business execu- tive is not entirely in favor of having principals participate to that extent in the formulation of the school budget. Custodians.—The principal is in immediate charge of the custodial personnel of his own building. The rules of the board stipulate that “each principal is expected to exercise careful supervision of custodians and be responsible for the cleanli- ness and sanitary conditions of the school building.” The rules further provide that “the principal and custodian of each building shall jointly and severally be responsible for the care and safety of the building and school property.” When friction develops between a principal and his chief custodian—and that apparently is very rare—an appeal may be made by each or both to the first assistant superintendent of business affairs who has final authority over the entire cus- todial staff. Under the first assistant superintendent in charge of busi- ness affairs are a superintendent of custodians and two assist- ants cutodians of schools. They inspect the school buildings and submit reports of their findings to the business office. These reports are referred back to the principals concerned. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The administrative organization of the Washington pub- lic schools is unique in that one superintendent and a staff of busincss executives serve both the white and colored schools, but below the rank of superintendent, in the instructional field, two separate organizations exist—one for white schools and one for colored schools. Lines of authority of both organiza- tions follow almost identical channels. Relations between principals and central-staff officers of the Washington public school system have changed from time to time ever since the establishment of the city superintend- ency in 1869. These changes have been largely due to the creation of new types of principalships and central-staff offices and new duties and authority. High-school principals apparently enjoy more independ- ence in the administration of their respective schools than do elementary-school principals. This is partially due to the fact DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 357 that supervising principals, who are functionally district su- perintendents, assume much of the administrative responsi- bility ordinarily assumed by the elementary-school principals. Teaching principals especially play a minor role in the admin- istration of their schools. Responses from a number of high-school principals in- dicate disagreement with respect to some of the major ex- isting relationships between principals and executives of the central office. The majority of responses, however, confirm the opinions expressed in interviews with central-office execu- tives. From evidence secured it can be generally concluded that the relationships between principals and the central office with respect to both educational and business affairs are harmo- nious and follow the trend of progressive city school systems. CHAPTER XX CONCLUSIONS In the foregoing chapters the duties and responsibilities of school principals have been analyzed and the relations of principals with the central office in the eighteen cities studied pointed out. The development of the principalship in most of the cities has been sketched and the present status of the po- sition described. The data thus presented make possible the tracing of an important development in city-school adminis- tration as well as the disclosure of a great variety of practices in the management of local schools. Tendencies with respect to the professional potentialities of the school principalship are discerned and retrograde influences of serious import to pro- fessional administration are revealed. From the findings as a whole conclusions are warranted which should result in the adoption of better practices in city-school administration and in better adjustment of internal administrative relationships between the central office and the local schools. Selection of principals.—In all the cities studied the prin- cipal is the personal selection of the superintendent of schools, subject to approval by the board of education. As a means of avoiding petty policies, favoritism, and nepotism in appoint- ments, half of the cities use some type of competitive examina- tion in the preparation of eligible lists from which the nomina- tions are made. In some of these cities the examinations are held and the eligible lists prepared under rigid civil service regulations; in others the methods of preparing the lists are so questionable that charges of political influence and personal favoritism in certain appointments are frequently heard. How- ever, under the worst conditions it must be admitted that some of the appointments so made are based solely on merit. The half of the cities not using civil service methods in the selection of principals follow various plans in selecting principals. Some require that the nominations represent an agreement among the educational executives of the central 358 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 359 office ; others require the superintendent to choose from a lim- ited list of available candidates prepared by his associate or assistant superintendents; still others permit the superintend- ent to make his nominations from available personnel within or without the system on the basis of the applicants’ creden- tials. The findings reveal great progress in the selection of school principals in spite of critical conditions prevailing in a few cities. As compared with earlier methods of selection by ward boards, standing committees of central boards or by boards of education acting as committees of the whole, present methods at the worst are superior. At least, candidates for the principalship today in large cities must meet certain stand- ards of academic education, professional preparation and pre- vious experience? before even being eligible for consideration. If competitive examinations are held, still further eliminations are made from the qualified group. Even in cities in which the responsibility for nomination rests solely with the super- intendent, the choice of a principal focuses the attention of pro- fessional groups on the standards employed to such an extent that the superintendent is critically judged by the profes- sional merit of his appointments. The evidence clearly shows the advantages of adopting rigid civil service methods in the selection of school principals. Even if other methods appear to work satisfactorily under present conditions, the inherent possibilities of the subtle oper- ation of political influences in professional appointments is so great in large city systems, that professional progress requires the adoption and use of the merit system. The special advan- tage of the civil service plan is that the superintendent always has available a merit list from which to make nominations. The use of such a list in a school system tends to eliminate political influences in the selection of school principals. Tenure of principals.—The school principal has legal ten- ure in 10 of the 18 cities studied. In the cities without legal tenure dismissal and demotion have been rare, and then only 1The minimum academic requirements for elementary-school principals is the Bachelor’s degree; most of the cities require the Master’s degree for high-school principals. 2Not fewer than five years and frequently a minimum of eight years of teaching experience are required. 360 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS after hearing on specific charges before the board. The pro- fessional morale of the principals appeared to the investigators to be no better or no worse in school systems without tenure than in systems with tenure. Principals interrogated gener- ally considered their positions more permanent than those of their superior executives in the central office. Professional status for a position appears to be virtually equivalent to in- definite tenure, whether recognized or not in state law. The implication of the evidence is that recognized professional status for principals has been an achievement of greater sig- nificance than mere tenure rights enacted into law. Salary schedule of principals.—All the school systems in- vestigated have adopted salary schedules for principals. The schedules provide an initial salary with possible annual in- creases for a considerable number of years until a maximum ranging from $4,000 to $8,000 is reached. The adoption of salary schedules by boards of education has contributed greatly to the professionalization of the principalship. The focus of the principal’s attention thus has been shifted from salary matters to professional improvement. In most of the school systems under consideration salary cuts or suspended increases were adopted during the depres- sion as an economy measure. With the need for such econ- omy past, the large majority of the cities have restored sched- ules either fully or in large part. It is evident that if profes- sional morale is to be maintained and growth in service en- couraged, the restoration of salary schedules should not be un- duly delayed. Professional advancement of principals.—This investiga- tion has revealed that the principalship is not regarded as a terminal position in city-school administration. The execu- tive positions in the central office are generally filled by the promotion of principals. Furthermore, there is considerable advancement in the status of principals by promotion from class to class. Principals of small schools are advanced with accompanying salary increases to principalships in larger schools. Elementary-school principals receive promotions to junior high school or senior high school principalships with satisfying recognition both in salary and rank. In fact, out- standing principals with superior training and successful ex- DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 361 perience are occasionally advanced to the superintendency on the basis of merit revealed through leadership in local schools. Merit very generally prevails in the professional advance- ment of school principals, altheugh in a few of the cities.stud- ied “petty politics” and “school politics” appear to carry en- tirely too much weight. The large majority of the principals deprecate the use of political influence by professional work- ers. They favor the merit system and regard the use of polit- ical methods by an associate to secure advancement as unpro- fessional conduct. While not relinquishing personal ambition for professional advancement beyond the principalship, most principals are inclined to regard the school principalship in the large city as offering a satisfying professional career in public school administration. Relation of principals with board of education.—The ten- dency of principals to have direct administrative relations with members of the board of education largely disappeared with the rise of the superintendent to a position of educational leadership in city-school administration. The passing of the ward system of selecting school board members and adminis- tration through standing committees of the board of education contributed still further to the ending of the practice. A few vestiges of the practice either still remain or have been revived because of political influence in two or three of the cities studied. Since the weight of opinion with respect to the issue is so overwhelming, school systems permitting direct administrative relations between school principals and board members are unfavorably conspicuous because of the return to a discredited practice. Since the principal is the professional representa- tive of the superintendent in the local school, the principal’s administrative relations with the superintendent should be direct and not through the board. For either a principal or a~ board member to encourage direct relations in the administra- tion of a local school is a manifestation of gross ignorance with respect to generally accepted administrative theory and practice or of unprofessional attitude.. Boards of education should therefore completely eliminate this retrograde tendency by adopting regulations specifying procedures in dealing with matters pertaining to local schools. NRE Sere eee ee a ee Eide epins — ton naa ge $62 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Relations with the superintendent.—The superintendent is recognized as the chief executive officer of the education department in all the cities studied and the principal as the chief representative of the superintendent in the local school. The relation of the principal and the superintendent is there- fore that of subordinate to superior. While according the principal great freedom as the responsible head of a local school, the position of headship does not carry autocratic power. Restrictions are imposed on the administrative pre- rogative of the principal by general rules and regulations of the board of education and by specific instructions and direc- tions of the superintendent. As a check on the misuse of power, the superintendent requires that local practices con- form with general policies and that departures from estab- lished procedures receive central-office approval before execu- tion in the local school. As a means of unifying practices and of carrying on in- service professional training the superintendents in all the cities in this investigation hold meetings periodically with the principals for the discussion of policies and the giving of in- structions. Through the exchange of opinions thus made pos- sible, the principal may exercise considerable influence in the formation of new policies, in the modification of established policies, and in acquainting the superintendents with the needs and problems of the local schools. This practice of direct re- lations between the superintendent and his principals is be- lieved to contribute greatly to the professional morale of the principals and to the general unification of the school system. In some of the cities the superintendents attempt to carry on certain specific administrative relations with the principals as well as to exercise their functions of general control. For example, the superintendent may supervise the high schools or the teachers college while delegating to assistants other supervisory areas. Other superintendents welcome advisory relations with principals while still insisting on local problems passing through established administrative channel. In still other cities the superintendents communicate officially with principals at regular intervals through letters or bulletins. The evidence shows that the relation of a superintendent with his principals to be effective must not be solely that of a court 363 DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS of appeals. He must be a motivating force in the professional development of his principals and a unifying influence in their administration. The immediacy of the relationship between the superintendent and his principals is an important deterrent to the inertia and waste not infrequently characteristic of school systems in large cities. Relations with intermediate educational executives.—The relations of deputy, associate, assistant, and district superin- tendents with the school principals are determined by the su- perintendent, who invariably is clothed with power by the board of education to nominate assistants and to assign their powers and duties. In 14 of the 18 cities studied the principals have direct relations with intermediary executive officers. The relations are both general and functional, depending on the organization of the central office. Three of the cities have secondary intermediate officers functioning as district or re- gional superintendents or supervisory principals. The pur- pose underlying the establishment of this latter type of posi- tion was to secure more aggressive supervision of the local schools by the central office than was possible by the superin- tendent and his immediate assistants. The evidence indicates that the plan has failed in its purpose as the tendency of the district superintendents has been to neglect supervision and to become subordinate administrators, who frequently serve only to interfere with the effective functioning of the principal in his relations with the central office. In only one city, namely, Toronto, have these intermediary officials between the super- intendent and the principals been restricted to their original supervisory functions. The study of the administrative organizations in the eighteen cities warrants the conclusion that the relations of the principal with the central office should be made as direct as possible. The establishment of “long-circuit” administrative relations between principals and the central office is conducive both to ineffective central-office administration and to the de- velopment of weak school principals. If the central office accepts the theory that schools in large cities will be best ad- ministered if the principal is made the responsible head of the local school, then the relations which it establishes with the principal should be such as to develop initiative, responsibility, Se ee Cae 2 a edge ae play 1%, ee 364 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS and efficiency in local administration rather than mere clerical subserviency. The intermediary executive officer between the superin- tendent and the school principal should be clothed with central- office power to deal directly with the principal in the func- tional relations prescribed. If these relations are supervisory, the central-office intermediary should function as a super- visor; if administrative, the official should function as an ad- ministrator and not merely as a “buffer” between the principal and the central office. The evidence indicates that both super- visory and administrative functions are seldom effectively per- formed by one intermediary. Relations with special supervisors.—Central officers with special supervisory functions are found in all the cities. These supervisors are generally regarded as advisers or consultants to the principals and are seldom clothed with administrative power. In some of the cities supervisors visit the local schools only on call; in others they visit on schedule but place them- selves at the disposal of the principal while in the local school ; in still others they visit on schedule as representatives of the superintendent and, although counseling with the principal and teachers regarding special problems, the advice which they offer is considered the equivalent of a command. The advancement of the standards of professional train- ing of principals and teachers in large cities has tended to re- duce in recent years both the number and the kinds of special supervisors. Special supervisors functioning from the central office as itinerant teachers of special subjects in the local schools have become practically extinct in the school systems studied in this investigation. The supervisor of special sub- jects now functions chiefly as a curriculum director in the central office and as a supervisory assistant to the principal in the local school. The relations of the principal with these special super- visory officials represent one of the most successful develop- ments in city-school administration. Through the specialized service established in-service training for both principals and teachers has been provided while avoiding administrative con- flicts resulting from the exercise of dual authority in the local schools. By making the special supervisor a consultant to a8) 2 ee Oe ee ae ee i Ot lk DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 365 the principal, a feeling of mutuality between principal and su- pervisor for the status of instruction in the special field is de- veloped, and codperative relations between principal and cen- tral office are effected. Thus, the prestige of the principal as the intellectual leader of his school is enhanced, the special work in the local schools is developed through the supervisory assistance and advisory service provided, and the work of the entire school system in the fields in question is unified through the method adopted. Relations with non-educational executives.—The relations of principals with non-educational executives in the central office are the cause of much confusion and considerable fric- tion in city-school administration. The explanation is usually found in the divided authority resulting from the dual or mul- tiple organization of the central office in many large cities. In order to retain a semblance of “line” organization in the edu- cation department of a dual or multiple system, relations be- tween the principal and non-educational executives are often routed through the superintendent or an intermediary educa- tional executive. This routing frequently results in delay in service and personal irritation. In the school systems organized according to the un't plan, the relations of the principal with non-educational execu- tives are functional in character and usually occasion but few difficulties. However, in systems of the dual or multiple type the relations are complicated by departmental. approval, which usually makes the dealings of the principal with non-educa- tional executives entirely indirect. Obviously, the relations of the principal with non-educa- tional executives, whatever the central organization, should be both direct and indirect. With respect to procedures for which office policies are clearly defined, for example, pay roll mat- ters, emergency repairs and requisitions within quotas or from standard lists, relations can and should be direct. Special requisitions involving expenditures not provided for in regular budget items, matters of permanent repairs or replacements, supplies or equipment in excess of quota, and the like, properly should be passed upon by superior educational executives. The failure of the central office to differentiate clearly between routine and exceptional matters in the relations of principals with non-educational executives without doubt accounts for / igeeabeckede Sree SF — i * f i Zs . o« 3 ; 3 ul va 3 om ale 4 j - Sas % Vere. cen ae a pedal elie = ae tenet tl - - Jet Beegee se + wna Fa tent ae ee eee os ue ie I Oe emery 366 RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS much of the existing confusion in the minds of the persons in- volved. Influence of the central office on the responsibilities of principals.—F rom the generalizations already indicated, it is evident that the status of the principal in the local school is a reflection of the administrative theory of the central office. If the central office wants the principal to be the intellectual and professional leader of his school, responsibilities will be accorded to the principal commensurate with the influence which the central office desires him to wield. If, on the con- trary, the principal is conceived by the central office as a “super” clerk, he will be weighted with routine responsibili- ties, deprived of clerical assistance, and regarded only as the titular head of the local school. The findings of this investigation while revealing on the whole an enviable professional status for the school principal, also bring to light some strange inconsistencies. For example, in some of the buildings the principal is held generally respon- sible for his building and its condition and yet he is given no authority over the custodial service except the privilege of re- porting to the business department of the central office through an intermediary executive. Even in the important educational matter of the choice of a teacher for a specific po- sition in his school, the principal in a number of the cities must accept the first person on the certified list or the person eligible to transfer. Only after a period of unsatisfactory service will the question of change in teacher assignment be discussed by the central office and transfer arranged. The adjustment of the teaching personnel to meet the specific needs of a local school is not infrequently a long-time problem to be solved by trial-and-error experimentation under a method of assignment and transfer that operates virtually mechan- ically. The principal is held to strict accountability for the quality of instruction in his sch 9] despite the fact that he must work with the teachers which the central office sends. He is responsible to a greater extent than any other officer for the efficiency rating and for recommending teachers for promo- tion or dismissal. The influence of the principal on the making of the curric- ulum is insignificant in most of the cities, yet he is expected to interpret the curriculum to his teachers. He must accept ' Ay \y Aw Aw , — = ata DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 367 the curriculum furnished him by the central office and can make modifications in curriculum materials to meet the needs of his local school only with the consent of his superior execu- tive officer. Not infrequently policies affecting the curriculum and instruction are handed down by the central office without consultation with principals prior to adoption. The effect of such administration by the central office is to discredit the pro- fessional leadership of the principal in the local school, and to neglect the training of the individual on whom the central of- fice is most dependent for the efficient execution of its instruc- tional policies. As a means of clarifying the status of the principal in the local schools several of the school systems studied have pro- vided administrative handbooks worked out by the principals in codperation with the central office. These handbooks are a codification of rules and regulations, administrative inter- pretations and supervisory directions to be used by the local school head as a body of guiding principles in administration. A few of the school systems have perhaps embodied too many procedures in the form of fixed rules, thus unwittingly con- tributing to perfunctory or routine administration on the part of principals. Both plans are intended to liberate principals from the necessity of constantly consulting intermediate exec- utive officers with respect to the solution of local problems. General import of findings.—While the findings of the in- vestigation reveal a strong determining influence by the cen- tral office in the attainment of the present professional status of the school principalship, the fact must not be overlooked that the future of any given principal depends upon himself. If the principalship is to provide a satisfying career for am- bitious men and women, the persons chosen to serve in this position in large cities must not wait for programs of profes- sional growth and improvement to be imposed by the central office. Through individual effort and group endeavor they must develop the potential possibilities of the school principal- ship for types of professional leadership and service funda- mental to successful city school organization, administration, and supervision. ea PPR aE NE NE cs = a GENTS Ss Se Ss RELATIONS OF SCHOOL PRINCIPALS POSTAL INSURANCE i The bulletin is insured | If the property contained in this package is damaged, or 1% any part of the contents lost, please report the extent of loss } or damage at once to the Department, together with the orig- i; inal wrapper of the parcel. S| This insurance covers all parcels, as well as the Bulletins Dif shipped by the Department of Secondary-School Principals, SF whether mailed first class, registered, unregistered, or parcel 4 post. mf Send all reports of loss with the original wrapper of the q package to THE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY-SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 5835 Kimbark Avenue, Chicago.