THE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT CHAIRS IN A LARGE ... · high school department chairs. There...
Transcript of THE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT CHAIRS IN A LARGE ... · high school department chairs. There...
THE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT CHAIRS IN A LARGE SUBURBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM
by
Aria Burnette Orris
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the
Virginia Polytechnic Institue and State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
Educational Administration
APPROVED:
Wayne M. Worner, Chairman
~Kenneth Underwood liouston Conley
Doris Torrice t.Jmmie Fortune
October, 1988
Blacksburg, Virginia
THE ROLE OF HIGH SCHOOL DEPARTMENT CHAIRS
IN A LARGE SUBURBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM
by
Aria Burnette Orris
Committee Chairman: Wayne M. Worner Educational Administration
(ABSTRACT)
While the literature indicates that virtually all high
schools have department chairs, little research has been
done that examines the role of the department chair or how
they spend their time. The publication of A Nation At Risk
and the reports that followed have placed greater emphasis
on instructional leadership leading many to suggest that
department chairs are being under utilized within their
school.
The purpose of this study was to describe how high
school department chairs spend their time; what principals,
teachers, and department chairs believe should be the role
of the department chair; and to examine the discrepancies
between reported time spent and reported role the department
chair should have in the areas of supervision, curriculum,
personnel, management, communications, and staff
development.
A descriptive survey method was used in the study. The
sample consisted of 22 high school principals, 88 department
chairs, and 264 teachers in a large suburban school system.
From a list of items identified through a search of the
literature as tasks performed by department chairs, the
respondents were asked to indicate the amount of time spent
on each task and the importance of each task to the role the
department chair should have. Descriptive statistics
including frequencies, percentages and means were used to
report results.
It was found that all groups were in general agreement
as to how department chairs spend their time, but disagreed
on the amount of time spent. Principals and department
chairs perceived department chairs spent more time on most
tasks than did teachers. The greatest amount of time spent
by department chairs was on tasks related to management and
communication.
All groups agreed that the role of the department chair
should be expanded to increase responsibilities in
management, communications, personnel, and curriculum.
However, an expansion of the role in staff development was
seen as more important by principals and department chairs
than by teachers. Principals indicated greater support for
a role expansion in supervision than did department chairs
or teachers.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the support and guidance of a number of people
I could not have completed this project.
To Wayne Worner, my doctoral committee chairman, thank
you for your patience and guidance. When I strayed you were
there, always with a smile. Thank goodness you had a good
sense of humor! To Jimmie Fortune, thank you for listening
to me and making me feel good. You always seemed to say the
right thing. To Doris Torrice, who provided me with
insight, and through example, has taught me much about being
a good teacher and administrator, I extend a particular
thanks. Your presence on my committee had a special
meaning. A most sincere thank you also to my other
committee members, Kenneth Underwood and Houston Conley, for
their encouragement and advice.
Appreciation is also expressed to the principals,
department chairs, and teachers in Fairfax County, Virginia,
for their time and help in completing the questionnaire, and
to my superintendent, Jay D. Jacobs, for his encouragement
and support of this research.
Finally, I'd like to thank the person who was always
there by my side cheering me on, my husband and best friend,
Ray. Without his support and love I couldn't have made it!
iv
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated with love to the memory
of my mother, Geraldine Hicks Burnette, who gave to me an
appreciation for education that I'll always treasure and
countless other gifts that I did not always recognize at the
time. This one was for you Mama.
v
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Role of the Department Chair
Review of the Research
Potential of Department Chair
Purpose of the Study
Need for the Study
Limitations of Study
Definitions of Terms
Organization of Study
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Purpose
Research Questions
Research Method
Population and Sample
Instrumentation
Data Collection
Analysis of the Data
CHAPTER III
FINDING
Demographic Data
vi
1
3
7
18
19
20
22
22
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
27
29
33
36
36
36
Table of Contents (continued)
Analysis of the Data . 45
Research Question 1: How do high school department chairs spend their time in the areas of supervision, curriculum, personnel, management, communication, and staff development? . . 45
Research Question 2: What do principals, department chairs, and teachers believe should be the role of the high school department chair as defined by responsibilities in supervision, curriculum, management, communication, and staff development? . . 60
Research Question 3: What are the discrepancies between reported time spent and reported role department chairs should have in supervision, curriculum, personnel, management, communication, and staff development? . . 75
CHAPTER IV 90
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND CONCLUSIONS 90
Introduction • 90
Sample . 90
Data Collection 91
Data Analysis 91
Demographic Information . 92
Summary . 93
Findings • 101
Conclusions 104
Recommendations 106
In Retrospect 109
Comments . 110
vii
Table of Contents (continued)
REFERENCES .113
APPENDIX A. Source of Items Identified as Tasks Performed by Department Chairs . . . . .116
APPENDIX B. Letter and Survey Sent to Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers .• 121
APPENDIX C. Person Identified as Serving the Role of Department Chair for Industrial Arts ... 140
APPENDIX D. Follow-Up Letter .
APPENDIX E. Crosstabs of "Time Spent" versus ''Role Importance" for Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers . , . , ,
APPENDIX F. Need for Staff Development for Department Chairs as Perceived by Principals and
.142
.• 144
Department Chairs ... , . . ... , , .166
VITA 168
viii
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Alpha Coefficient for Category Items. 30
2. Summary of Survey Returns . 32
3. Ranges Used in the Analysis of Total Scores . 34
4. Demographic Information on Department Chairs •. 37
5 • Demographic Information Concerning Position . 39
6 . Periods Assigned for Departmental Duties 42
7. Periods Taught by Department Chair 43
8. Number of Members in the Department . 44
9. Tasks Identified by 66% or more of the Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers as Taking a Moderate to Major Amount of the Department Chair's Time. . 47
10. Tasks Identified by 68% or more of the Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers as Taking a Minor to No Amount of the Department Chair's Time 50
11. Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to the Amount of Time Spent by the Department Chair by Category and Item . . 51
12. Approximate Number of Hours Per Week Spent by the Department Chair Performing Departmental Duties as Perceived by Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers • • • • . 55
13. The Percentage of Time Spent by the Department Chair on Departmental Duties in Each of the Six as Perceived by Principals, Department Chairs and Teachers . . . • . • . . . . . . . . 56
14. Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Estimates of Weekly Department Chair Expenditure of Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
15. Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to What Should be The Role of the Department Chair by Category and Item . • . . . • 62
ix
Table
16. Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions of the Time Required to Perform the Duties Described in the Role the Department Chair
Page
Should have . . . . . . . . 72
17. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in Supervision . . . . . . . • . , 78
18. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in Management . . . . . . . . 81
19. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in Personnel , . . • . . . , . . . . . . , . 82
20. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in Communication . . . . . . .
21. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . .
22. Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role the Department Chair Should Have in
84
. 85
Staff Development . . . , . . . . . . . . , 87
23. Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions of Role Conflict Between Time Spent and Importance to the Role the Department Chair Should Have . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In discussing the role of the department chair in
secondary schools, Hord and Murphy (1985) wrote:
The role of the department chairperson or department head can be portrayed as one of "paper pusher" at the one extreme and as "commander in chief" at the other, depending on who is describing the role. Because there has been little study that defines and describes the role, a wide variety of data-free perceptions abound. ( p. 2)
The position of department chair developed over a
period of years out of necessity (Novack, 1958). As school
enrollment grew, the one room school house became no longer
practical. Additional classrooms and teachers led to the
concept of "principal teacher," the teacher who assumed the
major responsibilities in the operation of the school. As
the management of the school became a full time job, the
position of principal was established. The principal became
the overseer of the school with the responsibility of all
facets of its operation. With the establishment of legal
support for the secondary school and compulsory attendance
laws, school systems continued to expand. By the 1870's
experienced teachers were used to supervise other teachers
in the same subject fields (Kidd, 1965). As the school
population continued to increase, the principal,
1
2
overburdened with numerous responsibilities, saw the need
for department heads to provide assistance. Gwynn (1961)
concurred in this opinion, attributing the development of
the department chair to the growth in enrollment and the
consolidation of secondary schools. Verchota (1971)
provided the following explanation for the development of
department chairs in secondary schools: "Departments were
conceived when principals realized that they needed help in
supervising instruction and attending to certain
administrative details associated with instruction" (p.
128). Grieder (1963) pointed out that "as small high
schools consolidated into larger units, the appointment or
staff election of department heads or chairmen becomes
feasible" (p. 8).
The view was expressed by Williams (1964) that until
World War I subject areas were not closely supervised. It
was his opinion that new emphasis on teaching techniques and
instructional materials following the war led to a need for
direct supervision in the form of department heads. The
principal became more a generalist and less a specialist in
curriculum leaving the latter role to the department chair
(Verchota, 1971). Others felt that since high schools
prepared students for college, they patterned themselves
3
after colleges with a departmental organization (Hipps,
1965; Novak, 1958).
Regardless of how it evolved, the position of
department head is currently well established. Callahan
pointed out:
The department head position appears in the organizational charts and faculty rosters of school districts in every state. The reason for this is simple: the chairman fills an administrative vacuum created by the rapid growth of public education in America during this century. (1971, p. 21)
Though the position is established, the role and the
responsibilities of the department chair is another matter.
Role of the Department Chair
It was suggested by Getzels and Guba (1957) that roles
are defined in terms of expectations held by the
organization for the incumbent by the occupants of other
roles within the organization as well as those expectations
held by the incumbent. They also suggested that a role
incumbent's effectiveness can be measured by the extent to
which the behaviors of the incumbent fulfills those
expectations. When the role expectations of the
organization and the incumbent are incompatible the
incumbent will probably experience stress. A review of the
4
literature suggests that such a condition may exist for many
high school department chairs.
There are several views that have emerged over time
concerning the role of the department chair. Hipps noted
this confusion when he wrote:
The weakest link in the line and staff organization is the department head. There is little agreement within the profession on the administrative and supervisory functions of the department head. (1965, p, 487)
It would seem that the department head is expected to serve
the role of a curriculum specialist and an administrator.
This has been a persistent problem that was identified over
50 years ago by Koch (1930) when he said:
There can be no denying the fact that the department headship is in confusion. There is apparently little agreement among school administrators as to what, in actual practice, its function should be. (p, 336)
Two views regarding the role of the department chair
have emerged according to Beck and Rosenberger (1971). One
view is that the chair is a line administrative position,
the other holds that it is supervisory and a staff position.
They described the difference:
Line positions are those which carry the authority of the organization and are held by those responsible for all or most of the functions of school operation. Staff positions are advisory in nature and are usually held by those having a specialized competency, skill, or knowledge, (p. 48)
It was their contention that a department chair cannot serve
both functions. In discussing the incompatibility of the
5
administrative and supervisory aspects of the department
chair's role they pointed out:
The department chairman in the secondary school should be a supervisor, not a line administrator. For if he is seen as an extension of the arm of the principal, he has greatly diminished effectiveness as a supervisor. The literature of supervision is replete with assertions that the operating base of a supervisor is his factual or technical mastery, consultative skill, and advisory persuasiveness. The contribution most likely to be made by a department chairman is subject matter mastery and technical competence-ingredients that made the best supervision. (p. 49)
The role conflict was also recognized by Verchota
(1971) when he said in discussing the nature of the role of
the department chair, "he has usually been asked to be a
teacher first and administrator afterward. This has created
a classical example of role conflict which usually produces
frustration" (p. 128).
Thomas Sergiovanni, in his book Handbook for Effective
Department Leadership (1984), expressed the view that there
are five areas of leadership responsibility the department
chair must exercise. The five areas and a brief description
of each includes:
1. Educational leadership - development and articulation of educational programs including the following issues: curriculum and teaching objectives; teaching styles, methods and procedures; classroom learning climates; teacher, student and program evaluation; curriculum content; lesson and unit planning; scheduling; group; curriculum and teaching innovations.
6
2. Organizational leadership - ensuring that decisions are made to achieve the organizational goals and objectives and not for the purpose of making day-to-day operation of the system easier.
3. Supervisory leadership - improvement of instruction by teachers based on the department chair's ability to get teachers to identify with and commit to the goals and objectives of the department and school.
4. Administrative leadershio - development of more efficient ways to handle information and evaluate existing administrative procedures in an effort to reduce them.
5. Team leadership - the establishment support and mutual trust between the administration, department chairs and teachers in order to work towards the improvement of the educational program.
Sergiovanni summarized the department chairs leadership role
in the following way:
The effective chairperson works: to achieve school and department educational objectives (educational leadership) through teachers who identify with and are committed to these objectives (supervisory leadership) within a department and school structure which supports the objectives and facilitates the work of teachers (organizational leadership) over an extended period of time (administrative leadership) in cooperation with other chairpersons and the principal (team leadership). (1984, p. 11)
He pointed out that if department chairs are to assume
increased responsibilities for leadership they must be given
more responsibility and authority than presently exists.
7
Review of the Research
In a search of the literature on the role of the
department chair several things become obvious. The first
is that there is not a great deal of information available
on the role of the department chair. Second, the
information that is available can be divided into three
categories:
1. Research on the role of the department chairs in
institutions of higher education.
2. Nonresearch based articles consisting of the
author's suggestions based on personal experience
in the position.
3. Research on the role of the department chair in
secondary schools.
Due to the nature of public school organizations, a
large portion of the information written about institutions
of higher education or by educators from those institutions
may not be transferred directly to the high school setting
(Hord & Murphy, 1985). Cited as observable differences
between institutions of higher education and high schools
are "community expectations, contractual limitations, and
the nature of the student body" (p. 7).
The information regarding the role of the department
chair within the school is extremely limited. Greenfield
8
pointed out that, "Among those the majority were
prescriptive reports, that is, non-empirical exhortations
regarding the role and function of the chair and/or
department" (1985, p. 22).
What is it that the department chair really does? A
1948 study entitled "The Department Head in Instructional
Supervision" was conducted by the Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). The 124
department heads surveyed were from 20 schools in 18 cities
in six states. It was found the department heads
participated in the following tasks:
1. selecting textbooks 2. selecting supplies and equipment 3. initiating new teachers 4. surveying instructional materials 5. appraising and reorganizing courses 6. planning for efficient use of supplies and
equipment 7. preparing instructional materials 8. planning some phase of remedial instruction 9. developing and trying out new courses. (p. 45)
A 1959 study by the Rochester, Minnesota, Public School
System identified the following items as tasks performed by
department chairs in order of frequency mentioned:
1. selecting textbooks 2. scheduling department meetings 3. building courses of study 4. making annual requisitions for instructional
materials 5. supervising classes 6. preparing the budget 7. advising new teachers 8. studying methods of teaching 9. advising principal
9
10. attending curriculum meetings 11. interviewing teacher candidates 12. attending coordination meetings of high school
staff 13. helping in the assignment of teachers 14. coordinating the work of the department. (King &
Moon, 1960, p. 20-24)
While on special assignment for the San Mateo Union
High School District in California, Michael Callahan
conducted a study on department chairs and departmental
leadership. After conducting interviews with hundreds of
administrators, department chairs, and classroom teachers in
nearly 20 school districts throughout California and Oregon,
he wrote a book entitled, The Effective School Department
Head (1971). In the book, Callahan identified four areas of
responsibility for the department chair. Each of the four
categories is listed below with a summary of each:
1. Personnel. This category included participating in employment interviews, orienting new teachers to the department, and assisting in teacher assignment.
2. Classroom Supervision. Among the duties identified in this area were making classroom observations, conferencing with teachers, preparing reports on observations, and supervising substitute and student teachers.
3. Curriculum Development. The tasks identified included developing performance objectives, serving as a departmental curriculum consultant, improving communications within the department, planning for conferences and staff development, and selecting instructional materials.
4. Manager. The duties identified as management included keeping an inventory of supplies and equipment, requisitioning equipment and supplies,
10
arranging for repair of equipment, administering the department budget, answering correspondence, and planning and conducting department meetings.
A study conducted by Gimm (1974) in 40 secondary
schools in the metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul
examined the perceptions of the actual and ideal role of
secondary school department chairs as perceived by
principals, department chairs, and teachers. Items on the
survey were divided into the three categories of
supervision, management and curriculum. Significant
differences were found between the actual and ideal
perception for supervision and curriculum activities, but
not for management. All groups agreed that management
activities should be performed "frequently," thus
confirming the importance of the department chair's role in
departmental management activities. All groups indicated
that supervision tasks performed by the department chair
were minimal. While all groups indicated that the
department chair should do more in supervision than was
currently being done, the principals were more enthusiastic
than department chairs or teachers, The three groups agreed
that the department chair was doing more in curriculum
development than in supervision. Gimm also found that
principals were more optimistic about the department chair's
role, perceiving that department chairs were doing more than
11
the department chairs, themselves, or teachers perceived
they were doing. Department chairs identified more closely
with teachers than principals in all categories on both
actual and ideal roles.
In Smith's 1979 study of secondary department chairs in
the 17 secondary schools of the Lancaster-Lebanon
Intermediate Unit in Pennsylvania, a significant difference
was found in the perception of principals, department
chairs, and teachers in what is and what should be the role
of the department chair. In general, each group felt that
all functions should become a more essential aspect of the
department chair's role. As a result of the study, Smith
concluded that building principals recognized the potential
of the department chair, but had not implemented changes to
use the chairs to full advantage.
In a study of 19 secondary schools in the central New
Jersey counties of Middlesex and Ocean, Kuzminski (1979)
found similar results when he examined the relationship
between principals', teachers', and department chairs'
perception of the role of the secondary school department
chair and the perceived effectiveness of the department
chair. It was found the three groups differed in their
perceptions of the role of the department chair. The
greatest discrepancies between responses of principals and
12
department chairs occurred in the area of supervision.
Principals placed greater importance in supervision than did
department chairs. He found greater agreement between
principals and department chairs in the areas of curriculum
development and management. These findings corresponded to
those of Gimm (1974). Like Gimm (1974), he found principals
perceived that department chairs were doing more than
department chairs, themselves, indicated they were; while
teachers, perceived department chairs were doing less than
department chairs indicated.
Bruce Thomas (1984) conducted a study that investigated
the effective utilization of department chairpersons in
Class AA high schools in Minnesota. The findings indicated
that department chairs and principals agreed on the
functions that department chairs should perform. They
further agreed each function should be considered a more
essential part of the role of the chair. There were
significant differences, however, in their perceptions on
the following items:
maintaining a departmental inventory in-service activities evaluating student progress demonstrating new teaching strategies classroom observations conducting follow-up conferences.
For the items mentioned, principals indicated the functions
were more essential to the role than did department chairs.
13
A study in Janesville, Wisconsin, conducted by Worner
(1986) was undertaken to determine if the role of the
department chair (referred to in that system as
instructional manager) was:
a. accurately and adequately defined
b. similar from school to school
c. appropriate to the needs of the district
d. in need of revision (p. 1).
Department chairs and principals in the five secondary
schools were provided a survey consisting of tasks performed
by department chairs. After responding to each item in
terms of the importance of the task and time required to
perform the task, they were asked to identify the three
"most important" functions. The six items most frequently
identified as the "most important" included:
1. Budget planning and preparation. 2. Participation in selection and/or development of
new curriculum programs/materials. 3. Implementation of departmental plans and
procedures. 4. Budget administration (inventory, ordering,
monitoring, fee collection). 5. Evaluation of curriculum and programs. 6. Conducting department meetings (p. 7).
Based on the results of the survey, Worner surmised
that there was a considerable degree of consistency across
schools and subject areas in regards to the most important
14
items and those that take the most time. In summary he
said:
Clearly the role of the instructional manager as "representative" and "presider" and functions related to budgeting, materials acquisition, and other paper flow, represent the "most important'' functions from the viewpoint of the respondents. A second category of activities loosely defined as instructional leadership, followed by staff development functions, appeared in the second tier of most important functions. It was these two sets of activities which created the most frustration and some ambiguity among respondents due primarily to the perceived lack of time to carry out the functions. (p. 13)
At the 1985 annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association Hord and Murphy (1985) detailed the
results of a three year study of 30 American high schools,
conducted by the Research on the Improvement Process (RIP)
Program at the Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, The University of Texas at Austin. As described
by Hord and Murphy (1985), the RIP high school research
focused on the study of change, the kinds of changes taking
place, and the role and influence of the various constituent
groups on the change process, including high school
department head. The study was based on self-reporting
inventories by department chairs and personnel interviews of
principals, teachers, and department chairs. Based on their
research five categories of functions that department chairs
served were developed. The following descriptions of the
15
functions and the tasks that comprise each function have
been either quoted or paraphrased:
Function I.
Function II.
Function III.
Function IV.
Function V.
Serves as a communication liaison. Acts as a department spokesman meeting with and fostering communication vertically from teachers to principal and division level; coordinates course schedules, and student placement.
Serves as department administrator. Conducts department meetings; designs budget; selects textbooks; maintains equipment and inventories; works with substitutes; provide leadership; interviews and recommends prospective teaches; evaluates teachers; hires and terminates teachers.
Assists teachers in improving performance, Observes and assesses classroom teaching; confers with teachers about observation; assists teachers in instructional activities; plans inservices; supports, encourages and creates opportunities for growth.
Participates in program improvement and change. Appraises program quality; reviews and evaluates materials; keeps informed of new trends and programs; stimulates teachers' awareness of research and program development; provides leadership in curriculum development, implementation, revision and improvement.
Fosters cooperative relationships. Supports the relationships of colleagues, students, and parents; fosters cohesive and cooperative interpersonal relationships; confers with other departments, expresses acceptance, humor, praise as appropriate; responds positively to challenges; communicates with the community. (p. 12)
Based on their research, they concluded that the
presence or absence of three factors seemed to particularly
16
influence the role of the department chair. These factors
were clear policy, monetary compensation, and slack time.
Two additional factors were also mentioned. They were the
existence (or lack of) of a clearly defined policy (job
description) and training. It was their opinion that
department chairs lacking these factors would operate at the
function level described in 1 and 2. "The existence of
policies that clearly define the job as an instructional
helper supports the development of the department head's
role as an improver of programs and teachers" (p. 27).
However, it was pointed out that even in the absence of a
job description or formal policy some department chairs
emerged as leaders who developed and implemented inservice
programs for their teachers. The study also identified few
training opportunities designed specifically for department
chairs.
Carolyn Anderson and Glen Nicholson (1987) investigated
who performed what functions of instructional leadership in
eight comprehensive high schools of a large school district
in the Southwest. In this study they drew the following
conclusion about the role of the department chairperson:
The most important functions of the department chairperson role involved allocation of personnel and materials along with transmission and interpretation of school goals. The department chairperson as advocate generates needed information, resources, policies and programs and applies them on behalf of the instructional program of that department. (pp. 29-32)
17
In a 17 state survey of principals in 43 large urban
high school Fish (1976) found that there was a positive
relationship between effective department chairpersons and
explicit job descriptions. Of the nine schools where the
principal did not rate the department chairs effective, five
reported that department chairs had neither job description
nor contract recognition; their role was left to a "general
understanding" (p. 109).
Much of the research about the role of the department
chair in secondary schools appears contradictory. Kuzminski
(1979), in a study of the perceptions of the role of
department chairs among teachers, principals and chairs
concluded that the role of the chair is poorly defined and
perceived differently by the three reference groups in the
secondary school. Similar conclusions were found by Ritter
(1979), Gimm (1974) and Smith (1979). In contrast, studies
by Sampson (1986), Thomas (1984) and Pedicone (1981)
revealed agreement in role perceptions between principals
and department chairs; however, all recommend development of
a job description. It should be noted that the agreement
among principals and department chairs was found in the more
recent studies, which may suggest that there is better
communication of expectations between the two groups.
18
Potential of the Department Chair
The resource potential of department chairs has been
recognized by some for many years. As early as 1965, High
suggested that "Department heads are--f irst and foremost--
classroom teachers. As classroom teachers and as subject
specialists, they are in a prime position to assist other
members of their respective divisions in analyzing and
improving instructional practices" (p. 213). Wrigg (1972)
pointed out the weakness of expecting the principal to be
all things to all subject areas, warning that a gap in
credibility between the administration and teachers is
created when administrators do not have the expertise to
provide effective supervision.
In 1969 Bingaman expressed the opinion that, "High
school principals are missing a golden opportunity by
failing to delegate considerable responsibility and
authority to department chairmen in the area of supervision
and curriculum improvement in the comprehensive high school
of today" (p. 27). In an article published in the Bulletin
of the National Association of Secondary School Principals,
Turner (1983) echoed Bingaman's view, stating that "the
department head is a relatively untapped source of badly
needed help for our embattled schools," (p.25). He
continued, "a primary responsibility of the department head
19
should be encouraging and assisting teachers to become more
competent instructors'' (p. 26). Marcial (1984,) agreed,
indicating further, that if the department head is skilled
in supervisory procedures, he or she is in a better position
than the principal to conduct such a procedure. Hord and
Murphy (1985) suggested that, "Administrators also view
heads as subject specialists who know their subject and who
know their teacher colleagues" (p. 4).
Diane Lindsay (1981) also discussed better utilization
of department chairs, but warned that administrators should
give a great deal of thought to whether a department head is
a supervisor/master teacher or a full-fledged member of the
management team. She emphasized the conflict that may occur
when the role is not clearly defined. Similar statements
were made by Kidd (1965) in a discussion of whether
department chairs are line or staff members.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to describe how high
school department chairs spend their time and examine
preferences as to the role they should have in a large
suburban school system.
20
The research questions were as follows:
1. How do high school department chairs spend their
time in the areas of supervision, curriculum,
personnel, management, communication and staff
development?
2. What do principals, department chairs and teachers
believe should be the role of high school department
chairs as defined by responsibilities in supervision,
curriculum, personnel, management, communication, and
staff development?
3. What are the discrepancies between reported time
spent and reported role department chairs should have
in supervision, curriculum, personnel, management,
communication, and staff development?
Need for the Study
The literature indicates virtually all high schools
have department chairs, but that the role of the department
chair is ambiguous. Articles have been written which
suggest a number of tasks in which the department chair
should be engaged. Most of these articles are not based on
empirical studies (Greenfield, 1985). Many were written by
those associated with institutions of higher education where
direct transfer to secondary schools is doubtful (Hord &
21
Murphy, 1985). Research on the department chair in
secondary schools is sparse (Greenfield, 1985).
The publication of A Nation at Risk (1983) and the
reports which followed have placed greater emphasis on
instructional leadership and improvement of instruction,
which may suggest an expanded role for the department chair
in the area of instruction. Department chairs have been
identified as a valuable resource available to secondary
administrators, one that could be used to, among other
things, improve instruction (Beck & Rosenberger, 1971;
Greenfield, 1985; High, 1965; Marcial, 1984; Verchota,
1971). The Carnegie Task Force suggested in A Nation
Prepared (1986), that schools should develop a more diverse
staffing structure in order to capitalize on the knowledge,
skills, and accumulated wisdom of the most able teachers.
Leading such staffing would be "lead teachers" who would
coordinate the work of the school's instructional staff
(Mandel & Tucker, 1986). It would seem that the concept of
lead teacher may blend naturally with the position of
department chair.
Using empirical data, a profile describing how the high
school department chair in a large suburban school system
spends his/her time and the perceived role the department
chair should have has been developed. The information
22
provided by this study could be useful in consideration of
organizational changes which might be desirable involving
department chairs. The results might also be useful to the
Virginia State Department of Education and the local school
system in addressing staff development needs for department
chairs.
Limitations of the Study
1. This study was based on the responses received from
department chairs, principals, and teachers of the Fairfax
County Public School system, Virginia, limiting
generalization outside of that population.
2. The survey was conducted by mail. When a mail survey is
used there is the possibility that the questions could be
misinterpreted by the respondents.
3. The survey was limited to high school department chairs
in four subjects (English, science, foreign language, and
industrial arts).
Definitions of the Terms
Department chair (head, chairman, chairperson, or chair)
A member of the faculty who in addition to doing some
teaching in a department has some responsibilities for
23
administering the affairs of the department (Dictionary of
Education. 3rd edition, 1972).
Role Importance
The importance of a task to the role the department
chair should have at some future time.
Time Spent
The time spent by the department chair performing tasks
as part of the duties of a department chair. Used in this
study as a proxy for current role description.
Organization of the Study
This study is divided into four chapters. Chapter I
contains background information, a review of the literature,
the purpose of the study, need for the study, limitations of
the study, and definition of terms. Chapter II describes
the methodology used in the study. Chapter III presents the
findings and interpretations of the study. Chapter IV
provides the summary of the study, findings, conclusions,
recommendations, and implications resulting from the study.
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to describe how high
school department chairs spend their time and examine
preferences as to the role they should have in a large
suburban school system.
Research Questions
The research questions were:
1. How do high school department chairs spend their
time in the areas of supervision, curriculum,
personnel, management, communications, and staff
development?
2. What do principals, department chairs and teachers
believe should be the role of high school department
chairs as defined by responsibilities in supervision,
curriculum, personnel, management, communications, and
staff development?
3. What are the discrepancies between reported time
spent and reported role department chairs should have
in supervision, curriculum, personnel, management,
communications, and staff development?
24
25
Research Method
In an effort to answer the questions listed above a
descriptive survey was used. Quoting Ary, Jacobs, and
Razavich with respect to descriptive research:
Descriptive research studies are designed to obtain information concerning the current status of phenomena. They are directed toward determining the nature of the situation as it exists at the time of the study . Their aim is to describe 'what exists' with respect to variables or conditions in a situation. (1972, p. 286)
Population and Sample
Included in this study were all 22 schools in Fairfax
County, Virginia, serving grades 9-12. Fairfax County is a
large suburban school system with enrollment of
approximately 130,000 students in grades K-12 (1987-88
school year). At the time of the study it was the tenth
largest school system in the nation. The subjects in this
study were the principals of those schools; the department
chairs of English, science, foreign language and industrial
arts in each school; and teachers in each of the previously
mentioned departments from each school. The names of the
principals were obtained from the central office. A list of
teachers and department chairs in the four departments being
surveyed was obtained from central and area subject
specialists. Using these lists three teachers per
26
department were randomly selected from each school in all
departments except industrial arts. Some schools had only
one or two teachers in the department of industrial arts,
thus the selection was limited by the number of members in
the department. It was recognized that because of the small
size of the industrial arts department, schools may group
industrial arts with other small departments and have a
department chair for the combined vocational, technology, or
fine and practical arts. Each school was contacted and
asked to identify the person who served the role of
department chair for industrial arts teachers. In many
cases this person did not teach industrial arts.
In Fairfax County, the department chairs in English and
science are routinely assigned a period for performing
departmental duties. This is not generally the case in
foreign language and industrial arts. Selection of these
departments assured representation of chairs with a
"departmental period" and those without. The departments of
science and industrial arts were further selected because of
the high volume of equipment and supplies that are ordered,
maintained, and inventoried within these departments.
27
Instrumentation
From a search of the literature on the role and
responsibilities of department chairs, a list of activities
performed by department chairs was developed and revised
(Appendix A). In the process of development the initial
list of tasks was reviewed by six former department chairs
and two principals. They were asked to review the tasks for
appropriateness of items. As a result several items were
eliminated and two added to the list. A survey instrument
was designed consisting of 41 items. To facilitate
analysis, the items were organized into six categories as
follows:
1. Supervision
2. Curriculum Development
3. Management
4. Personnel
5. Communication
6. Staff Development
In addition to the survey, a questionnaire was developed to
gather demographic information about the principals,
department chairs and teachers.
A copy of the instrument was sent to 10 principals, 20
department chairs and 20 teachers who were not a part of the
population being studied. Each person was asked to identify
28
the relative amount of time that the department chair spends
on each activity using one of four ratings. The ratings
were as follows:
1= Is not a responsibility (no time spent)
2= Requires a minor amount of time
3= Requires a moderate amount of time
4= Requires a major amount of time
Each participant was also instructed to rate each of the
items in terms of whether or not the tasks should be the
responsibility of the department chair. The ratings used
were as follows:
1= Should not be a responsibility
2= Should be of minor importance
3= Should be of moderate importance
4= Should be of major importance
After completing the questionnaire, each respondent was
asked to indicate any ambiguity in wording or format, and to
respond to the appropriateness of items within assigned
categories. They were also asked to indicate the
approximate length of time required to complete the
instrument. After a review of the responses from the pilot
study the questionnaire was adjusted. As a result of the
information received from the pilot, one question was
dropped leaving a 40 item survey. Several questions were
29
reworded for clarity. It was the opinion of the respondents
that all items were appropriate.
Internal Consistency of Items
An alpha coefficient for reliability was calculated for
each of the six individual categories within the survey.
According to Brown (1983),
Measures of internal consistency indicate the degree to which the items comprising a text are intercorrelated. Thus they are designed to answer the question: Do all items measure the same characteristic? These indices place primary emphasis on the internal structure of the text, specifically the relationships between items (p. 83. )
The results of the calculations can be seen on Table 1.
The reliabilities obtained suggested that the items within
categories were intercorrelated. The greatest internal
consistency of items was found in supervision which had an
alpha coefficient of 0.91 for the "role importance" of the
department chair. All six categories and subdivisions of
"time spent" and "role importance" had reliability
coefficients of 0.78 or greater except for "role importance"
in communication which was 0.70.
Data Collection
The survey and cover letter was sent through the county
mail system on February 2, 1988, to 22 principals, 88
30
Table 1
Alpha Coefficient for Category Items
Category
Supervision
Curriculum
Personnel
Management
Staff Development
Communications
N = 267
Time Spent
.85
.86
.78
.82
.82
.80
Role as it should be
.91
.83
.79
.83
.86
.70
Number of items
8
9
5
7
6
5
31
department chairs and 240 teachers (Appendix B). An
additional letter was enclosed to those identified as
department chairs in industrial arts to explain that their
name was provided by the school as the person who performed
the role of department chair (Appendix C). The return date
for the survey was given as February 16, 1988. A follow-up
letter was mailed on February 24, 1988 (Appendix D) with a
deadline of March 4, 1988.
Of the 350 surveys mailed on February 2, 1988,
responses from the first mailing were received from 20 of
the 22 principals, 79 of the 88 department chairs and 168 of
the 240 teachers for response rates of 91%, 90% and 70%
respectively. The follow-up letter mailed on February 24,
1988, resulted in returns from two principals, 5 department
chairs and 43 teachers increasing the response rates to 100%
of the principals, 95% of the department chairs and 88% of
the teachers (Table 2).
To test for nonresponse bias, telephone interviews were
conducted for 10% of the non-respondents. No systematic
differences were found to exist between the respondents and
those interviewed by telephone.
Subjects
Principals
Department Chairs
Teachers
32
Table 2
Summary of Survey Returns
Number Mailed
22
88
240
Number Received
22
84
211
Percent Return
100
95
88
33
Analysis of the Data
One of the 22 high schools within this system served as
a magnet school for science and technology. County
regulations specify the administrative role of the
departm~nt chair in this school. Because the duties and
responsibilities of the department chairs in this school
were different from the other 21 schools, they were not
included in the data analysis for the 40 item survey,
Questions 1 and 2 were examined using frequencies,
percents and means. Analysis of question 3 was based on
total scores for both "time spent" and "role importance" in
each category (e.g. management, supervision, etc.}. A total
score for each of the categories of supervision, curriculum,
personnel, management, staff development, and communication
was calculated for both "time spent" and "role importance"
by finding the sum of all individual items within a
category. The total scores for each category were then
placed into the following ranges:
Low Responsibility
Medium Responsibility
High Responsibility
Table 3 provides a complete breakdown of the ranges used for
total scores in each category. No effort was made to weight
items, thus all items in each category were treated as
Table 3
Ranges Used in the Analysis of Total Scores
Category Minimum Maximum Responsibility Range (No. of Items) Score Score Low Medium High
Supervision(8) 8 32 8-16 17-24 25-32 Curriculum(9) 9 36 9-18 19-27 28-36 Personnel(5) 5 20 5-10 11-15 16-20 Management(7) 7 28 7-14 15-21 22-28 Staff Development(6) 6 24 6-12 13-18 19-24 Communications(5) 5 20 5-10 11-15 16-20 w
~
35
equal. This was done in an effort to capture tendencies by
category in lieu of item weighting procedures. Crosstabs of
"time spent" versus "role importance'' were also performed on
all 40 items on the survey for principals, department chairs
and teachers. The results of the 120 crosstabs were then
combined into 40 conflict matrix tables. The conflict
matrix table for each item is presented in Appendix E and
provides a more detailed analysis of "time spent" and "role
importance" responses to each item.
In the data treatment no provisions were made to record
data reported as parts of a number. In cases where
respondents gave ranges, (6-8 years) the average (7) was
recorded.
Responses to the forty items of the survey were
analyzed using SPSSX. Data are reported as frequencies,
means, standard deviations, and percentages.
CHAPTER III
FINDINGS
A survey containing forty items identified through a
search of the literature as tasks performed by department
chairs was sent to 22 principals from schools that serves
grades 9-12; the person who served the function of
department chair in each school from the departments of
English, science, foreign language and industrial arts;
three teachers from each of the departments listed above
with the exception of industrial arts whose selection was
limited by the number of members in the department.
The 350 surveys mailed resulted in a return rate of
100% of the principals, 95% of the department chairs and 88%
of the teachers. A summary of the demographic data
collected from department chairs forms the basis for the
following discussion. A summary of those data is reported
in Table 4.
Demographic Data
Of the department chairs surveyed, 58.3% were female
and 41.7% male. Fifty-eight percent of the department
chairs were 41-50 years old. Approximately 20% were over 50
years and 22% under 40 years of age. Of the department
chairs responding, 98.8% were white and 1.2% oriental.
36
37
Table 4
Demographic Information on Department Chairs
Characteristics N
Gender Female Male
. . . . . 4 9 . • 3 5
Age
Race
26-35 years . 36-40 ..... 41-45 . 46-50 . 51-55 . . ... 56 or older .
White Oriental
. . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
. . . . . . . . . 2 6 . . . . . . . . . . 22
. . . . . . 10 . . . 7
. . . . 82 . . . 1
Education Bachelor Degree. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bachelor's plus ...........•. 21 Master Degree . . . . . . . 9 Master's plus ............. 48 Doctorate . . . . . . • . 1
Years Teaching 3-9 10-15 . 16-20 . 21-25 . . 26 or more
8 20
. 18 . . 19
17 Years as Department Chair
1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 14-25 . . . . . . . . . 9
Department membership English ..... Science . . . . . Foreign Language Industrial Arts . Other .
N = 84
• • • • • • • • • • • 2 2 . . . . . . 21
. 20 . • . 8
. 13
%
58.3 41. 7
8.3 11. 9 31. 0 26.2 11. 9 8.3
97.6 1. 2
3.6 25.0 10.7 5 7. 1
1. 2
9.5 23.8 21. 4 22.6 20.3
48.8 26.2 13.1 10.7
26.2 25.0 23.8 9.5 15.5
38
The majority of the department chairs had an advanced
degree with 11% having a Master's Degree, and 59% having a
Master's Degree plus additional hours (Table 4). Three
department chairs (3.7%) held a Bachelor's Degree and 26%, a
Bachelor's Degree plus additional hours past that degree.
Only one chair held a doctorate (l.2%).
The years of teaching experience for department chairs
varied, with the minimum number of years taught being three
and the maximum 32 years (Table 4). Only ten percent of the
chairs had fewer than 10 years of experience. The remaining
department chairs were almost equally split in four
divisions: 10-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26 or more.
As can be seen in Table 4, 50% of the department chairs
had been in their position three years or less. Twenty-six
percent had been chairs from 4-6 years, 13% from 7-14 years,
and 11% from 15-25 years.
There was no job description for department chairs
according to 65% of the chairs responding (Table 5).
Thirty-one percent indicated that there was a description
and 2.4% expressed the opinion that there was a vague
description of the position. One percent of the chairs did
not know whether there was a job description.
39
Table 5
Demographic Information Concerning The Department Chair Position Within The School
Characteristic N
Job Description No •••• . . . . 52 Yes .... ....... 25
Length of Contract 193 days. 200 Other ..
Periods Taught by DC 3 . .
. . . . . 57 8
. . . 15
7 4 ..... . . . . . . . . . 63 5 I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 . . 10 6 or more . . . . . . . 4
Method of Selection By Current Principal By Previous Principal Elected . . . . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . .
Frequency Principal Meets with DCs Once a Month . . . . Two or More a Month . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . .
Frequency DC Meets with Members Once a Month . . . Two or More a Month . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 31 . 39
9 . . . 5
. . . 41 ..... 35
. . . . 8
. . 55
. . 23 6
Student Population (Size of School) 1000-1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
. .. 34 . 21
7
1501-2000 ....... . 2001-2500 . . . . . . . . 2501-3000 . . . . . 3001 or more. .
N = 84
. . . . 6
%
63.1 29.7
67.9 9.5
17.8
8.3 75.0 11. 9 4.8
36.9 46.4 10.7 6.0
48.8 41. 7
9.5
65.4 27.4
7.2
19 .1 40.5 25.0 8.3 7.1
40
Seventy-one percent of the department chairs were on a
regular teacher contract of 193 days. Exceptions were the
industrial arts department chairs (most of whom were on
contracts in excess of 193 days).
Almost half the current department chairs (46%) were
selected by a previous principal (Table 5). Current
principals chose 37% percent of the department chairs, 11%
were elected and 6% were chosen by other means.
Ninety-two percent of the department chairs indicated
that they met regularly with the principal in department
chair meetings (Table 5). The frequency of the meetings
varied from 49% reporting meetings of once a month, 42%
indicating two or more meetings a month to 9.5% indicating
either less frequent than monthly or sporadic meetings.
Two-thirds of the department chairs reported meeting
with their department members once a month (Table 5). An
additional 27% met more frequently. Only 7% of the
department chairs indicated that they met less often.
Forty-one percent of the department chairs were in
schools that had student populations from 1501 to 2000
(Table 5). Nineteen percent of the schools had populations
less than 1501 and one fourth had between 2001-2500
students. Only 15% of the department chairs reported
41
working in schools with a population greater than 2501
students.
All English and science department chairs had one
assigned period for departmental duties, as did 70% of the
foreign language department chairs (Table 6). While 86% of
those serving the role of department chair for industrial
arts indicated they had no period for departmental duties
(Table 6), 42% indicated they taught only four periods
(Table 7). Since all schools in this school system had a
minimum of six period per day (which generally included one
period for classroom planning) these statistics conflict.
Forty percent of those who served as the industrial arts
chairperson were from other departments.
Of the four departments surveyed the largest was
English with 66% reporting 16 or more members in the
department (Table 8). Only 24% of the science and 5% of the
foreign language departments had that number of teachers.
The majority of the science (80%) and foreign language (70%)
departments consisted of 10-15 members. No English or
science department reported having fewer than 10 members
compared to 20% of the foreign language departments and 80%
of the industrial arts.
No department chair in this school system received
supplemental salary for serving as department chair.
42
Table 6
Periods Assigned for Departmental Duties
Periods for Dept. Foreign Ind. Duties English Science Language Arts
0 6(30%) 18(86%)
1 21(95%) 20(95%) 13(65%) 2(10%)
2 or more 1 ( 5%) 1(5%) 1(5%) 1 ( 5%)
43
Table 7
Number of Periods Taught by Department Chair
Periods Foreign Ind. Teaching English Science Language Arts
3 2(9%) 1(5%) 1(5%) 3(14%)
4 20(91%) 20(95%) 17(85%) 6(28%)
5 2(10%) 8(38%)
6 4(20%)
44
Table 8
Number of Members in the Department
Number for Dept. Foreign Ind. Members English Science Language Arts
1-9 0 0 5(25%) 16(80%)
10-15 8(36%) 16(76%) 14(70%) 2(10%)
15+ 14(64%) 5(24%) 1(5%) 2(10%)
45
Analysis of the Data
Questions 1 and 2 were analyzed using frequencies,
percents, and means. Analysis of question 3 was based on
category total scores for both "time spent'' and "role
importance" in each category. A total score for each of the
categories of supervision, curriculum, personnel,
management, staff development and communication was obtained
for both "time spent" and "role importance" for each subject
by finding the sum of all individual items within a
category. Individual total scores for each category were
then divided into three ranges of high, medium and low. No
effort was made to weight items, thus all items in each
category were treated as equal. This was done in an effort
to capture tendencies by category in lieu of item weighting
procedures. Crosstabs of "time spent" and "role importance"
were performed on all 40 items. The results can be found in
Appendix E.
Research Question 1: How department chairs spend their time
The purpose of research question 1 was to determine how
department chairs spend their time in the areas of
supervision, curriculum, personnel, management,
communications, and staff development?
46
In an examination of the time spent on various
activities by department chairs as perceived by principals,
department chairs, and teachers, it appears as though all
three groups were in general agreement as to how department
chairs spend their time. There was, however, a discrepancy
among the groups in the amount of time spent on various
tasks. Principals and department chairs indicated that
department chairs spent more time on most tasks than did
teachers.
Greatest Amount of Time
In the identification of the tasks that occupied the
greatest amount of the department chair's time, there were
eight items identified by 66% or more of all groups as
taking a moderate to major amount of the department chair's
time. One additional item was identified by department
chairs and principals and four others, by principals, alone.
Table 9 provides a summary of these items.
The eight tasks on which principals, department chairs,
and teachers agreed, were tasks associated with management
and communication. All groups indicated that the department
chair spent a moderate to major amount of time in performing
the following tasks (Table 9):
Table 9
Tasks Identified by 66% or more of the Principals, Department Chairs and Teachers as Taking A Moderate to
Major Amount of the Department Chair's Time
Item Description
8. Encourage, Stimulate and Motivate 9. Coordinate curriculum
11. Work in developing curriculum 13. Selection of inst. materials 21. Teacher assignment in department 22. Plan and conduct meetings 24. Prepare and monitor budget 26. Order supplies and equipment 27. Maintain an inventory 28. Complete forms and gather data 36. Act as department spokesman 37. Act as a liaison 38. Interpret policies and procedures
Principals (P) Department Chairs (DC) Teachers (T)
N = 21 N = 79 N = 189
Category Response p DC
Supervision x x Curriculum x Curriculum x Curriculum x Personnel x Management x x Management x x Management x x Management x x Management x x Communication x x Communication x x Communication x x
Group T
.,,. -J
x x x x x x x x
48
Management
Item 22. Planning and conducting department meetings Item 24. Preparing and monitoring the department
budget Item 26. Ordering supplies and equipment Item 27. Maintaining an inventory of textbooks,
equipment and supplies Item 28. Completing forms and gathering departmental
data requested by the school administration or county
Communication
Item 36. Item 37.
Item 38.
Acting as department spokesman Acting as a liaison between teachers and the administration Interpreting administration policies and procedures to members of the department.
The task identified by principals and department
chairs, but not teachers was:
Item 8. Encouraging, stimulating and motivating teachers.
Sixty-five percent of the teachers perceived department
chairs spend either no time, or a minor amount of time on
this task.
The four tasks identified by principals only as taking
a moderate to major amount of time were:
Item 9. Item 11.
Item 13.
Item 21.
Coordinating curriculum within the department Working with teachers in developing curriculum Assisting in selection and evaluation of textbooks and other instructional materials. Assisting in establishing the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department.
49
Least Amount of Time
Sixteen items were reported by 80% or more of either
the principals, department chairs, or teachers as taking
either no time or a minor amount of time. A summary can be
found in Table 10.
Of the 16 items, there was agreement among all groups
on 9 items (see Table 10). Included among the 9 tasks were
6 of the 8 items in the category of supervision. The tasks
in supervision included:
Item 1 . Item 2 .
Item 3 .
Item 5 •
Item 6 • Item 7 .
Observing teachers in the classroom Holding conferences with teachers concerning classroom observation Preparing written reports of classroom observation Reviewing teacher lesson plans on a regular basis Evaluating teachers Monitoring student progress in courses within the department.
For 5 of the 6 items listed above, there was overwhelming
agreement as 80% or more of the principals, department
chairs and teachers reported that no time is spent by the
department chair on items 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (Table 11).
Table 11 shows other items agreed upon by 80% or more
of all three groups as taking a minor amount of time if any
are:
Item 15. Establishing a curriculum resource center for the staff
Item 16. Visiting other schools to observe their program
Table 10
Tasks Identified by 68% or more Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers as Taking a Minor to No
Amount of the Department Chair's Time
Item Description
1. Observe teachers 2. Conferences on observation 3. Write reports of observation 4. Work with teachers on techniques 5. Review lesson plans 6. Evaluate teachers 7. Monitor student progress
10. Test and evaluate programs 12. Assist in modifying curriculum 15. Establish resource center
016. Observe programs in other schools 39. Recruit students into courses 18. Work with substitutes 19. Interview prospective teachers 20. Assist in selection of teachers 23. Arrange room assisgnments 29. Arrange interclass visitation 30. Demo instructional techniques 31. Assess needs for inservice 32. Develop & implement inservices 34. Encourage membership in prof orgn. 40. Assist in resolving conflicts
Principals (P) Department Chairs (DC) Teacher (T)
N= 21 N= 79 N= 189
Category Response Group P DC T
Supervision Supervision Supervision Supervision Supervision Supervision Supervision Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Curriculum Personnel Personnel Personnel Management Staff Dev Staff Dev Staff Dev Staff Dev Staff Dev Communication
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x
x x x x x x x
x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
01 0
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 16. 39.
17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Table 11
Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to the Amount of Time Department Chairs Spend by Category and Item
Supervision
Percent Respondents
ITEM DESCRIPTION NO TIME MIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p
Obser.ve teachers 71. 4 82.3 83.1 23.8 13.9 13.2 4.8 3.8 3.2 0 0 0.5 Conferences on observation 81.0 84.8 83.8 19.0 12.7 13.2 0 2.5 3.7 0 0 0.5 Write reports of observation 85.7 94.9 92.0 14.3 3.8 5.3 0 1. 3 2.7 0 0 0 Work with teachers on techniques 19.0 39.2 58.6 52.4 31.6 29.6 28.6 26.6 11. 3 0 2.5 0.5 ffeview lesson plane 81.0 96.2 92.0 19.0 3.8 6.9 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 Evaluate teachers 95.2 97.5 93.l 4.8 1. 3 4.8 0 1. 3 1.6 0 0 0.5 Monitor student progress 19.0 60.8 68.l 76.2 31. 6 23.9 4.8 5.1 6.4 0 2.5 1. 6 Encourage, stimulate, motivate 4.8 6.3 16.9 28.6 17. 7 47.1 57.1 54.4 24.3 9.5 21. 5 11. 6 x
Curriculum
NO TIME HIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p
Coordinate curriculua 0 12.7 13.2 19.0 31.6 29.1 66.7 40.5 37.6 14.3 15.2 20.1 x Teet and evaluat~ programs 10.0 43.0 38.7 60.0 31.6 34.9 25.0 19.0 16.7 5.0 6.3 9.7 Work in developing curriculua 4.8 16.5 27.1 19.0 41.8 38.8 61.9 29.1 18.1 14.3 12.7 16.0 x Assist in aodifying curriculum 4.8 31.6 40.4 71.4 36.7 35.1 19.0 22.8 19.2 4.8 8.9 5.3 Assist in textbooks selection o.o 16.5 16.4 23.8 31.6 37.6 42.9 40.5 29.1 33.3 11.4 16.9 x Infora teachers of new trends 0 5.1 11. 1 42.9 38.0 40.2 47.6 40.5 34. 4 9.5 16.5 14.3 Establish resource center 33.3 39.2 45.5 47.6 41.8 36.5 19.0 17.7 11. 1 0 1. 3 6.9 Observe prograas in other schools 42.9 59.0 69.4 42.9 35.9 28.3 9.5 5.1 8.0 4.8 0 4.3 Recruit students into courses 9.5 29.1 43.6 52.4 34.2 36.1 19.0 25.3 14.4 19.0 11.4 6.9
Personnel
NO TIME MIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p
Orientate new teachers 0 11.4 21. 2 42.9 39.2 39.2 33.3 38.0 28.0 23.8 11. 4 11. 6 Work with substitutes 9.5 25.3 39.2 57.1 40.5 32.8 19.0 24.t 22.2 14.3 10. 1 5.8 Assist with interviews of teachers 14.3 55.7 46.3 47.6 29.1 30.9 28.6 8.9 16.0 9.5 6.3 6.9 Assist in selection of teachers 23.8 60.8 49.2 47.6 26.6 32.6 19.0 7.6 13.4 9.5 5.1 4.8 Assist in scheduling in the dept. 0.0 16.5 18.2 14.3 24. 1 24.6 61.9 35.4 35.4 23.8 24.1 21.9 x
* DC
x
* DC
* DC
* 66X or more of respondents indicated moderate to major aaount of time
T
T
T
01 .....
22. 23. 24 •· 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
35. 36. 37. 38. 40.
Table 11 (continued)
Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to the Amount of Time Department Chairs Spend by Category and Item
Mana11e•ent
NO TIME MIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION p DC T p DC T p .DC T p DC T
Plan and conduct •eetin11a 0 0 1.6 4.8 6.3 15.9 33.3 54.4 37.6 61.9 39.2 45.0 Arran11e room aaai11naenta 9.5 50.6 42.8 33.3 21.5 28.3 47.6 19.0 16.6 9.5 8.9 12.3 Prepare and •onitor bud11et 0 15.2 12.8 28.6 11.4 11. 7 47.6 38.0 34.0 23.8 35.4 41.5 Repair • replacement ot equip•ent 0 8.9 24.5 47.6 35.4 28.7 47 .6 31.6 27.1 4.8 24.1 19.7 Order supplies and equip•ent 0 2.5 4.8 9.5 6.3 12.7 66.7 39.2 36.0 23.8 51.9 46.6 Maintain an inventory 4.8 2.5 7.9 4.8 20.3 18.0 57 .1 30.4 42.9 33.3 46.8 31.2 Complete for•• and 11ather data 0 0 4.3 19.0 23.1 20.9 57.1 32.1! 36.4 23.8 44.9 38.5
Staff Development
NO TIME MIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T
Arran11e interclass visitation 52.4 67.1 69.3 28.6 25.3 23.8 14.3 7.6 6.9 4.8 0 0 De•o instructional techniques 23.8 40.5 45.6 57.1 36.7 36.9 14.3 17.7 13.4 4.8 5.1 4.3 Assess needs for inaervice 23.8 43.6 43.9 52.4 30.8 40.6 23.8 19.2 13.4 0 6.4 2.1 Develop & imple•ent inservices 4.8 35.9 39.4 57.1 33.3 38.8 33.3 20.5 17.6 4.8 10.3 4.3 Encoura11e exchange of ideas and strategiea 0 7.6 18.6 42.9 32.9 41. 6 33.3 31.6 26.6 23.8 27.8 13.3 Encourage membership in prof organizationa 4.8 11. 4 33.5 66.7 50.6 46.8 14.3 25.3 13.3 14.3 12.7 6.4
co-unication
NO TIME MIN AMT TIME MOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T
Foster public relations 4.8 6.3 25.7 38.1 36.7 43.9 42.9 31.6 20.9 14.3 25.3 9.6 Act as depart•ent spokes.an 0 0 0 14.3 10.1 21.8 28.6 40.6 36.1 67.1 49.4 43.1 Act as a liaison 0 1.3 3.7 14.2 10.3 22.9 38.1 33.1 30.9 47.6 66.1 42.6 Interpret policies and procedures 0 1.3 2.7 19.0 U.2 29.9 47.6 44.2 28.7 33.3 39.2 39.4 Assist in reaolvinl conflicts 33.3 31.6 67.8 42.9 39.2 29.9 19.0 21.5 8.6 4.8 7.6 3.7
• p DC
x x x x x x x x x x
• p DC
• p DC
x x x x x x
• 66X or more of respondents indicated •oderate to •&Jor a•ount ot time
T
x x x x x
T
T
x ll x
01 N
53
Item 28. Completing forms and gathering departmental data requested by the school or county administration.
Eighty percent or more of the department chairs
reported that they spend a minor amount of time (if any} on
the following task:
Item 19. Interviewing prospective teachers.
In addition to the 16 items on which all groups agreed
(see Table 10), 80% or more of the department chairs and
teachers agreed that little time is spent on one additional
item:
Item 20. Assisting with selection of new teachers.
Teachers and principals agreed that department chairs
spent little time on the following task:
Item 30. Demonstrating instructional techniques to other teachers.
There were four items on which 80% of the teachers
reported that the department chair spent either no or a
minor amount of time (Table 10). Included in these items
were:
Item 31. Item 34.
Item 39. Item 40.
Assessing needs for inservices Encouraging membership in professional organizations and attendance at professional conferences and workshops Recruiting students into courses Assisting in resolving conflicts.
54
Hours Spent Per Week
Responses from the three reference groups as to the
approximate number of hours per week spent by the department
chair on departmental duties offered further evidence that
principals felt department chairs spend more time on
departmental duties than do department chairs or teachers.
Table 12 presents a summary of the estimated time spent by
department chairs on departmental duties. Principals and
department chairs estimated that slightly more than eight
hours/week are spent by the department chair on departmental
duties. Teacher estimates of weekly expenditure of time
were somewhat lower, at 6.7 hours/week. All of these
estimates exceeded the five periods per week (roughly five
hours) commonly provided to chairs in English, science,
math, social studies and most foreign language department
chairs.
When asked to indicate the percent of time currently
spent by the department chair in each of the six categories
being examined, the responses of department chairs and
teachers were within 2% in each of the six categories (see
Table 13), The principals' responses were very close to
those of department chairs and teachers with two exceptions.
Principals perceived that department chairs spent about 8%
more time in curriculum and 8% less time in management than
was reported by department chairs or teachers.
55
Table 12
The Approximate Number Of Hours Per Week Spent By The Department Chair Performing Departmental Duties As
Perceived By Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers
Reference Group
Principals
Department Chairs
Teachers
Mean hrs/week
8.2
8.1
6.7
SD N
5.0 20
4.8 75
4.9 170
56
Table 13
The Percent Of Time Spent by the Department Chair on Departmental Duties in Each of the Six Categories as
Perceived by Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers
Category
Management Communication Curriculum Personnel Staff Development Supervision
Principals Department Chairs Teachers
% Of Time p DC
22.4 31. 7 18.2 21. 6 24.2 13.7 10.3 11. 0 11. 4 9.3
5.5 5.2
N = 19 N = 77 N = 185
T
31. 3 21. 9 16.2
9.5 8.9 5.6
SD p DC T
13.8 19.2 18. 7 8.6 16.4 17.7
10.3 10.3 12.9 5.5 6.7 7.5 7.3 7.0 7.2 6.1 4.9 6.5
57
The perception of the principals that department chairs
spend a moderate to major amount of time on curriculum was
further evidenced by their identification of these items as
tasks in which department chairs spent a moderate to major
amount of time (see Table 11).
Based on the information in Tables 12 and 13, a summary
table was created that reports the perceptions of the three
groups as to the number of minutes per week spent by the
department chair in each category (see Table 14).
Summary of Research Question 1
There was general agreement among all groups as to how
department chairs spend their time, but some disagreement as
to the amount of time spent. Principals and department
chairs indicated that department chairs spend more time on
most tasks than teachers perceived.
All groups agreed that department chairs spend the
greatest amount of time on the management and communication
tasks of:
planning and conducting department meetings preparing and monitoring the budget ordering supplies and equipment maintaining an inventory completing forms and gathering departmental data acting as a department spokesman acting as a liaison interpreting policies and procedures.
58
Table 14
Summary of Princiapl, Department Chair, and Teacher Estimates of Weekly Expenditure of
Time by the Department Chair
Category
Management Communication Curriculum Personnel Staff Dev. Supervision Other
p
1. 84 1.49 1. 98
.84
.93
.45
.66
Hours/Week DC T
2.57 2.10 1. 75 1.47 1.11 1. 09
.89 .64
.75 .60
.42 .38
.61 .44
59
While principals and department chairs indicated that a
moderate to major amount of time was spent encouraging,
stimulating, and motivating teachers, teachers perceived the
department chair spends a minor amount of time on this task.
In addition, principals perceived a moderate to major
amount of time was spent by the department chairs on the
following items:
coordinating curriculum working with teachers to develop curriculum assisting in selection of instructional materials assisting in scheduling teacher assignments.
There was agreement among the groups that the tasks
occupying the least amount of the department chair's time
were the supervision tasks of:
observing teachers holding conferences concerning observations writing up observation reports reviewing lesson plans evaluating teachers.
Eighty percent or more of all groups agreed four other
tasks occupy a minor amount if any of the department chair's
time. Those items included:
monitoring student progress in courses observing programs in other schools arranging interclass visitation establishing a curriculum resource center for staff
Three additional items were identified by 80% or more
teachers as not taking much time; one by department chairs
and one by teachers and department chairs.
60
Principals and department chairs estimated that the
time spent by department chairs was approximately eight
hours/week. Teachers indicated that department chairs spent
less time, reporting approximately seven hours/week spent on
departmental duties. The responses from all groups
indicated that more time was spent by the department chair
on departmental duties than was provided as release time.
Research Question 2: The Role department chairs should have
The purpose of research question 2 was to determine
what principals, department chairs, and teachers believe
should be the role of high school department chairs as
defined by responsibilities in supervision, curriculum,
personnel, management, communications, and staff
development?
In an examination of the data collected, several trends
became apparent. As was the case in their responses to how
department chairs spend their time, principals rated each
item higher than did department chairs or teachers;
department chairs rated items higher in importance than did
teachers. Two-thirds or more of the principals indicated 38
of the 40 items were of moderate to major importance in
describing the role the department chair should have. Using
the same criteria, 30 items were identified by department
61
chairs and 21 by teachers as being of moderate to major
importance (see Table 15), Principals had higher
expectations for the role of department chair than did
teachers. The department chairs' role expectations of what
department chairs should do fell between those of principals
and teachers.
With few exceptions, two-thirds of all groups agreed
that tasks identified in the categories of curriculum,
personnel, management, and communications should be of
moderate to major importance to the role of the department
chair. Those items on which all groups agreed listed by
category were:
Curriculum
Item 9. Item 11.
Item 12.
Item 13.
Item 14.
Personnel
Item 17. Item 19.
Item 20. Item 21.
Coordinating curriculum within the department Working with teachers in developing curriculum Assisting teachers in modifying curriculum to meet the needs of their students Assisting in selection and evaluation of textbooks and other instructional materials Keeping teachers informed of new trends and programs
Assisting in the orientation of new teachers Assisting with interviews of prospective new teachers Assisting in the selection of new teachers Assisting in establishing the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department
I. 2. 3. 4. 5 .. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 39.
17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Table 15
Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to What Should be The Role of The Department Chair by Category and Item
Supervision
Percent Respondents
ITEH DESCRIPTION NO IMPORTANCE MIN IMPORTANCE HOD IMPORTANCE MAJ IMPORTANCE * p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p l>C
Observe teachers 0 28.6 "°. 1 0 I I. 7 18.7 28.6 35. 1 32.6 71. 4 24.7 8.6 x Conferences on observation 0 32.1 42.8 4.8 15.4 18.6 28.6 26.9 28.2 66.7 25.6 10.6 x Write reports of observation 0 38.5 56. 1 4.8 19.1 18.2 28.6 24.4 17.2 66.7 17.9 8.6 x Work with teachers on techniques 0 9.0 18.9 0 10.3 23.2 14.3 26.9 34.6 85.7 53.8 23.2 x x Review lesson plans 19.0 51. 9 63.5 9.5 18.2 23.8 42.9 18.2 9.0 28.6 1I.7 3.7 x Evaluate teachers 38. 1 51. 3 59.9 9.5 11. 5 14.4 23.8 23.1 16.6 28.6 14. 1 9.1 Monitor student progress 4.8 27.8 41. 0 4.8 27.8 26.6 52.4 26.6 25.0 38. 1 17.7 7.4 x Encourage, stimulate, motivate 0 0 3.2 0 2.5 13.2 9.5 19.0 27.5 90.5 78.5 56.1 x x
Curriculum
NO IMPORTANCE HIN IMPORTANCE HOD IMPORTANCE HAJ IMPORTANCE • ITEH DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC
Coordinate curriculum 0 2.5 2.6 0 10.1 1 8.5 19.0 20.3 32.2 81.0 67.1 56.6 x x Test and evaluate programs 0 10.5 8.5 15.0 14.5 27.7 35.0 36.8 35. 1 50.0 38.2 28.7 x x Work in developing curriculum 0 1. 3 3.7 9.5 8.9 16.0 23.8 34.2 38.5 66.7 55.7 41. 7 x x Assist in modifying curriculum 0 7.6 5.3 0 12.7 23 ... 38.1 27.8 39.4 61. 9 51. 9 31. 9 x x Assist in textbooks selection 0 0 4.2 4.8 13.9 14.8 33.3 32.9 37.0 61. 9 53.2 43.9 x x Inform teachers of new trends 0 1. 3 I. 3 0 8.9 16.0 33.3 36.7 38.3 66.7 53.2 44.7 x x Establish resource center 9.5 16.2 13.8 9.5 11. 4 22.3 52.4 53.0 36.2 28.6 30.4 27.7 x x Observe programs in other schools 0 5.1 9.0 38.1 24.1 35.1 23.8 39.2 36.2 38.1 31. 6 19.7 x Recruit students into courses 0 16.2 21. 7 33.3 24.1 31. 2 33.3 26.6 28.6 33.3 34. 2 18.5 x
Personnel
NO IMPORTANCE HIN IMPORTANCE MOD IMPORTANCE MAJ IMPORTANCE • ITEM DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC
Orientate new teachers 0 1.3 2.1 14.3 7.6 9.5 23.8 31.6 28.0 61. 9 59.5 60.3 x x Work.with substitutes 0 10.1 16.4 23.8 20.3 21. 7 42.9 32.9 28.0 33.3 36.7 33.9 x x Assist with interviews of teachers 0 6.1 10.6 0 10.1 12.2 42.9 24.1 30.7 57.1 60.8 46.6 x x Assist in selection of teachers 0 6.3 11. 6 0 10. 1 14.3 42.9 21.6 29.1 57.1 62.0 35.0 x x Assist in scheduling in the dept. 0 2.6 2.6 4.8 3.8 6.9 23.8 20.5 29.6 71.4 73.1 60.8 x x
• 66X or aore of respondents indicated moderate to major importance
T
x
T
x x x x x
T
x x x x
en ~
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
35. 36. 37. 38, 40.
Table 15 (continued)
Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions as to What Should be The Role of The Department Chair by Category and Item
Mana11ement
NO TIME MIN AMT TIME HOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p
Plan and conduct meetinll• 0 0 1.6 4.8 6.3 15.9 33.3 54.4 37.6 61. 9 39.2 45.0 x Arran11e room aaai11ruaenta 9.5 50.6 42.8 33.3 21.5 28.3 47.8 19.0 16.8 9.5 8.9 12.3 Prepare and monitor bud11et 0 15.2 12.8 28.6 11.4 11. 7 47.6 38.0 34.0 23.8 35.4 41.5 x Repair & replace•ent of equip•ent 0 8.9 24.5 47.8 35.4 28.7 47.8 31.8 27.1 4.8 24.1 19. 7 Order auppliea and equip•ent 0 2.5 4.8 9.5 6.3 12. 7 66.7 39.2 36.0 23.8 51.9 46.8 x Maintain an inventory 4.8 2.5 7.9 4.8 20.3 18.0 57 .1 30.4 42.9 33.3 46.8 31.2 x Complete for•• and 11ather data 0 0 4.3 19.0 23.1 20.9 57 .1 32.1 36.4 23.8 44.9 38.5 x
Staff Development
NO TIME HIN AMT TIME HOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION
p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T
Arrange interclass visitation 52.4 67. 1 69.3 28.6 25.3 23.8 14.3 7.8 6.9 4.8 0 0 Demo instructional techniques 23.8 40.5 45.5 57 .1 38.7 38.9 14.3 1'1. 7 13.4 4.8 5.1 4.3 Asaess needs for inservice 23.8 43.8 43.9 52.4 30.8 40.6 23.8 19.2 13.4 0 6.4 2.1 Develop & imple•ent inservices 4.8 35.9 39.4 57. 1 33.3 38.8 33,3 20.5 17.6 4.8 10.3 4.3 Encourage exchange of ideaa and strate11ies 0 7.6 18.6 42.9 32.9 41.5 33.3 31.6 26.6 23.8 27.8 13.3 Encoura11e membership in prof or1anizations 4.8 11. 4 33.5 66.7 50.6 48.8 14.3 25.3 13.3 14.3 12. 7 6.4
Communication
NO TIME HIN AMT TIME HOD AMT TIME MAJ AMT TIME ITEM DESCRIPTION p DC T p DC T p DC T p DC T p
Foster public relations 4.8 6.3 25.7 38. 1 38.7 43.9 42.9 31.6 20.9 14.3 25.3 9.6 Act as department spokesman 0 0 0 14.3 10.1 21.8 28.6 40.5 35.1 57 .1 49.4 43.1 x Act as s liaison 0 1.3 3.7 14.2 10.3 22.9 38.1 33.1 30.9 47.6 55 .1 42.6 x Interpret policies and procedures 0 1.3 2.7 19.0 111. 2 29.9 47 .6 44.2 28.7 33.3 39.2 39.4 x Assist in resolving conflicts 33.3 31.6 57,8 42.9 39.2 29.9 19.0 21.5 8.6 4.8 7.6 3. 7
• DC
x x x x x
• p DC
• DC
x x x
• 66X or more of respondents indicated •oderate to major amount of time
T
x x x x x
T
T
x x x
en (,)
Management
Item 22. Item 24.
Item 25.
Item 26. Item 27.
Item 28.
64
Planning and conducting department meetings Preparing and monitoring the department budget Arranging for repair and replacement of equipment Ordering supplies and equipment Maintaining an inventory of text books, equipment and supplies Completing forms and gathering departmental data requested by the school or division
Communications
Item 35.
Item 36. Item 37.
Fostering good public relations and communication within the community Acting as a department spokesman Acting as a liaison between teachers and the administration.
There was not agreement among the groups in the
categories of staff development and supervision. Table 15
identifies the differences among the responses of
principals, department chairs and teachers in the categories
of supervision, and staff development.
Supervision
Supervision is the category in which the greatest
discrepancy was discovered. As can be seen in Table 15 the
perceptions of the principals were different from those of
department chairs and teachers.
65
Teachers
In general, teachers did not perceive supervisory tasks
as being an important responsibility when identifying the
role the department chair should have. This is evidenced by
their responses as reported in Table 15. Out of the eight
items listed under supervision, 80% of the teachers agreed
that one item was of moderate to major importance. It was:
Item 8. Encouraging, stimulating and motivating teachers.
Sixty-six percent or more of the teachers were in agreement
that the following tasks should either not be a
responsibility or should be of only minor importance to the
role of the department chair:
Item 3.
Item 5. Item 6. Item 7.
Preparing written reports of classroom observations Reviewing teacher lesson plans Evaluating teachers Monitoring student progress in courses within the department.
There was little agreement among teachers as to desired role
for the department chair on the following tasks:
Item 1. Item 2.
Item 4.
Observing teachers in the classroom Holding conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations Working with teachers to improve their instructional techniques.
The modal response for items 1 and 2 was that of no
responsibility, with 40% of the teachers so reporting.
However, 20% of the teachers responded minor importance and
66
30% moderate importance. Item 4 was perceived as more
important than items 1 and 2. The modal response for item 4
was moderate importance (35%), but the remaining teachers
distributed their responses across the other three answer
selections, providing no clear consensus as to the relative
importance of this task.
Department Chairs
Department chairs tended to agree with teachers that
the tasks in supervision were not as important to the role
of the department chair as tasks identified in other
categories. More than 66% of the department chairs were of
the opinion that two of the eight items in supervision were
of moderate to major importance (Table 15). Those items
reported by department chairs were:
Item 4.
Item 8.
Working with teachers to improve their instructional techniques (80%) Encouraging, stimulating and motivating teachers (90%).
It is clear department chairs were united in their vision
that the role of the department chair should be to
encourage, stimulate, and motivate teachers, and work with
teachers to improve their instruction. However, there were
differences of opinion among the department chairs as to the
importance of the following items:
Item 1. Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 7.
67
Observing teachers in the classroom Holding conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations Preparing written reports of classroom observations Monitoring student progress in courses within the department.
As can be seen from Table 15, their responses were dispersed
among the four categories with no clear agreement.
Approximately 30% of the chairs responded that observing
teachers and conferencing with them about the visit should
not be a responsibility, while over 50% indicated it should
be of moderate to major importance. Items 3 and 7 reflected
a similar pattern with slightly more department chairs than
in items 1 and 2 indicating no responsibility and slightly
fewer reporting moderate to major importance. These four
items represent a conflicting view among department chairs.
There was greater agreement among department chairs on
item 6, evaluating teachers. Over 50% indicated that this
should not be a responsibility of the department chair
(Table 15).
Principals
Principals disagreed with teachers and department
chairs as to the importance of the items in supervision.
Sixty-six percent or more of all principals believe seven of
the eight items in supervision should be of moderate to
68
major importance in the role of the department chair. The
one item in supervision upon which principals differed was
item 6, evaluating teachers. While more than half the
principals indicated it should be of moderate to major
importance, almost 40% said it should not be a
responsibility. Of the 40 items on the survey, this item
was one of the few on which principals were not in
agreement.
More than 66% of the principals indicated that five of
the eight items in supervision were of major importance.
These five items with the percent responding major
importance included:
Item 1. Item 2.
Item 3.
Item 4.
Item 8.
Observing teachers in the classroom (71%) Holding conferences with teaches concerning classroom observations (67%) Preparing written reports of classroom observations (67%) Working with teachers to improve their instructional techniques (85%) Encouraging, stimulating, and motivating teachers (91%).
While principals agreed that reviewing teacher lesson
plans on a regular basis (item 5), and monitoring student
progress (item 7) were important, they did not feel that
these items were as important as the five items previously
mentioned (see Table 15).
69
Staff Development
Principals and department chairs were in general
agreement on the importance of items within the category of
staff development. As can be noted on Table 15 there were
differences between the perceptions of the teachers and
those of principals and department chairs. Sixty-six
percent or more of the principals indicated all items in the
category were of moderate to major importance. All but one
item was identified by 66% of the department chairs as such.
However, 66% of the teachers reported only one item in staff
development was of moderate to major importance.
Teachers
With the exception of one item, teachers reported the
tasks in staff development should be of minor to moderate
importance (Table 15). The exception to this was:
Item 33. Encouraging teachers to exchange ideas and teaching strategies.
Eighty-five percent of the teachers indicated that this item
should be of moderate to major importance.
Department Chairs
While 66% or more of the department chairs responded
that five of the six items were of moderate to major
70
importance, department chairs agreed with the teachers that
the most important task in staff development was encouraging
teachers to exchange ideas and teaching strategies (Table
15 } • Those tasks identified by 66% or more of the chairs as
of moderate to major importance were:
Item 30.
Item 31.
Item 32.
Item 33.
Item 34.
Demonstrating or arranging demonstration of instructional techniques Assessing teachers' needs for inservice education Developing and/or implementing inservice activities Encouraging teachers to exchange ideas and teaching strategies Encouraging membership in professional organizations and attendance at professional conferences and workshops.
Department chairs did not view arranging interclass
visitation as being an important function of the department
chair. While 66% or more identified five of the six items
as of moderate to major importance, the items in staff
development were not rated as important by as large a
percent of department chairs as were those items in
management, communication, and personnel.
Principals
Principals were in agreement that staff development
should be of moderate to major importance in the role the
department chair should have. Seventy-five percent or more
71
responded that all items in this category should be of
moderate to major importance, including:
Item 29.
Item 30.
Item 3 1 .
Item 32.
Item 33.
Item 34.
Arranging interclass visitation among teachers Demonstrating or arranging demonstration of instructional techniques Assessing teachers' needs for inservice education Developing and/or implementing inservice activities Encouraging teachers to exchange ideas and teaching strategies Encouraging membership in professional organizations and attendance at professional conferences and workshops.
Hours Needed By The Department Chair
As can be seen from Table 16, principals indicated that
department chairs needed more time to perform the role they
described than did either department chairs or teachers.
The principals estimated 18.1 hrs/week would be needed to
perform the tasks described. Department chairs estimated 12
hours and teachers, 10.6 hrs/week. It should be noted that
the role of the department chair described by principals
would result in increased responsibilities in every
category. Principals indicated that 38 of the 40 items
should be of moderate to major importance in the role of the
department chair, compared to 30 items identified as such by
department chairs and 21 by teachers (see Table 15 page 62).
72
Table 16
Principals, Department Chairs and Teachers Perceptions of the Time Required to Perform the Duties Described in the
Role the Department Chair Should Have
Reference Group
Principals
Department Chairs
Teachers
Hours/Week Mean
18.1
12.0
10.6
SD N
9.3 21
7.0 73
7.5 166
73
Summary of Research Question 2
There was general agreement among the groups that the
tasks identified in management, communications, personnel,
and curriculum should be of moderate to major importance in
describing what role department chairs should have. There
was less agreement regarding tasks in staff development, and
supervision.
While principals and department chairs indicated that
the majority of the items in staff development were of
moderate to major importance, teachers perceived only one
item to be. Teachers agreed that encouraging teachers to
exchange ideas and teaching strategies was of moderate to
major importance.
There were differences both among the groups and within
the groups regarding items in the category of supervision.
Principals expressed the greatest consistency within their
group with 95% identifying all except two items as being of
moderate to major importance. The tasks identified as
important by 95% of the principals were:
observing teachers in classroom holding conferences about observations preparing written reports of observations working with teachers to improve instruction monitoring student progress in department encouraging and stimulating teachers.
Principals disagreed among themselves on the importance of
evaluating teachers, item 6. While over 50% indicated that
74
it should be of moderate to major importance, 38% felt it
should not be a responsibility of the department chair.
This was one of the few items on which principals disagreed
among themselves.
Teachers agreed that department chairs should have a
minor role, if any, in the following supervision tasks:
preparing written reports of observations reviewing teacher lesson plans regularly evaluating teachers monitoring student progress in courses.
They did not agree among themselves as to the role the
department chair should have in:
observing teachers in the classroom holding conferences concerning observations working with teachers to improve instruction.
Department chairs were clear that the role should
include these tasks:
working with teachers to improve instruction encouraging and stimulating teachers.
There were differences of opinion among department chairs as
to the importance of the following tasks:
observing teachers in the classroom holding conferences concerning observations working with teachers to improve instruction monitoring student progress in courses.
Principals estimated that 18 hrs/week would be
necessary to perform the tasks that should be done. The
estimates of department chairs and teachers were lower at 12
and 11 hours respectively. Principals identified a greater
75
number of tasks than did department chairs or teachers as
being of moderate to major importance in their responses to
the role the department chair should have.
Research Question 3: Discrepancies between time and role
The purpose of research question number 3 was to
determine the discrepancies between reported time spent and
reported role department chairs should have in supervision,
curriculum, personnel, management, communication and staff
development.
It is recognized that examination of time spent on
tasks and role importance of tasks may not necessarily be
measuring the same factor. It is further recognized that
tasks which take a great deal of time may be of little
importance in determining the role the department chair
should have. Also, items which take only a little time may
be of major importance. With these factors recognized as
shortcomings in such a comparison, an examination of the
discrepancies between reported time spent and reported
desired role of the department chair was conducted in the
categories of supervision, curriculum, personnel,
management, communication, and staff development.
76
Conflict Matrix
A matrix was developed for each category relating time
spent to role importance. No conflict exists when the time
spent and role importance are in agreement (low time spent,
low role importance; medium time spent, medium role
importance; high time spent, high role importance). A
conflict occurs when the perceived time spent is different
than the perceived role importance (low time spent, high
importance; high time spent, low importance). Refer to
Table 17 on page 78 for an example. Responses that fall
along the diagonal are not in conflict. Those responses
which fall above or below the diagonal are.
In each category examined, a large percentage of all
three reference groups indicated that the tasks comprising
the categories were of greater importance than the time
spent on the tasks.
Supervision
The category that offered the greatest discrepancy
among the three groups between time spent and reported
desired role of the department chair was supervision.
Identification of seven of the eight tasks in supervision as
taking the least amount of the department chair's time
indicated agreement among the groups that little if any time
77
is currently spent by the department chair in supervision
(Table 10) .
There was disagreement among the three groups as to the
role the department chair should have in supervision. Total
scores in supervision represented the greatest discrepancy
between reported time spent and reported role importance of
the department chairs among principals. Ninety-one percent
of all principals indicated a conflict in the time
spent/role importance of the department chair expressing the
view that role importance was greater than time spent (Table
1 7 ) • The figures for teachers differed. Fifty-five
percent indicated no conflict in time spent on departmental
duties versus importance to the role the department chair
should have. In other words they felt that the time spent
by the department chair on tasks identified in the category
labeled supervision was consistent with the importance of
the responsibility of the tasks. No respondent reported
that the time spent on supervision was greater than the
importance to the role of the department chair.
Thirty-four percent of the department chairs saw no
discrepancy in how the department chair spends time versus
the reported role the department chair should have (Table
17). The remaining 66% saw the role importance being
greater than the time spent in the category of supervision.
78
Table 17
Relationship Of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have In Supervision
Supervision Supervision Role
Time
High
Medium
Low
Low
91(T) 25(DC)
O(P)
Med
6(T) l(DC) 2(P)
57(T) 29(DC)
2(P)
Missing Obs
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
12 3 0
Percent Agreement and Conflict By
Group % No conflict % Role Importance Greater Than
Time Spent
T 98/177 = 55.4 79/177 = 44.6
DC 26/76 = 34.2 50/77 = 65.8
p 2/21 = 9.5 19/21 = 90.5
Group
High
1 ( T) O(DC) O(P)
2(T) 2(DC) 1 ( p)
20(T) 9(DC)
16(P)
Total
177 76 21
% Time Spent Greater Than
Role Importance
0
0
0
79
In the item analysis there was no item in which 50% or
more of the teachers recommended above a minor amount of
time for any task in supervision. A comparison of time
spent/role importance showed that there were only two items
that were rated above minor importance by 50% of more of the
teachers when indicating the role the department chair
should have in the category of supervision (Table 15).
Those two items were to work with teachers to improve
instructional techniques (item 4), and to encourage,
stimulate and motivate teachers (item 8).
For four items, over fifty percent of the department
chairs indicated that the tasks should be of moderate to
major importance in identifying the role the department
chair should have (Table 15). In addition to the two items
selected by the teachers, were the tasks of observing
teachers in the classroom and holding conferences with
teachers concerning classroom observations. In the time
analysis, the only task in which 50% or more of the
department chairs scored any item above minor amount of time
was item number 8, to encourage, stimulate, and motivate
(Table 11). This was also the only item that over 50% of
the principals scored above minor importance in the time
analysis. All items in the category of supervision had 50%
80
or more of the principals reporting the tasks above minor
importance in the role analysis (Table 15).
Management
Based on the total scores for management, approximately
60% of all principals, department chairs and teachers
reported no conflict in the time spent/role importance
relationship (Table 18). This category had the highest "no
conflict" percentage for all three groups. Six percent of
the teachers and 5% of the principals expressed the view
that more time was spent on management by the department
chair than the ideal role importance would indicate should
be spent. One percent of the department chairs agreed. The
responses of 35% of each group indicated that the category
of management is of greater importance than the time spent
on management tasks.
Personnel
Approximately 76% of all groups have total scores that
indicate a conflict between time spent/role importance in
personnel with all groups indicating that the role
importance is greater than the time spent (Table 19). Two
percent of the teachers thought that the time spent by the
81
Table 18
Relationship Of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have in Management
Management
Time Low
High
Medium 5(T)
Low 4(T)
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
Management Role
Med
6(T) l(DC) 1 ( p)
42(T) 24(DC)
5(P)
lO(T) l(DC)
Missing Obs
6 4 1
Percent Agreement And Conflict By
Group % No conflict % Role Importance Greater Than
Time Spent
T 107/183= 58.5 65/183 = 35.5
DC 48/75 = 64.0 26/75 = 34.6
p 12/20 = 60.0 7/20 = 35.0
Group
High
6(T) 24(DC)
7(P)
49(T) 24(DC)
6(P)
6(T) 1 (DC) 1 ( p)
Total
183 75 20
% Time Spent Greater Than
Role Importance
11/183 = 6.0
1/75 = 1. 3
1/20 = 5.0
82
Table 19
Relationship Of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have In Personnel
Personnel
Time Low
High
Medium 3(T)
Personnel Role
Med
1 ( T)
19(T) 5(DC) 3(P)
Low 8(T) 5(DC)
44(T) 13(DC)
3(P)
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
Missing Obs
3 1 0
High
15 ( T) 6(DC) 3(P)
45(T) 26(DC) lO(P)
51(T) 23(DC)
2 ( p)
Total
186 78 21
Percent Agreement And Conflict By Group
Group
T
DC
p
% No conflict % Role Importance Greater Than
Time Spent
42/186 = 22.5
16/78 = 20.5
6/21 = 28.6
140/186 = 75.3
51/78 = 79.5
15/21 = 71.4
% Time Spent Greater Than
Role Importance
4/186 = 2
0
0
83
department chair in personnel was greater than the
importance of that role for the department chair.
Communication
The category of communication received total scores
that suggested agreement among all groups in their
perceptions of time spent/role importance (Table 20).
Slightly over half of each group have scores that show no
conflict of time spent/role importance with the remaining
showing greater role importance than time spent. Three
percent of the teachers and department chairs felt that the
time spent was greater than the role importance for
communication. All others expressed the opinion that the
role importance was greater than the time spent.
Curriculum
Almost three-fourths of the principals and department
chairs felt that there was a conflict in time spent/role
importance in the category of curriculum (Table 21). Both
groups agreed that the role importance was greater than the
time spent on the tasks. Fifty-eight percent of the
teachers felt that there was a conflict in the time
spent/role importance indicating that the role importance
was greater than the time spent in curriculum. Less than
84
Table 20
Relationship Of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have In Communication
Communication
Time
High
Medium
Low
Low
1 (DC)
3 ( T)
6(T) 1 (DC)
Communication
Med
3(T) 1 (DC)
42(T) 12(DC)
4(P)
16(T) 2(DC) 1 ( p)
Role
High
30(T) 3(DC) 2(P)
40(T) 28(DC) 6(P)
8(T) 29(DC)
8(P)
Missing Obs Total
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
4 2 0
185 77 21
Percent Agreement And Conflict By Group
Group
T
DC
p
% No conflict % Role Importance % Time Spent
93/185 = 50.3
42/77 = 54.5
12/21 = 57.0
Greater Than Greater Than Time Spent Role Importance
86/185 = 46.5
33/77 = 42.9
9/21 = 43.0
6/185 = 3.2
2/77 = 2.6
0
85
Table 21
Relationship Of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Deparatment Chair should Have in Curriculum
Curriculum
Time
High
Medium
Low
Low
1 ( T)
16 ( T) 5(DC) O(P)
Curriculum Role
Med
3 5 ( T) 9(DC) 2 ( p)
36(T) ll(DC)
1 ( p)
Missing Obs
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
10 4 1
Percent Agreement And Conflict By Group
High
18(T) 6(DC) 3 ( p)
35(T) 28(DC) lO(P)
38(T) 16(DC) 4(P)
Total
179 75 20
Group % No conflic~ j% Role I ,
Importancej % Time Spent Greater Than Greater Than
Time Spent Role Importance
T 74/179 = 41. 3 104/179 = 58.1 1/179 = • 6
DC 20/75 = 26.7 55/75 = 73.3 0
p 5/20 = 25.0 15/20 = 75.0 0
86
one percent of the teachers thought that time spent was
greater than role importance (Table 21).
Staff Development
There was agreement between department chairs and
teachers on the conflict of time spent/role importance in
staff development (Table 22). Approximately 63% of both
groups felt that the role importance was greater than the
time spent by the department chair in this category.
Principals expressed the same view, but with 80% indicating
a conflict where role importance was greater than time
spent. Two percent of the teachers felt that time spent was
greater than role importance.
Summary of Question 3
In summary all groups felt that there was a conflict in
all categories of time spent/role importance. All believed
that each category was more important than the time being
spent by department chairs in the category. The categories
showing the least conflict of time spent/role importance
were management and communication. The category of greatest
discrepancy among groups was supervision (Table 23). While
91% of the principals indicated that the role importance was
greater than the time spent in supervision, only 66% of the
87
Table 22
Relationship of Reported Time Spent And Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have in Staff Development
Staff Development Staff Development Role
Time Low
High 1 ( T)
Medium 3 ( T) 25(T) ll(DC) 2(P)
High
8(T) 7(DC) 2(P)
19(T) 16(DC)
7 ( p)
Low 33(T) 9(DC)
60(T) 36(T) 18(DC) 15(DC)
Teachers (T) Department Chairs (DC) Principals (P)
Missing Obs
4 3 0
5(P) 5 ( p)
Total
185 76 21
Percent Agreement And Conflict By Group
Group
T
DC
p
% No conflict % Role Importance % Time Spent
66/185 = 37.5
27/76 = 35.5
4/21 = 19.0
Greater Than Greater Than Time Spent Role Importance
117/185 = 63.2
49/76 = 64.5
17/21 = 81.0
4/185 = 2
0
0
Table 23
Principal, Department Chair, and Teacher Perceptions of Role Conflict Between Time Spent and Importance to the
Role the Department Chair Should Have
Category % No Conflict %Role Importance Between Time Spent Greater than Time And Role Importance Spent
p DC T p DC
Supervision 9.5 34.2 55.4 90.5 65.8
Curriculum 25.0 26.7 41. 3 75.0 73.3
Personnel 28.6 20.5 22.5 71. 4 79.5
Management 60.0 64.0 58.5 35.0 34.6
Staff Dev 19.0 35.5 37.5 81. 0 64.5
Communication 50.3 54.5 57.0 43.0 42.9
T
44.6 CX> CX>
58.1
75.3
35.5
63.2
46.5
89
department chairs, and 45% of the teachers agreed. Other
categories in which a large percentage of all groups
indicated role importance was greater than time spent
included personnel and curriculum.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to describe how high
school department chairs spend their time and examine
preferences as to the role they should have in a large
suburban school system.
Sample
This study consisted of 21 schools in Fairfax County
serving grades 9-12. The subjects were the principals of
those schools; the department chairs of English, science,
foreign language and industrial arts in each school; and
teachers in each of the previously mentioned departments
from each school. The names of the principals were
obtained from the central office. A list of teachers and
department chairs in the four departments being examined was
obtained from central and area subject specialists. Using
these lists three teachers per department were randomly
selected from each school in all departments except
industrial arts. The number of industrial arts teachers
surveyed was limited in some schools by the number of
teachers in the department.
90
91
Data Collection
Through a search of the literature, a survey consisting
of 40 items identified as tasks that department chairs
commonly perform and a questionnaire to gather demographic
information were distributed to each subject. On the left-
hand side of each survey item the subject was instructed to
rate from 1-4 the amount of time spent by the department
chair on each of the 40 tasks. Using a similar scale on the
right-hand side, the subject was asked to indicate the
importance of the tasks to the role of the department chair.
The response rate was 100% for principals, 95% for
department chairs, and 88% for teachers.
Data Analysis
Responses to the forty items of the survey were
analyzed using SPSSX. Data were reported as frequencies,
means, standard deviations, and percentages. Because of the
policy and regulation differences discovered in the
administrative organization and responsibilities of
department chairs in one school, those data were eliminated
from the analysis.
The analysis of question 3 was based on total scores
for each of the six categories for both "time spent'' and
"role importance." Total scores for categories were
92
obtained for each subject by adding the ratings of all items
within a category. Individual total scores for each category
were then redistributed into three categories: high,
medium, and low. This method assumed equal weight of all
items within a category. This was done in an effort to
capture tendencies. Crosstabs of time spent versus role
importance were performed on all 40 items on the survey for
principals, department chairs, and teachers. The results of
the 120 crosstabs were then combined into 40 conflict matrix
tables. The conflict matrix table for each item is
presented in Appendix E.
Demographic Information
The average department chair in the study was assigned
to a school with a student population of 1501-2000, was
white and well-educated, having completed additional hours
past the Master's degree. Fifty-eight percent of the
department chairs were females. The average department
chair was between 41 and 50 years of age, with 19 years
teaching experience, and had been a department chair for 5.5
years. Most functioned without a job description and worked
a regular teaching contract of 193 days. English was the
largest department with 64% having more than 16 department
members. Science and foreign language departments averaged
93
10-15 members, while industrial arts departments had less
than 10 members. All the English and science department
chairs had a release period, as did 70% of the foreign
language department chairs. There was conflicting data
concerning the release period of the person who served as
department chair for industrial arts. While 40% of those
serving as department chair for industrial arts indicated
they taught fewer than five classes during a six period day,
only 15% reported having a period for departmental duties.
Forty percent of those identified by the school as serving
as department chair for industrial arts teachers were from
other departments.
The department chair in this study was typically
selected by a previous principal. Principals met one or
more times a month with their department chairs. In
addition, department chairs scheduled one or more meetings
per month with members of their departments. No department
chair in this school system received supplemental salary for
duties performed as department chair.
Summary
Research Question 1: How do high school department chairs
spend their time in the areas of supervision, curriculum,
94
personnel, management, communications, and staff
development?
All groups were in general agreement as to how
department chairs spend their time, but there was some
disagreement on the amount of time spent. Principals and
department chairs perceive that department chairs spend more
time on the various tasks than do teachers. Estimates of
weekly expenditure of time spent by the department chair on
departmental duties by principals and department chairs were
in close agreement at 8.2 and 8.1 hours/week, respectively.
Teachers perceive department chairs spend slightly less time
as evidenced by their estimate of 6.7 hours.
The tasks occupying the greatest amount of the
department chair's time were found in the categories of
management and communication. Those tasks include:
planning and conducting department meetings preparing and monitoring the budget ordering supplies and equipment maintaining an inventory completing forms and gathering departmental data acting as a department spokesman acting as a liaison interpreting policies and procedures.
In addition principals perceive that a moderate to
major amount of time is spent by the department chairs on
the following items:
coordinating curriculum working with teachers to develop curriculum assisting in selection of instructional materials assisting in scheduling teacher assignments.
95
Outside management and communications, only two tasks
were reported by 50% or more of the teachers as taking more
than a minor amount of the department chair's time. They
were:
coordinating curriculum assisting in selection and evaluation of instructional materials.
The least amount of time is spent in the category of
supervision. There was agreement among the groups that
department chairs spend essentially no time on tasks
associated with evaluation and/or improvement of instruction
through direct supervision or monitoring of teachers
including:
observing teachers holding conferences about the observations preparing written reports of observation monitoring student progress in the department reviewing teacher lesson plans evaluating teachers.
Research Question 2: What do the principals, department
chairs, and teachers believe should be the role of high
school department chairs as defined by responsibilities in
supervision, curriculum, personnel, management,
communications, and staff development?
Research question 2 attempted to identify the role
principals, department chairs, and teachers believe the
department chair should have. All groups agreed that the
96
role of the department chair should be expanded to increase
responsibilities in all categories. There were, however,
differences found among the groups as to the focus and
magnitude of that change. As was the case in research
questions 1, principals rated most items higher than did
department chairs or teachers.
Sixty-six percent or more of the principals indicated
that 38 of the 40 items on the survey were of moderate to
major importance while 30 were reported by department chairs
and 21 by teachers. There was general agreement of the
importance of items among the three groups in the categories
of management, communication, personnel, and curriculum.
The 18 tasks on which all groups agreed were:
Curriculum
coordinating curriculum within the department working with teachers in developing curriculum assisting teachers in modifying curriculum assisting in selection and evaluation of materials keeping teachers informed of new trends
Personnel
assisting in the orientations of new teachers assisting with interviews of teachers assisting in the selection of new teachers assisting in scheduling and in teaching assignments
Management
planning and conducting department meetings preparing and monitoring the budget arranging for repair and replacement of equipment ordering supplies and equipment maintaining an inventory of books & equipment completing forms and gathering departmental data
97
Communication
fostering good relations and communication acting as a department spokesman acting as a liaison
In the categories of curriculum and staff development,
principals indicate that recruiting of students and
arranging interclass visitation among teachers is more
important than department chairs perceive it to be.
Department chairs believe visiting other schools to observe
programs is more important than do principals.
Only one item in staff development was identified by
66% of the teachers as being of moderate to major
importance. That item was encouraging teachers to exchange
ideas and strategies.
There was less agreement among the groups with regard
to the items listed as supervision. Principals described an
expanded role in this area to include the following tasks:
observing teachers in the classroom holding conferences about the observations preparing written reports of observation working with teachers to improve instruction monitoring student progress in the department encouraging and stimulating teachers.
Principals did not agree among themselves about one item.
While over half indicated evaluation of teachers should be
of moderate to major importance, almost 40% indicated it
should not be a responsibility.
98
Department chairs and teachers agreed with principals
that chairs should encourage and stimulate teachers. They
agreed within their groups that the role should not include
evaluation of teachers or written reports of observations.
They differed within their groups as to whether department
chairs should be responsible for the following:
observing teachers in the classroom holding conferences concerning observations working with teachers to improve instruction.
While principals had high~r expectations for the
department chair (38 of 40 items identified by 66% as of
moderate to major importance), they also recognized that the
task would require more time. Principals estimated that 18
hours/week would be required for the department chair to do
the tasks that should be done. Estimates by department
chairs and teachers of time needed were 12 and 11 hours/week
respectively.
Research Question 3: What are the discrepancies between
reported time spent and reported ideal role of department
chairs in supervision, curriculum, personnel, management,
communications, and staff development?
Research question 3 examined the discrepancies between
reported time spent and reported ideal role of the
department chair. Using crosstabs, discrepancies were
99
sought between reported time spent on a task and reported
role importance. Conflict was discovered between "time
spent'' and "role importance" in all six categories for all
three groups. The conflict was one in which role importance
within a category was consistently rated higher than the
amount of time currently spent on tasks within the category.
The ranges were from a low of 40% conflict by all groups in
the category of management to a high of 90% conflict
expressed by principals in supervision (see Table 23).
For three categories all groups were in close agreement
in the degree of conflict identified between role importance
and time spent. From the lowest to the highest conflict in
order were: management (40%), communication (43%), and
personnel (75%).
The category in which the conflict was lowest was
management where a conflict matrix relating amount of time
spent to role importance showed close agreement among groups
with approximately 40% of each group in conflict. Thirty-
five percent of those indicated that the role importance was
greater than the time spent.
There was agreement among the groups in the
categories of communication and personnel. Role importance
in communication was identified as being greater than time
spent by 43% of each group. In the category of personnel
100
this discrepancy grew to three-fourths of each group who
felt that the role importance was greater than the time
spent.
In the category of staff development principals
expressed greater discrepancy between time spent and role
importance than did teachers or department chairs. Four-
fifths of the principals indicated that the role importance
was greater than time spent compared to approximately two-
thirds of the teachers and department chairs.
Teachers reported less discrepancy between time spent
and role importance in curriculum than did principals or
department chairs. Approximately three-fourths of the
department chairs and principals had total scores indicating
that the role importance was greater than the time spent,
with 58% of the teachers agreeing.
The greatest difference among the three groups in the
conflict between "time spent" and "role importance" was in
the category of supervision. Principals showed the
greatest discrepancy with 90% indicating that role
importance was greater than time spent. This was twice the
percentage of teachers' view of conflict in supervision
tasks. Department chairs were between the two groups.
101
Six of the eight items identified by teachers as taking
the greatest amount of time were also identified as tasks
that were most important to the role.
Findings
1. There was general agreement among""principals, department
chairs, and teachers as to how the department chairs spend
their time. There were, however, differences in perception
among the groups as to the amount of time actually spent.
Principals' perceived department chairs spend slightly more
time on departmental duties than department chairs reported;
teachers perceived department chairs spend less time than
department chairs indicated.
2. All three groups believed department chairs spend more
time on departmental duties than they were provided as
release time.
3. All groups agreed that the majority of the department
chair's time is spent on tasks associated with management
and communication. Items in these categories were also
identified by all groups as tasks important to the role the
department chair should have. Therefore, the important
nature of the "paper pusher" and "communicator" cannot be
102
overlooked. All groups expressed expectations that the
chair continue with these tasks in addition to other tasks
that were suggested.
4. Principals were of the opinion that department chairs
spend more time on curriculum than did either department
chairs or teachers. It was also a category in which a need
for increased responsibility in the role was expressed by
all groups, but less so by teachers.
5. There was agreement among the groups that the category
in which the least amount of time was spent by the
department chair was supervision.
6. In suggesting the role the department chair should have,
all groups were in general agreement concerning the
importance of the items in the categories of management,
communication, personnel, and curriculum. The three groups
indicated a conflict in time spent/role importance in all
four categories in which role importance was greater than
time spent. This was especially true of tasks in curriculum
and personnel, suggesting a need for expansion of the role
responsibilities of department chairs in these categories.
Principals and department chairs indicated that staff
103
development was more important than teachers perceived.
Principals perceived the importance of supervision to be
considerably greater than did teachers or department chairs.
These findings relative to the role in supervision were the
same as those found by Kuzminski (1979) and Gimm (1974).
7. The majority of the respondents believe the department
chair should do more of most tasks than they currently do.
Two-thirds of the principals reported 38 of the 40 tasks as
being of moderate to major importance in the role the
department chair should have, 30 reported by department
chairs, and 21 by teachers. This compares to only 13 items
identified by two-thirds of the principals, nine by
department chairs and eight by teachers as tasks on which a
moderate to major amount of time is spent by the department
chair at the present time.
8. Principals expressed an interest in an expanded role
for the department chair in tasks associated with
supervision. While there was disagreement among the
principals regarding whether the department chairs should
evaluate teachers, they were united in their view the
department chair should be observing teachers; conferencing
concerning the observations; preparing written reports of
104
observations; working with teachers to improve instruction;
and encouraging, stimulating, and motivating teachers. The
differences observed in their responses to evaluation may
have been caused by lack of clarity in the question. The
intent of the question was to determine if department chairs
should be involved in evaluation of teachers.
Department chairs and teachers reported with mixed
responses within their groups as to the role the department
chair should have in supervision in regards to observing,
conferencing, and doing written reports on observations, but
were in agreement that evaluation of teachers was of minor
importance to the role the department chair should have.
Conclusions
1. Based on the results of this study it appears that high
school department chairs represent an untapped source
of extended leadership within the school system in the
areas of curriculum, personnel, staff development, and
supervision. Principals seem to recognize the
potential and welcome the leadership department chairs
could provide. There is, however, some reluctance
expressed by the department chairs to assume an
expanded role in supervision. Furthermore, teachers
105
are not particularly interested in an expansion of the
role of department chairs in this area.
2. Principals and teachers may tend to respond to the
tasks to be performed by department chairs in terms of
how the tasks would benefit them. The job of the
principals and teachers is eased by the department
chair as the chair assumes greater responsibilities in
management, communication, personnel, and curriculum.
Principals are probably the prime beneficiary of an
expanded role for the department chair in supervision
and staff development.
3. There are differences of opinion among the three groups
as to the current role of the department chair and the
role the department chair should have. All groups
described the current role as being one of management
and communication. In addition, principals indicated
that the current role includes curriculum. In
contrast, all groups expressed an interest in expanding
the role of the department chair from management and
communication to include personnel and curriculum.
Principals and department chairs expressed a desire to
expand the role in staff development. Supported by
106
principals, but not as enthusiastically by department
chairs and teachers, was an expansion of the role in
the category of supervision.
Recommendations
To Policy Makers:
1. The results of this study should be disseminated to the
school board, superintendent, administrators, department
chairs, and teachers within the county to provide a base for
discussion of the role of the department chair.
2. A clear definition of the role of the department chair
should be established. Job descriptions should be developed
which define the responsibilities and authority of the
chair.
3. Based on the job description a list of processes should
be identified to guide selection of future department
chairs.
4. If the role of the department chair is to be expanded
beyond the management and communication tasks that are
107
currently performed, training should be made available to
department chairs and those aspiring to the position which
would better enable them to perform the job of department
chair. Suggestions for training include supervision of
instruction, evaluation of instructional programs, and
curriculum development (Appendix F). Additional topics for
consideration are organizational skills and team building.
5. Consideration should be given to implementation of a
pilot program with an expansion of the current role of
department chair in communication and management to include
supervision, curriculum, personnel, and staff development.
Besides training, this would necessitate providing
department chairs with additional release time.
To Other Researchers:
If this research were to be repeated there are several
suggestions that should be considered. While initially it
appeared that this was a simple study, the complexity was
revealed in the analysis of the massive amount of data.
Each of the 40 items in the survey had four levels of
responses from three groups for both "time spent" and "role
importance" resulting in 24 possible responses for each
item. It is therefore suggested that the complexity of the
108
survey be reduced. One way of accomplishing this would be
by having subjects respond with a yes or no as to whether
the task should be the role of the department chair. Those
responding yes would then indicate if the task should be a
minor or major responsibility.
Secondly, while it was interesting to see the
perceptions of principals and teachers as to how department
chairs spend their time, the department chair is probably in
the best position to provide that information. Thus, I
would recommend the elimination of principals and teachers
from research question 1.
For Further Study:
Recommendation for further study including the following:
1. A replication of this study in a different school system
or across several school systems.
2. A case study of department chairs in a school in which
their role is supervisory to identify the nature of the
climate and relationship of department chairs to their
teachers when the chair is such a position.
3. A study of the leadership style of department chairs and
members of their department and the relationship of those
109
styles to the perception of effectiveness of the department
chair by department members.
4. A study focusing on the identification of the person(s)
who teachers perceive to be the instructional leader(s)
within the school and who the teachers believe is best
qualified to (a) work with them on instructional improvement
and (b) evaluation of their instruction.
In Retrospect
There are conditions that existed in Fairfax County at
the time of the survey that may have impacted the responses
of the subjects. The system was in the first year of
implementation of a rigorous new teacher performance
evaluation process that will, in the future, result in a
significant pay increase for those teachers who are
identified as the most outstanding teachers. The new
evaluation procedure resulted in an increase in time spent
by administrators on classroom observations and the reports
that followed. It also required difficult decisions to be
made by administrators as they evaluated and rated teachers.
In the fall prior to the survey, one principal
submitted a proposal to the superintendent requesting
110
funding for training and additional release time for her
department chairs to enable them to assume an expanded role
in instructional improvement. The high school principals
had been discussing this proposal and its benefits. The
uniformity of agreement among principals on the survey may
have been a result of these discussions.
As is often the case in major changes, the morale level
of the teachers was lowered by the increased anxiety
generated by the evaluation system. This may have affected
their responses on the survey, particularly in the area of
supervision~ Under the pressure of increased observations
from administrators there may have been a fear that the
department chair, whom most see as a helper, would be one
more person looking over their shoulder.
Comments
Since the beginning of this research I have talked with
hundred of educators including teachers, department chairs,
and principals. Their responses concerning the role of the
department chair always seemed to relate back to two items;
the personality and qualifications of the individual
department chairs. From the discussions, it appeared that
teachers who felt more positive about their department chair
were more apt to indicate the role of the department chair
111
should be increased. Those who were displeased expressed a
reluctance to expand the role, apparently for fear that
their current department chair would assume the new expanded
role. Concern was also expressed by teachers as to the
number of years served by department chairs. A comment from
a teacher summarizes the view expressed by some teachers and
principals:
Department chair positions should be revolving with a change at least every three years. Most department chairs in my building are like Supreme Court Justices, there for life. There's no pleasant method for change or replacement even when there are obvious needs for change.
Principals, department chairs, and teachers agreed in
their comments that if the role was to be expanded
additional time and training would be needed. As one
principal put it, "The chair should be the instructional
leader within the discipline. However, it is crucial that
the chair be given more pay, authority, training, and time
if the position is to have the status it should have."
Frustration was expressed by a department chair who
indicated:
I changed little in the right hand column (role as it should be) because it is inconceivable that the department chair would be given more than one planning period per day. This is not sufficient time to make the department chair a true instructional leader.
Comments from other chairs frustrated by the lack of time
for departmental duties were echoed in this response:
112
There does not seem to be enough time in the day to carry out all of the related duties, science fairs, surveys, department communications, and still teach four classes. The demands of a department chair far exceed the one extra period provided. A large percentage of work is done well beyond contract time on a frequent basis.
A number of department chairs and teachers and a few
principals were of the opinion that a increase in the
supervision role by the department chair may prove to be
harmful to the relationship that currently exists between
department chair and teacher. One department chair
expressed the sentiment this way:
I do not believe we should become involved in the evaluation process as doing so will totally change our relationship with our colleagues. Department chairs should be in a position that enables them to help coordinate and develop the curriculum, not one in which we are viewed as passing judgement.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. S., & Nicholson, G. I. (1987). Instructional leadership--Can it be measured validly? Who performs what functions? NASSP Bulletin, .1_1(502), 28-40.
Aplin, C. O. (1979). Supervisory role expectations of the department chairperson as perceived by teachers, principals, and department chairperson. Dissertation Abstracts International. 40(10), 5256-A. (University Microfilms No. 8008588)
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavich, A. (1972). Introduction to research in education. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Beck, W. R., & Rosenberger, D. S. (1971). Department chairman: Where does he fit in? Clearing House, 46, 48.
Berrier, G. G. (1974). Department chairman: What does he do? Clearing House, 48(7), 432-36.
Berry, J. R. (1977). A study of the current role of the department chairman in selected secondary schools in the state of Alabama. Dissertation Abstracts International, .;!1(12), 7421-A. (University Microfilms No. 7712172)
Bingaman, P. R. (1969). Consider the department chairman. Pennsylvania School Journal, 118, 27.
Buser, R. & Manlove, D. (1966) The department head: Myths and Reality. NASSP Bulletin, 50(313), 99-107.
Callahan, M. G. (1971). The effective school department head. West Nyack, New York, Parker Publishing Co.
Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. A Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, May, 1986.
Clark, C. E. (1978). The method of selection, term of office and responsibilities of academic department heads in selected Philadelphia and suburban senior high schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(4), 1944-A. (University Microfilms No. 7817371)
113
114
Fish, K. L. (1976). Department Chairmen in Urban High Schools. NASSP Bulletin, 60, 106-110.
Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957, Winter). behavior and the administrative process. Review, 65, 423-441.
Social School
Gimm, D. G. (1974). Perceptions of the actual and ideal role of the secondary school department chairman by principals, department chairmen, and teachers in public schools in the metropolitan area of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Dissertation Abstracts International, l.Q.(7), 4074-A. (University Microfilms No. 7500166)
Good, C. V. (Ed.). (1973). Dictionary of education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 172.
Greenfield, W. (1985). Value leadership: The department chairmen's role in instructional improvement. Illinois school research and development, .21.(2), 22-27.
Grieder, C. (1963). Let school department heads be responsible for supervision of instruction. Nations Schools, 11, 8.
Gwynn, J. M. (1961). Theory and Practice of Supervision. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
High, P. B. head.
(1965). The supervisory role of the department Clearing House, 213-15.
Hipps, G. M. (1965). Supervision: a basic responsibility of the department head. Clearing House, 39, 487-91.
Hord, S. M., & Murphy, S. C. (1985). The high school department head: Powerful or powerless in guiding change? A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL) EA 018 229.
Koch, H. C. (1930). Is the department headship in secondary schools a professional myth? School Review, ~, 336.
Kidd, J. L. (1965). The department headship and the supervisory role. NASSP Bulletin, 49, 70-76.
King, F. & Moon, J. (1960). The department head in the public secondary school. NASSP Bulletin, 44, 20-24.
115
Kirkland, G. G. (1978). The role of the department head in large, public senior high schools. Dissertation Abstract International, ~(11), 6436-A. (University Microfilms No. 7911451)
Kuzminski, C. (1980). Relationship between principal's, teacher's, and chairperson's perception of the role of the secondary school department chairperson and the perceived effectiveness of the department chairperson. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(8), 4329-A. (University Microfilms No. 8000864)
Lindsay, D. (1981). You decide: Are department heads management or labor? Executive Educator, 1(10), 24-25.
Mandel, D. & Tucker, M. (1986). The Carnegie Report-A call for redesigning the schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(1), 24-27.
Marcial, G. E. (1984). Department supervisors-are they line or staff administrators? NASSP Bulletin, 68(472), 87-89.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, 1983.
Novack, B. J. (1958) The department headship today. Educational Administration and Supervision, 44, 91-100.
Pedicone, J, J, (1981). Role expectations of department chairpersons in Wisconsin Senior High Schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, ~(10), 4238-A. (University Microfilms No. 8129796)
Ritter, W. E. (1979). Responsibilities of department chairpersons as perceived by exemplary high school principals. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(12), 6079-A. (University Microfilms No. 8012872)
Sampson, L. (1986). The method of selection, term of office and the duties of secondary school department heads in rural high schools of Northwest Georgia. Dissertation Abstracts International, .11., 45-A. (University Microfilms No. 8606088)
116
Sergiovanni, T. J, (1984). Handbook for effective department leadership: Concepts and practices in today's secondary schools (2nd ed.). Massachusetts, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Smith, B. 0. (1979). Perceptions of department chairpersons, principals and teachers concerning the functions of department chairpersons in selected Pennsylvania High Schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39(11), 6456-A. (University Microfilms No. 7910024)
Thomas, B. R. (1984). The role of department chairpersons in selected class AA high schools in Minnesota. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(07), 1951-A. (University Microfilms No. 8423835)
Turner, H. E. (1983). The department head an untapped source of instructional leadership. NASSP Bulletin, Q.1(464), 25-28.
Verchota, J. (1971) The department chairman: manager or specialist. The High School Journal, 128-32.
Wrigg, W. (1972). A case for survival: Chairmen should not be the victim of restructuring. Clearing House, 1..1, 20-21.
Williams, S. (1964). Educational administration in secondary schools. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Worner, W. (1986). Report of Instructional Manager Survey. Janesville, Wisconsin. Unpublished paper.
APPENDIX A
Source of Items Identified as Task Performed by Department Chairs
117
118
The following items have been identified through a search of the literature as being items performed by department chairs i~ some high schools. They have been coded as follows:
1. Sergiovanni (1984) 3. Callahan (1971)
2. Worner (1986) 4. ASCD (1948)
5. Lindsay (1981) 7. High (1965) 9. Sampson (1986)
11. Clark (1978)
6. Busher (1966) 8. Kirkland (1978)
13. Kuzminski (1979) 15. Alpine (1979)
10. Berry (1976) 12. Pedicone (1981) 14. Thomas (1984) 16. Hord & Murphy (1985)
1,2,3,5,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13, 14,15,16
1,2,3,5,6,7,10, 13,14,15,16
1,3,6,7,10,13, 16
3 15I6t81 9 I 10 t 16
3,12,13
1,3,5,6,7,8,10, 12,13,14
3 ) .~ 1 ' 12 ' 1 3 ' 16
1,3,6,12,13,14, 15,16
Observe teachers in the classroom
Hold conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations
Prepare written reports of classroom observations
Work with teachers to improve their instructional techniques
Review teacher lesson plans on a regular basis
Evaluate teachers
Monitor student progress in courses within the department
Coordinate curriculum within the department
1,6,13,14,15,16
1,3,5,6,7,8,9, 10,13,14,15,16
10,12,13
1,2,3,5,6,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14, 16
3,8,9,11,13,14, 15,16
3,12,15,16
1,3,6,10,ll,13, 15,16
3,9,16
1,2,3,6,8,9,11, 13,14,15,16
1,2,3,4,5,9,11, 13,14,15,16
1,2,3,4,5,8,9, 10,11,12,14,15, 16
119
Provide for testing and evaluation of new and existing programs
Work with teachers in developing curriculum
Assist teachers in modifying curriculum to meet the needs of their students
Assist in selection and evaluation of textbooks and other instructional materials
Encourage membership in professional organizations and attendance at professional conferences and workshops
Keep teacher informed of new trends and programs
Establish a curriculum resource center for the staff
Visit other schools to observe their program
Assist in the orientation of new teacher
Work with substitutes in the department to insure continuity of instruction
Assist with the interviews of prospective teachers
1,2,4,8,9,10, 11,12,14,15,16
1,2,3,8,10,11, 12,13,14,15,16
1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8,9,10,11,12, 13,14,15,16
1,8,10,12,15
1,2,3,5,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,16
3,12
1,2,3,4,5,6,8, 10,12,14
1,2,3,4,8,9,10, 14,16
1,2,3,13,16
1,2,3,6,8,11, 13,14,16
1,3,5,8,13,l6
1,3,4,8,12,13, 14,13,16
120
Assist in the selection of new teachers
Assist in establishing the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department
Plan and conducts department meetings
Arrange room assignments for teachers in the department
Prepare and monitor the department budget
Arrange for repair and replacement of equipment
Order supplies and equipment
Maintain an inventory of textbooks, equipment, and supplies
Complete forms and gather departmental data requested by the school administration or county
Foster good public relations and communication within the community
Act as a department spokesman
Act as a liaison between teachers and the administration
5,13,15,16
3,13,16
1,6,9,10,13,14
1,2,3,5,6,8,13, 14,16
1,2,3,5,6,8,9, 13,14,15,16
3,13,16
1,3,8,9,13
2,16
1,11,16
121
Interpret administration policies and procedures to members of the department
Arrange interclass visitation among teachers
Demonstrate or arrange demonstration of instructional techniques
Assess teachers' needs for inservice activities
Develop and/or implement inservice activities
Encourage teachers to exchange ideas and teaching strategies
Encourage membership in professional organizations and attendance at professional conferences and workshops
Recruit students into various courses
Assist in resolving teacher/teacher or parent/teacher conflicts
APPENDIX B
Letter and Survey Sent to Principals, Department Chairs, and Teachers
122
FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Dear Educator:
123
February 1, 1988 Administrative Area I
6520 Diana Lane Alexandria, Virginia 2 2 31 O
The position of department chair has come under great scrutiny in recent years. With the principal being called on to be an instructional leader and with greater emphasis being placed on improvement of instruction, the department chair is viewed by many as a pivotal position in the school organization. I am conducting a study to examine how department chairs in Fairfax County high schools spend their time and to identify what principals, department chairs and teachers believe the role of the department chair should be.
You are one of 17 people in your school who has been selected to provide valuable insight on this issue. Please complete the enclosed survey and questionnaire and return to me in the enclosed envelope by February 16, 1988. Because of the small sample of participants in the study it is extremely important to have a high return rate. You have been assigned a number that will be used to verify the return of your survey. That number is written in pencil in the upper right hand corner of your survey and address label. If the survey with your number is not returned you will receive a follow-up letter. None of the surveys collected will be reported individually so there will be no way individual answers could be identified. Your anonymity is assured. If you still have concerns about returning the survey, erase or mark over your number, but please return it.
This study is not an evaluation of department chairs, principals, or teachers, but is designed to try to answer the questions of how the department chairs spend their time and what their role should be as viewed by principals, department chairs and teachers.
The information gathered in the study will be examined by county leaders as decisions concerning the future role of the department chairs are made. You have a stake in that decision and this is your opportunity to express your views!
Please make sure that you answer all questions on the survey. In the first section you are asked to select a number that represents your views. Please select one number only, do not give ranges but select the number that in your estimation is the best representation of the answer.
If you have any questions concerning the study or any questions on the survey please call me during the day at 960-9820 or at nights at 569-2648
Sincerely,
Sissie Orris Instructional Services
124
SURVEY FOR. PRllfCIPALS
The following is a list of responsibilities theoretically given to department chairs in some high schools. The left hand column represents the amount of time the department chair actually spends on the tasks listed below. The items have been divided into 7 categories. Within each category indicate the relative amount of time that you feel your department chairs spends on each activity. In the right hand colU111n, indicate the degree to which you feel that these tasks should be the responsibility of the department chair at your school. Please circle the appropriate response.
light eo1-~ft Col-n- spent OD actiYity 1o1e of DC should be l • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
l • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance
3 • moderate amount of time 4 • major amount of time
3 • moderate importance 4 • major importance
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
SUPD.VISIOW
l, Observe teachers in the classroom
2. Hold conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations
3, Prepare written reports of classroom observation
4. Work with teachers to improve their instructional techniques
S. Review teacher lesson plans on a regular basis
6. Evaluate teachers
7, Monitor student progress in course within the department
8. Encourage, stimulate and motivate teachers
CUU.ICULUM
9. Coordinate curriculUlll within the department
10. Provide for testing and evaluation of new and existing programs
11. Work with teachers in developing curricul11111
12. Assist teachers in modifying curriculum to meet the needs of their students
13. Assist in selection and evaluation of textbooks and other instructional materials
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
4-5
6-7
8-9
12-13
.!!:11. 16-17
20-21
125
Right Columi Left Collmn Ti- spent on acti•ity Role of DC should be l • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
l • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance
3 • moderate amount of time 4 • major amount of time
3 • moderate importance 4 • major importance
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
14, Keep teachers informed of new trends and programs
15. Establish a curriculum resource center for the staff
16. Visit other schools to observe their program
PUSOllDL
17. Assist in the orientation of new teachers
18. Work. with substitutes in the department to insure continuity of instruction
19. Assist with interview of prospective teachers
20. Assist in the selection of new teachers
21. Assist in establishing the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department
22, Plan and conduct department meetings
23. Arrange room assignments for teachers in the department.
24, Prepare and monitor the department budget
25, Arrange for repair and replacement of equipment
26. Order supplies and equipment
27. Maintain an inventory of text books, equipment and supplies
28. Complete forms and gather departmental data requested by the school or county administration
STAFP DIVZLOPMDT
29. Arrange interclass visitation among teachers
30. Demonstrate or arrange demonstration of instructional techniques
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
lQ.:l!. 32-33
34-35
.&lZ. 38-39
.!Q=!l 42-43
!±!!!... 48-48
50-51
52-53
54-55
58-59
126
Left Colmm light Colmm Ti81! spent on activity lole of DC should be 1 • not a responsibility 1 • not a responsibility 2 a minor amount of time 2 • minor importance 3 • moderate amount of time 3 • moderate importance 4 • major amount of time 4 • major importance
2 3 4 31. Assess teachers' needs for inservice education 2 3 4 64-65
2 3 4 32. Develop and/or implement inservice activities 2 3 4 ~
1 2 3 4 33. Encourage teachers to exchange ideas and teaching 2 3 4 68-69 strategies
1 2 3 4 34. Encourage membership in professional organizations 2 3 4 70-71
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
and attendance at professional conferences and workshops
COIMDRICATIOR
35. Foster good public relations and communication within the community
36. Act as department spokesman
37. Act as a liaison between teachers and the administration
38. Interpret administration policies and procedures to members of the department
39. Recruit students into various courses
40. Assist in resolving teacher/teacher or parent/teacher conflicts
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
4-5
6-7
8-9
.!1:.!1 14-15
127
Questions 41-47: Assuming that 100% of the time that the department chair spends on deparblental duties (excluding teaching duties) is contained in the 7 categories that follow, estimate the percentage of time spent by the English department chair in each of the categories. (You may need to refer back to the survey to refresh your memory as to responsibilities covered in each category.) For the other three departments indicate whether the department chair spends more than (+), less than (-), or an equal (•) amount of time in each category when compared to the English department chair
Category % of ti- spent English Science Foreign Lang Ind, Arts
41. Supervision + + + 16-20
42. Curriculum + + + ~
43. Personnel + + + 26-30
44. Management + + + 31-35
45. Staff Development + + + 36-40
46. Communications + + + 41-45
47. Other (nonteaching) + + + 46-50
48, Indicate the approximate boars per week the English department chair spends on performing departmental duties (nooteacbing). For the other three departments indicate if the time spent is more, less, or equal to the time spent by the English chair in each category 51-55
(hoars) English ---- Science + Foreign Lang + Industrial Arts +
49. How many hour/week should be assigned to your English department chair to perform the job that is indicated by your responses to the role of the department chair as it should be (represented in the right column of survey)? For the other three departments indicate as above. 56-60
(boars) English ---- Science + Foreign Lang + Industrial Arts +
50, As you consider the selection of department chairs, what personal characteristics or professional qualities do you believe will be most important as you perceive the position over the last decade?
1.
2
128
51. Select the area that represents in your opinion the most severe staff development need for current department chairs. (Check one selection only please.) i!_
Supervision of Instruction 2 ~- Organizational Skills
3 Human Relations Skills 4 ~- Team Building
5 ~- Personnel Management 6 Evaluation of Instructional programs
7 Curriculum Development 8 ~- Development of Mission Statement
Please answer the following questions by circling or inserting the appropriate answer.
l. Gender (l) Female (2) Hale 4
2. Number of years as principal (excluding current year). 5-6
3. Number of years as principal of this school (excluding current year). 7-8
4. Is there a Wt'itten job description for department chairs in your school? 9 (l) NO (2) YES
5. Number of department chairs in your school grades 9-12. 10-11
6. Do any of the department chairs receive salary supplements for being a department chair? (1) NO (2) YES Q
7. How many of the department chairs receive one or more periods (excluding their teacher planning period) to perform departmental duties? 13
8. Please indicate if department chairs in the following departments receive a department planning period:
English NO YES 14 Science NO YES IT Foreign Lang NO YES 16 Industrial Arts NO YES 17
9. Have you ever served as a department chair? (l) NO (2) YES 18
10. Which of the following descriptive statements most accurately describes decision malting in your school? 19
The principal makes most management decisions, with little input from the instructional staff.
2 The principal makes most management decisions, usually after seeking relevant input from the staff.
3 The principal makes many management decisions, after seeking relevant input from the instructional staff. In addition, some management decisions are made with participation by the staff.
4 In addition to (3) above, the principal has delegated some management decisions to department chairs. The principal helps and monitors, but does not make these decisions for the persons or groups to which they are delegated.
129
Questions 11-17. In each of the following areas, indicate using the code listed how the decisions within a department are made.
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
l• Decision made by principal 2• Decision made by principal after consulting department chair 3• Decision made by department chair after consulting principal. 4• Decision made by department chair
Allocation of resources 1 2 3 Teacher assignments 1 2 3 Scheduling of classes 1 2 3 Selection of instructional materials 1 2 3 Coordination of curriculum 1 2 3 Selection of new teachers 1 2 3 Evaluation of teachers 1 2 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
18. What is the term of appointment for department chairs in your school?
19. How often do you review your selection of department chairs?
Your comments regarding the role of the high school department chair are welcomed.
COMMENTS:
Please check the front and back of each page to make sure that you have answered all questions. Return in the enclosed envelope to Sissie Orris, Area I Office.
130
SOl.'llY POil DIPil'Dllll'I' CBAllS
The following is a list of responsibilities theoretically given to department chairs in some high schools. 'nle left hand column represents the amount of time the department chair actually spends on the tasks listed below. 'nle items have been divided into 7 categories. Within each category indicate the relative amount of time that you spend on each activity. In the right hand column, indicate the degree to which you feel that these tasks should be the responsibility of the department chair at your school. Please circle the appropriate response.
tight eo1-Left Col-n- spent OD actiYity 1o1e of DC sboald be l • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
l • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance
3 • moderate amount of time 4 • major amount of time
3 • moderate importance 4 • major importance
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
SUPDVISIOR
1. Observe teachers in the classroom
2. Hold conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations
3. Prepare written reports of classroom observation
4. Work with teachers to improve their instructional techniques
5. Review teacher lesson plans on a regular basis
6. Evaluate teachers
7. Monitor student progress in course within the department
8. Encourage, stimulate and motivate teachers
CIJUICDJ.111
9. Coordinate curriculum within the department
10. Provide for testing and evaluation of new and existing programs
11. Work with teachers in developing curriculum
12. Assist teachers in modifying curriculum to meet the needs of their students
13. Assist in selection and evaluation of textbooks and other instructional materials
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
4-5
.ll.:.!l ~
.!!:!l
24-25
26-27
131
'Left Col1911 Ti- speat oa activity
light Colimn lole of DC should be
l • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
l • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance
3 • moderate amount of time 4 • major amount of time
3 a moderate importance 4 a major importance
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
14. Keep teachers informed of new trends and programs
15. Establish a curriculum resource center for the staff
16. Visit other schools to observe their program
17. Assist in the orientation of new teachers
18. Work with substitutes in the department to insure continuity of instruction
19. Assist with interview of prospective teachers
20. Assist in the selection of new teachers
21. Assist in establishing the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department
l 2 3 4 22. Plan and conduct department meetings
l 2 3 4 23. Arrange room assignments for teachers in the department.
2 3 4 24. Prepare and monitor the department budget
2 3 4 25. Arrange for repair and replacement of equipment
2 3 4 26. Order supplies and equipment
l 2 3 4 27. Maintain an inventory of text books, equipment and supplies
l 2 3 4 28. Complete for'lllS and gather departmental data requested by the school or county administration
ST.&l'P DBVBLOPllD?
l 2 3 4 29. Arrange interclass visitation among teachers
l 2 3 4 30. Demonstrate or arrange demonstration of instructional techniques
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
!2:!!. 42-43
~
.&ll
.&21. i!:ll ~
Left Col-u- spent on acti•ity 1 • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time 3 • moderate amount of time 4 • major amount of time
2 3 4 31. Assess teachers'
132
needs for inservice education
2 3 4 32. Develop and/or implement inservice activities
light eo1-1o1e of DC should be l • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance 3 • moderate importance 4 • major importance
2 3 4 ~
2 3 4 66-67
2 3 4 33. Encourage teachers to exchange ideas and teaching 2 3 4 ~ strategies
l 2 3 4 34. Encourage membership in professional organizations 2 3 4 and attendance at professional conferences and workshops
1 2 3 4 35. Foster good public relations and communication within the community
2 3 4 36. Act as department spokesman
2 3 4 37. Act as a liaison between teachers and the administration
l 2 3 4 38. Interpret administration policies and procedures to members of the department
2 3 4 39. Recruit students into various courses
2 3 4 40. Assist in resolving teacher/teacher or parent/teacher conflicts
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
lQ:Z.!.
4-5
Questions 41-47: Assuming that 1001 of the time that you spend on departmental duties is contained in the 7 categories below, estimate the percentage of time spent in each of the categories. (You may need to refer back to the survey to refresh your memory as to task covered in each category.) The total must add up to 1001.
41. Supervision ~
42. Curriculum .!!::!1. 43. Personnel ~
44. Management 22-23
45. Staff Development ~
46. Communications ~
47. Other (nonte!lching) ~
133
48. Indicate the approximate hours per veelt that you spend on performing departmental duties (nonteaching). 30-31
, 49. How many hour/week should be aasigned to the department chair to perform the job that is indicated by your responses to the role of the department chair as it sboald be (represented in the right column of survey)? 32-33
Please answer the following questions by checking or inserting the appropriate response.
1. Gender: (1) Female (2) Male
2. Race: (1) Black (2) Hispanic (3) Oriental (4) White (5) Other
3. Age: (1) 20-25 (2) 26-30 (3) 31-35 (4) 36-40 (5) 41-45 (6) 47-50 (7) 51-55 (8) 56 or more
4. Your level of professional training: (1) Bachelor Degree (2) Bachelor + (3) Masters (4) Masters + (5) Doctorate
5. You are a member of which department?
(1) English (2) Science (3) Foreign Lang (4) Ind Arts (5) Other
6. How many years have you been teaching (excluding current year)?~-----
7. How many years have you served as department chair in your school?~----
8. What is the length of your school contract? 1 194 days __ 2 200 days 3 Other
9. Do you have a job description for department chairs in your school?
10. How many periods of release time do you have daily for departmental duties (excluding your planning period)?
11. How many periods do you teach daily? -----
12. How many members are in your department including yourself?
34
.ll
36
37
38
39-40
~
43
44
45
46
13. How were you selected as department chair? (1) appointed by current principal (3) elected by department members
49 (2) appointed by previous principal (4) other (please explain)
14. Does the principal or his/her designee hold regular meetings with the 50 department chairs? (1) NO ( 2) YES
15. How often does the principal or designee meet with the department chairs? 51
16. How often do you have department meetings? --------------- 52
134
17. What is the approximate student population in your school? (1) 1000-1500 (2) 1501-2000 (3) 2001-2500 (4) 2501-3000 (5) 3001-3500 (6) 3501-or more
Questions 18-24. In each of the following areas indicate how decisions are made within your department.
18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
l• Decision made by principal 2• Decision made by principal after consulting department chair 3• Decision made by department chair after consulting principal 4• Decision made by department chair
Allocation of resources 2 Teacher assignments 2 Scheduling of classes 2 Selection of instructional materials 2 Coordination of curriculum 2 Selection of new teachers 2 Evaluation of teachers 2
3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4
53
25. Which one of the following descriptive statements most accurately describes 61 the situation in your school?
1. The principal makes most management decisions, with little input from the instructional staff.
2 The principal makes most management decisions, usually after seeking relevant input from the staff.
3 The principal makes many management decisions, after seeking relevant input from the instructional staff. In addition, some management decisions are made with participation by the staff.
4 In addition to (3) above, the principal has delegated some management decisions to department chairs. The principal helps and monitors, but does not make these decisions for the persons or groups to which they are delegated.
26. Select the area that represents in your opinion the most severe staff development need for current department chairs. (Check oae selection only please). 62
_1 Supervision of Instruction 2 Organizational Skills
3 Human Relations Skills 4 Team building
_s Personnel Management 6 Evaluation of Instructional Programs
7 Curriculum Development _8 Development of Mission Statement
135
Your comments regarding the role of the high school department chair are welcome. COMMENTS:
Please check front and back of each page to make sure that you have answered all questions. Return in the enclosed envelope to Sissie Orris, Area I Office.
136
The following is a list of responsibilities theoretically given to department chairs in some high schools. The left hand column, represents the amount of time the. department chair actually 1pends on the task1 li1ted below. The items have been divided into 7 categories. Within each category indicate the relative amount of time that you feel your department chair spends on each activity. In the right hand column, indicate the degree to which you feel that these tasks should be the responsibility of the department che.J.r at your school. Please circle the appropriate response.
Left Col-T.l• apeat on acthity
lipt Col-Sole of DC eboald be
1 • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
1 • not a responsibility 2 • minor iaportance
3 • moderate amount of time 4 • aajor 111110unt of time
3 • mode~ate importance 4 • aajor iaportance
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
SUPDVISIC>m
l. Observe teachers in the claaarooa
2. Rold conferences with teachers concerning classroom observations
3. Prepare written reports of classroom observation
4. Work with teacher• to iaprove their in1tructional techniques
5. Review teacher lesson plans on a re~ular basis
6. Evaluate teachers
7. Monitor student progress in course within the department
8. Encourage, stimulate and motivate teachers
CUUICULDll
9. Coordinate curriculum within the department
10. Provide for testing and evaluation of new and existing programs
11. Work with teachers in developing curriculum
12. Assist teachers in modifying curriculum to meet the needs of their students
13. Assi1t in selection and evaluation of textbook• and other in1tructional aaterial1
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
8-9
~ . .!!:.!1
~
18-19
20-21
137
lipt eo1-Left eo1-T1• •peat oa mctirity 1a1e of DC •hould be 1 • not a responsibility 2 • minor amount of time
1 • not a responsibility 2 • minor importance
3 • 110derate amount of time 4 • aajor A110unt of time
3 • llOderate importance 4 • aajor importance
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
14. , Keep teachers intoned of new trends and prograu
15. !stablish a curriculUlll resource center for the· staff
16. Visit other schools to observe their program
JlllSIWll,
17. Aasist in the orientation of new teachers
18. Work with substitutes in the department to insure continuity of instruction
19. Aasiat with interview of prospective teachers
20. Aasist in the selection of new teachers
21. Aasist in establishin~ the schedules and teaching assignments of teachers in the department
2 3 4 22. Plan and conduct department meetings
2 3 4 23. Arrange room assignments for teachers in the department.
2 3 4 24. Prepare and monitor the department budget
2 3 4 25. Arrange for repair and replacement of equipment
2 3 4 26. Order supplies and equipment
1 2 3 4 27, Maintain an inventory of text books, equipment and equipment
l 2 3 4 28. Complete forms and gather departmental data requested by the school or county administration
2 3 4 29. Arrange interclass visitation.among teachers
2 3 4 30. De110nstrate or arrange deaonstration of instructional techniques
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
l 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
lQ:ll
~
1!:.ll
~
1!:1!
40-41
42-43
~
.•6-47
48-48
50-51
52-53
54-55
~
~
Left Col-Ti• •pent on acthity 1 • not a reaponsibility 2 • llinor aaount of time 3 • moderate amount of time 4 • -jor aount of time
1 2 3 4 31. Assess teacher•'
138
needa for inaervice education
2 3 4 32 •• Develop and/or implement inaervice activitiea
light Col-lole of DC ahould be 1 • not a responsibility 2 • llinor importance 3 • moderate importance 4 • major importance
1 2 3 4 ~
1 2 3 4 ~
2 3 4 33. Encourage teachers to exchange ideaa and teaching 1 2 3 4 68-69
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
•trategiea
34. Encourage membership in profesaional organization• 1 2 3 4 and attendance at professional conference& and vorkllhopa
COllllllllCATIOlf
35. Foster good public relations and co11111Unication within the co11111Unity
36. Act as department spokesman
37. Act as a liaison between teachers and the administration
38. Interpret administration policies and procedures to members of the department
39. Recruit students into various courses
40. Assist in resolving teacher/teacher or parent/teacher conflict
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
1 2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
2Q:!!.
4-5
6-7
10-11
. 11=!.l 14-15
Questions 41-47: Assumin~ that 100% of the time that your department chair spends on departmental duties (excluding teaching duties is contained in the 7 categories below, estimate the percenta~e of time spent by your chair in each of the cate~ories. (You may need to refer back to the survey to refresh your memory as to task covered in each category.) The total must add up to 100%.
41. Supervision
42. Curriculum
43. Personnel
44. Management
45. Staff Development
46. Co111111nications
47. Other (nonteaching) __ _
16-17
18-19
20-21
~
24-25
26-27
28-29
139
48. Indicate the approximate boura per week your department chair apencls on performing departmental duties <-teacbiag), ___ ~
49. Bow many hour/week ahoul.d be uaigned to the department chair ,to perfot'lll the job that 1a indicated by your responses to the role of the department chair as it aboald be (represented in the right column of aurvey)? ~
Please answer the following questions by checking or inaerting the appropriate response.
1. Gender: (1) Female (2) Male 34
2. Age: (1) 20-25 (2) 26-30 (3) 31-35 (4) 36-40 35 (5) 41-45 (6) 47-50 (7) 51-55 (8) 56 or 11c>re
3. Your level of professional training: (1) Bachelor Degree (2) Bachelor + (3) Hu tea ~ (4) !tasters + ( 5) Doctorate
4. You are a member of which department? (1) English (2) Science (3) Foreign Lang (4) Ind Arts 37
5. Bow many years have you been teaching? 38-39
6. Bov often do you have department meetings? --------------
7. To the best of your knowled~e does your department chair or another department chair in your school get a salary supplement for duties aa department chair? 41
8. How many periods/day does your department chair have for department~l duties (excluding a planning period)?
Questions 9-15. In each of the following areas indicate how decisions are made within y-r department.
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
l• Decision made by principal 2• Decision made by principal after consulting department chair 3• Decision made by department chair after consulting principal 4• Decision made by department chair
Allocation of resources 2 Teacher assignments 2 Scheduling of classes 2 Selection of instructional materials 2 Coordination of curriculum 2 Selection of new teachers 2 Evaluation of teachers 2
3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 4
43 44 "45 46 47 48 49
140
16. Which one of the following descriptive statements 110at accurately describes 1Q. the situation in your school?
1
_2
_3
4
'nle principal makes llOSt management decisions, with little input from the instructional staff.
nte principal makes llOSt management decisions, usually after seeking relevant input from the staff.
nte ~rincipal makes many management decisions, after seeking relevant input froa the instructional staff. In addition, some aanagement decisions are made with participation by the staff.
In addition to (3) above, the principal has delegated some management decisions to department chairs. nte principal helps and monitors, but does not aake these decisions for the persona or groups to which they are d•legated.
Your co-nta regarding the role of the high school departHnt cheir:are welcome. COMMEHT:
Please check front and back of each page to make sure that you have answered all questions. Return in the enclosed envelope to Sissie Orris, Area I Office.
APPENDIX C
Person Identified as Serving the Role of Department Chair for Industrial Arts
141
142
February 1, 1988
Dear Participant:
You have been identified by your principal as the person who serves the role of department chair for the industrial arts (technology) teachers. Some people who have been so identified are members of other departments such as business, fine arts, etc. As the person so identified you are asked to complete the enclosed questionnaire.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincere~y,
Sissie Orris
APPENDIX D
Follow-Up Letter
143
144
February 24, 1988
Dear Educator:
Several weeks ago you received a survey concerning the role of the department chair in Fairfax County. As of this date I have not received your response. Several surveys were returned without identification numbers, if yours was among this group please disregard this letter.
I recognize what a busy time of the year it is for your, but your input is vital to the study. Enclosed is another copy of the survey should you have misplaced yours. It would be appreciated if you would take a few minutes to complete and return the survey to me by March 4, 1988.
As I indicated in my previous letter, the reporting of the data will be by group and not individual responses. If you have concerns about being identified, remove the identification number that has been assigned to you.
I thank you for your time and contribution.
Sincerely,
Sissie Orris Instructional Services Area I Off ice
APPENDIX E
Crosstabs of "Time Spent'' versus "Role Importance" for Principals, Department Chairs, and Teacher
145
Item U
A
M A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
Item #2
A
M A
l\o Time
Minor mt Time
oder ate mt Time
Major A mt Time
146
Relationship of Reported Time Spent and Reported Role The Department Chair Should Have By Item
Observe teachers
No Role Minor Moderate Major Importance Importance ·Importance
T = 70 T = 26 T = 45 T = 16 DC = 21 DC = 7 DC = 20 DC = 14
p = 3 p = 12
T = 6 T = 9 T = 10 DC = 2 DC = 5 DC = 4
p = 3 p = 2
T = 6 DC = 1 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 1
Conferences on observation
'.\o Role Minor Moderate !'!&.)Or Importance Importance Importance
T = i5 T = 27 T = 10 T = li DC = 24 DC = 8 DC = l i DC = 15
p = 1 p = 3 p = 13
T = 5 T = i T = ; .) T = 1 DC = 4 DC = 2 DC = 4
p = 3 p = 1
T = 1 T = 4 T = 2 DC = 1 DC = 1
T = 1
Item t3
No Time
Minor Am t Time
M A
ode rate mt Time
Major t Time
Item #4
A
M A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
147
Write reports of observation
No Role Minor Moderate Importance Iaportance
T = 105 T = 27 T = 27 DC = 29 DC = 15 DC = 16
p = 1 p = 4
T = 7 T = 3 DC = 1
p = 2
T = 3 DC = 1
Work with teachers on instructional techniques
No Role Minor Moderate Importance Importance
T = 30 T = 24 T = 31 DC = 6 DC = 3 DC = 6
p = 1
T = 6 T = 19 T = 17 DC = 5 DC = 6
p = 2
T = 17 DC = 8
Major Importance
T .. 14 DC = 12
p • 13
DC = 2 p = 1
T = 2
Major Importance
T = 25 DC = 13
p = 3
T = 13 DC = 14
p = 9
T = 4 DC = 13
p = 6
T = 1 DC = 2
Item #5
A
M A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
Item #6
M A
~o
Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major A mt Time
148
Review lesson plans
No Role Minor Importance
T = 119 T = 34 DC = 38 DC = 13
p = 4 p = 1
T = 2 T = 10 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 1
Evaluate teachers
No Role Minor Importance
T = 112 T = 24 DC = 39 DC = 8
p = 7 p = 2
r = 1 T = 3
p = 1
DC = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 15 T = 7 DC = 14 DC = 7
p = 8 p = 4
T = 1 DC = 2
p = 1 p = 2
T = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 26 T = 14 DC = 1; DC = 10
p = 5 p = 6
T = 3 T = 2 DC = l
T = 2 T = l
T = 1
Item t7
No Time
Minor t Time
M A
oder ate mt Time
Major A mt Time
Item #8
A
H A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
oderate mt Time
Major mt Time
149
~onitor student progress
No Role Minor Importance
T = 73 T = 20 DC = 20 DC = 7
p = 1
T = 3 T = 27 DC = 1 DC = ·15
p = 1
T = 1 T = 2
T = 1
Encourage, stimulate, and motivate
No Role Minor Importance
T = 3 T = 2
T = 2 T = 21 DC = 2
T = 2
T = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 28 T = 9 DC = 12 DC = 7
p = 2 p = 1
T = 12 T • 3 DC = 5 DC = 4
p = 9 p = 6
T = 7 T = 1 DC = 3 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 1 T = 1 DC = 2
!ioderate Major Importance Importance
T = 10 T = 19 DC = 1 DC = 2
p = 1
T = 28 T = 38 DC = 5 DC = 7
p = 6
T = 13 T = 31 DC = 5 DC = 38
p = 2 p = 10
T = 2 T = 19 DC = 3 DC = 14
p = 2
Item #9
No Time
Minor A at Time
M A
A
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
150
Coordinate curriculua
No Role Minor Importance
T = 4 T = 3 DC = 2 DC = 2
T = 1 T = 9 DC = 6
T = 4
Item #10 Test and evaluate programs
No Time
Minor A mt Time
ode rate M A mt Time
Major A mt Time
No
T = DC =
Role Minor Importance
17 T = 20 7 DC = 7
p = 1
T = 28 DC = 4
p = 2
T = 3
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 7 T = 11 DC = 2 DC = 4
T = 19 T = 28 DC = 7 DC • 12
p = 2 p = 2
T = 35 T = 34 DC II 6 DC = 24
p =- 2 p = 12
T = 1 T = 37 DC = 12
p = 3
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 21 T = 16 DC = 11 DC = 6
p = 1
T = 23 T = 14 DC = 10 DC = 10
p = 5 p = 5
T = 17 T = 11 DC = 7 DC = 7
p = 1 p = 4
T = 4 T = 14 DC = 5
p = 1
151
Item tll Work in developing curriculum
No Tiae
Minor t Time
ode rate M Am t Time
Major Am t Time
No
T = DC =
Role Minor Importance
7 T = 11 1 DC = 3
T = 18 DC = 4
p = 1
T = 1
p = 1
Item tl2 Assist in modifying curriculum
A
M A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No
T = DC =
Role Hi nor Importance
10 T = 18 1 DC = 4
T = 25 DC = 4
T = 2 DC = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 20 T = 12 DC = 3 DC = 6
p = 1
T = 33 T = 23 DC = 16 DC = 12
p = 1 p = 2
T = 18 T = 16 DC = 6 DC = 16
p = 3 p = 9
T = 2 T = 28 DC = 1 DC = 9
p = 1 p = 2
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 28 T = 20 DC = 6 DC = 8
p = 1
T = 25 T = 17 DC = 12 DC = 12
p = 6 p = 9
T = 19 T = 15 DC = 4 DC = 13
p = 3 p = 2
T = 1 T = 9 DC = 7
p = 1
152
Item f 13 A•aiat in textbooks selection
No Time
Minor t Time
oder ate M Am t Tiae
Major A mt Time
No
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
7 T = 8 DC = 3
p = 1
1 T = 19 DC = 6
T = 1 DC = 2
Item t14 Inform teachers of new trends
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major t Time
No
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
1 T = 7 DC = 1
T = 17 DC = 6
T = 2
1 T = 4
Moderate Major I•portance Importance
T = 7 T = 9 DC = 3 DC '"' 7
T = 31 T = 20 DC = 11 DC = 8
p = 3 p = 1
T = 31 T = 25 DC = 10 DC = 18
p = 3 p = 6
T = 2 T = 30 DC = 1 DC = 8 -p - 1 -p - 6
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 5 T = 8 DC = 1 DC = 1
T = 25 T = 34 DC = 14 DC = 10
p = 1 p = 8
T = 42 T = 23 DC = 11 DC = 19
p = 6 p = 4
T = 1 T = 20 DC = 2 DC = 11
p = 2
153
Item t15 Establish resource center
No Time
Minor A at Time
ode rate M Am t Time
Major A mt Time
No
T = DC =
p = T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
22 T = 20 12 DC = 5
2 p = 1
2 T = 21 DC = 4
p = 1
2 T = 1
Item #16 Observe progrms in other schools
No Time
Minor A mt Time
ode rate M A mt Time
Major A mt Time
No
T = DC =
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
14 T = 43 3 DC = 11
p = 5
2 T = 18 DC = 8
p = 3
T = 3
2 T = 1
Hoder ate Major Importance Importance
T = 24 T = 20 DC = 7 DC = 1
p = 4
T = 28 T = 19 DC = 19 DC = 9
p = 5 p = 4
T = 14 T = 5 DC = 7 DC = 6
p = 2 p = 2
T = 3 T = 9 DC = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 30 T = 26 DC = 17 DC = 13
p = 1 p = 3
T = 26 T = 7 DC = 12 DC = 8
p = 3 p = 3
T = 10 : T = 2 DC = 1 DC :: 3
p :: 1 p :: 1
T = 2 T = 3
p = 1
154
Item 117 Orientate new teachers
A
M A
A
No Tiae
Minor at Time
ode rate mt Time
Major at Time
No
T = DC =
T = DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
1 T = 1 3 DC = 11
2 T = 14 1 DC = 5
p = 3
1 T = 3
Item #18 Work with substitues
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
oder ate mt Time
Major Am t Tiae
No
T = DC =
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
28 T = 17 8 DC = 5
p = 1
2 T = 21 DC = 11
p = 4
1 T = 2
T = 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 13 T = 25 DC = 3 '>C = 5
T = 16 T = 43 DC = 9 DC • 15
p = 3 p = 3
T = 24 T • 26 DC = 12 DC = 17
p = 2 p = 5
T = 1 T = 21 DC = 9
p = 5
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 12 T = 17 DC = 4 DC = 3
p = 1
T = 19 T = 21 DC = 10 DC = 10
p = 5 p = 3
T = 23 T = 17 DC = 10 DC = 8
p = 2 p = 2
T = 10 DC = 1 DC = 7
p = 1 p = 2
155
Itea t19 Assist with interviews of teachers
M A
A
No Tiae
Minor t Tiae
oder ate mt Tiae
Major mt Time
No
T = DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
18 T = 10 3 DC = 8
T = 13
3
Item #20 Assist in selection of teachers
No Tiae
Minor A mt Time
ode rate M Am t Time
Major A mt Tiae
No
T = DC =
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
19 T = 14 4 DC = 7
2 T = 13 p = 1
2
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 26 T = 35 DC = 10 DC = 21
p = 1 p = 2
T = 15 T .. 30 DC = 8 DC = 15
p = 6 p = 4
T = 14 T = 13 DC = 1 DC • 6
p = 2 p = 4
T = 2 T = 11 DC = 5
p = 2
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 29 T = 32 DC = 11 DC = 24
p = 2 p = 3
T = 14 T = 32 DC = 6 DC = 14
p = 5 p = 5
T = 10 T = 13 DC = 6
p = 2 p = 2
T = 1 T = 8 DC • 4
p = 2
156
Item t21 Assist in scheduling and teacher assignments in the department
No Tiae
Minor A at Tiae
M A
A
ode rate at Tiae
Major mt Tiae
No Role
T = 4 . DC = 2
T = 1
Minor Moderate Importance Importance
T = 4 T = 9 DC = 1 DC = 4
T = s. T = 13 DC = 1 DC = 7
p = 1
T ·= 2 T = 30 DC = 5
p = 4
T = 4
Item #22 Plan and conduct department meetings
A
H A
A
No Time
Hi nor mt Time
oder ate mt Time
Major mt Time
No Role
T = 1
T = 1
Minor Moderate Importance Importance
T = 2 T = 15 DC = 1 DC = 2
T = 4 T = 37 DC = 18
p = 4
T = 1 T = 6
Major Importance
T = 17 DC = 6
T • 26 DC = 9
p s 2
T = 35 DC = 22
p = 8
T = 36 DC = 19
p = 5
Major Importance
T = 2
T = 13 DC = 2
p = 1
T = 31 DC = 24
p = 3
T = 78 DC = 30
p = 12
157
Item #23 Arrange room assignments
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major A mt Time
No
T = DC
p = T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
33 T = 16 6 DC = 15 1
3 T = 27 DC = 6
p = 3
1 T = 4
DC = 1
Item #24 Prepare and monitor budget
A
H A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major t Time
No
T = DC
T =
Role Minor Importance
4 T = 7 2 DC = 7
T = 5
p = 1
T = 3 DC = 1
1 T = 1
- ..• ~f~r.
Moderate t•L:,, ··or Importance Importance
T = 17 T = 15 DC • 6 DC • 12
T = 12 T = 11 DC = 7 DC = 4
p = 3 p = 1
T = 13 T = 14 DC = 5 DC = 9
p = 5 p = 4
T = 1 T = 22 DC = 7
p = 2
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 3 T = 10 DC = 2 DC = 1
T = 7 T = 10 DC = 7 DC = 2
p = 2 p = 3
T = 32 T = 29 DC = 13 DC = 15
p = 5 p = 4
T = 1 T = 71 DC = 1 DC = 25
p = 1 p = 4
158
Item t25 Arrange for repair and replacement of equipment
A
M A
No Tiae
Minor mt Time
oder ate mt Time
Major A mt Time
No
T = DC
T = DC =
Role Minor Importance
22 T = 8 4 DC = 2
5 T = 23 3 DC = 11
p = 2
T = 4
p = 1
DC = 1
Item #26 Order supplies and equipment
A
H A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major Am t Time
No
T = DC =
Role Minor Importance
5 T = 2 1
T = 7 DC = 3
T = 6 DC = 2
p = 1
DC = 1
Moderate Importance
T = 9 DC = 1
T = 15 DC = 7
p = 6
T = 25 DC = 15
p = 6
T = 4 DC = 1
~oderate Importance
DC = 1
T = 8 DC = 2
T = 37 DC = 14
p = 8
T = 6 DC = 4
p = 1
Major Importance
T = 7
T = 12 DC = 5
p = 1
T = 22 DC = 9
p = 3
T = 33 DC = 16
p = 1
Major Importance
T = 2
T = 9
p = 1
T = 25 DC = 15
p = 5
T = 83 DC = 35
p = 4
159
Item t27 Maintain inventories
A
H A
A
No Tiae
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No Role
T = 6
p = 1
T = 1
Minor Importance
T = 3 DC = 1
T = 15 DC = 6
T = 5 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 1 DC = 2
p = 1
Item t28 Complete forms and gather data
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major Am t Time
No
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
3 T = 3
T = 15 DC = 8
p = 1
1 T = 7 DC = 1
p = 2
T = 4 DC = 6
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 1 T = 5 DC = 1
T = 6 T = 12 DC = 5 DC = 4
p = 1
T = 41 T = 35 DC = 13 DC = 10
p = 6 p = 4
T = 5 T = 54 DC = 3 DC = 31
p = 6
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 2
T = 6 T = 18 DC = 4 DC = 6
p = 2 p = 1
T = 43 T = 17 DC = 13 DC = 9
p = 6 p = 4
T = 8 T = 61 DC = 3 DC = 24
p = 1 p = 4
160
Item t29 Arrange interclass visitation
A
M A
A
No Time
Hi nor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No
T = DC =
T =
T =
Role Minor Importance
36 T = 36 5 DC = 17
p = 1
1 T = 21 DC = 6
1 T = 3
Moderate Importance
T = 40 DC = 17
p = 8
T = 19 DC = 8
p = 4
"T = 7 DC = 3
p = 2
Item #30 Demonstrate instructional techniques
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major All t Tiae
No Role
T = 19 DC = 4
T = 1
Minor !'lode rate Importance Importance
T = 25 T = 26 DC = 10 DC = 12
p = 2 p = 3
T = 25 T = 32 DC = 5 DC = 12
p = 2 p = 5
T = 2 T = 20 DC = 6
p = 1
T = 1
p = 1
Major Importance
T = 20 DC = 12
p = 2
T = 4 DC = 5
p = 2
T = 2 DC = 3
p = 1
p = 1
Major Importance
T = 15 DC = 5
T = 12 DC = 11
p = 5
T = 3 DC = 7
p = 2
T = 7 DC • 3
p = 1
161
Item t31 Assess needs for inservice
A
H A
A
No Tiae
Minor at Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No Role
T = 19 DC = 7
T = 2
Minor Importance
T = 27 DC = 8
p = 2
T = 30 DC = 8
Item #32 Develop and implement inservices
No Time
Minor A mt Time
ode rate H Am t Time
Major Am t Time
No
T = DC =
T = DC =
Role Minor Importance
21 T = 19 8 DC = 4
p = 1
1 T = 35 1 DC = 12
T = 2
Moderate Major Importance Iaportance
T = 20 T = 18 DC = 11 DC = 6
p .. 2 p = 1
T = 27 T = 17 DC = 11 DC = 5
p = 6 p .. 5
T = 19 T = 5 DC = 8 DC = 6
p = 1 p = 4
T = 4 DC = 5
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 25 T = 10 DC = 12 DC = 3
T = 25 T = 12 DC = 10 DC = 3
p = 6 p = 6
T = 22 T = 8 DC = 8 DC = 6
p = 3 p = 4
T = 1 T = 7 DC = 7
p = 1
162
Item 133 Encourage exchange of ideas and strategies
M A
A
No Time
Minor t Time
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No Role
T = 2
T = 1
Minor Importance
T = 7
T = 18 DC = 3
T = 1
T = 1
Moderate Importance
T = 11 DC • 2
T .. 30 DC = 7
p s 4
T = 25 DC • 10
p = 2
DC = 1
Major Iaportance
T = 16 DC = 3
T .. 30 DC • 16
p = 5
T s 25 DC • 13
p = 5
T = 23 DC = 20
p = 5
Item #34 Encourage membership in professional organizations
No Time
Minor A mt Time
ode rate M Am t Time
Major t Time
No
T = DC =
T =
T =
DC =
Role Minor Importance
20 T = 21 1 DC = 3
p = 1
5 T = 39 DC = 10
p = 4
1 T = 4
T = 1 1
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 13 T = 10 DC = 2 DC = 2
T = 32 T = 12 DC = 17 DC = 11
p = 3 p = 7
T = 13 T = 8 DC = .12 DC = 7
p = 3
T = 2 T = 9 DC = 9
p = 3
163
Item t35 Foster public relations
A
M A
No Tiae
Minor at Time
ode rate at Time
Major Am t Time
No
T = DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
13 T = 9 2
1 T = 37 DC = 5
T = 2 DC = 2
T = 1 DC = 1
Item #36 Act as a department spokesman
A
M A
No Time
Minor mt Time
ode rate mt Time
Major t Time
No
T =
Role Minor Importance
T = 6 DC = 2
p = 1
1 T = 3
Moderate Major Importance laportance
T = 14 T = 13 DC = '.~
T = 21 T = 23 DC = 12 DC = 12
p = 5 p = 3
T = 22 T = 16 DC = 10 DC a 11
p = 3 p = 6
T = 3 T = 14 DC = 19
p = 3
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 10 T = 25 DC = 2 DC = 4
p = 1 p = 1
T = 25 T = 38 DC = _10 DC = 21
p = 2 p = 4
T = 4 T = 77 DC = 1 DC = 35
p = 1 p = 11
Item t37 Act as a liaison
No Tiae
Minor t Time
oder ate M Aa t Time
Major A mt Time
T
T
No Role
= 2
= 1
164
Minor Importance
T a 1
T = 4 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 1
DC = 2
Item #38 Interpret policies and procedures
No Time
Minor A mt Time
H A
A
ode rate mt Time
Major mt Time
No
T = DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
1 T = 1 1
T = 15 DC = 3
p = 2
1 T = 1 DC = 1
p = 2
T = 1 DC = 1
Moderate Major Iaportance I.aportance
T a 4 DC = 1
T = 14 T = 26 DC = 2 DC = 4
p = 1 p = 1
T = 23 T = 35 DC = 5 DC = 19
p = 3 p = 5
T = 4 T = 75 DC = 1 DC = 40
p = 1 p = 9
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 1 T = 2
T = li T = 24 DC = 4 DC = 3
p = 2
T = 23 T = 30 DC = u DC = 22
p = 3 p = 5
T = 5 T = 68 DC = 3 DC a 27
p = 7
165
Item t39 Recruit students into courses
A
M A
A
No Time
Minor mt Time
oder ate mt Time
Major mt Time
No
T = DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
38 T = 21 10 DC = 8
p = 1
5 T = 34 DC = 11
p = 5
T = 3
p = 1
T = 1
Item t40 Assist in resolving conflicts
No Time
Minor A mt Time
ode rate M Am t Time
Major t Time
No
T = DC =
p = T =
DC =
T =
Role Minor Importance
56 T = 28 11 DC = 6
3
4 T = 20 1 DC = 10
p = 1
1 DC = 2
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 16 T = 9 DC = 2 DC = 1
p = 1
T = 21 T = 8 DC = 10 DC = 6
p = 4 p = 2
T = 16 T = 8 DC = 9 DC = 11
p = 2 p = 1
T = 10 DC = 9
p = 4
Moderate Major Importance Importance
T = 19 T = 6 DC = 4 DC = 2
p = 4
T = 25 T = 7 DC = 14 DC = 6
p = 7 p = 1
T = 9 T = 6 DC = 8 DC = 7
p = 2 p = 2
DC = 6 p = 1
APPENDIX F
Need for Staff Development for Department Chairs as Perceived by Principals and Department Chairs
166
167
Greatest Need for Staff Development as Perceived by Principals and Department Chairs
Area of Need
Supervision of Inst.
Organizational Skills
Human Relations Skills
Team Building
Personnel Management
Evaluation of Inst. Prg.
Curriculum Development
Development of Mission
Principals Department Chairs
N = 18 N = 80
Number and Percent Responding P DC
8(44.4%) 18(22.5%)
1 ( 5. 6%) 9(11.3%)
0 3(3.8%)
3(16.7%) 8(10.0%)
1(5.6%) 7(8.8%)
4(22.2%) 13(16.3%)
1(5.6%) 14 ( 1 7. 5%)
0 8(10%)
The two page vita has been removed from the scanned
document. Page 1 of 2
The two page vita has been removed from the scanned
document. Page 2 of 2