Citation
A follow-up study of the doctoral graduates in curriculum, administration, and supervision

Material Information

Title:
A follow-up study of the doctoral graduates in curriculum, administration, and supervision University of Colorado, from May, 1972 to December, 1987
Creator:
Fowler, Linda V
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xv, 221 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Education -- Study and teaching (Graduate) -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Degrees, Academic ( fast )
Education -- Study and teaching (Graduate) ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 186-191).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education and Human Development.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Linda V. Fowler.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
21114814 ( OCLC )
ocm21114814
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1989d .F68 ( lcc )

Full Text
A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE DOCTORAL GRADUATES IN
CURRICULUM, ADMINISTRATION, AND SUPERVISION
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO,
FROM MAY, 1972 TO DECEMBER, 1987
by
Linda V. Fowler
B.A., Hillsdale College, 1967
M.A., University of Colorado, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education
1989


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree by
Linda V. Fowler
has been approved for the
School of
Education
by


Fowler, Linda V. (Ph.D., Education)
A Follow-up Study of the Doctoral Graduates in
Curriculum, Administration, and Supervision,
University of Colorado, From May, 1972 to
December, 1987
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Myrle E.
Hemenway
This study sought to examine the doctoral program
in curriculum, administration, and supervision at the
University of Colorado as perceived by the recipients
of a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree from 1972-1987.
A search of the literature was conducted regard-
ing characteristics of effective school administra-
tors, criticisms of administrator training programs,
and recommendations for administrator training pro-
grams. A search of the literature was also conducted
to study the findings of other similar follow-up
studies. Survey questionnaires used in other follow-
up studies were reviewed.
A survey questionnaire was written and submitted
to the researcher's committee, a validating jury, and
to a pilot group. Based upon suggestions by the above
groups, the questionnaire was revised and finalized.


iv
The survey questionnaire was mailed to the 231
doctoral graduates in curriculum, administration, and
supervision at the University of Colorado from 1972-
1987 on November 21, 1988, with a second mailing on
January 2, 1989. The responses from the 148 returned
questionnaires were tabulated. The data were reported
in tables and narratives, means, percentages and raw
numbers.
Graduate responses to the survey questionnaire
provided a demographic profile of the graduates.
Also, graduates' opinion of the various components of
their doctoral program were presented.
The conclusions were as follows. The program
area of curriculum, administration, and supervision
has provided satisfactory training for its graduates.
Help in career planning and job placement may not be
adequate. The content and content delivery of the
program were adequate. The goals adopted in 1972 by
the program.area in Education Administration have been
met. Goal accomplishment was consistent with litera-
ture on effective school administrators. The in-
dividual needs of the graduates were met. There was


V
reported by males and females. The graduates have
made contributions to research and publications.
Graduates chose an Ed.D. degree because of the lack of
a language proficiency requirement and the Ph.D.
degree for its perceived prestige. The dissertation,
program requirements, and faculty advisor were of
value to the overall program experience.
The form and content of this abstract are approv-
ed. I recommend its publication.
Signed


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Two outstanding individuals are most responsible
for this study.
Myrle Hemenway, my advisor and friend, was a
persistent, gentle, arid knowledgeable support.
Patience, wisdom, and good humor are his hallmarks.
Larry Fowler, my husband, was loving and en-
couraging. He has always provided the vision when
needed.
Special thanks go to Bob Taylor and Gary Hillman,
also my advisors, who provided guidance, support, and
advice.
The above noted people are the most memorable
aspects of this experience.


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY............... 1
Introduction............................. 1
Background of the- Problem............... 4
Statement of the Problem and
Purpose of the Study................... 6
Need for the Study....................... 8
Delimitations........................... 10
Limitations............................. 10
Assumptions............................. 11
Definition of Terms..................... 12
Summary and Organization of
the Thesis............................ 13
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 14
Description of the CADS Program......... 15
Characteristics of Effective
School Administrators................. 16
Criticism of Training Programs.......... 25
Recommendations for Administrator
Training.............................. 28
Follow-up Studies....................... 31
Summary Regarding Follow-up
Studies............................ 48


viii
III. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.... 50
Method of Research.................... 50
Construction of the Instrument........... 51
The Population........................... 54
Collection of Data....................... 55
Processing the Data..................... 56
IV. REPORT OF THE FINDINGS..................... 57
The Population Defined................... 64
Demographic Data......................... 65
Summary of the Demographic Data......... Ill
Opinion Regarding the University
of Colorado Doctoral Program
in Curriculum, Administration
and Supervision......................... 115
Other Considerations.................... 144
Summary of Opinions Regarding the
Doctoral Program in Curriculum,
Administration, and Supervision
at the University of Colorado........... 163
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 168
Summary of the Study.................... 168
Conclusions............................. 171
Recommendations for the Program
Area of Curriculum, Adminis-
tration, and Supervision at
the University of Colorado.............. 182


IX
Recommendations for Further
Research.............................. 183
REFERENCES....................................... 185
APPENDIX......................................... 192
A. SURVEY OF PH.D., ED.D. GRADUATES IN
CURRICULUM, ADMINISTRATION, AND
SUPERVISION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
COLORADO, 1972-1987....................... 193
B. COVER LETTERS............................. 202
C. JURY MEMBER RESUMES....................... 207
D. SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING
THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN CURRICULUM,
ADMINISTRATION, AND SUPERVISION AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO................ 211
E. COMMENTS REGARDING THE MOST
OUTSTANDING ASPECTS IN THE
CURRICULUM, ADMINISTRATION,
AND SUPERVISION PROGRAM AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO................ 214
F. COMMENTS REGARDING THE LEAST
EFFECTIVE ASPECTS OF THE
CURRICULUM, ADMINISTRATION,
AND SUPERVISION PROGRAM AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO................ 217
G. GENERAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE
CURRICULUM, ADMINISTRATION, AND
SUPERVISION PROGRAM AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO.................... 220


TABLES
Table
1. Ed.D., Ph.D. Recipients, 1972-1987............ 60
2. Male, Female Ed.D., Ph.D. Recipients....... 63
3. Male, Female Ed.D., Ph.D. Degree
Graduates Who Returned the
Questionnaire................................ 65
4. Male Undergraduate Degree Areas
of Major Concentration........................ 67
5. Female Undergraduate Degree Areas
of Major Concentration........................ 68
6. Undergraduate Degree Areas of Major
Concentration: Male, Female Combined.......... 69
7. Male Graduate Degree Areas of Major
Concentration................................. 71
8. Female Graduate Degree Areas of Major
Concentration................................. 72
9. Graduate Degree Areas of Major
Concentration: Male, Female Combined.......... 73
10. State in Which Residing When the
Doctorate Was Begun........................... 75
11. Age When the Doctorate Was Received........... 76
12. Male Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate...... 78
13. Female Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate... 79
14. Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate:
Male, Female Combined........................ 80
15. Male.Reasons for Attending the
University of Colorado........................ 82


xi
16. Female Reasons for Attending the
University of Colorado..................... 83
17. Reasons for Attending the University
of Colorado: Male, Female Combined............ 84
18. Number of Years Between the Receipt
of the Academic Degrees Earned by the
Male Doctoral Graduates....................... 86
19. Number of Years Between the Receipt
of the Academic Degrees Earned by the
Female Doctoral Graduates.................... 87
20. Number of Years Between the Receipt
of the Academic Degrees Earned by the
Graduates: Male, Female Combined.............. 88
21. Employment Organizations Immediately
Prior to Entering the Doctoral Program.... 90
22. Employment Organization After Receiving
the Doctorate and Currently................... 91
23. Male Years of Experience in Various
Categories Prior to Receiving the
Doctorate.................................. 94
24. Female Years of Experience in Various
Categories Prior to Receiving the
Doctorate..................................... 95
25. Years of Experience in Various
Categories Prior to Receiving the
Doctorate: Male, Female Combined.............. 96
26. Position Held Prior to Entering
the Doctoral Program...................... 100
27. Positions Held Immediately After
Receiving the Doctorate and
Currently.................................... 101
28. Salary Range of Graduates Prior to
Entering the Program and Currently........... 104


Xll
29. Did the Doctoral Program Result in
a Promotion?................................. 105
30. Did the Doctoral Program Result in
a Salary Increase?........................... 105
31. Range of Salary Increase After
Receiving the Degree......................... 106
32. Sources of Assistance in Obtaining
the First Position After the
Doctorate.................................... 108
33. New Positions Held by Males and
Females During the Doctoral Program......... 110
34. Male Opinion Regarding Doctoral
Program Requirements as they
Contributed to the Doctoral Experience.... 118
35. Female Opinion Regarding Doctoral
Program Requirements as they
Contributed to the Doctoral Experience.... 119
36. Opinion Regarding Doctoral Program
Requirements as they Contributed
to the Doctoral Experience: Male,
Female Combined.............................. 120
37. Male Opinion Regarding Research
Components as they Contributed to
the Doctoral Experience...................... 122
38. Female Opinion Regarding Research
Components as they Contributed to
the Doctoral Experience...................... 123
39. Opinion Regarding Research Components
as they Contributed to the Doctoral
Experience: Male, Female Combined............ 124
40. Male Opinion Regarding Dissertation
Components as they Contributed to
the Doctoral Experience
126


xiii
41. Female Opinion Regarding Dissertation
Components as they Contributed to
the Doctoral Experience...................... 127
42. Opinion Regarding Dissertation
Components as they Contributed to
the Doctoral Experience: Male,
Female Combined............................ 128
43. Male Opinion Regarding Assistance
of the Major Faculty Advisor................ 130
44. Female Opinion Regarding Assistance
of the Major Faculty Advisor................ 130
45. Opinion Regarding Assistance of the
Major Faculty Advisor: Male, Female
Combined................................... 131
46. Male Opinion Regarding Contribution
of the Program to Knowledge and/or
Skill in Areas Identified by Research
as Characteristics of Effective
Administrators.............................. 133
47. Female Opinion Regarding Contribution
of the Program to Knowledge and/or
Skill in Areas Identified by Research
as Characteristics of Effective
Administrators............................... 135
48. Opinion Regarding Contribution of the
Program to Knowledge and/or Skill in
Areas Identified by Research as
Characteristics of Effective
Administrators: Male, Female Combined...... 137
49. Male Opinion Regarding the Course
Work and Course Work Delivery of
Their Program................................ 141
50. Female Opinion Regarding the Course
Work and Course Work Delivery of
Their Program
142


xiv
51. Opinion Regarding the Course Work and
Course Work Delivery of Their Program:
Male, Female Combined........................ 143
52. Relationship of Present Work to the
Doctoral Program: Male...................... 146
53. Relationship of Present Work to the
Doctoral Program: Female.................. 146
54. Relationship of Present Work to the
Doctoral Program: Male, Female Combined... 147
55. Relationship of the Doctoral Program
to Increased Effectiveness as an
Educator: Male............................... 148
56. Relationship of the Doctoral Program
to Increased Effectiveness as an
Educator: Female............................. 148
57. Relationship of the Doctoral Program
to Increased Effectiveness as an
Educator: Male, Female Combined.............. 149
58. Value of Dissertation in Current Job
Placement: Male.............................. 151
59. Value of Dissertation in Current Job
Placement: Female............................ 152
60. Value of Dissertation in Current Job
Placement: Male, Female Combined........... 153
61. Male Publishing Contributions Since
the Doctorate................................ 154
62. Female Publishing Contributions Since
the Doctorate................................ 155
63. Publishing Contributions Since the
Doctorate: Male, Female Combined........... 156
64. Faculty Assistance Toward Graduates
Achieving Professional Success:
Male
158


XV
65. Faculty Assistance Toward Graduates
Achieving Professional Success:
Female..................................... 159
66. Faculty Assistance Toward Graduates
Achieving Professional Success:
Male, Female Combined...................... 160


CHAPTER I
NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Introduction
In "Speaking of Leadership," Arkansas Governor
Bill Clinton (1987) stated in his widely circulated
report for the Education Commission of the States:
For all the attention education has generated
these past few years, there has been too little
focused on the most important yet least under-
stood aspect of any lasting reform effort:
leadership.
Last year I was fortunate to chair the Task
Force on School Leadership and Management for the
National Governors' Association. I knew then
that strong school leadership was key to effec-
tive schools and more learning. I know now,
having spent much of this year visiting schools
across the country and talking with educators as
well as business leaders, that leadership is the
common thread that runs through all of the
recommendations set forth in "Time for Results:
The Governors' 1991 Report on Education."
Visions for improving student learning have
found life in the policies advocated by governors
and adopted by state legislatures, but these same
leaders share my conviction that any reform
strategy failing to recognize the need for new,
sustained leadership in the schools will not
endure, (p. 3)
Clinton made two key points. The first is that
strong leadership means more effective schools which


2
result in increased learning. Clinton's second key
point is that the effect of educational reform is
diminished without new, enlightened leadership.
Clinton's first point is supported by research on
effective schools. Both assertions imply a challenge
to those individuals, institutions, and associations
that are involved in educational leadership training.
Like Clinton, the American Association of School
Administrators noted in its 1983 report titled The
School Administrator that "the public interest is best
served through assuring the availability of high
quality education for all, and that knowledgeable,
ethical, effective administrators are essential to
achieving educational excellence" (p. 23).
Similarly, Goodlad (1984) wrote "... the prin-
cipal increasingly is being viewed as the key person
in school improvement" (p. 306).
The Colorado Department of Education (The Profes-
sion's Perspective in Education, 1982) surveyed Color-
ado classroom teachers and teacher education faculty
at Colorado's institutions of higher learning regard-
ing various educational issues. Two of the signifi-
cant findings related to administrators. Colorado


3
school teachers felt that administrators were in most
need of improvement to assure quality K-12 education.
Higher education faculty agreed with teachers in
identifying administrators as most needing improve-
ment.
The foreword to Proficiencies for Principals, a
1986 report published by the National Association of
Elementary School Principals, stated, "As the school's
leader, the building level principal is the single
most important figure in determining the effectiveness
of those K-12 years" (Goodman, p. iv).
In June, 1985, the Colorado legislature approved
the Educational Quality Act of 1985, HB 1383 (also
known as the 2+2 Project). The act provided for
moneys appropriated to be used to assess elementary
and secondary education in Colorado for several
purposes. Two of the goals related to administrator
training:
To use approximately ten percent of such
moneys to provide for the assessment of the
quality of teacher and administrator educational
programs and of teachers and administrators
completing educational programs and applying for
Colorado certification or endorsement.
To use approximately fifteen percent of such
moneys to improve the training of educational ad-
ministrators and the upgrading of those charged


4
with evaluating school personnel. (Educational
Quality Act of 1985, Chapter 22-2-144)
Clearly, educational leadership is seen as an
essential element in school improvement and school
effectiveness.
Background of the Problem
The training of educational leaders is a major
issue in school improvement. Cawelti (1987) sum-
marized the state of leadership training.
As the demand for better schools continues
unabated, theorists search for new understandings
in instructional leadership, and new studies on
this complex phenomenon continue to appear. In
an effort to translate the research on leadership
behavior into competencies, new training programs
for administrators are emerging in centers and
academies at district and state levels. In
addition, many universities have undertaken a
fundamental re-examination of their graduate
programs as other agencies have moved in to
provide the professional development necessitated
by new demands, (p. 3)
Goodlad (1984) noted that many school principals
lack major skills needed to effect educational change.
He suggested that training is one route to improved
administrator performance. To increase training
effectiveness, Goodlad foresaw schools of education
competing, as do schools of management, to build a
reputation as quality institutions of training.


5
Kelly (1987) summarized the literature regarding
administrator training reporting that:
Numerous studies and reports over the past
ten years have echoed concerns that there is
currently too little guarantee that those com-
pleting programs have skills needed to become
successful administrators and that more attention
needs to be focused on preparation of school
leaders, (p. 27)
One method to evaluate the training of adminis-
trators is to question the graduates of educational
institutions. How well do the graduates perceive that
they were trained? Was the training instrumental in
job procurement? What areas of study or training were
neglected? What aspects of the program were most
beneficial? The answers to these and other questions
would seem to be of interest to the training institu-
tions. Such inquiries can be made through a follow-up
study.
The advantages of follow-up studies have been
documented by research. Beaty (1961) recommended the
use of follow-up studies as useful in assessing the
opinions of graduates and in indicating areas for
program improvement. Lynd (1982) researched the
validity and use of follow-up studies and concluded:
1. Higher education as a field of study is


6
feasible and defensible.
2. Student satisfaction with degree programs is
continuing to be important as a measure of
quality.
3. The success in placement of graduates and
their rise to positions of leadership has
become an important measure of quality.
(P.3450A)
Lynd suggested that institutions undertake their
own evaluation.
Like Lynd, Rubino (1982) found in his research of
the literature regarding the use of follow-up studies
that the need for more effective use of this informa-
tion is "well understood and is articulated by a
number of authors" (p. 382-A).
Questioning the graduates of institutions is a
valid and useful method of evaluation. Institutions
can use the responses to target areas for review and
possible revision.
Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
The purpose; of this study was to examine the
doctoral program in curriculum, administration, and
supervision at the University of Colorado as perceived
by the recipients of a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree from


7
1972-1987.
As well as reporting a demographic profile of the
graduates, this study attempted to answer the follow-
ing questions:
1. What are the graduates' perceptions of the
doctoral program as it pertains to career
goals and needs?
2. What is the graduates' evaluation of the
content and methods of content delivery of
their doctoral program?
3. Did the doctoral program accomplish the goals
of the Educational Administration program as
adopted in 1972?
4. Is goal accomplishment (question 3) consis-
tent with literature on effective school ad-
ministrators?
5. Did the doctoral program meet the individual-
ized needs of the graduates?
6. Are there differences in the perceptions of
the training program by superintendents,
principals, other school administrators,
those in higher education, and those in other
jobs?


7.
Are there differences in the perceptions of
the training program reported by males and
females?
8. What are the graduates' contributions to
publications and research following gradua-
tion?
9. Why did graduates choose a Ph.D. or Ed.D.
degree?
Need for the Study
Considering research and literature which em-
phasize the importance of administrative leadership
in quality education, which note the integral role of
the training program, and which stress the need to
assess and improve such programs, it is advantageous
for an institution of education to examine its gradu-
ate degree programs and to use an examination in
future planning.
In 1972 the program area of Educational Adminis-
tration and Supervision of the School of Education at
the University of Colorado adopted seven goal state-
ments :


9
The primary goal of the Educational Adminis-
tration and Supervision programs at the Univer-
sity of Colorado is the improvement of public
education in the state of Colorado through the
training and continuing education of highly
competent public school leaders for Colorado
schools.
The second goal of the Educational adminis-
tration and Supervision programs is the provision
of direct service to Colorado public schools in a
variety of capacities, such service to have value
to the training of future educational leaders.
The nature of the specific service is a function
of the perceived needs of the individual school
or school district.
The third goal is the improvement of public
education beyond the State of Colorado through
the training and continuing education of highly
competent public school leaders for service to
schools outside of Colorado.
The fourth goal is to contribute to the
improvement of education, both public and non-
public, through the training and continuing
education of administrators of education-related
organizations. Examples of such organizations
include State Departments of Education, BOCS,
Research and Development Centers, foundations
interested in education, and professional educa-
tion organizations.
The fifth goal of the Educational Adminis-
tration and Supervision programs is the further
integration and continued expansion of the fields
of knowledge which contribute to effective
educational leadership.
The sixth goal is to meet the individual
professional needs and interests of Colorado
residents who seek further training at the
University of Colorado.
The seventh goal is to meet the individual
professional needs and interests of non-Colorado


10
residents who seek further training at the
University of Colorado.
A comprehensive follow-up study of the program of
Educational Administration and Supervision has not
been made since these goals were adopted. The seven
goal statements provided the background for this
study. Is the program area of Educational Administra-
tion fulfilling its goals? This study provided infor-
mation regarding the program (now titled CADS or
Curriculum, Administration, and Supervision) as viewed
by the recipients of the Doctor of Education or Doctor
of Philosophy degree from the University of Colorado
from May, 1972 to December, 1987.
Delimitations
This study was limited to the persons who re-
ceived a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree with a specialization
in Curriculum, Administration, and Supervision from
the University of Colorado from December, 1972 to
December, 1987.
Limitations
The findings of this study can be generalized


11
only to populations highly similar to the 1972-1987
University of Colorado population.
Also, the intent was to survey the total popula-
tion. However, addresses of some graduates were not
available. Also, not all surveys were returned after
the first or second mailings. Thus, since the total
population of 1972-1987 graduates did not return the
survey, there is a possibility of research bias.
Assumptions
The method of collecting data was a follow-up
study questionnaire based upon these assumptions:
1. The Ph.D. and Ed.D. graduates in Curriculum,
Administration, and Supervision from the
University of Colorado from 1972-1987 were
capable of evaluating their doctoral train-
ing.
2. The graduates did respond to the question-
naire honestly and carefully.
3. A questionnaire was devised to accurately
report graduates' perceptions of their
training.
. The researcher was reasonably qualified to
report and interpret data.
4


12
Definition of Terms
Following is a definition of terms used in this
study:
1. CADS: CADS stands for the program area of
Curriculum, Administration, and Supervision
(formerly Educational Administration and
Supervision) at the University of Colorado.
2. Ed.D.: Ed.D. means Doctor of Education
Degree.
3. Ph.D.: Ph.D. means Doctor of Philosophy
Degree.
4. Recipient: Recipient refers to anyone who
received a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree with a
specialization in Curriculum, Administration,
and Supervision from the University of Color-
ado from May, 1972 to December, 1987.
5. Doctoral graduates: Doctoral graduates
refers to individuals who received a Ph.D. or
Ed.D. degree.
6. Program: Program refers to a series of
courses and requirements to graduate with a


13
particular major.
7. Questionnaire: Questionnaire refers to the
survey used to gather information from the
graduates. The terms survey and question-
naire are used interchangeably.
Summary and Organization of the Thesis
Chapter I has provided an overview and statement
of the purpose of the study. The remainder of the
dissertation is organized as follows.
Chapter II discusses the CADS program at the
University of Colorado and summarizes research related
to the study. Also reported are a series of studies
similar to the one reported in this dissertation.
Chapter III describes the methods of gathering
data including construction and testing of the survey
instrument, the sample, and processing the data.
Chapter IV reports the findings of the survey.
Chapter V provides a summary of the study, con-
clusions, recommendations for the program area of
Curriculum, Administration, and Supervision, and
recommendations for further study.


CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
School effectiveness and subsequently administra-
tor effectiveness have been focuses of educational
research in the 1970's and 1980's. The emergent theme
has been that effective leadership is clearly as-
sociated with effective schools (Barth, 1982; Brandt,
1987; Cawelti, 1987; Goodlad, 1975; Kelly, 1987;
Klopf, Scheldon, Brennan, 1982; Pinero, 1982; Purkey
and Smith, 1983; Unikel and Bailey, 1986). Conten-
tions, such as "The principal of a school is its
leader, and on the effectiveness of its leader depends
the effectiveness of a school" (Klopf, Scheldon, and
Brennan, 1982, p. 35) and "Any and every case study on
effective schools is a case study on leadership"
(Clinton, 1987, p. 3), provide incentive for reviewing
and using research on effective leadership.
Educational research and reports provide informa-
tion about administrator effectiveness on several
levels. First, a number of studies have sought to
determine the knowledge, skills, and characteristics


15
of effective principals. Second are reports that
criticize administrator training. Related to the
training recommendations are the studies that report
graduates' opinions of their training in educational
administration. This chapter will report related
research in the above areas as well as provide a brief
description of the CADS program at the University of
Colorado.
Description of the CADS Program
The School of Education at the University of
Colorado has offered two doctoral degree programs,
Ed.D. and Ph.D. As stated in the University of
Colorado Bulletin (1985), "The Doctor of Education
Degree is intended primarily to meet the needs of
career people in education for advanced study" (p.
121). The Ph.D. is described as appropriate for one
who plans to teach in an academic field other than
teacher education or "one who plans a career as a
university professor of education or director of
educational research in a state or city school system"
(p. 121).
The program requirements for the Ed.D. and the


16
Ph.D. are much the same and are outlined below with
the few differences noted.
Both the Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs in educational
administration at the University of Colorado require a
composite score of 1,000 on the Graduate Record Exam
for admission. All doctoral students must take an
intermediate statistics course, and Ph.D. students
must add an advanced statistics course. At least 40
semester hours of classwork beyond the Master's degree
are required for both programs as is a 12 hour written
comprehensive examination. A 30 semester hour doc-
toral thesis is required. In addition the Graduate
School at the University of Colorado requires that
Ph.D. students demonstrate proficiency in a foreign
language which may be accomplished in several ways.
Characteristics of Effective School Administrators
Related to this study is the research regarding
characteristics of effective administrators. What do
successful administrators do? What characteristics
do they exhibit?
The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,


17
NWRL, in Portland, Oregon, published the following
synthesis on effective educational leadership (Blume,
Butler, Olson, 1987).
1. The principal has a clear vision of where
the school is going and communicates it to
staff, students, and parents.
2. The principal establishes a safe, orderly
environment that facilitates teaching and
learning and a positive climate and culture
throughout the school.
3. The principal establishes and maintains
curriculum related to goals and priorities.
4. The principal knows quality instruction and
actively works with staff to improve their
instructional skills.
5. The principal monitors school performance.
(P* 27).
Mortimore and Sammons (1987) reported similar
findings to those of the NWRL from their four year
study of effective elementary schools. Their examina-
tion identified 12 key factors of which several were
under the direct control of the principal. Mortimore
and Sammons found that purposeful leadership occurs
when the principal understands the needs of the school
and is actively involved in the school's work without
exerting total control over the staff. Further,
principals in effective elementary schools are


18
involved in curriculum decisions, influence teaching
strategies, and monitor student progress.
From the Report of the National Commission on
Excellence in Educational Administration (Leaders for
America's Schools, 1987) comes priorities for school
administrators. Schools must demonstrate that they
are learning communities where standards are high,
resources are available, and staff pursues self-
renewal. Teachers and administrators should cooper-
atively plan, implement, and share in learning with
the administrator leading and facilitating. Schools
must recognize and involve many constituencies, a
climate created by the administrator.
The commission also reviewed the emerging role of
superintendents. Paralleling the role of principals,
but at the district level, superintendents must
symbolize education in the community and express its
purpose. They must be knowledgeable about excellence
in learning, teaching, and research and be able to
intervene to improve programs. They must be able
politicians in resolving the conflicting demands of a
diverse population. Finally, superintendents must be
able managers of staff, budget, and facilities.


19
In a research study based upon teachers' percep-
tions of principal leadership (Brandt, 1987), the good
principal was defined as "someone who provides in-
structional leadership for the school" (p. 9). The
most important dimensions of instructional leadership
were identified as:
1. Resource provider who promotes staff develop-
ment, who is knowledgeable about instruction-
al resources, is able to mobilize resources,
and who is an important instructional re-
source.
2. Communicator regarding effective instruc-
tional practices, staff performance criteria,
instructional evaluation, student achieve-
ment, and school vision.
3. A visible presence.
In another survey of teachers sponsored by the
Colorado Department of Education (The Profession's
Perspective in Education, 1986) those surveyed chose
communication as being critically important for
successful administrators and as typically needing the
most improvement. Personnel supervision, organiza-
tional management, and public relations also were


20
ranked as especially important.
Instructional leadership was identified by
Hallinger and Murphy (1987) as an aspect of effective
leadership. They defined instructional leadership as:
1. Defining the school mission, including
leading the staff in goal setting and com-
municating the vision.
2. Managing the instructional program which
includes evaluation, development, and im-
plementation of instruction and curriculum.
3. Promoting a positive climate by visibility,
creating a reward system, establishing clear
expectations, protecting instructional time,
and selecting high quality staff development.
The Principal Profile developed by Leithwood and
Montgomery (1986) is a multidimensional, multistaged
description of effective elementary and secondary
school practices identified by research. At the
highest proficiency level defined in the profile,
principals are systematic problem solvers charac-
terized by:
1. Decision-making, the use of multiple forms to
match form to setting with high levels of


21
participation; the orientation toward goals;
the anticipation, initiation, and monitoring
of decision processes.
2. Goal setting selected from many sources,
highly ambitious, short-term to long-term,
used to increase consistency in the learning
environment.
3. Factor integration, the attempt to influence
all factors bearing on achievement with
expectations derived from research and
professional judgement.
4. Strategy implementation, the use of stra-
tegies based on goals, factors, content, and
perceived obstacles.
"The effective school is seen as an optimum
learning environment ... and the goal of the principal
should be to develop such an environment" (Klopf,
Scheldon, Brennan, 1987. p. 35). Specific charac-
teristics of the effective principal defined by these
researchers include the categories of open, clear
communication; wisdom, knowledge, and judgement; high
expectations and vision; open, honest relationships;
view of self as a leader and change agent; and in-


22
tegration.
Speaking at the 1988 National Elementary School
Principals' Convention in San Francisco, Areglado,
Director of the Northwest Regional Center of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, discussed another
dimension of principal effectiveness. Areglado
related Peters and Waterman's excellence research (In
Search of Excellence) to the job of the principal.
Ten management practices indicated by research as
bearing upon effective leadership were:
1. Make people feel connected. People need a
sense of belonging to the organization.
2. Be visible in the school and community.
3. Allow autonomy and cultivate those who give
indications of "stardom."
4. Empower people. Upgrade the status of,
provide knowledge to, and develop partner-
ships .
5. Establish core values and live them.
6. Take leadership in the decisions that affect
education. Be proactive. Otherwise, others
will make the decisions.
7. Simplify and decentralize.


23
8. Delegate responsibility.
9. Hire effectively.
10. Have a sense of mission.
Rutherford (1985) suggested that effective prin-
cipals have a clear vision on v?hat their schools
should be focusing to achieve their purposes; form
clear goals; effectively communicate the goals and
rally the staff and students around the goals; create
a supportive, safe learning environment; and intervene
in a supportive fashion when problems arise.
Rossmiller (1985) in his UCEA (The University
Council for Educational Administration) presidential
address, highlighted qualities of effective adminis-
trators including setting high expectations for staff
and students and having clear rules which are fairly
and consistently enforced.
Sergiovanni (1984) summarized the necessary
traits for school principals as having a sense of
mission, the capacity to think, the ability to con-
ceptualize, a sense of judgement, commitment to the
job, the ability to work effectively with others, a
sense of purpose, and knowledge of educational prac-
tices .


24
From the parents' point of view, the principal is
the only person outside the classroom who affects
children's education. The principal is seen as
setting the tone of the school in which success
depends upon commitment to a rigorous academic program
with a disciplined atmosphere (Bumstead, 1982) .
Parents want principals to establish schools with
purposeful, curriculum-oriented classrooms and a safe,
orderly environment.
A study of students' perceptions of their prin-
cipals provided this synthesis of helpful principals.
Helpful principals create and maintain a safe and
orderly environment; enhance students' self-esteem,
sense of responsibility, and the ability to get along
with others; and help students grow in academics
(Kojimoto, 1987).
A summary of the various research studies on
effective educational administrators notes similar-
ities. The most common characteristic of effective
administrators is instructional leadership mentioned
in all but two of the research studies reported here.
Other common factors are a sense of mission or vision,
ability to communicate, establishment of a safe,


25
orderly learning environment, and visibility.
Criticism of Training Programs
Goodlad (1984) stated that "most new principals
are plucked out of the classroom in June and plunged
into the new job soon after. Little in the first area
of experience prepares them for the second" (p. 277).
Much of the criticism of administrator training
programs revolves around the perceived discrepancy in
administrator training, administrator work, and
administrator effectiveness (Pitner, 1982) "It is
difficult to ignore the testimony of school adminis-
trators that their training programs are far from
adequate in preparing them to resolve the problems
they face" (p. 2).
Pitner summarized studies regarding the structure
of administrative work and problems administrators
encounter.
The structure of administrative work is
characterized by (1) a low degree of self-in-
itiated tasks, (2) many activities of short dura-
tion, (3) discontinuity caused by interruptions,
(4) the superseding of prior plans by the needs
of others in the organization, (5) face-to-face
verbal contacts with one other person, (6) varia-
bility of tasks, (7) an extensive network of
individuals and groups both internal and external


26
to the school or district, (8) a hectic and
unpredictable flow of work, (9) numerous, unim-
portant decisions and trivial agendas (10) few
attempts at written communication, (11) events
occurring in or near the administrator's office
(12) interactions predominately with subordin-
ates, and (13) a preference for problems and
information that are specific, concrete, sol-
vable, and pressing (p.3).
Further, Pitner found that principals spend most
of their time working with students who are discipline
problems and with teachers who have noninstructional
needs? attending to logistics, external requirements,
and social pleasantries; and overseeing organizational
maintenance, pupil control, and extracurricular
activities. Yet, in light of the effectiveness
studies, the principal should be the instructional
leader.
Surveys asking administrators to rank contribu-
tions to their effectiveness have generally placed
academic preparation low on the list (Unikel and
Bailey, 1986). One area of graduate dissatisfaction
with training lies in the teaching methods of the
universities. As noted above, administrator work is
characterized by brief, disparate encounters which
demand solutions based upon numerous circumstances.
The administrator is often interrupted but must remain


27
consistent and poised. Administrator training,
however, is exemplified by individual study for unin-
terrupted periods of time (Pitner, 1982).
Administrator training is also characterized by
conflict avoidance (Zeigler, Kehow, Reisman, and
Polito, 1981). Yet, the educational administrator is
faced with the necessity to orchestrate conflict
resolution with employees. Administrator communica-
tion is predominantly face to face contacts. Training
consists of extensive written work (Pitner). Also,
the educational environment is emotion laden, whereas
the graduate training program concentrates on informa-
tion and rationality.
Another criticism of graduate training programs
is that the faculty has not had administrative ex-
perience in public schools, that theory has not been
applied practically to the real school environment,
and that institutions are not futuristic in predicting
the radical changes administrators will face (Pitner).
Kelly (1987) reviewed the research regarding
criticism of administrator training. Some findings
were:
1.
Preparation programs consisted of a series of


28
uncoordinated courses.
2. Principals did not feel that their training
met their job needs.
3. The curriculum in training.programs did not
reflect present-day problems.
4. Training programs have changed little in
25 years.
The foreword to Proficiencies for Principals
states,
It is essential that K-8 principals be
among the most able and effective educational
leaders that they possess appropriate personal
characteristics and aptitudes and that their
professional preparation be relevant and effec-
tive. Most preparation programs do a good job of
providing an adequate knowledge base. They too
often fall short, however, in translating such
knowledge into practical application. (Goodman,
1986) .
Recommendations for Administrator Training
What, then, should the administrator training
program look like? What components should be included
in the training? What competencies in administrators
should the program try to nurture? More than 60
percent of administrators will retire by the end of
the decade, and the preparation of the future leaders


29
is of critical importance (Peterson, Marshall, and
Grier, 1987).
Much literature suggests utilizing effective
school and training programs to formulate graduate
training programs (Goodman, 1986) .
The authors of Leaders for America's Schools
(1987) by the National Commission on Excellence in
Educational Administration recommended that prepara-
tion programs be designed around five strands:
1. The study of administration.
2. The study of the technical core of educa-
tional administration and the acquisition of
vital administrative skills.
3. The application of research findings and
methods to problems.
4. Supervised practice.
5. Demonstration of competence.
Hoyle (1985) suggested that preparation programs
address the following knowledge and skill needs of
administrators:
1. School Climate.
2. Political theory.
3. Development of systematic curriculum.


30
4. Planning and implementing the instructional
management program.
5. Staff development and evaluation.
6. Allocation of resources.
7. Conducting and utilizing resources.
Based upon an extensive review ofresearch, the
Colorado 2+2 Project recommended revisions to the
state standards for administrative preparation pro-
grams. The revisions suggested effective criteria for
the following strands:
1. Human relations skills.
2. Oral communication.
3. Written communication.
4. Professional skills.
5. Leadership skills.
6. Organizational/management skills.
7. Decision-making skills.
8. Supervision skills.
9. Personnel management.
10. Resource utilization skills.
11. Curriculum and instruction skills.
12. Community relations skills.
13. Internship.


31
Relating the most common characteristic of effec-
tive principals derived from research, it is evident
that "through a combination of selection and training,
we must prepare principals with what it means to be an
instructional leader" (Smith and Andrews, 1987, p.
5) .
Rossmiller (1985) challenged graduate administra-
tor training institutions to study research and its
implications for administrator programs and for the
focus and counseling given to students.
Follow-up Studies
Following are reports of single studies which are
relevant to the problem stated in this thesis. The
first two are included because they were conducted
through the School of Education at the University of
Colorado regarding the efficacy of various programs.
The remaining studies all were conducted within 13
years of this study at institutions other than the
University of Colorado.


32
The Riddles Study
Riddles (1956) collected data from Doctor of
Education graduates of the School of Education at the
University of Colorado from 1941-1956 for the purpose
of evaluating the doctoral program and providing
information.to aid prospective doctoral students in
program selection and decision making. Data for the
study were accumulated from responses to a question-
naire mailed to Ed.D. graduates of the University of
Colorado, from university records, and from personal
interviews.
The respondents to the Riddles survey noted six
areas they considered noteworthy in the School of
Education at the University of Colorado.
1. Programs in school administration and secon-
dary education.
2. The professional reputation of the staff.
3. The strict entrance requirements.
4. The availability of the Ed.D. degree.
5. The library facilities.
6. Realistic foreign language requirement based
on individual needs.


33
Weaknesses in the program were:
1. Inadequate elementary and higher education
programs.
2. Inadequate total number of staff resulting in
lack of time for work with individual stu-
dents.
3. Large sizes of summer classes.
4. Lack of supervised teaching experience at the
university level.
Influencing choice of degree were foreign lan-
guage requirements, degree prestige, and intent to
teach at the college level.
The Stanbrough Study
The purpose of the Stanbrough (1972) study was to
determine how beginning teachers who graduated or were
recpmmended for certification by the University of
Colorado from 1969-1970 perceived the adequacy of
their training. A questionnaire developed by the
investigator was used. From 242 replies, some of the
findings were:
1. There was positive correlation between
feeling adequately prepared to begin teaching


34
in a specific type of school and liking that
same teaching situation.
2. There was a difference in the perceptions of
junior high and senior high level teachers
concerning the adequacy of their professional
preparation, with the junior high level
teachers feeling less adequately prepared.
3. Beginning teachers perceived 29 professional
problems which they felt inadequately pre-
pared to handle.
4. Beginning teachers perceived weaknesses in
the student teaching program.
5. Beginning teachers felt the student teaching
conferences with college supervisors were in
need of improvement and made 33 suggestions.
6. Beginning teachers perceived student teaching
as the most helpful part of the program.
7. Foundations in American Education was deemed
least helpful.
Riddles and Stanbrough sought to assess programs
within the School of Education at the University of
Colorado. Following are studies undertaken at in-
stitutions throughout the United States.


35
The Zenor Study
The purpose of the Zenor (1985) study was to
investigate graduates' perceptions of their qualifica-
tions to perform as school administrators. Zenor
surveyed the doctoral graduates of 1984 from Iowa
State University using an instrument developed from
the competencies and skills criteria adopted by the
American Association of School Administrators as
important for school administrator performance.
Graduates were asked to evaluate their qualifications
in seven areas: climate, politics, staff development,
resources, curriculum, instructional management, and
research.
Zenor found that:
1. Of the seven areas, graduates felt most qual-
ified in dealing with staff development and
climate.
2. Of the seven areas, graduates felt least
qualified in school curriculum and politics.
Based upon the responses, Zenor postulated:
1. Some subjects are taught differently.


36
2. Some areas of study require formalized
courses.
3. Such formalized courses may make a difference
in student learning.
The Whitfield Study
Whitfield (1985) completed a study of the Univer-
sity of Iowa graduates from the division of Education-
al Administration from 1974-1984. The study compared
the responses gathered from an earlier report by
Plawecki (1974) completed at the same university.
Whitfield used Plawecki's questionnaire which sought
feedback from the 1967-73 graduates in educational
administration from the University of Iowa. The
reactions and data from the 111 graduates were sum-
marized :
1. Respondents were generally satisfied with
coursework and with other aspects of the
doctoral program.
2. Assistance by and contacts with the major
advisor were rated highest of the total doc-
toral experience.
In the area of course work, Educational
3.


37
Administration Practicum and Legal Aspects of
Educational Administration were rated high-
est.
4. There was an increase in the percentage of
female students from 2% during the 1967-1973
time period to 28% from 1974-1984.
5. Females generally had several years teaching
experience but little or no experience with
administration; males generally had exper-
ience with administration with fewer years of
teaching experience than did females.
6. Overall, there was little difference in the
ratings of the doctoral program by males and
females.
7. Women reported job titles other than prin-
cipal, superintendent, or assistants and
reported little or no help with job placement
from major advisors or the university place-
ment office.
8. There were frequent enough references to a
need for training in interpersonal skills to
be called significant.


38
The Saylan Study
Saylan (1983) sent questionnaires to 153 gradu-
ates from 1965 to 1980 of George Washington University
to gather information regarding the doctoral program
for the purpose of obtaining demographic and descrip-
tive data, to evaluate the program of administration,
curriculum, and supervision, and to obtain recommenda-
tions for improving and/or revising the program.
Among the findings were:
1. The program generally attracted males who
were in administrative positions and who
wished to become better practitioners.
2. Receiving the doctorate did not affect pos-
itions or responsibilities but did cause an
increase in salaries.
3. Graduates felt that the programs of studies
were well planned to meet individual and
professional needs. Theoretical content of
course work was satisfactory.
4. Graduates were generally satisfied with the
written qualifying examination and comprehen-


39
sive examinations, residency requirement,
dissertation experiences, and the content of
courses.
5. Graduates typically completed their programs
by attending summer and part-time evening
sessions.
6. The overall assessment of the program was
excellent.
The Eger Study
A comprehensive investigation was completed by
Eger (1982) at Indiana University. The population
questioned included 300 graduates, the Commission on
Doctoral Study, education department chair, and the
professional staff. Data were gathered using a
questionnaire survey, publications, and student and
departmental records and reviews.
The purpose of this study was to describe,
assess, and evaluate the school administration program
at Indiana University. It was intended to generate a
profile and baseline data about the structure and
governance of the program.
Conclusions were:


40
1. The course offerings were deemed to be tradi-
tionally oriented even though the stated
purpose was to address "alternative leader-
ship positions."
2. Allowable transfer hours resulted in limited
individualization opportunities. Opportunity
to select electives was limited.
3. The internship program received a low rating
as did the multicultural components of the
program.
4. Classroom presentations were described as
traditional with less emphasis on human rela-
tions than on conceptual and technical
skills.
5. Almost one-third of the respondents reported
no professional, educational, or personal
benefits to them.
6. Lack of consistent dissertation and qualify-
ing examination standards were a concern.
7. Cited most often as reasons for selection was
the university's location and reputation.


41
The Fellabaum Study
Fellabaum (1982) surveyed 53 doctoral graduates
from the University of Toledo from 1962-1981 with the
following findings:
1. Most valuable courses were Legal Aspects of
School Administration, Organizational Be-
havior, and Educational Leadership.
2. Independent study, class discussions, and
collateral readings were evaluated highest of
the instructional techniques.
3. Helpfulness of the dissertation chairman and
program advisor were rated highest among the
characteristics.
4. Strengths of the program were staff support
and encouragement, faculty competence, and
course work.
The Woody Study
Woody (1982) surveyed 130 doctoral graduates and
103 students in the doctoral program in educational
administration from 1971-1981 at the University of


42
Wisconsin, Madison. The questionnaire produced the
following information:
1. More men were attracted to the Department of
Educational Administration between 1971 and
1981 then were women.
2. Ph.D. graduates more frequently took ad-
ministrative positions than other career
alternatives.
3. In retrospect, graduates felt positive about
the writing of the dissertation while stu-
dents actively engaged in the writing report-
ed mixed feelings.
4. Female graduates viewed aspects of their
doctoral training more positively than did
the male graduates.
5. Graduates' attitudes toward the doctoral
program were more positive than those of the
students.
6. A majority of both the graduates and the stu-
dents felt that the educational administra-
tion faculty lacked sufficient training in
methods of teaching.


43
The Brown Study
A questionnaire survey was sent to 159 doctoral
graduates between 1960.and 1975 of Illinois State
University. Brown (1979) reported these findings:
1. The Educational Administration program
received overall positive responses. Respon-
dents had sufficient contact with the faculty
and advisors and judged them helpful and
scholarly. The positive attitude, teaching
skills, quality, and character of the faculty
were cited as strengths.
2. Most respondents felt that their individual
needs had been met but suggested periodic
evaluation to meet changing needs.
3. Graduates thought that more course work in
finance of higher education would be helpful.
4. Although no one had difficulty meeting the
language requirement, most thought it should
be eliminated.
5. Graduates made frequent or occasional use of
statistical research skills and felt that


44
nine or more hours should be taken.
The Beckman Study
Beckman (1980) administered a questionnaire to
1,897 students enrolled in doctoral programs in 59
institutions of higher education in the United States
and three in Canada.
The findings supported the following conclusions:
1. Most educational administration doctoral
students were in their thirties and had had
approximately seven years of prior work
experience.
2. The proportion of students entering educa-
tional administration doctoral programs from
fields outside of education was increasing.
3. Student aspirations were somewhat consistent
with their work experience.
4. The percentage of students aspiring to
college/university teaching and roles in
research was increasing.
5. Programs were requiring less time in residen-
cy than in past years.
6. Female educational administration doctoral


45
students had more favorable attitudes towards
research than their male counterparts.
The Lytle Study
Using a questionnaire, Lytle (1976) gathered data
from 49 recipients of doctoral degrees in curriculum,
supervision, and elementary instruction from 1964-1975
from East Texas University.
Selected findings were:
1. More than half of the graduates were in-
fluenced to attend the university because of
its geographic location.
2. Some recipients indicated that the program
could have prepared them more adequately
through an internship, greater specializa-
tion, and an increased emphasis on adminis-
trative problem solving.
3. Three-fourths found the program to be highly
productive in teaching instructional com-
petencies .
4. Most recipients felt they had acquired from
good to strong levels of competency in educa-
tional research methods and concepts.


46
5. The doctoral research seminar and statistics
courses were rated as the most valuable
classes offered.
The Curtin Study
Curtin (1976) designed a study to secure grad-
uates' opinions on selected components of the doctoral
program in educational administration at Syracuse
University from 1964-1974.
Curtin noted the following major findings:
1. Graduates have occupied 17 different educa-
tionally related types of positions since
completing their degrees. More than half
have held positions in K-12 education.
Almost 40 percent have worked at the college
or university level, and four percent were in
other fields.
2. Ninety-five percent of the graduates were
adequately, well, or extremely satisfied with
their current position.
3. Graduates rated experiential background,
letters of recommendation, and personal
interview as worthwhile entrance require-


47
ments.
4. The Graduate Record Exam and the Miller
Analogies Test were given low ratings as
entrance requirements.
5. Organizational Theory received the highest
course rating. The lowest ratings were given
to courses in science.
6. The majority of graduates were highly satis-
fied with the dissertation experience.
The Loadman Study
Loadman (1978) conducted a study of doctoral
graduates from the college of education at Ohio State
University, 1978-1982. Six hundred thirty-six respon-
dents' questionnaires were tabulated, and the results
reported:
1. The major area of study for most graduates at
the bachelor's level was not education. At
the master's level, approximately one-third
did not major in education.
2. A substantial number of graduates taught K-12
prior to the doctorate, and there was an
increase in college level teaching after


48
receipt of the doctorate.
3. Overall, graduates said that their doctoral
program contributed to their job satisfac-
tion.
4. The graduates recommended increased contact
with the faculty advisor.
5. More training in computers and statistics
was suggested.
Summary Regarding Follow-up Studies
The review of the literature was facilitated by
the number of follow-up studies which have been
completed in the past 10 to 15 years. It was possible
to concentrate on studies relating directly to doc-
toral graduates in educational administration thus
eliminating the necessity to infer similarities
between general studies and this particular study.
It is apparent that graduates' opinions were a
viable and sought after source of information.
Universities conducting follow-up studies may become
the norm.
From the 12 studies summarized in Chapter II, the
value of follow-up information can be understood in


49
specific terms. For example, two studies (Riddles,
1956; Brown, 1979) indicated a need to bolster aspects
of the higher education programs. One study
(Stanbrough, 1972) indicated that graduates concentra-
ting in different areas of a program felt varying
degrees of satisfaction with their respective pro-
grams. Somewhat opposite results were reported in
two studies. Zenor (1985) found that graduates felt
skilled in staff development and climate while Whit-
field (1985) reported that graduates perceived an
inadequacy in interpersonal skills. Both Whitfield
and Fellabaum (1982) reported classes relating to
legal issues as receiving high marks. Most studies
reported a high degree of student satisfaction with
their advisors and the degree programs in general.
While conclusions and recommendations from the
various studies may have differed, there were common
strands. One was the effort by institutions to be
sensitive to the needs of their students. Second was
that the call for accountability has resulted in
institutions exploring ways to self-assess. This
study sought to address both these challenges as they
applied to the CADS program at the University of
Colorado


CHAPTER III
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The purpose of Chapter III is to describe the
research methodology. The organization of the chapte
is as follows:
1. Method of research.
2. Construction of instrument.
3. Selection of the population.
4. Collection of data.
5. Chapter summary.
Method of Research
An examination of the literature pertaining to
survey questionnaire construction was made. Informa-
tion was obtained from Kerlinger (1964), Hillway
(1964), Babbie (1979), Bradburn (1980), and Kidder
(1981). The survey method was selected as the most
efficient and accurate process for obtaining specific
data for examination of the CADS program.


51
The survey method allowed for data gathering from
a scattered and diverse population and was time and
cost effective. The survey method allowed collection
of original data from a population too large and
scattered to interview in person.
Construction of the Instrument
A self-administered questionnaire (Appendix A)
was developed by the researcher. Research was con-
ducted relative to the use and construction of ques-
tionnaires .
Questionnaires from similar follow-up studies
were reviewed. Seagren (1962) developed a comprehen-
sive survey instrument which sought information
regarding demographics, employment status, organiza-
tional involvement, reaction to training, and sugges-
tions for program improvement. Seagren's was the most
lengthy and in-depth survey reviewed and was of
benefit in writing the questionnaire used in this
study. The process described by Seagren to validate
the questionnaire was similarly helpful.
Seagren's questionnaire was reviewed by his
dissertation committee and validated by 15


52
individuals: professors and graduate students. These
individuals were asked to answer the questions and to
make recommendations for changes especially in the
areas where the questions were not clear.
A second survey reviewed was that of Marcy (1974)
who constructed a questionnaire to survey the doctoral
graduates in educational administration at the Univer-
sity of Florida. Of particular help was Marcy's
organizational structure.
Marcy's questionnaire was separated into three
parts each with questions of similar content. The
questionnaire sought information regarding graduates'
personal history and background, perceptions of the
course work of the doctoral program including sugges-
tions, and perceptions of common aspects of the
program experienced by most of the graduates. Also,
Marcy used a rating scale which was adapted to the
questionnaire in this study.
A third questionnaire, Whitfield's (1985), was
useful in providing examples of question clarity and
variety. Whitfield's survey utilized questions
regarding the value of the training program as it
related to jobs procured following graduation. Some


53
of these ideas were incorporated in a different form
in the questionnaire for this study.
The survey was constructed to correspond with the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study,
and the study questions as written in Chapter I of
this study.
Following the initial construction of the survey
questionnaire, copies were sent to the researcher's
dissertation committee for suggestions and revisions.
After appropriate revisions from their suggestions
were made, the questionnaire was mailed to three
people with doctorate degrees currently employed in
the field of education in Colorado and who had re-
ceived their degrees from universities other than the
University of Colorado. This group acted as a valida-
ting jury, a necessary procedure as the survey instru-
ment was an original and untried document. The three
jury members were first contacted by telephone and
later were mailed the questionnaire together with a
cover letter (Appendix B) and a self-addressed,
stamped envelope for returning the questionnaire. The
jury was asked to answer the questions and to suggest
improvements in content. All returned the question-


54
naire with comments. The resumes of the jury members
appear in Appendix C.
Based upon the jury's suggestions, some of the
questionnaire was modified. Several questions were
added, and some questions were reworded to reflect
content change suggestions.
A pilot test was completed by a graduate class in
CADS from the University of Colorado, Denver. These
students were asked to complete the questionnaire
assuming they were part of the population to be
surveyed. Comments were solicited regarding the
questionnaire's construction, question types, clarity,
and ease of completion. The students made several
suggestions regarding the wording of some questions.
Appropriate suggestions were incorporated into the
questionnaire.
At this point, the questionnaire was finalized.
The Population
The population for the study was the 252 Ph.D.,
Ed.D. graduates in Curriculum, Administration, and
Supervision from the University of Colorado, 1972-
1987. Nineteen seventy-two was selected because it


55
coincided with the goals set by the faculty of the
Educational Administration program, School of Educa-
tion, University of Colorado. All graduates since
1972 were included in the survey population.
The names were procured by reviewing all com-
mencement programs from the University of Colorado,
beginning in May, 1972, through December, 1987. The
programs only identified graduates in education. The
list of graduates' names was reviewed by the re-
searcher's committee to determine which were the cur-
riculum, administration and supervision graduates.
Addresses of the graduates were obtained from the
School of Education, the Graduate School, and the
Alumni Office of the University of Colorado. Profes-
sors in the School of Education provided addresses as
did colleagues of the graduates. Some addresses
remained unobtainable.
Collection of Data
Letters and Questionnaires Mailed
The questionnaires with cover letter (Appendix B)
were sent to the graduates on November 21, 1988, along


56
with a stamped, self-addressed envelope for returning
the questionnaires by December 7, 1988. As question-
naires were returned, records were kept so that a
follow-up of non-returned questionnaires could be
made.
Those who failed to return their questionnaires
from the first mailing were sent a second question-
naire on January 2, 1989, with a stamped, self-ad-
dressed envelope, and a second cover letter. (Appen-
dix B)
Processing the Data
Data were presented in gross numbers, percent-
ages, tables, and narrative descriptions and are
described in Chapter IV.


CHAPTER IV
REPORT OF THE FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine the doc-
toral program in curriculum, administration, and
supervision at the University of Colorado as perceived
by the recipients of a Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree from
1972-1987. This study sought to report a demographic
profile of the graduates as well as to attempt to
answer the following questions:
1. What are graduates' perceptions of the
doctoral program as it pertains to career
goals and needs?
2. What is the graduates' evaluation of the
content and methods of content delivery of
their doctoral program?
3. Did the doctoral program accomplish the goals
of the Educational Administration program as
adopted in 1972?
4. Is goal accomplishment (question 3) consis-
tent with literature on effective school
administrators?
5. Did the doctoral program meet the individual-


58
ized needs of the graduates?
6. Are there differences in the perceptions of
the training program by superintendents,
principals, other school administrators,
those in higher education, and those in other
jobs?
7. Are there differences in the perceptions of
the training program reported by males and
females?
8. What are graduates' contributions to publica-
tions and research following graduation?
9. Why did graduates choose a Ph.D. or Ed.D.
degree?
Chapter IV describes the respondents, summarizes
the demographic data regarding the graduates, and sum-
marizes the data reporting graduates' perceptions of
the program of curriculum, administration, and super-
vision at the University of Colorado.
The data are reported in tables as well as dis-
cussed. Wherever appropriate, there are separate
tables for male and female data. The number respond-
ing to each question and sub-question is noted on each
table. Some questionnaire respondents did not answer


59
all questions or all parts of questions. This will be
reflected in tables where the total number of respon-
ses is not the same as the number of respondents.
The Population
Two hundred fifty-two individuals received a
Ph.D. or Ed.D. degree from the University of Colorado
from 1972 to 1987 with a major in curriculum, ad-
ministration and supervision. Of the total graduates
160 were males and 92 were females. Table 1 shows the
number of male, female Ed.D. and Ph.D. graduates by
year. Males comprised 63.5% of the total number of
graduates; females accounted for 36.5% of the total
number.


60
Table 1
Ed.D., Ph.D. Recipients, 1972-1987
Year Male Ed.D. Male Ph.D. Female Ed.D. Female Ph.D. Total Female/Male
1972 5 0 0 1 6
1973 4 2 0 1 7
1974 6 4 0 0 10
1975 11 3 1 3 18
1976 4 5 1 0 10
1977 13 3 4 4 24
1978 9 4 0 1 14
1979 3 1 3 4 11
1980 11 3 3 7 24
1981 12 5 5 8 . 30
1982 4 2 0 1 7
1983 6 9 4 11 30
1984 5 6 1 4 16
1985 3 1 2 6 12
1986 8 5 2 10 25
1987 2 1 0 5 8
Total 106
54
26
66
252


61
The number of graduates per year ranged from 30
in 1981 and 1983 to 6 in 1972. The number of gradu-
ates fluctuated from year to year. For example in
1983, there were 30 graduates; in 1984, there were
16; in 1985, there were 12; in 1986, the number
increased to 25; in 1987, the number of graduates was
8.
The number of years included in the survey was
16. There were 100 graduates during the 1972-1979
eight year period. During the 1980-87 eight year
period, there were 152 graduates. The number of
graduates during the second eight year period in-
creased by over 50%.
Noticeable is the increased number of female
graduates in the second eight year period. There were
23 female graduates during the 1972-1979 period and
69 female graduates during the 1980-1987 period for ah
increase of 200%. Seventy-seven males graduated
during the 1972-1979 period; 83 graduated during the
1980-1987 period for an increase of about 8%.
The total number of graduates during the 1972-
1976 five year period was 51. The total number of
graduates during the 1983-1987 five year period was


62
91 for an increase of 78%.
Again, the increase in total number of graduates
in the two five-year periods showed a large increase
in the numbers of females who received a Ph.D. or
Ed.D. The number of female graduates increased from a
total of seven during the five-year period of 1972-
1976 to 45 during the five-year period of 1983-1987.
Comparing the two five-year periods, the number of
female graduates increased by 543%.
The number of male graduates from 1972-1976 was
44. From 1983-1987, there were 46 male graduates for
an increase of .5% during the two five-year periods.
Thus, the number of female Ph.D., Ed.D. gradu-
ates increased proportionately more than the number of
male graduates when the two five-year periods from
1972-1976 and from 1983-1987 are compared.
Of the 160 male graduates, 106 or 66% chose to
pursue an Ed.D. degree. This compares with 26 of 92
or 28% of the female graduates who received an Ed.D.
degree. The total number of Ed.D. degrees granted was
132; the total number of Ph.D. degrees was 120.
(Table 2)


63
Table 2
Male, Female Ed.D., Ph.D. Recipients
Ed.D. Ph.D.
Sex Number % Number %
Male 106 66.3 54 33.7
Female 26 28.3 66 71.7
Total 132 52.4 120 47.6
Of the 252 graduates; one : individual was deceas-
ed, 15 current addresses were unattainable, and five
graduates were living and/or working in a foreign
country. Postal authorities advised against attempt-
ing return of questionnaires from foreign countries.
None of these graduates were included in the study.
On November 22, 1988, 231 questionnaires were
mailed. Thirty-two questionnaires were returned as
undeliverable, and 123 completed questionnaires were
returned. A second mailing on January 2, 1989,
resulted in 25 questionnaire returns for a total of
148 returned and usable questionnaires.


64
Subtracting the number of undeliverable question-
naires from the original total mailed netted a revised
population of 199 graduates. The percent of return
based upon the revised population (148 of 199) total
was 74.4.
The Population Defined
Number of individuals who received a doctorate
from the University of Colorado, 1972-1987 252
Number of deceased individuals 1
Number of individuals whose addresses were
unattainable 15
Number of individuals who were living or work-
ing in foreign countries who were not
contacted 5
Number of undeliverable letters 32
Number of individuals in revised sample total 199
Number of questionnaires returned 148
Number of usable questionnaires 148
Percent of return based on revised sample 74.4%
The number of male and female Ed.D. and Ph.D.
graduates returning the questionnaire appears in Table
3.


Table 3
Male, : Female Ed.D., Ph. D. Degree Graduates Who Return-
ed the Questionnaire
Degree Male Number % Female Number %
Ed.D. 64 66.0 14 27.5
Ph.D. 33 34.0 37 72.5
Totals 97 100 51 100.0
Demographic Data
Survey questions 1 through 25 sought demographic
data regarding the graduates. Following is a summary
of the demographic data.
Undergraduate Degree Area of Major Concentration
Survey question 1 asked the graduate respondents
to list their undergraduate area of major concentra-
tion. All responses were tabulated with common


66
responses grouped.
The following two tables (4 and 5) summarize male
and female undergraduate major areas of concentration.
Some respondents listed more then one area. The data
reflect all responses. For both males and females,
liberal arts was the most common major followed by
elementary education for females and math and elemen-
tary or secondary education for males. Undergraduate
majors in both groups were characterized by a broad
range of areas of concentration. Table 6 shows the
combined male, female undergraduate degree areas of
major concentration.


67
Table 4
Male Undergraduate Degree Areas of Major Concentra-
tion
Major Areas Number Percent
Liberal Arts 36 36
Math 11 11
Education (elementary/secondary) 11 11
Science 10 10
Physical Education 9 9
Social Sciences 5 5
Business Administration 4 4
Music 3 3
Philosophy 2 2
Religion 2 2
Other: (one each) Industrial Arts Agriculture, Foreign Language, Economics, Drama, Speech,
Political Science 7 7
Total 100 100


68
Table 5
Female Undergraduate Areas of Major Concentration
Major Areas Number Percent
Liberal Arts 12 23.5
Elementary Education 10 19.6
Foreign Language 7 13.8
Physical Education 3 5.9
Math 3 5.9
Business Education 2 3.9
Special Education 2 3.9
Science 2 3.9
Home Economics 2 3.9
Psychology 2 3.9
Other: (one each) Sociology, Religion, American Studies, Library Science, Music, Nursing 6 11.8
Total 51 100.0


69
Table 6
Undergraduate Degree Areas of Major Concentration:
Male and Female Combined
Major Areas Number Percent
Liberal Arts 48 31.8
Education (elementary/secondary) 21 13.9
Math 14 9.3
Science 12 7.9
Physical Education 12 7.9
Foreign Language 8 5.3
Social Sciences 5 3.3
Business Administration 4 2.7
Music 4 2.7
All others 23 15.2
Total 151 100.0
Graduate Degree Areas of Major Concentration
Survey question 2 asked the graduates to list
their graduate area of major concentration.


70
Forty-three (46%) of the 93 males responding to
the question no4ed educational administration as their
major area of concentration. Educational administra-
tion was the most common graduate major for females
but to a lesser extent. Eleven (23%) of females
majored in administration. Elementary or secondary
education and guidance and counseling were the second
or third choices for both males and females. Again,
similar to the undergraduate areas of major concentra-
tion, there was a wide range of selections. Tables 7
and 8 summarize,male and female graduate areas of
major concentration. Table 9 summarizes the combined
male, female graduate areas of major concentration.


I
71
Table 7
Male Graduate Degree Areas of Major Concentration
Major Areas Number Percent
Educational Administration 43 46.2
Guidance and Counseling 10 10.7
Education (elementary/secondary) 9 9.6
Math Education 7 7.5
English Education 6 6.5
Social Studies/History 4 4.3
Science 3 3.2
Physical Education 2 2.2
Psychology 2 2.2
Curriculum 2 2.2
Other: (one each) Vocational Education, Industrial Arts, High Education, Bilingual Education, Music 5 5.4
Total
93
100.0


72
Table 8
Female Graduate Degree Areas of Major Concentration

Major Areas Number Percent
Educational Administration 11 22.5
Education (elementary/secondary) 8 16.3
Guidance and Counseling 6 12.2
Special Education 5 10.2
English 4 8.2
Foreign Language 3 6.1
Business Education 2 4.1
Curriculum 2 4.1
Library Science 2 4.1
Other: (one each) Art Education, Science, Reading, Physical Education, English as a second language,.Parent Education 6 12.2
Total
49
100.0


73
Table 9
Graduate Degree Areas of Major Concentration: Male
and Female Combined
Major Areas Number Percent
Educational Administration 54 38.0
Education (Elementary/Secondary) 17 12.0
Guidance and Counseling 16 10.6
English/English Education 10 7.1
Math Education 7 4.9
Special Education 5 3.5
Social Studies/History 4 2.8
Science 4 2.8
All Others 26 18.3
Total
142
100.0


74
State Residing When the Doctorate Was Begun
In response to survey question three, most of the
graduates (90%) listed Colorado as the state in which
they were residing when they began their doctoral
program (Table 10). All the females were Colorado
residents, and 82 (85%) of the males were Colorado
residents.


Table 10
State in Which Residing When the Doctorate Was Begun
State Male Number % Female Number % Total Number %
Colorado 82 84.5 51 100.0 133 29.8
New York 2 2.1 - 2 1.4
Oregon 2 2.1 - 2 1.4
Other: (one each) Iowa, Arizona,
Texas, Utah, Hawaii, Louis-
iana, Kansas, Republic of
Singapore, Mississippi,
Idaho, Minnesota 11 11.3 - 11 7.4
Total 97 100.0 51 100.0 148 100.0


76
Age When the Doctorate Was Received
There was a wide range in the age of the gradu-
ates when they received their doctorates (survey
question four) as illustrated by Table 11. The range
in age for all graduates was 27 to 60. The males'
range was 27 to 50, and the female range was 28 to 60.
The median age for males and females was 40; the mean
for both was 42. Thus, the male and female popula-
tions were similar in age when the doctorate was
received.
Table 11
Age When the Doctorate Was Received
Male Female Total
Range 27-59 28-60 27-60
Median 40 42 41
Mean 40 42 40.7
Motive to Pursue a Doctorate Degree
Survey question 5 asked graduates to rank their


77
motive for pursuing a doctorate. Graduates were
given seven alternatives including an "other" cate-
gory. Rankings were one (most important reason) to
seven (least important reason). "Desire to qualify
for various positions" was the most common male choice
followed by a "desire for a new position" and a
"desire to specialize in an administrative area." On
the other hand, female graduates checked "other" and
wrote in "personal satisfaction" or "personal goal" as
their most common reason for pursuing a doctorate.
Second and third female choices were "desire to
qualify for a variety of positions" and "desire to
obtain a new position." Both males and females
checked "desire to teach at the college level" fewest
times of the listed choices. Tables 12 and 13 sum-
marize the male and female responses to the personal
motive for pursuing a doctorate question. The tables
report the mean score for each alternative which was
determined by adding the ranks (1-7) given to each
alternative and dividing by the number responding to
that alternative. Table 14 is the summary of male,
female responses.


78
Table 12
Male Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate
Total Mean
Motive Score Number Score
Desire to qualify for a variety
of positions 161 -83 1.9
Desire to obtain a new position 262 84 3.1
Desire to specialize in an administrative position 278 84 3.3
Desire to earn more money 350 82 4.3
Desire for prestige 365 80 4.6
Desire to teach at the college level 376 78 4.8
Other: Personal satisfaction, etc. 434 83 5.2


79
Table 13
Female Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate
Motive
Total Mean
Score Number Score
Other: Personal satisfaction,
etc.
Desire to qualify for a variety
of positions
Desire to obtain a new
position
Desire to specialize in an
administrative area
Desire to earn more money
Desire for prestige
Desire to teach at the college
70 35 2.0
107 45 2.4
137 39 3.5
140 38 3.7
176 40 4.4
176 39 4.5
35 5.3
level
184


80
Table 14
Motives for Pursuing a Doctorate; Male and Female
Combined
Motive Total Score Number Mean Score
Desire to qualify for a vari-
ety of positions 268 128 2.1
Desire to obtain a new
position 299 123 2.4
Desire to specialize in an
administrative area 418 122 3.4
Desire to earn more money 526 122 4.3
Other: Personal satisfac-
tion, etc. 504 118 4.3
Desire for prestige 541 117 4.6
Desire to teach at the
560 113 5.0
college level


81
Reason for Pursuing a Doctorate at the University of
Colorado
Why did the graduates choose the University of
Colorado to pursue a doctorate (survey question six)?
Male graduates checked "location of the university"
and "desired program available" as the two most impor-
tant reasons. Female graduates checked "desired
program available" and "residency in Colorado" as the
two most common reasons for choosing the University of
Colorado. Males and females both listed "recommenda-
tion of colleagues" and "availability of financial
assistance" as the two least important reasons for
attending the University of Colorado. Tables 15, 16,
and 17 summarize the data regarding the choice to
attend the University of Colorado. As in Tables 12,
13, and 14, the total score for each category (ranked
from one to seven by the respondents), the number of
graduates responding, and the mean score are reported.


82
Table 15
Male Reasons for Attending the University of Colorado
Reasons Total Score Number Mean Score
Location of the University 244 91 2.7
Desired program available 249 91 2.7
Residence within the State of
Colorado 250 85 2.9
Status or prestige of the
University 317 89 3.6
Recommendation of colleagues 387 86 4.5
Availability of financial
assistance 418 78 5.4
Other 516 83 6.2


83
Table 16
Female Reasons for Attending the University of
Colorado
Total Mean
Reasons Score Number Score
Desired program available Residence within the State 122 47 2.6
of Colorado 125 48 2.6
Location of the University Status or prestige of the 156 46 3.4
University 164 44 3.7
Recommendation of colleagues Availability of financial 178 44 4.1
assistance 215 38 5.6
Other 253 43 5.9


84
Table 17
Reasons for Attending the University of Colorado:
Male/ Female Combined
Reasons Total Score Number Mean Score
Desired program available 371 138 2.7
Residence within the State
of Colorado 375 133 2.8
Location of the University 400 137 2.9
Status or prestige of the
University 481 133 3.6
Recommendation of colleagues 565 130 4.4
Availability of financial
assistance 633 116 5.5
Other 769 126 6.1
Years Elapsed During Various Stages of the Graduates'
Education Programs
Survey questions 15, 16 and 17 asked the gradu-
ates to indicate the number of years elapsed during
various stages of their educational programs. As


85
reported in Tables 18 and 19, the median number of
years between the baccalaureate and master's
degrees was five for both men and women; the median
number of years between receipt of the master's and
doctor's degrees was 11 or more for males and 6 to 10
for females? and the median number of years between
admittance to and completion of the doctoral program
was five years for males and four years for females.
Table 20 reports the combined totals for men and
women.