Chapter 1

The Development and Implementation of a Philosophy of School Administration

AS INDICATED by Cocking and Williams," "it seems that nothing would be more conducive to the improvement of programs of education for school administration than a study by the staff members of the place of administration in the educational scheme and development of a program aligned to the philosophy growing out of such a study. there is no reason why there cannot be basic agreements in the most desirable program of education in school administration. Basic philosophy plus its implementation is one of the areas which holds great promise for the improvement of the education of school administrators, if vigorously attacked.”

In the report cited above the authors provide a very excellent analysis of the several significant variations found in the philosophies of school administration which serve as bases of the programs offered in the 15 institutions studied. It is not the purpose here to provide a review of these findings, but rather to emphasize one aspect of this general problem which was not given major consideration in the report referred to, namely, the nature of the cooperations involved in the development of a basic philosophy of administration. In the aforementioned report as quoted above, "study by the staff" was indicated as necessary. In other sections there were references to necessities for a cooperative attack on the problem.

In this present inquiry emphasis is given to the following questions, all of which relate to specific means for developing and implementing a philosophy of school administration:

1. Have systematic efforts been made in your institution toward the the cooperative development and faculty acceptance of a philosophy of school administration?

a. Describe these efforts briefly.

To this question 39 institutions of the 62 responding gave an affirmative answer. One institution reported that "the faculty is initiating a study of our program. . . attention will probably be given to defining a theory of school administration." Three of these responses were

1 Cocking, Walter D. and Williams, Kenneth R. The education of school administrators. Procedures used at selected institutions. Sponsored by the National association of colleges and departments of education and the Commission on teacher education of the American council on education. Washington, D. C., The Council, 1941. 146 p. (mimeo.) p. 11-12.

qualified by a questioning as to whether their efforts could be referred to as "systematic." Twenty-three institutions provided a fairly complete description of the nature of the efforts reported. An analysis of these reveals that relatively few have approached this problem in any very systematic fashion. Faculty and faculty committee discussions are reported but in few cases, apparently, have these discussions been specifically planned for the purpose indicated. For the most part the development and faculty acceptance of a philosophy of school administration has been an incidental byproduct.

The following citations present some interesting variations of practice and approach which appear to be the outcome of definite planning: UNIVERSITY Of Georgia

A series of meetings has been held during the past four years, involving the faculty of the College of Education, graduate students, members of the State Department of Education, and certain county and city superintendents of schools, in which the whole problem of School Administration in Georgia and the southeast has been attacked. Special attention has been given to the purpose, place and function of school administration, and the job to be performed. Out of these discussions has come a rather definite and dynamic philosophy. Of course, it will continue to change with changing conditions. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

The entire practice at the University of Minnesota is an illustration of the cooperative development and faculty acceptance of a philosophy of school administration. The University . . . has had for many years a democratic type of university administration and many examples of systematic efforts to develop such a type of administration could be enumerated. The chief of these would be: (1) faculty participation in the nomination of new faculty members and administrative officers; (2) participation of the faculty in research, not only in matters related to instructional and scientific problems, but on matters relating to the general conduct and administration of the university; (3) a large number of faculty committees giving consideration to problems in practically every phase of the university administration; (4) a very splendid example by the president of the University of Minnesota of the use of leadership in the coordination of the activities of an institution rather than reliance on organizational patterns and commands. The same type of administrative philosophy has been illustrated in the activities of the College of Education. Here, participation of graduate students in a discussion of problems of administration, particularly as they relate to the work of graduate students in education, supplements faculty activities.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

About two faculty meetings a month for approximately two years were used by the faculty of the School of Education in a consideration of the philosophy of our graduate work, which is predominantly work for those majoring in school administration. The decision was unanimously reached that something like the "job analysis" method should be used; that we would abandon the use of all "formal" requirements if they had nothing but the force of precedent behind them, and attempt to plan for each type of man the kind of a graduate curriculum that seemed to his committee and to him would best contribute toward preparation for the kind of career he had in mind.

UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

At Cincinnati we have attempted to develop a philosophy of school administration through cooperative faculty discussion, in which the administrators of the Cincinnati school system frequently participate. In other words, both faculty and public school officers jointly react to the theory and philosophy of school administration in such conferences and groups as the following: 1. A seminar in school administration for graduate students which is attended by our staff members interested in administrative problems. 2. Through a faculty committee charged with responsibility for reviewing the content and procedure of our graduate courses.

3. Through participation of administrative officers of the Cincinnati school system in our graduate work for the training of school administrators.

4. Through an annual university seminar conducted for the administrative officers of the Cincinnati school system.

5. Through a canvass of Cincinnati administrators concerning their interests in and reactions to graduate courses offered . . . on the campus.

6. Through participation in a discussion of the survey of the Cincinnati school system and the Cincinnati program of curriculum development.

2. Has such effort resulted in basic agreements which offer a framework of objectives for the development of your education program for administrators?

Forty-one affirmative responses were given, and of these, 20 said "partially." The number and nature of these responses would tend to raise some question as to the extent to which such efforts have been generally implemented in the direction of providing a framework of objectives for programs in administration. To be sure, most of the statements previously cited clearly indicate that such implementation has resulted from their efforts. These may not, however, be typical of the total group of institutions reporting.

3. Have these agreements been based upon researches and cooperations by the following groups? Faculty members, graduate students, local administrators, State administrators, and representative laymen?

Respondents were asked to check each of these groups if they had been involved cooperatively. The number of times that each of these groups was checked follows: Faculty members (35), Graduate students (25), Local administrators (26), State administrators (21), Representative laymen (5). It would appear that these groups are generally included with the exception of the layman. That the layman, especially the lay school official, has a contribution to make and should be involved in a sort of "partnership" relationship is apparently recognized and put into effect by 5 of the institutions

reporting, or about 9 percent. It would seem that the possibilities of lay cooperation might well be canvassed further.

4. Describe briefly any activities which you have undertaken in this area (I) which in your judgment have been of constructive value to you in providing a sound approach to curriculum and program planning in the education of school administrators. There was a total of 30 statements received in response to this invitation. The citations listed below tell their own story. They reveal an interesting variety of approaches to the general problem under discussion.

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

A two-day State-wide educational conference is conducted at this University each summer. A conference in Professional Relations was conducted here this past summer . . . Two seminars attended by administrators and also by representatives of all Arkansas teacher-training institutions have recently been conducted at this University on "Problems and Issues in Teacher Education in Arkansas." All curriculum materials issued by the State Department of Education are developed and organized in our Curriculum Laboratory.

BALL STATE TEACHERS COLLEGE

Because the approach to all curriculum building in this College has always been and remains entirely functional, it has been customary to maintain an appropriate subcommittee of our Curriculum Committee, charged with special responsibility in this area. This committee has always maintained close contacts with the public schools and particularly with the successful practitioners in school administration in this area. In addition, we have a follow-up service which regularly investigates problems in administration . . . as they are developing in the field. It is a service which attempts to give guidance and to bring back the results of such experience to the Curriculum Committee.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Our agreements are based upon a long history of discussion among faculty members, graduate students, State and local administrators, and laymen. I feel that we have been particularly fortunate in having had intimate contact with more than 100 school systems varying in size from the smallest to the very largest and with State school systems spread pretty well over the United States. In at least 80 instances we have made intensive studies of State and local school systems.

GEORGE PEAbody College For TeacHERS

The faculty held numerous conferences in order to arrive at a common point of view. After core courses were set up and taught, graduate students filled out questionnaires giving their reactions to the organization of the core courses. Conferences with advanced graduate students were held during the development of the courses.

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

During the summer of 1940 the School invited in for a survey and conference representatives of the State departments of the 6 New England States and a group of outstanding superintendents. This group had presented to

them a picture of the efforts and interests of the Graduate School of Education and were then asked to consider this picture in the light of their own experience and judgment and to offer whatever suggestions they had for the improvement of the program. The best of these suggestions have been or are now being incorporated into our curriculum for school administrators. A systematic and careful follow-up of our graduates from the program for school administrators is made. This follow-up involves two different inquiries: (1) going to individuals who know about the work of these graduates and asking of them their opinions concerning the quality of the work being done by these graduates; and (2) inquiring of the graduates themselves what, in the light of their actual field experience, they now feel were inadequacies in their training program.

YALE UNIVERSITY

Development of the Department of Philosophy of School Administration (in reality it is the Department's philosophy of the role of graduate education in the training of selected graduate students for educational leadership) has these special values: 1. The faculty has reached its agreements as to point of view as the result of the combined study and discussion of the entire faculty. 2. Graduate students and former graduate students have been called upon to participate in arriving at the Department's point of view. Limited as these questions have been to a consideration of means and efforts directed toward the development and implementation of a philosophy of school administration the documentation provided by many of the participating institutions does, however, reveal the nature and pattern of the philosophy developed. It is clear that the schools which have more recently directed their efforts toward the development of programs reflecting cooperative researches and consultations concerning a philosophy have accepted a democratic concept of school administration. Such a concept has been outlined so clearly and so challengingly by Cocking and Williams that it bears repetition here:

In such a philosophy of school administration the primary task of the administrator is to create the rule of freedom rather than the rule of discipline; to develop personalities rather than systems; to lead to cooperation rather than to induce competition; to measure his work by nonmaterial growth rather than by material increments. In such a philosophy there is insistence of respect for the personality of all the personnel of the system and of the recognition of one's creativity. The philosophy of democratic school administration is based on the concept that teachers are persons who are influenced in their personal developments by elements similar to those affecting child growth and development. Those who hold this philosophy of school administration insist that in the organization and administration of the school, teachers must share cooperatively in planning and evaluating the For a relatively long period cooperative action has been accepted program. as basic in establishing relations between teacher and pupil. Only recently has it been admitted as fundamental in establishing relationships between administrators and other personnel in the school system."

In concluding the analysis of returns in this section devoted to problems incident to the development and implementation of a phil

'Ibid., p. 10.