UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc277799/... · TABLE Of CGHTINTS Page tTIW flW 9ART Ml *£ maa y#...

AMLXSIS ABB EVALUATION OF H I SOU OF S U m m X T

SCHOOL SUPERVISORS I I SELECTS

TUA$ PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DISSERTATION

Fr#a«iit®d t o t h « Graduate Counci l of t k «

North Texas S t a t o Un ivo ra i ty i n P a r t i a l

F u l f i l l m e n t of t h e ftaquiranaata

For t h i B*gr«« of

DOCTOR OF WKJCATIOK

Br

Cyras Edwin Todd, B. S . # N. E. >7

Deatoa, Texas

Jan©, 1963

TABLE Of CGHTINTS

Page tTIW flW 9ART Ml *£

m a a y# iii&ju&a • # * # # • * * • # # * • * * * # * # if

Chapter

1, IHTHOBCCflOH 1 Statement of til® Problem Hypotheses - of the Study Background, Sirf&fiQane* and

Related It miles Limitations of the Study Ueflnitioa of ferns lasie Assumptions Froeedure for Collecting Data Treatment of Bata

XI* PERSONAL AHB PRGFISSXOKAL QBAUFXCATIQIiS Ai» m m or WORK OF TEXAS IMMTAIT SCHOOL wwmtaom * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 20

Introduction fltS® of Person Submitting Report Grades Supervised number of Sehool Buildings Supervised Number of Teaohers Supervised Institutions of Higher learning of Whieh

the Respondents were Graduates Highest Begree Held and Bate Obtained K m « r of Iears in Profession Mwsfeer of Tears in Present School System -lumber of Tears in Present Position Humber of Tears as Teacher in the Elementary

School Number of Tears as Teaeher in the Secondary

School Tears as Principal in. Elementary School Tears as Principal in Secondary School Tears In Other Administrative Positions Position Held before Assuming Present

Position Sex of the Supervisors Responses on Activities by Respondents with

Different Master*® Degrees« SwBMury

in

Chapter Page

III. FIMBIHGS tM THI AREAS Of STUB! Of THI HOIS fSI IISEIiTASI SCHOOL §0Pia¥ISQR IN

SlliGfEB flXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 41

Introduction lt#fcJl®4 of Importing Findings 3tt8BMI7

I ? . AFPUCATXG* OF GUTISIA fO TIWXMQS U l

?* PUffilHOS, COHO£HSIOHS, All JWC»«mTlOiS * • 139

Findings 0©aelti8i©ns lecomeadatioEs

m m m , A • • . • 150

APPENDIX A-l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

APP1I0IX B • 152

-lyfprW 'WWPfp iP' ™ W W ~ W W ^ F W W v W U f ^ ^ P r W ^ F W ^ r ~

APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

AFW8HBIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

S B H O W X I . * 273

I t

m t OF TABUS

Table Pag©

X* Variety of Titles toy Which. Respondents

were Known i ( 22

XI* Variety of Qrade Organisations Supervised • * 23

XXX* Number of School Buildings Supervised « . * * 24

IV* Number of feathers Supervised. * * * • * • • • 24

f * Type of Institutions from Which Respondents

Received Highest Degree * • • • • • • • • • 25

VI* Highest Degree Held by Respondents . . . . . . 26

fXX* Date Highest Degree was Obtained • * 2?

VIIX. Tears in the Profession 26

XI* Tears in Present School System . . . . . . . . 29

X* Tears ia Present Position . . . . . . . . . . 29

XX* Teaching Experience in lleaentary School * * • 30

XXX« Teaching experience in Secondary School • • * 31

XXXX# Experience as Principal ia Elementary School * . 32

XXV* Kxperlaace as Principal in Secondary School • 33

If. Experience in Other Administrative Positions * 34

XVX* Position Held Before Assuming Present Position « • • • • • • * • • * • 35

XVII* Bankings and Mean Scores of Activities in the .Area of In-Service Kdueation . . . . . . . U S

XVXXI. Bankings and Mean Scores of Activities in the Area of Curriculum Development * • • • • « 121

XXX* Bankings and Mean Scores of Activities in the Area of Evaluation and Research * * * * * 123

v

Tahle Page

XX* Rankings and Mean Scores of Activities In the Area of Instructional Supplies M Ifaipaeat • * • » » • • « « » • 125

XXI. Bankings and M mm I for®# of Activities in the Area of Administrative Activities . . . . . 127

XXII. Rankings and Mean Scores of Activities la the Area of Professional Organisations . • • . 129

XXXII. Rankings and Mean Scores of Activities in the Area of Public Relations • • • * • • . . . 130

KIT. Responses of Supervisors and educational Specialists Regarding Classroom Visitation. 166

XXV. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Classroom Visits on Teachers* Invitation . . . . . . . . . . 167

XX?I. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Unannounced Visits * IS#

XXVII. Responses of Supervisors and Educational

• . . 169

iponaes of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Follow-Ip Con-ferences Kith Teachers . . . . . . .

XXVXII. Responses ©f Supervisors and educational Specialists Regarding Discussions of Child Growth Characteristics with Teachers . . . 170

XXIX# Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Organisation of Instructional Materials . . . . . . . . . . 171

XXX* Responses of Supervisors and Iducational Specialists Regarding Bevelopaent of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

XXXI* Responses of Supervisors M l Iducational Specialists Regarding Assistance to Teachers in Locating and Identifying Their Oun Instructional Problems . . . . . . . . 173

XXXII. Reipoitfes of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Mscussion of Philosophy and Objectives with Teachers • . 174

vi

Tabla

TTTTTT

TTTTff

ZXJDf

JOCSVX

"t'f* «** JQPEIfll

xixfin

u r n

XL

TT.T

xux

U m m m m of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Eeg&rding Diacuaaion of Taaciiing Kathode and Mm feefcni uaa wltfe Teachers .

Page

l?Sa

Eeaponsas of Supervisors and Ideational Specialist® Regarding Incoarageaant and, Guidance la Reading Professional Literature 175

Responses of Sugerifisors and Educational Specialists 1 Teaehera la •ag

Assistance to «a Feel Seettre » • • •

Responses of Supervisors and Ideational Sp©sialigts Regarding Assistance to Teac&era in Batting up a System of Ea-eording Pupil Progress • • • • • • « ,

ieapoaaes of Swarifisers and Educational Specialists legarding Advice to Teaebera on Classroom Arrang®!sent and Appearance . «

ftasponsas of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Suggestions for Improvement of Classroom Discipline « * • «

Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Suggestions to Teadiers on Bow to Initiate and Carry f&rougti on an Instructional fait * « • « *

Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists mmrdim Assistance to Teachers with Special Pupils * * * * * * *

Eesponses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Assistance to fmchers in Grouping 'Pupils for Instruction

Eesponses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Eegarding Encouragement of Professional Activities • • # • « • • • * •

Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists legarding Arrangement for Teacher Iatervisitation • * • • • • • • • »

m

177

17*

m

180

1*1

lit

1*3

104

tli

Table Fage

XXJY* Kespooaoa of Sttpenrisora and Ideational Specialist# Eegarding 9s® of JJeaioagtratioa Leteons to Foster Professional Qrowtfc • . • 185

XHf» Responses of fitperrisors and ideational Ifaolalisfcs Regarding Arrangements for _ iemoasfcration lessens . . . . . . . . . . . loo

XL?I. R«ibob«m of iHMTfisor* and Ideational Spaelalists Regarding Superfisors Giving Beiaonst ration taeaons • « * . . » • Hi?

XHTII. JUsponees of iiMTfiflors and Mmcational Specialists legardiag kmto&mm to Teacher* Preparing to Observe Betaoastra-tion Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H i

ILVIII. Hsspoases of Supervisor# ami Ideational Specialists Regarding Gircmlatioa of Beseriptioas and Ixaiaples of Qood TeaeMng Praotioea 119

UJI, Responses of Supervisor® M l Educational ipeoialtsts Regarding Work in tke In-Smrtim Training Program » * • « • » « • • 190

S»* Xaa&Qttsaa of Sapervisors awl Educational Specialists Regarding Plana and Arrange-menta for Teaeiiers1 and Principals' la-i«nri®« training # » * • • * » • • « » # • 191

LI. Responses of Supervisors and Ideational Speeialiats Regarding tfca Responsibility of the Supervisor for' Conducting In-Serviee Courses » « < * • * . * i » • » » » * » » • 192

LII. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists «< egardiag tfco ResponsiMMtf of Supervisors 'for Planning and Conducting Institute Sesaions 191

1*111 • Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Responsibility for Induction and Orientation Meet lags for pecialists Regarding aduction and Qrienti _ Heir Teachers # • * • « * » • * • • # * • • 3.94

U¥. Responses of Supervisors and Sdueational Specialists Regardiag Ivalu&tioa of Xn~ Service Training Courses for Local School* Iff

viil

Table Page

£?• Responses of Supervisor® and Educational Specialists Regarding Bncourageiaent of Teachers for Further In-Service Training . 196

WI» Responses of Supervisors and Sdueational Specialists Regarding Conferences with Teachers and principals 197

LTIX* Responses of $mmfimm and Educational specialists Regarding Individual Teacher Conferences for Work on $pecifi« Prohleais * 19#

HKXX* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Individual Teacher Conferences for Work on Q^mon Problems • * 199

LIX. Responses of Supervisors a»d Bdusational specialists Regarding ResponsiMlit i es for Contributions in the Capacity of Consultant * 200

H* Responses of Supervisors and Ideational Specialists Regarding the Practice of Holding Office Hours Where Teachers San Get Help 201

.111* Responses of Supervisors and Idmcatioaal Specialists Regarding Group Meetings *lth Principals . . . . . . . 302

L22I. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Individual Con-ferences with Principals . . . . . . . . . 203

LXIII. Mmmmm of Supenrisors and limcatioii&l Specialists Regarding Activities Engaged in for the Purpose of Improving His Own Effectiveness 204

UXf* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Professional St with Consultants fro» Universities and

ialists Regarding Professional Study , Consultants fro» Universities and

Colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30$

£X¥. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Reading and Research in the field Supervised, ©Stag Office Sours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206

ix

Tabl® Hg$

1X71. ftaspoxwas of SmftrTlsors and Educational Specialists legardiag imXftimX Bwmmef of AGtlrltim for the Purpose of Fonaiag Superrlsory flmw 207

1XVXX* Responses of 8\*p®m§ors and Educational Specialistg Eegarding Integration of SoJiool ©is&riet Polities Relative to Currie£Uet » • 20#

ISVXXX* Responses of Supervisors and Ideational Specialists Regarding Oooptration nitk Other Smp«r?i®oi7 Ofxiaials 209

LXIX. Responses of Supervisors and Kdaeatioaal Specialists Isgiifdiag Presentation of Instructional w « 8 and Techniques for Their Use • . . . . 210

1XX« Responses of Siuwrrisora and. Ideational Specialists Regarding Participation in Prodmetion of inrrl«ili» MaterU&a • • • « 211

IXXX* Responses of Sttperyia r# and Educational Specialist® Regarding Continuing Analysis of CmiTlciilm with Tie* to Change • » • • « 212

LI1II, iiiMiiis of Supervisors and Idaeation&l Specialist* Regarding tit® Prattle® of jIRaAs. Jfr « l r MU ^j-4 gaiuLv ^ tiff* ati 111*11 iWr i* njwfg[-

^ ,f® tarito, Jr.% ^Affrr'K Iteitfh'lJr ^ ma |Ffs .tfiirii'ili TBriiii-'ifi i'Jf tllLfe jMkk- Mk 1*

snip on G riotllJM Coiv&ittee • • • * • * • 2X3 LUHX. Responses of Supervisors and Educational

Specialists Regarding leadership $M Co-operative Cnrriculu* Revisions • • « • • • 214

UQCXY* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Mettfeership on Garrieulwa t©v©l©pnent Coausitte# . . . . , 215

XX£?. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding the Praetiee of Editing Curriculum Material# for tk® Purpose of Publication . • • • • * * , . . 216

UXVI« Responses of Supervisors and Mutational Specialists Regarding the Practice of Participation ia th® Preparation of f caching Guides 21?

x

Tafcle Pag©

XJX?XX. Responses of Supervisors and Iducationai

a u

spouses of supervisors am iducationai Specialists Regarding Composition m i Mstnhution or Supervisory Bulletins

a m i l , Responses of Supervisors and Educational . . Specialists Regarding the Practice of

Preparation of Written Materials for Pupil Use 219

2JXXX* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Preparation of Pro-fessional leading Lists Such as Annotated Bibliographies . « * * , • » * • « » • , » 220

LXXX* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Encouragement in Study and E^eriaeatation in Methods and Sub3ect«Matter Organization . . . . . . . . 221

XJCXXI* Responses of Supervisors and Educational specialistt Regarding tlie Practice of Informing Teachers of Research develop-ments and Classroom Application 222

aiffi* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Assistance to teachers in Setting fp and Evaluating Simple Experiments • * • • • * # • « « • • 223

MXXHl* Responses of Suntrviscrs and Iducatlon&l ipeeialists Regarding the Practice of Iwking Resource People and Professional Books Available to Teachers • 224

IiXXOT. Responses of Supervisors and Sdueatioaal Specialists Regarding Encouragement t-Teachers to Report Results of Studies and eclalists Regarding Encouragement to achers to Report Results of Studies i

Experiments . 225

MOT# Responses of Supervisors and Mutational Specialists Regarding the Practice of Analysing the Pupils* Weeds and lieawing Situations for Besirable Growth • • • • • • 226

UXXTI# Response# of Supervisors and Educational Specialists tending Gity-*ide Surreys for Implications for proving Instruction 227

xi

T&tele Page

Unfix* M m m m m of Supervisors axid Kd*«*tionjd ipeei&Xists Beg&rdiag tho Practice of laeoaragftiatnt of the Us* of Standardised M l XlSUriW»08yL # €NEwS §-## 5w&ll

looses of Supervisors s»d IdusttiMtl ipeei&Xists Regarding Assistance to Teachers la I»terpr@fci&g and AppljlMg Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

IXXXIX. Responses of Supervisors and SdnoatloaaX Specialists mmmMlug Assistance t© Principals in Ippr&isiag Instructional Program in P&rfciemlar Faeility • • • • • • 230

M« of Supervisors and Mm&tt&md Spec: " • " <pMialists Regarding the Fr&etiee of •atgtstisil Methods of aoastrtioting Tests for fiatsrooiB 9 m 231

XCX» Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Eegarding the Practice of Goastrmetion of Tests Seared to the Gur-rienltsa of Local Sehools . . . . . . . . . 232

ZGXX* Eesponses of Supervisors and Educational Speoi&Xisfcg Regarding the Practice of As-sisting in the Seleetion of Itand&rdiaed Tests « « . « * • « « * * « * » • « « . « » 233

XCIXI# Responses of Supervisors and M&eatioiial [email protected] Regarding Snrveys for Instruc-tional Supplies flUff i t # # * * # 234

ZCXT* Responses of Snperftsors and Idmeation&l [email protected] Regarding Cooperative Efforts to Secure Proper Supplies and Equipment * * 235

wff raf rrtti »«-• -*«* Aji iFr i'ltt iart iniiii tiittatfittwlf' iffkii lidi \mh ^ Jig- M

xuv • Responses or supervisors ana &aucation&JL Specialists Regar pecialists Regarding Istafclishisent Criteria for tit Selection of JH&eriaXs Of Zdfftt'MtlOQ * • • • • • • • « • • • • • 236

XOfl. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Previews and lee oiamendat ions for the Ptxrchase of Audio* Viaual ftet©rials 237

3di

Table Page

XCYII. Reasons** of 9«»*rvlsors and Mutational ipaalalisfca Regarding WmXmtlm and

^ • teooaBaeadationii for nm&aaa of Supplies * * - * — - • A i l r i r t T 4 % * ^

&»a ifaipaem * * • * * * « • « * * * • • « 2ji

XCTOX* Response* of Supervisors and Educational Specialists regarding Ivaluation and

- Ideosmaadatlom of Books for Adoption • • • 239

MIX* of Supervisors and Xdueational Specialist* Regarding Consultant Services in locating Free or Inexpensive Materials •

C¥II» teagosaag of Supervisors and Educational Specialist* Regarding Participation in the Recruitment, Selection# and Placement of Teachers * • » * • . , * • • • • * » • » * • 24#

xili

G# Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding; Assistance in J)e~ tersining Oa# of Textbooks In Classroom * • 241

CI. Responses of Supervisors and Educational I» pecialista Regarding Assistance in SSSSSIS-IISfiS, W0W lllnMmMWI 8JISI Will %# faed rn

CII* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding Respo&aikilitles for Distribution or Supplies. Materials. and Equipment » * . » * * • • # • # * . • • • » 243

CIII# Responses of Supervisors and Ideational Specialists Regarding Assistance t* feaciiers in tke Selection of Specific Instructional Materials • • • • • • • • • *

CXT. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialist* Regarding [email protected] for tie f«# of Hew Supplies and tqatfueiife • « • • • 245

CV, Response® of Supervisors aid Educational Specialists Regarding Assistance cipals in Promoting Effective fa# of &UppXX6S &&& £*<|lli,pISi0flt/ « • * * * * «

CVl* Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists R _ Effectiveness of Instructional' Supplies

cialists Regarding the Study of the ectiveness of Instructional Supplies

ia the Classroom • * * « • • 247

Table , Page

CVIH« fiesgonse* of and Educational IjN s e i a l i s t s Regarding t&© Practice of Writing Questions f a r Teachers* Sxftmi-nations 249

@11* Eesponses of Supervisors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s Regarding Reaponsibilifeies f o r Interview, Training, and Kxperieaee Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2JQ

GX« Eesponses of Supervisors and Educational §pe*ilali3ta Regarding the Practice of Eating feae&ers* Services and Keeping Beooius of fiatings . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

§XX* Sesponsea of Supervisors and Mtteational i f««ial isfe® I-. Hegarding Respons ib i l i t i e s f o r of feae&erg Within the

# # * * * » » • * # « # # * * 2§2

OXII. Responses of Supervisors aod Educational S p e c i a l i s t s Regarding Work with ®%hmrt in Coordinating t i e Entire Instruct ional Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

CXXXX* Responses of #«®erfi#ors and Mnemtlonal S o c i a l i s t s legardliaf Btporfcs of Super-

. *100x7 A c t i v i t i e s t o A»si»tant Superin-tendent or Superintendent * * • • • « . * * 254

COT* Eeeponses of Supervisors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s legarding EespoaaiMlit i e s f o r A t t i r t l u m u l t S $ehool~Building ProSlews • 255

6X?« Eegrons## of Supervisors and Bdua&tio&al S p e c i a l i s t s Regardlug Work m Adminis-t r a t i v e Cowaitteesj! Such as Salary Surveys 256

CX?I. B«me*sos of Supervisors and Bduoatioaal S p e c i a l i s t s legarding Membership and Part ia ipat ioa i n Fro f t t s ioaa l Oj^pntsttlQai 257

<UEfXX« lesponses of Supervisors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s Regarding Teacher Merabership i l l Profess ional Organisations . . . . . . . 250

3dv

T«tbl« Page

somm of Smtrvisor* Sdaeatioi ipecialifsta Etgardiaf auptrrisors*

iBSlisI

CXYIII# Response® of Smtrvisor* m& Mneational ppecialifsta km

la Speolal Professional . . Organisations 2$9

GXDU tesponses of Supervisors sad Educational S» pccialict c Regarding Work m Qommittms or Office-Holding in Professional Organ-isations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Edue&tioml nit* Fun-

.pals and Teachers ftesult© of Study and Pnsfeealonal Meetings • • • « • * * • « • • 261

CXXI. Responses of Supervisors and Educational Specialists Regarding the Practice of Writing or Idlting Mftten&la for Profes-sional Organisations . . . . . . . . . . . 262

CXXZI» Responses of Supervisors and Specialists Regarding Interpretation of the School Program to the Community 263

0XXI11. Resfo&see of giperitsor® and SdtoeatiMl Specialists Regarding the Pr&etic® ©f Giving Talks to Sowamlty Groups . * • « . 264

GXOT, Responses of Supervisors and SdapifeiMal Specialists Regarding Preparation of Article* for m? Iewipap©rs and ftagasl&ss • 265

CUf. Responses of Supervisors and Educational specialists Regarding Preparation of I3&. fcibits of Instructional Materials? and Pupils* f o r k * # • • • * # * * , # * * • # 266

CXHTX* Isspoases of Siaperviisorii and Educational specialists Regarding Plans or fariieipt-t ioa la Radio and/or Television Programs • 267

CXXVXX* Responses of Superrisors and Educational specialists Regarding Participation in Programs Which Seek to X*proTe the School Program 26#

acv

Tafcl®

GXXfZXX* Baapcmata ©f Smmervisor® and Idtieatioaai Sf«eiallsfcs Regarding tk« Practice of Participation la fmtm% Workshops » « < , . 269

eiXII. M m m m m of SuMnrlaor* and Educational Speeialists stgardltig Assistant® to M y Grouse in Maktsg Surveys of tfc® SMdi of the Schools • * * * » • • * » « * , » • « • 270

GXXX* Additional Activities 1st Wtiieli Tessas lie-»e»tdry School Svpexirlaor* Engaged * » . • 271

CXI2I. low Elementary School Supervisors Distributed Thitr Jiw « • # • • * • • • • » * # » • # 272

xvi

CHAPTIE 1

IMTtQBUCTIQS

Supervision in the public spools of the United States

has faced one crisis after another in its development * The

purposes of supervision and education, therefore, must toe

re-examined and evaluated# The present-day supervisor mast

he vigilant in maintaining a beneficial learning situation

for bf>th children and teachers and must foster an atmosphere

of warm huiaan relation# Kith realistic sincerity as he assists

through the role which his responsibilities demand*

During a 1954 Southern States Workshop, a group of

teachers, administrators, and supervisors proposed*

The supervisor must hear a heavy responsi-bility for recognising and helping to put into effect that which has been proved to be good in education; for discovering ways of improving that which is already proved; for creating ad-ditional worthwhile activities that can help in meeting the anticipated needs of the future; and for providing ways that will make that which is known possible of attainment (34, p* 10)•

Statement of the Problem

In the analysis and evaluation of the role of the ele-

mentary school supervisor, the purpose was (1) to investigate

relationships which might exist between certain personal and

professional background characteristics of elementary school

supervisors and the activities in which they engaged, 12} to

1

determine the activities In which elementary school super-

visors engaged, (3) to determine emphasis placed upon those

activities In which elementary school supervisors engaged,

and {4) to evaluate those activities in which elementary

school supervisors engaged. This analysis and evaluation

involved specifically these sub-problems*

1. The relationship of general, personal, and profes-

sional background characteristics, such as sex, title, as-

signments, number of personnel and plants supervised,

academic training, experience, and other professional respon-

sibilities aad activities in which elementary school super-

visors engaged.

2. The specific activities in which Texas elementary

school supervisors engaged, the emphasis placed upon each

activity, and the soundness of these activities as compared

with a rating by a group of educational specialists.

3. A comparison of the analysis and evaluation of these

sub-probleas of Texas elementary school supervisors and those

of elementary school supervisors in school systems in cities

of over 200,000 population.

Hypotheses of the Study

This study was based upon the following hypotheses:

1. There are a® significant relationships between certain

personal and professional background characteristics, as

enumerated in sub-problem 1, and the supervisory activities

engaged in by elementary school supervisors.

3

2. There are no significant differences ia supervisory

activities engaged in fey Texas elementary school supervisors

and, the soundness ©f such activities, as rated by a group of

educational specialists.

3# There are no significant differences ia the factors

involved ia these 8Ub»problenui as they relate to Texas ele-

mentary school supervisors and elementary school supervisors

ia school systems ia cities of over 200,000 population*

Background, Significance, and Related Study

Many researchers have made diligent efforts to determine

the significance and place of supervision in the total educa-

tional program. Continued interests are evidenced by the

vast amount of literature appearing on the subject and by the

number of workshops, conferences, and other types of prolans

now being sponsored by groups such as the Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, the national Education

Association, the American Association of School Administra-

tors, the Elementary School Principals, and the Texas Education

Agency#

Since supervision plays an important part in the present

educational plan, a priaary need is to discover the actual

practices performed by Texas supervisors* With this aim in

view, the Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development expressed an interest in determining and ex-

amining those activities in which Terns supervisors engaged.

?he primary east broader justification for a study of this

nature, however, is to lie found, in the shift of emphasis and

the changing concepts in educational. supervision.

• Antell (1, pp. 606-611) points oat that probably leas is

known about the supervisor than about any other member of the

professional family* He further saya that supervisors in

general show a lack of knowledge of the activities in which

other supervisors engage.

Caswell {&, pp. 3-4) said, "There is, no doubt that some

of the activities now included in supervisory programs are

merely there because they have been traditional practices.*

He went on to indicate that some activities are included

because they conform to the educational beliefs of a par-

ticular individual or group of individuals following the lead

of one or two persons*

Otto (23, pp# 372-3SO) noted that the shortage of recent

and adequate studies in the areas of supervisory activities

*verge on the rim of criminal.* He also stated that few

studies have dealt with the fundamental issues of supervision—

namely, supervisory procedures. In a later article, he

wrote, 'Little is known about current practices" (24, pp.

337-339) *

Mclfemey (16), Melchior (17)» leader (24), and Spears

(32) have said at different times and in different ways that

supervision is an important and necessary educational function.

Brooks (6) , is 1#97# made one of the first recorded

efforts to investigate practices and emphases of supervision.

She rather informally asked a liaised number of teachers to

respond to questions concerning supervisory practices uhich

were preferred. No.special, effort was made to analyze and

evaluate these results* they were merely listed and referred

to in a speech in which she was discussing the general need

for specialized, supervisory personnel service.

Then in the early 1920*s Mutt (21) made a survey of

supervisory practices by submitting questionnaires to 300

teachers in ten eastern communities. He asked theia to write

down practices they considered to be helpful and those they

considered of no help, or actually detrimental. This study

wasonly superficial in that so analysis was made relative

to values .or comparison of results*

In 1927* SouthaXl (31), George Peabody College, Tennessee,

did a study, Street tomtits of aanenrHlon M I8S3 5Z fiSSSESl

Elementary Supervisors. in which she investigated the scope

of the general supervisor*s work and professional qualifications*

Ihe also inquired into the practices of those supervisors in

the city and those in rural systems and the values placed upon

the activity# This m e the first really intensive and compre-

hensive study in supervision# The study attempted to do,two

things: (1) to describe the uses supervisors were asking of the

direct agencies of supervision; (2) to determine the extent

of use and relative merit of certain phases of these agencies.

The Texas study of supervisory activities is similar in ®any

respects to the Sodithall investigation in general approach

and In content unci organisation of the checklist. Both at-

tempted to determine practices and the values placed upon

these sine activities* The Southall study centered around

classroom functions, such m directed teaching, demonstration

teaching, conferences, directed observation, and classroom

visitation. The present study, in addition to giving consider-

ation to these classroom centered functions, emphasized in-

service education, curriculum development, evaluation, selec-

tion and use of instructional supplies and equipment, admin-

istrative activities, professional growth, and public relations.

Inquiry was also made concerning additional activities in

which supervisors were engaged and how they spent their time.

The Southall study involved the city and the rural supervisors

of different geographical regions of the fntted States rather

than those of a specific area, such m the state of Texas.

Armstrong (2), in 1936, Antell (1), in 1945, Bail (3),

in 1947, and Replogle (30), in 1950* through questionnaires

and interviews sought the opinions of teachers as to those

supervisory practices which they considered most helpful. The

results of these studies were primarily inventories, though

the directors did compile a list of common practices, some of

which were considered desirable and others considered unde-

sirable or actually detrimental. Besults were planned and

presented in terms of opinions of teaehers and additional

evaluations and recoaaaendations by the authors themselves.

This method of compilation, however, did not detract from the

value of the finding* except to place a Halt upon the confi-

dence in general application without further investigation as

it nay apply to local situations* Than, too, the areas of

consideration were broad with little specific item evaluation,

tout the present study Maintains breadth and depth of in-

dividual items*

A store recent study was made by Carmichael (7), in 1956.

He investigated the role and status of the supervisor, in in-

dependent achools in Texas and attempted to draw some impli-

cations for the future of supervision as an organisational

role in Texas schools. His purpose was to set up patterns of

activities of supervisors in areas of varied learning experi-

ences rather than to establish relationships of the activities

themselves* By obtaining information in questionnaire form

from superintendents and currloulum directors, he set up eight

broad categories for data from professional status to non-

instructional activities,

Hoffman (13) proposed to identify the role of the expec-

tations of administrators, teachers, supervisors, and special

consultants toward the supervisory areas# Be selected seven-

teen Michigan communities and sent questionnaires to 1,000

administrators, supervisors, teachers, and consultants,

asking their opinion on the role of supervision* A list of

the role-expectations of the respondents was set up, expec-

tations compared, and convergencies and divergencies of

opinions noted* Possibilities of role confliot were definitely

6

established. This study dealt with a wide ©pinion area with

eraphases given to role expectations* la light of these results

it seemed even more important that continued efforts should

he sad® to ascertain and evaluate supervisory activities.

file most reeent study of elementary school supervisory

activities and the assessed values of these sane activities

was done by Lans (15)« of the University of Southern Cali-

fornia. Ie seat questionnaires to elementary school super-

visors in school systems in cities of over 200,000 population#

le also sent questionnaires to educational specialists who

evaluated practices engaged in by supervisors. 0a the basis

of these evaluations, he compared supervisory practices* The

Lanz study dealt- with a population of supervisors from large

city systems and covered the entire uuited States.

Many studies in supervision have Bade contributions, but

still have failed to provide the breadth and depth of many

areas of great need. Some of the studies have dealt with

limited populations; others have given specific attention to

units within that group. Although a few comprehensive check

lists of supervisory activities have been developed, none of

recent date atay be used under the present and constantly

changing philosophy of educational supervision, and none has

applied to a population similar to that of the state of Texas.

Idaltations of the Study

1» The study was limited to Texas school systems having

personnel regularly assigned to supervisory responsibilities

in the elementary school area.

2* The public school systems of Houston, Fort Worth, and

fallss were not included la the study because they participated

la the study by Mm (15)«

3. The respondeat a were limited to regularly employed

members of the school system with supervisory responsibilities

assigned in some area of elementary school supervision,

• 4* the study was limited to an Investigation of super-

visory .activities in these areass {1} professional growth#

I2) curriculum development, (3) evaluation and research, (4) .

instructional supplies and equipment, (5) administrative

activities, (6) professional organisations, (7) public

relations, and (ft) additional activities.

Definition of Terms

Certain words and terms were included which carried

connotations peculiar to this study. They are defined:

ileaientary jgh#.ol#^i school with any combination

of grades from kindergarten through eight.

2* Ileroentarv f&heol Supervisor.regularly employed

member of the school system, whose primary responsibilities

lie within the realm of supervision in the elementary school

and who has been designated by the Terns Education Agency (35)

as imtrvisor or consultant and with such additional speci-

fying titles as ,|gngjl, all-leyel, curriculum, service.

iatenaediate. elementary, and director.

3. Instrument.—This term was used interchangeably with

the word questionnaire.

10

4* Scoring Value of Items.—The scoring'seal# was divided

into four numerical value points: 1, J, 2» k* Til® strongest

emphasis and greatest value was represented by Jj#

5» Katiooal Supervisors*—Elementary school supervisors

in school systems in cities of over 200,000 population. The

activities engaged in by these supervisors were used for com-

parative purposes in the study#

6. iducational Specialists»-~A group of college teachers,

public school adainistraterst and curriculum directors who

had had supervisory experiences and who had written extensively

concerning the practices of supervision, '

Basic Assumptions

1* It was assumed that the respondents serviced the

instrument professionally•

2. It was assumed that the responses' relative to the

activities Indicated ©a the returned questionnaire repre-

sented only that sapient of the population that actually

participated in the study*

Procedure for Collecting Data

The data for this study were collected through the use of

a structured questionnaire which was mailed to eligible per-

sonnel, as determined by criteria set forth in the study# The

instrument itself was taken from a previous study by Lanz

(15), where it was prepared from a pilot study and through the

cooperative efforts of the advisory board, other college

IX

teaching personnel and thirty educational specialists in the

field of supervision. This instrument was* selected because it

seemed the most comprehensive one to serve the Texas • study in

it# pttfpose.

Pace (25, pp« 337-33$) said that the questionnaire is

still the chief method of conducting surveys, Good and Scates

also wrote*

fhe -value of d©script i ve- survey data, as & basis for inference that may aid in solving practical problems, probably *111 be more highly regarded by the school administrator is helping with his pressing difficulties than are the principles and laws growing out of experimen-tation ia the laboratory (12, pp« 552-553)•

Xans determined the criteria to be used for construction

of the questionnaire and the items to be included by reading

contributions made to periodicals by Otto (23, 24), Caswell

{$}, Armstrong (2), Tan Antwerp (37), Replogle (30), Phillips

(27), Brooks (6), Southall (31), Nutt (21), Antell (l)# Pace

(25), and others; by consulting books by Bartky (5)t Wiles

(39), Spears (32),, Barr, Burton, Brueckaer (4), Seeder (2d),

and others; and by studying research projects in supervision

by Southall (31), Crabb (9), Valentine (36), Antell (l),

Brooks (6), Morrison (18), and others*

Items that were collected from the above efforts were

categorized under the section headings appearing in the in-

struments (1) professional growth, (2) curriculum development,

(3) evaluation and research, (4) instructional supplies and

equipment, (5) administrative activities, (6) professional

12

organisations, (7) public relations, and (ft) additional activ-

ities# This material became the first draft* It was handled

in the following manners (1) the advisory committee analysed

the items; (2) assistant superintendents of near-by school

systems analysed the items; (3) fifteen elementary school

supervisors from neighboring school systems studied the ques-

tionnaire and made suggestions! (4) doctoral candidates dis-

cussed the questionnaire in a seminar; (5) the guidance com-

mittee made a summary evaluation; (6) hmz conducted a pilot

study with thirty elementary school supervisors in adjoining

large city school systems, who were asked to use a checklist

and criticise the instrumentj (7) revisions were made by the

committee and other members of the staff{ and (I) the present

questionnaire was compiled and used in the study*

Additional reliability for the instrument needed to be

established for its use in the present study* The names of

prospective respondents were taken from the Public

School Directory (35, pp* 152-175)* The names of thirty-five

persons were selected without order, sad questionnaires were

sent them* Thirty-one of the instruments were returned*

Three months later the questionnaire went to the cooperating

individuals, and the original thirty-one again returned the

questionnaire* Reliability was evaluated on the basis of a

comparison of the two instruments* Computations resulted in

an "r* of +*$6*

13

The questionnaire went to all eligible personnel in

each cooperating school system# The eligible school systems

were those whose organization, as filed with the Texas Educa-

tion Agency (35), included designated personnel for supervision

in the elementary school* The superintendent of each of these

schools was contacted by letter to obtain permission to send

questionnaires to personnel in the system* (Appendix A)* A

self-addressed postal card was enclosed with the letter so

that the superintendent could indicate approval or disapproval

simply by cheeking the item. Other items were included

whereby he could express his preferences# (Appendix A-l).

The schools were chosen on the basis of returned cards showing

approval ©ranted# These returned cards were catalogued and

filed in alphabetical and coded order# Correspondence went

out on the basis of information on the cards; records of par*

ticipation were a part of this file.

One hundred sixty-nine letters were sent to superintend-

ents repeating permission to use their systems in the surrey#

This was the total eligible population in the state, since

these schools were the only ones listed in the 1961-42 Public

School Mractory (35) as having designated supervisory per-

sonnel assigned to the elementary school instructional area.

There were 145 superintendents who granted permission to use

their systems in the survey# These systems included 1#9 ele-

mentary school -supervisors or personnel with responsibilities

in that area# One hundred thirty-one respondents returned

Ik

the Instrument, Baking 123 questionnaires completed ia such

manner as to be acceptable for the study# Sight incomplete

questionnaires were discarded*

Treatment of Data

All data were tabulated on check sheets* The data from

Section A, General Information^ of the questionnaire were

suaaaarized to cover ranges of responses including sex, titles,

personnel supervised, grades and plants under direct super*

vision, academic education, and professional experiences#

lata for other sections of the instrument were tabulated

according to the emphasis placed upon each activity and the

allocation of time for each category of activity# A sua total

value for each item for each respondent was determined as well

as a mean value for that item# A sua total value for the edu-

cational specialists and national supervisors mm .already avail-

able* This information mi put into structured form for the

purpose of computing a simple analysis of variance* Results

from this treatment indicated whether or not significant dif-

ferences existed between activities engaged ia by the two groups

of supervisory personnel involved in the study, and values set

upm these same activities by educational specialists#

Records were also made of the number of respondents who

performed certain activities, the rank of the iten within the

section of the questionnaire, the mean score of each item,

and the mean differences among the Texas supervisors, national

supervisors, and educational specialists#

15

This' treatment of data made possible the testing of the

null hypotheses set forth at the beginning of the study* It

was on this basis that they were accepted or rejected*

first consideration was .given to data from Part £ -

general Information, concerning personal and professional

background characteristics and scope of work of the Texas

elementMXJ school supervisor*

Hit A W^WW ftTHf Tflfltl 1 BUT

1. AnteXX, Henry. "Teachers Appraise Supervisors." Journal o^jg||atioi*aX Regearoa. XXXVIII (April, X 9 W ,

2# Araatrong, ¥• 1., "What Teachers Prefer la Supervision," Educational Method. X? (February, 193$), 270-272.

3* Bail, PauX 3®., "Do Teachers Receive the Kind of Inspira-tion they Desire?" ffypaaX $£ ideational Research. II. (Her# 1947), 7X1-7X7#

4* Barrt A* St, William 8* Burton. end 2»eo J. Brueekner. ^vision. New Tork, Appleton-Century-Crofts, inc.,

M s M B i i »o»toa#.

6« Brooks, Sarah. "Supervision as Viewed by the Supervised," national ftdueatioa Association, Addresses and Pro-ceedings. x$97». pp*

?« CaraichaeX, William R., "Statue of Supervisors in Texas Independent Schools," unpublished doetoraX disserta-tion, School of Education, Baylor University, Waco, Tessas, X9$6*

l« Caswell, H. L.. "How ShaXX Supervision be Advanced?" Educational Method, XXVII (October, X94X), 7» •

9. Crabbs, MUfc me, MeagHlaS MSjllMfy MJl®fOifi§2S M M Teaching. Contributionsto Education, Ho. 175 INew fork, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College Coluabia University, 1935), viii.

X0. Good, Carter V., Introduction to Educational Research. New Tork, Applet on~C@ntury-oroft§,' Inc., 1959#

XX. Good, Carter ?•, editor, Dictionary of Education. Hew Tork, »e©raw-IiXX Book Company, inc., x?45*

12. Hood, Carter V., Douglas S. ac«t««. HWhodi In j i m n t . Hew Tork, AppXeton-Gentury-Crofts, Inc.,1954.

16

17

9 that °f!» tt««Ury *a«clwr». Soaaultaiits,

S^ffrJJtL &«re for the EL«aeatarf special Area xeaaher find Go&saltaiit ftole* * unpub-lished ^oetoraldissertatioii, College of Idttcation, Michigan Stat® fanraraitf, Ana Arfeor, I9ff« '

14* i» "HP Sl«M«tarjr $@h®©l Prtaoipal as a faiMer of Teaahiaa Morale,» Zti»at lear^okrMiehiff

#

II . f # »Aa of the Activities of CMaieral Superrieore in Qitim of Oitr

$ ? § £ £ £ 4 f o c t 2 r f 1 ^•*«rtation, Sehool M g a S t l | ^ . W Southern iaM£©r«iaf U s

H«r forts,.

"' ^ e T ' i S t ^ S d ^ S ^ * 8 4 temitiss. B o r t o ".

• Morrieomj* Qmcm, "Suparviaioii ftro* the feather®* w S T M HSSteL I (»««*>«,

19* National Sducation Aaeociation. 'UtiiriUv Throach

a s s E s . * # 3 H ? * * ^ * » * A .

2 3 , T M i S ^ l o S f C ^ W

« gaiii,..,... Organlgat io n. ami Admin-

IM

25* fate, ©* 1# and Arthur D# iroime, •Trends and Survey f p w m ' ; * ' f g f f 8««ear«h. XX

26. Peekha®, Dorothy l« f #Aa Sralaatioa of the MAtiple# of Supervision la terms of Activities and Adoiaistratioa Provisions,* unpublished doctoral dissertation. College of Education, University of Texas, Austin, Wm*

27« Phillips. 0* A»# '"The Work of Supervisors.and Directors,* School and Soiiaunity. XXIXX (lay, 1954), 13.

lew'

29

Jontpaay,

. l@dera-Si. ;ration and Supervision* XXXX (J

School. 23. Seeder, Edwin H«. Sunerviaioa of f VftA- ffTtiiky• wl'y JNrm•s «TSr#t XQo&ji m JLJyll

. "Supervision in Modern • Spools," Iduca* * -* * - * - #|i«wjEras

mWwWirap-®# i 30. Replogle, feraoa J»#t "What Do Teachers Wantt* Mutational

Leadership. f|X fApril, 1950), 446, •

31» Southall m Ji .ucatlcn

of mi m

M l e i # , 1925.

|2* Spears, Harold inglewood C.

meat of Publio lastruotion.

Miti •wflipraiiiii

33* Stoops, k « 7 , ®0rgso«atioa and Administration of tort*!* Major Supervisory Services in I»arge City School System

»iifelislied doctoral dissertation, Sehool of Iduoatioa, University of Southern Calif orrda, Los Angeles, 1941*

34* Southern States Workshop Conference, "Educational Super-visioa—4 .Leadership Serviee,* States farir goafeimti o» J fftUiEaSiSi, Florida, 1^4

« 1961.

36* Valentine. P# F»f «A Job-Analyais of Xieasnt r m s i mmrnm mm, *

&ral£U

Super-

19

|?» T«a Antwerp, Harriett, «fe&ekere* ftraluation of the Effectiveness of Supervisory Practices,* Journal «f Educational Method.'m (May, ifjlf* 4l4Sf»

Wsksterfs Hew Solleidtate Metioaarar. IpiliiffieM, I* and irilftllii Urnmm* Publishers,

1953.

3#«

39* Wiles, Kimball, iaBenrialom to Better achoola. Second Bditioa, Eaglewooi c l i f f J e r a e ^ PrKtice-Hall, 1915 *

CHAPTM II

PS&SOK&L KM MMSMM'MB. M SCOPS OF

mm m nm mmmtim schooi* wwmwm

Introduction

One of the most marked changes occurring In education

during the fast two decades took place in the role of the

supervisor of schools* Til© difference In role developed from

changing concepts of «»p«rvlilo&. Hever clearly defined, the

concept of the superri»or during the nineteenth century as an

inspectional, paper-pencil chooser changed to the present~d&y

supervisor, a well~e#tt@ated specialist skilled In h®ian r ©-»

lationa, m i group processes# ?hi» a w concept calls for an

experienced individual with h i # ability nh© has a profea-

aional education of great hre&dth and depth*

A structured funtatlonnair# type instrument m & selected

to submit to t m m elementary school supervisors# ehapter 1

vaa eoasansad nitk data from & & A, Owwrml Inforaatlon. of

the instrument*

the purpose of J H & o f

questionnaire was to ascertain tha status of the supervisor

relative to these areas! (1) sax, iZ) title* (3) grade#

supervised, (4) school buildings supervised, (5) number of

teachers supervised, (6) inatitutiona of higher learning

from *diich the supervisors graduated, (7) highest degree held

20

a

and data obtained, {£) amber of years la the profession of

education, (9) number of years in the present school system,

(10) number of years in present position, (IX) nuaber of years

as teacher in the elementary school, (12) number of years as

teacher in secondary school, (13) number of years as principal

in elementary school, (14) number of year® as principal ia

secondary school, (15) number ©f years ia other administrative

positions, and (16) position held before assuming present

duties*

Using data obtained froia this part of the instrument,

tables were constructed to present the information of personal

and professional qualifications and scope of work of Texas

elementary school supervisors.

Title of Person Submitting Report

Respondents in the cooperating school systems were known

by a variety of titles# Table I presents information of the

number and variety# The title of elementary sttaarrlsor was

the most common* Fifty respondents, or 40 per cent, were

recognised by that name. The nexfc most common titles were

coordinator gfi elementary education, and supervisor* Each

of these titles was given to eleven respondents, or Id per

cent of the total# The first three titles listed la the

table represented approximately per cent of the population

of 123*

en4 mart*

The regaining twelve titles ranged from one to eight

up 42 per cent«

22

TABLE 1

VARIETI -Off TITLES ®X WISH RESPONDENTS mm KNOWS

Title Respondents

Elementary Supervisor * * « * • • • * • • * 50 Coordinator of Elementary JSducation * * * * IX Supervisor • • « • • • • * * • XI director of Instruction » • • * • • • • • « $ Supervisor, All-Levels . . . . . . . . . . ,7 Curriculum Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 General Supervisor • « • « • • * • • • • • o Director of Elementary Instruction . . . . 5 Intermediate Supervisor * • • « • • * » « • 4 Curriculum Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . 3 Instructional Coordinator . . . . . . . . . 3 Primary Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Primary Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Primary Consultant • • • • * • . * » • • • 2 Elementary Coordinator • * , , • • « • * • 1

ioa® author# of material ©a trends in supervision h&v#

suggested that the nan© of consultant was becoming more

popular* Information in Table 1 does not support this as-

sumption*

Orades Supervised

Table II shows the grade organizations reported and the

number of respondents A o worked in each type# 11 even dif-

ferent combinations were indicated* with three types being

the most common* Sixty-three, or approximately 50 per cent

of the respondents, worked in the 1-6 grade organisation.

Grade organisation 1-12 had twenty-two units in operation,

and grade organisation 1-i had ten* The grade combination

of 1-12 made up approximately Id per cent of the total of 123,

and the 1-8 plan m» approximately 9 per cent* The grade

23

TABLE II

VAROTT OF GMDE QBQAIIZATIOIS SUPERVISED

Grade Organization Eespoadents

1*6 * » • • . . . * • 63 1-12 » • • # • • • • « • • • • • • • 22 1-8 . # • 10 1 -7 • * # > * • # . . « # * . # • # J 4**o • # • * • • • • • • • • • • • « 6 k~J • 5 K-6 # * * # . . # • • # . 3 1-9 • # • • # # • . . . * 2 *-7 # # • # . • # # # # . 2 K-12 # • # # # , • , 2 1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

organisation 1-6# 1-12, and 1-3 made up nearly #0 per cent of

the total# The remaining combinations ranged from on# to

seven with a combined percentage of 20,

Number of Seta©©! Buildings Supervised

Data tabulated from reports concerning the number of

buildings in which the supervisor carried out his responsi-

bilities indicate a range ©f from one to forty-five# The re-

ports of responsibility for twenty to forty-five buildings caae

from systems with more than one person working in supervision#

There was a total of .1116 buildings reported with a mean

of nine .buildings for each supervisor. There were 214 build-

ings included in the twenty to forty-five count, which affected

seven respondents# Thirty-seven respondents worked in 454

buildings included in the count of ten to nineteen; the remain-

ing seventy-nine respondents worked in 44# buildings#

24

TABLE 111

W W I I Of SCHOOL BUILDINGS SUPERVISED

Buildings Respondents

I

20 to 45 • * • * • . * • * • • • • * * 7 10 to 19 * |?

9 • • • • • • • • * • • • • • « 10 *••»•••»»••••» 9

. * 9 2U

5 9 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 II

I 1 1

lumber of Teachers Supervised

Tit ©re w@re so aany number variations %Mt general umb^r

areas were aubatituted for the actual count» Table I? ahoya

tfeeae general areas*

TABLE IT

M 0? TEACHERS SUPERVISES

Teachers Bespoadents

Over 300 , 12 250 to 299 # * » • • • • • # • • * • • $ W O to 249 . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 13 150 to 199 * * • • • » » # « « • * # • 10 100 to 149 • • « • • • « • • • • • • • 24 90 to 99 • . . . 7 d0 to &9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 70 to 79 • 3 60 to 69 14 50 to 59 4 40 to 49 « • • • • • • • • • • » • • 6 30 to 39 . . . & 20 to 29 • • « » » • * • # • • • • • 7 19 or leas . 4

25

Sot® the break in the count scope between the ninety t©

ninety-nine and 100 t o 149# This change in siJse of in terval

from f i f t y to tea was made t© place more clearly the' actual

number of teachers' supervised by each respondent. There was

a t o t a l teacher count of 17» 536 with a mean load of supervisory

responsibi l i ty f o r 143 teachers. Sixty-four respondents, or

approxisaately 50 per cent of the group, supervised 100 or ©ore

teachers. F i f ty-nine respondeata indicated they supervised

up to 100 teaehers# . The. mean number of teachers supervised

was approximately 100*

Ins t i tu t ions of H i # e r Learning of Which the Respondents were Graduates

Table f provide® information on the type ©f institution

of higher learning from «hich the respondents received their

highest degree. It al»0 shows the number of respondents who

graduated from each type#

TABLE f

TOT Of INSTITUTIONS F10M WEIGH KBS-FGHBIITS HBCIIflD HIGHEST DEGfffil

Type of Ins t i t u t ion • • Respondents

faiversity • . . . . . • • . 65 Teachers* College . . . . . . . . . . *• • . 4f Liberal Arts Allege 6 Other Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Sixty-five of the-respondents received their highest de-

gree fro® a university. This was approximately 53 fa**

Forty-eight, or approximately 39 per cent of the respondents,

26

received their highest degree from teachers* colleges I six,

or 5 per cent, received the highest degree from a liberal aits

college; and four, or 3 percent, received their highest de-

gree from other institutions* The great tat number received

the degree from universities or teachers* colleges.

Highest Begree Held, and Date Obtained

fable YI states the highest degree held and the number of

persons holding the degree* As may be noted, only two of the

respondents reported a bachelor*s degree as the highest ob-

tained? the other® were master1® and doctor's*

TABLE VI

HIGHEST w mm BX Mmmmmu

degree Respondents

Doctor of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Doctor of Philosophy • • * • * • • • • • * 2 Master of Education $0 Master of Science 16 Master of Arts* . . . . . . . . . « • * » * 46 Bachelor of Science * • • * * • * • • * « * 1 Bachelor of Arts* . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

line of the respondents held doctorates, 112 held master*©

degrees, and two held bachelor*s degrees*. Fifty, or 41 per

cent, of the master1s degrees were in Education; forty-six,

or approximately 37 p** cent, were Master of Arts degrees*

Sixteen, or 13 per cent, of the remaining .were Master of

Science degrees# All master1® degrees made up 91 per cent of

the 123 respondents* Nine per cent of the total was shared

by the doctor** and bachelor*s degrees.

2?

Table VII outlines the dates these highest degrees were

obtained# For convenience of reporting, the dates were ar-

ranged in five-year intervals* The earliest was reported in

1930# the latest in 1962»

TABLE VII

DATE HIGHEST DSQ8SE WAS OBTAINED

Date

1930-1934 • « » * • # « # 5 1935-1939 # # * # « * * « » * # • • * 10 1940-1944 • * * « * * « + + • • • * * 9 1945-1949 # # * » « * • * * • • • # * 23 19J0-1954 # « * * * • * # • » # # • # 47 195S-1959 • # • • • » • « „ 25 1960-1962 • * • « » » « « * « * * * # 4

Five of the respondents received their highest degree

within the period from 1930 to 1934; tea during the 1935-1939

span; nine from 1940 to 1944; twenty-three .from 1945 to 1949;

forty-seven from 1950 to 1914; twenty-five ffom 1951 to 1959;

and four from I960 to 1962* Seventy-seven per cent of the de-

grees were obtained during the period fro® 1945 to 1959# a

total of ninety-five# Approximately 3 par eeat was obtained

between I960 and 1962* Twenty-four, or 20 per cent, of the

degrees were obtained prior to 1945*

Number of fears in the Profession

In Table ¥111 it is seen that the range of years in the

profession extended from less than ten to fifty-five* Eight

respondents reported they had been in the profession tea years

or lesst but only one reported a period of service of

28

fifty-fire years# • Two indicated they had been teaching fro®

forty-six to fifty years; four from forty-one to forty-fife;

and seiren from thirty-six to forty years#• A total of 10X of

the respondents reported they had been la the profession from

eleven to thirty-five years, or $2 per cent of the total#

TABLE VIII

TEARS II Til PROFESSION

fears •

55 . '46 to $0 • 41 to 45 • 36 to 40 * 31 to 35 * 26 to 30 • 2i to m » 16 t© 10 . 11 to 15 . 10 and less

Sespondents

1 2 % 7 23 15 a? m 16 I

The mean in years in the profession was 23#d; the pedlar*

and the mode were twenty-three*

lumber of Years in the Present School System •

Table II structures data which deal with the number of

years each respondent has been in the present system# One

respondent reported he had been in the present school system

forty-four years? four reported employment in the present sys-

tem froa thirty-one to thirty—five yearsj and eight Indicated

they had been in the system from twenty-one to twenty-five

years# This group comprised approximately 11 per cent of the

total of 123 respondents# Fifteen per cent, or nineteen

29

TABUS I I

YEARS I I PRESENT SCHOOL SISTIM

Tears , Respondents

44 • 1 31 to 35 . • . . 4 26 to 30 • 0 21 to 25 • * i6t«ao if ii to 15 as 6 to 10 • • • . • * • • • • • • • • • • 40 5 and leas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

respondents, reported they had been in the system from sixteen

to twenty years; twenty-*ive,or 20 per cent, reported from

eleven to fifteen year® in the system; forty, or approximately

13 per cent, reported six to ten years; and twenty-six, or

nearly 20 per cent,. indicated five years or less in the present

school system. The mean number of years for respondents in

the present school system was 11.6; the median a little less

than eleven# A total of 101 reported time in present school

system from eleven to thirty-five years#

Number of Tears in Present Position

Table X gives data concerning the number of years the

respondents have been in their present position*

TA$m 1

m i s II PRESENT POSITION

Tears Respondents

16 to 27 . . . 11 to 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6 to 10 31 1 to 71

30

As may be noted, seventy-one of the respond tats have been

lis their present position from ©a# to five years, but only fix

indicate sixteen to twenty-seven years, the other end of the

seal®. The seventy-one respondents made tip 5$ p®r cent of the

group# the six respondents comprising 5 per cent. Thirty-one,

or 25 per cent, reported six to ten years in the present

position, and fifteen, which made up approximately 12 per cent,,

indicated they had been in the present position fro® eleven

to fifteen years* The mean time in the present position was

5«7 years with a median also below six years#

lumber of fears a® Teacher in the Elementary School

The last line in Table II shows that some respondents

indicated no experience in teaching in the elementary school?

others reported experiences ranging from one to thirty-two years*

TABLE II

TSiCSINa EXPERIENCE IN B W W A I I SCHOOL

Tears Respondents

I 26 to 30 I 21 to 25 | 16 to 3©

JJ • • • • • if 6 to 10 38 1 to 5 38

0 , , • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • 1 0

Thus it may be seen that in the elementary schools one had

thirty-two years* teaching experiences ten, or 9 per cent, had

no teaching experience in this field; 104* or $$ per cent of

31

the groups ranged fro® one to twenty years1 experience* • Nine,

approximately 7 per cent, had more than twenty years teaching

ia the elementary schools. 'All of which showed the a ©an years

of experience in the elementary school to be d.3* the bulk

of the number of supervisors had taught in the eleaeatary

school# from five to twenty years*

Humber of Tears as Teacher in the Secondary School

fable XXI outlines data dealing, with the number of years

of experience la the secondary school classroom.

TABLE XII

TEACHING EXPERIENCE II SECQMDAIT SeHGQU

Tears Respondents

22 . . 1 16 to 20 . 3 11 to 15 « • 6 6 to 10 . . . • 20 1 to 5 * * « * * * * * » * # • # • « # »

0

?orty«gix of the respondents indicated they had no experi-

ence in teaching in the secondary school. • This ma 3$ per

cent of the total number of' the participating" group, forty*

seven reported from one' to five years* teaching experience in

secondary education, which was also approximately 3$ per cent.

Twenty respondents reported aix to ten years1 experience; aix

reported eleven to fifteen years; three indicated sixteen to

twenty years* teaching experience ia this area# Data show

3a

429 total years* teaching experience in the secondary school

for this group, with a mean of 3*4 teaching years#

fears m Principal ia Elementary School

Table XXXI depicts data relative to the experience# of

the respondents as principal in the elementary school*

TABLE XIII

E I P I E I E I C S AS mimifkh XM ELEMEHTARY SCHOOLS

fears Respondents

25 # . • 1 16 to 20 • • « • • « • • • • • • • * • < « 4 11 to 15 * • « • * * • • • • • • * * . , « 7 6 to 10 * • « < , • • # . . . . . . . . . . 20 1 to 5 • • • • • • • « » • • • • * • • • 3S

0 . . . . . . . . . . 53

Fifty-three respondents indicated no experience m prin-

cipal in the elementary school. This was 43 per cent of those

filling supervisory positions ia elementary #cheol«» Thirty-

eight, or approximately 31 per'cent$ reported on® to five years

as principal| twenty, or 16 per cent, reported from six to ten

year# experience; seven reported eleven to fifteen years? four

reported sixteen to twenty years; and one respondent reported

twenty-five years* experience as an elementary school principal*

There was a mean number of years of 3»7 for the entire group

and a mean of 6*5 years experience for those with experience

in this area.

Tears as Principal in Secondary School

It is shown in Table XIV that ninety-two of the respond-

ents had no experience as principal in the secondary school.

33

Twenty-five reported from one to five year#* experience; th ree

reported from s ix to ten years $ and th ree reported from eleven

to f i f t e e n years* experience. Approximately BO per cent of

the total number of supervisors had. no experience i n t h i s

educational a rea .

f iSlf v w iMmmm JkJLY

EIPEEIEMCE AS jmiKIPAI II THE WOI0AEI SCHOOIS

Tears Respondenta

11 to 15 » . f # , • * , * . 3 6 to 10 • . • • # • • • • * • • • f f . , 3 1 to 5 25

0 • • • « • * • • • # * * • * # « 92

The mean years* experience f o r t he group was 1*2; however,

the mean years* experience f o r those who had been secondary

school principal® was 4*8* Approximately 71 per cent of this

group had no' eacperience in secondary p r inc ipa l sh ip . Twenty-

f i v e of t he respondents, which was approximately 20 per cent ,

reported fro© one t o f i v e years* experience; th ree reported

from s ix t o t en years* experience; and th ree indicated from

eleven to fifteen years* experience as a secondary school

principal* Approximately 2$ per ©eat of elementary school

supervisors report experience in the secondary principalahip*

Xears i n Other Administrative Posi t ions

According to data, in Table X?, eighty-seven of the respond-

ents had no experience in other administrative positions and

the next l a rges t number had from one t o f i v e years* experience

34

in this area. Eleven respondents indicated,six to twenty-five

years* previous experience in other administrative responsibil-

ities. Approximat ely 71 per cent accepted. supervisory respon-

aibilitiea without having had other administrative positions*

Approximately 90 per cent reported having had from one to

five years, and the remaining per cent reported from six to

twenty-five years' experience in other administrative positions.

TABU m

SIF1EIIICI II OTHER ABMIliXSTRATXYl POSITIONS

tears ' 'Respondents

16 to 20 I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I a 11 to 15 • 2 6 to 10 . . . . 6 1 to 5 • . . . . 25

' 0 . . . . . 87 '

It is interesting to note that few elementary school super**

visors are recruited from professional personnel who have had

extensive experiences in other administrative positions.

Position Held Before Assuming Present Position

Table IfI indicates the extent of mobility of the respond-

ents, to the present position of supervisory responsibilities *

Seventy, or 60 per cent, of the supervisors came from iiame~

diate experience in elementary school teaching or from the

position of elementary school principal. Five indicated they

came from elementary school supervisory responsibilities from

other systems, and two frost the position of assistant

35

elementary school principal# this' gives a total of seventy-

#©iren, or 63 per cent, of the respondents who were already a

part:of the elementary school program# Thirty-seven per cent

of the respondents moved from secondary, college, and special

areas to the present position#'

Iff ImMmm 4*14*

POSITIOIS HgLD BEF01I ASSOKXXQ PilSlMT POSITION

Position

§ * * •

• • #

Elementary School Principal •Elementary School Teacher . Secondary School Principal Secondary School' Teacher • Superintendent . . . . . . Special Teacher* . Elementary School Supervisors.

Systems* . . . . . . . . Collejpi Tencher • • « • • • Guidance Counselor • • • • Assistant, Elementary School Principal

Bespcndents

# II • 35 . 15

: H • • # Other

• # * • • *

*

i

6

5 3 3 2

*Heniedial Areas, Reading, Handicapped

Data indicate that elementary school supervisory person-

nel are recruited largely from elementary school responsibil-

ities#

Sex of the Supervisors

Data from the study indicated that fifty-one nen and

seventy-two women who tool? part in the study were engaged in

elementary school supervision# Sixty-six schools employed

one person in elementary school supervision, and of that am-

ber thirty-five were men and thirty-one were women* There

36

were forty-six women and eleven mm In systems employing

more than one person#

1 JI Activities 'MflSB SB^'ISSSB

It w i a- purpose -of this study to examine the tabulated

data to determine whether the men and women supervisors en-

gaged in different activities or placed different emphases

upon aetivities* ®ata were analysed by Critical Ratio*

Fifty-one men and seventy-two women responded to the

questionnaire, and since the questionnaire was structured Into

seven sections, the Bean values for each individual, by sections,

were computed for both groups* , The critical ratio for Section

I, Professional Growth, was 2.7 which was significant at the

•05 level. The critical ratio for Section III. Evaluation and

Research, was 2.97 which wag significant at the »05 level.

Critical ratio for Section 7, Administrative Activities, was

2.0, which was significant at the .05 level. There were,

therefore, significant differences between activities engaged

in by men and women as reported for these sections.

Responses on Activities by Respondents with Different Master's Degrees

A purpose of this study was to detenaias Aether different

activities were engaged in or different emphases placed upon

these same activities by supervisors with different types of

graduate degrees# A Simple Analysis of Variance formula was

used for this treatment. Where a significant F~Score appeared,

37

the "t^-technique was applied, to deteraine til® level of sig-

nificance of the differences*

Treatment of M a fro® Section VI, Professional Organ**

isations. produced an F-Score of 3*30, which was significant.

A "f-Test was confuted between data for those holding Master

of Arts degrees? thoae holding Master of Sducation degree*

and those holding Master of Science degrees; and between those

holding Master of Arts degrees and those holding Master x£

Science degrees* Treatment of data from other sections

failed to produce a significant F-Score.

Computations between the data for those holding the Master

of Education degrees and thbse holding the Master of Arts de-

grees produced a highly significant •f-score of 6»9tf com-

putations between the data for those holding the Master of

Education degrees and those holding the Master of Science

degrees produced, a «t®-s€©re which was not significant * A

significant *t ••score of 3.05 was produced when comparison

was made between data of those holding the Master of Arts de-

grees and those holding the Master of Science degrees*

the significant "t^-score identified the area of differ**

ences in activities in which the supervisors engaged as pre-

viously indicated by the significant F-Score. In faction VI,

therefore, there were significant differences between activ-

ities engaged in by holders of the fester of Arts degrees and

the holders of both the Master of Education degrees and Master

of Science degrees# There were no significant differences

3#

between the activities engaged in by holders of Master of

Education degrees and holders of Master of Science degrees•

fiwmafiyy

The purpose of this chapter was to present and interpret

data obtained from £ g & A, QeneraX Infonaa frloii. of the ques-

tionnaire. It surveyed the scope of the work and the personal

and professional qualifications of the elementary school

supervisor in Texas public school systems.

Elementary supervisor mas the most cowman title by which

Texas supervisors were known and they supervised eleven dif-

ferent types of grade organisation®.# The one used by store

schools than any other was the 1-6 type* The number of school

buildings over which the supervisor had supervisory Juris-

diction ranged g r m 0 n 4 t 0 forty-five with a mean number of

nine for each supervisor; the number of teachers supervised

in these facilities ranged from nineteen and less to over 300,

with a mean number of 143 teachers for each supervisor.

Over 90 per cent of the supervisors received their highest

4tgr«M froa universities and teachers1 colleges# Fifty-three

per cent of this number was graduated from universities and

4? per cent froa teachers* colleges# One hundred twelve of

the supervisors held master#s degreesj nine doctor*s degrees;

and. two bachelor1 s degrees* The degrees, were received froa

1930 to 1962 with the greatest number received trm 1945 to

1959# Only four were received after I960*

39

The supervisors had been In the profession from less than

tea years to fifty-five years with a mean number of 23## years#

The number of years in the present system ranged from less

than fife years to forty-four years with a mean of 11*6 years#.

The time spent ia the present position ranged fro® one to

twenty-seven years with a aean number of 5*7 years#

One hundred thirteen supervisors reported teaching ex-

perience in the elementary school; seventy-seven reported

teaching experience in a secondary school; seventy reported

experience m m elementary school principal; thlrty~oae re-

ported experience m a secondary school principal; and thirty-

six reported experience in other administrative positions#

Seventy, or approximately 60 per cent of the respondents, came

to their present position from immediate elementary school

responsibilities of elementary school teacher or principal#

It is evident that a majority of Texas elementary school

supervisors were recruited froa elementary school responsi-

bilities#

More women than men were employed aa elementary school

supervisors in Texas schools# Where only one person was em-

ployed for supervisory responsibilities, the men outnumbered

the women but vihere sore than one person was employed the

women outnumbered the men#

Significant differences did appear between certain activ-

ities engaged in by mm and women in sections dealing with

professional ££Wth, Research, and

40

activities* Differences also appeared between

activities engaged la by respondents who held different types

of degrees. In the section dealing with professional growth,

significant differences appeared between activities engaged

in by those who held the Master of Arts degrees and both of

the groups holding Master of Education and Master of Science

degrees*

Though there were some significant differences existing

within the personal and professional characteristics of ele-

mentary school supervisors in Texas public schools* the data

provided evidence that in the greatest number of situations

and in. the personal and professional background character-

istics, elementary school supervisors in Texas have much in

eorooxu

CJUPTKR III

FINDINGS II ARMS OF STUB! OF THE BOLE OP ELEMEOTARI

SCHOOL SUPEBTISOES IN SELECTED TEXAS

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Introduction

The preceding chapter summarized the data obtained from

responses from Fart 4 ©f the questionnaire. It was the pur-

pose of this chapter to present the data obtained from Fart jl

of the questionnaire contributed by Texas elementary school

supervisors. These data were analysed and compared with

similar data obtained from national elementary school super-

visors of school systems in cities of over 200,000 population

and fro® responses of educational specialists*

The activities surveyed in this section of the question-

naire had to do with? (1) professional growth, (2) .curriculum

(3) evaluation ana research, (k) instructional

lff%lM.SI mi j m W L (5) administrative activities. (6)

organizations. (?) mbllc relations, and {$}

astivltiea of supervisors. These areas were

studied from three points of view: (I) present activities en-

gaged ia by Texas elementary school supervisors, (2) present

activities engaged in by national elementary school super-

visors# and (3) reeoswended activities suggested by educational

41

CIAPT® i n

FINDINGS I I ARSAS OF STUDT OF THE EOLE OF ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL SUPERVISORS » SELECTED TIXAS

PUBLIC SCHOOL

Introduction

The preceding chapter summarized the data obtained from

responses fro® .Furt & of the questionnaire. I t was the par-

pose of t h i s chapter to present the data obtained fro© fa r t J|

of the questionnaire contributed toy Toms elementary school

supervisors, these data were analysed and compared with

similar data obtained from national elementary school super-

visors of school systems in cities of over 200,000 population

and from responses of educational specialists#

The ac t iv i t ies surveyed in this section of the question-

naire had to do with: (1) professional cnmth. (2) curriculum

i i a l M S U l # CI) evaluation and research. (U instructional

ffmtol &Sj (5? administrative ac t iv i t ies . (6)

professional organizations. (?) public relations, and Id)

»ft*l¥i*i— si supervisors. These areas were

studied from three points of view! (1) present act ivi t ies en-

gaged in by Te»s elementary school supervisors, (2) present

ac t iv i t ies engaged in by national elementary school super-

visors, and (3) recommended activities suggested by educational U

42

specialists* By checking numbers on a four-point seal# re-

spondent® were requested to indicate their present activities

and to state the emphasis they placed upon each* These re-

sponses of Texas elementary school supervisors and national

elementary school supervisors were compared with the value

ratings of educational specialists# Responses of the two

supervisory groups mm also compared with each other.

Method of Reporting Findings

Data from the responses of Texas elementary school super-

visors were tabulated and placed in table form alongside

similar data from national elementary school supervisors »nH

from educational specialists* These table® are found in

Appendix B* Items in the tables are to be read as follows:

The first line, "total number of respondents,11 indicates the

total number of copies of the questionnaire which was returned

and used as a part of the study* The three different numerals

or notations in this line represent Texas elementary school

supervisors, national supervisors, and educational specialists,

in that order* The second line, "number answering item,*

gives the actual number of respondents who marked the item in

the instrument. The third line, "per cent of supervisors

performing this activity,* represents data which resulted

fro® computations in which the number of respondents who an-

swered the item was divided by the number of respondents who

participated in the study. The fourth line, "rank of item,"

k3

ahows bow the respondents rssJted the item la important#

relative to the other itena ia the seetioa* The auafoer of

items varied from section to Motion of the queatieaaaire*

The fifth line, * m m saores,« represeats the results of

tctaliag individual values flat #4 upon each it en la each

section aad dividiag those values fey the number of itess la

the section* The sixth Xiao, "mean differences,* Indicates

differences bcfcweoa tit® wem soores of each group#

Tk« first Xiae, •total respondents,* la the same for all

tallies, Texas supervisors 123, national supervisors l£2, and

educational specialists 30* The Imm supervisory group la

the only ©a© without omissions in this line* .

A mean score of «0 indicated the greatest emphasis or

greatest value placed upon the activity while a score of £*0

indicated the least emphasis or value.

When the abbreviation •Sig** appears on the table, it

means a significant difference existed between the groups

indicated as computed from the Lanz study*

data from the responses of Texas supervisors were treated

statistically to determine if significant differences existed,

between activities engaged ia by these Texas supervisors aad

those engaged ia by national supervisors aad if there were

significant differences between activitiee engaged ia by Texas

sapervieors and values placed apoa these activities by edu-

cational specialists* Since the meaa value of the activity,

as set mp by the educational specialist group, was used as

44

the criterion fey which mean scores of both supervisory groups

were judged, a significant difference-indicated that the

supervisors placed too such or too little.emphasis upon the

activity. Data for each section of the instrument were=

treated by simple analysis of variance* If a significant

F-Score appeared, *t"^scores were computed t© determine

wherein the significant differences- lay#

finding* in th« An»» of Prof«saloaal Oroxth

Working ia the area of professional growth, in-service

education,' the supervisors

2iai£3 is °"t«r ss. ssaixss & a isaate-lsasa-

lug situation*--Bata in fable XXI? represent the responses

of 123 Texas supervisors, 15® national supervisor®, and 29

educational specialists. All supervisors engaged la this

activity* Among the forty-three it ens in this section Texas

supervisors ranked this &m m 14*51 national supervisors

ranked it If educational specialists ranked it 13* The mm

score of Texas supervisors was 1*45, of national supervisors

1*17, and of educational specialists 1*29* The Texas super-

visors placed less emphasis upon this item than was recom-

mended by specialists,-but the national group placed more

©aphasia. The aeaa difference between' the scores of the Texas

and national groups was *tSj the mean difference between the

scores of the Texas group and the specialists group was *16*

45

' Visita on teachers' invitation.--According to data in

Table XXV, 123 Texas supervisors, 129 national supervisors,

and 30' specialists answered the item. All supervisors en-

gaged in this activity. Texas supervisors ranked the item

16•5, national supervisors ranked it 29, and educational ,

specialists' ranked it 6.5* Educational specialist® considered

this item to fee of' much greater importance than did either of

the other two groups; the national group considered it of less

relative value than did either of the other two groups* The

mean score of Texas supervisors was 1.47, of national super-

visors 1*64, and of educational specialists 1*17* neither of

the two groups of supervisors placed as much emphasis upon

this itesj as was recommended by specialists. This statement

is supported by the relative rankings given to the item. The

greatest »ean difference existed between the scores of the

national group and educational specialists* A difference of

.17 existed between the mean scores of the Texas group and

the national group, but a difference of *30 appeared between

the scores of the Texas group and educational specialists*

Hakes uaaimsaungad visits.—Table XXVI lists 123 Texas

supervisors, 150 national supervisors, and 30 educational

specialists as answering the item. Eighty-eight per cent of

the Texas group reported performance of this activity; and

$0*4 per cent of the national group reported performance*

The three groups ranked the item as relatively unimportant

in the total number in the section* Out of the forty*three

46

items la this section Texas supervisor# rsakM it 41# 5,

national supervisors 39, and educational specialists 43. The

saean score of the Texas group was 2,34, of the national group

2.22f and of the educational specialists 2,63* Both super-

visory groups plaeed more emphasis upon the performance of

this activity than was recommended fey educational specialists*

thou# rankings were siailar. There was a difference of .12

between the mean scores of the Texas group and the national

group, but a greater difference of *29 appeared between the

scores of the Texas group and educational specialists group#

M i s isUm-m M S imfltir

«—Data in-Table XXfll disclose that 123 Texas


specialists answered this item. Texas supervisors reported

100 per cent performance; and national supervisors reported

99«3 per cent. The Texas group ranked the Item 4.5, the

national group 4#5, and educational specialists 4* The mean

scores point up the emphases and values placed upon this

practice. The mean score of the Texas group was 1.47, of the

national group l.ld, and of the specialists group 1*15. There

was a seam difference of .29 between the scores of Texas

supervisors and national supervisors and a difference of .32

between the scores of the Texas group and the specialists

group. A snail difference of .05 appeared between the scores

of the national group and the specialists group.

47

gljcuases cMld-growth characteristics with teashy and

SBSSB^te iS Magb methods to st^es o|

shown in Table XVIII, 123 Texas supervisors# 160 national

supervisors, and 30 educational specialists answered the item#

The Texas group reported 99*2 P«r cent performance; the

national group reported 99*4 per cent. Texas supervisors gave

this item a relative rank of 21#5% national supervisors a rank

of 12; and specialist a rank of 20* The mean score# of the

groups indicated high value and preference for this activity#

The mean differences were small, showing a «1& between the

scores of the Texas group and the national group; a *10 be-

tween the scores of the Texas group and the • specialist group;

and a *13 difference between the scores of the national group

and the specialist group.

M l S UESsr MTOiMf* instructional aatez^sl.—One

hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors, 161 national super-

visors, and 30 educational spealalists reported information

included in Table XXIX* Ninety-eight per cent of the Texas

group reported performance of the activity, and 93*2 per cent

of the national group reported performance* The Texas group

ranked the item 16.5* the national group 10, and the educa-

tional specialists 22*5# Both supervisory groups gave this

item a higher ranking than did the specialist group. The

mean score of the Texas group was l.$0, of the national group

1*26, and the educational specialist group 1«57» Both

4#

supervisory groups emphasised the practice som th&a was rec-

ommended by the group of specialists. There was a mean dif-

ference of *24 between the scores of fern# supervisors mud

national supervisors,,. and a mean difference of #0? between

the scores of the Texas group and the group of specialists#

A mean difference of .31 existed between the mean scores of

the national supervisors and th# educational specialists#

Assists teachers jdth the i£ M i l # weekly,

and semester j^jgrags.—Table XXX shows that 123 Texas super-

visors, 161 national supervisors, and 29 educational special-

ists answered the item. The Texas group reported 94 per cent

performance of the activity, and 97# 5 per cent ©f national

supervisors reported performance* Among the forty-three items

in the section, the Texas group ranked it 40 i the national

group 22.1; and the specialist group 3$*§» The mean wore of

the Texas group was 1.95# of the national group 1.54, and of

the specialist group 1*#. A mean difference of .41 appeared

between the mean scores of Texas supervisors and national

supervisors# A auch smaller difference ©f .06 existed between

the scores of the Texas group and the specialist group. There

was a mean difference of .35 between the scores of the national

group and the specialist group.

Help# tuacharg $o loeate asS ljientj.fr tls&r a © ±SSS£H£-

tional problems.--Oata in Table XXXX came from items answered

by 123 Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 30

49

educational specialists# The Texas group report9 9 * 9 per

cent performancej the national group reported 100 per cent

performance. Tile Texas group ranked the item 7, the national

group 4*5* and the specialists 6«5» The mean "score of Texas

supervisors was 1»4$, of the national supervisors 1.18, and

©f specialists 1»17»• Imphases awl values of national super*

visors and educational specialists differed only «01. The

difference between the scores of the Texas group and national

group was .27, and the difference between the scores of the

Texas group and the specialist group was *23, The ranking

order and mean scores bear out the relative value and emphasis

©n this activity#

Discusses educational philosophy or objectives with

|er§.~~It may be noted in Table XXXII that 123 Texas super-


ists answered the item# Texas supervisors reported 99.9 per

cent performance and the national supervisors reported 100

per cent. The Texas group ranked this practice 2&.5; the

national group 17; and the specialists 25«5* The national

group ranked it much higher than did either of the other two

groups. The mean score of the Texas group was 1.72, of the

national group l«4l, and of the specialists 1*60# The greatest

mean difference was between the scores of Texas supervisors

and national supervisors* There was only .12 difference be-

tween the score# of the Texas group and the specialist group.

50

. Mmmms M-M .!,»§!,gl, JB& .flttWttlftff

m JSt ?®tho#,~-0ne hundred twenty-three ferns

supervisors, 159 national supervisors, and 3© educational

specialists answered the item, a3 shown in Table XXXIII. Both

supervisory groups reported 100 per cent performance* Texas

supervisors ranked the item 10.5, the national supervisors 2#

and specialists 21# The national supervisors considered the

activity of hi# relative importance among the forty-three

items in the section* The mean score of the Texas group was

1*33, ©f the national group 1.10, and of the specialists 1.53#

The differences in emphases and values were reflected in these

ranges of *23 between the mean scores of the two supervisory

groups, of *43 between the scores of the national group and

specialists, and .20 between the scores of the Texas group

and the specialist group#

Eaoouragea jga .ffiflftn WSfcSCT 4fi S&S fSS&BS M BSSiSS-

sioaal literature*^According to data in fable XXXXT, 1.23

Texas supervisors, 159 national supervisors, and 30 educational

specialists answered the item* Kinety-eight per cent of the

Texas groiq> performed this activity, and 100 per seat of the

national group reported performance# This item ranked low

in the seriesl at 34 for Texas supervisors, 33#5 for national

supervisors, and 37 for specialists# The mean scoresof the

Texas group and the specialist group were 1#&3» the mean score

of the national group was 1#72# The mean score difference

between the scores of the Texas group and that of the national

si

group was .11, yet no difference existed between the mean

score of the Texas group and that of the specialist group.

These scores indicated near agreement on value and emphasis

for this activity.

"«*"» te»ch»r» HP. ft.fl secare fey nafcing them ***n of

the jKknMS. joints their program >*«One hundred twenty-three

Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 30 special*

lata provided the data for fable XXXY* Both supervisory .group®

reports 100 per cent performance of this activity* loth

supervisory group# also ranked this item 1 out of the forty-

three in the section. Educational specialists ranked it 10.

The mean score of 1.20 for the Texas group, of 1.08 for the

national group, and. of 1.20 for the educational specialists

attested to the fact that all considered it a very valuable

activity. Ho difference existed between the scores of the

Texas supervisors and educational specialists* however *12

was the difference between the mean score of the national

group and those of the other two groups*

SnldaB taachars In getting up a m t a for recording

pupil growth.--Data in Table XXXfl represent answers given

to this item by 123 Texas supervisors, 1§9 national supervisors,

and >0 educational specialists# There were 93*$ per cent of

the Texas supervisory group and, 91 per cent of the national

supervisory group who reported performance of this activity.

The Texas group ranked the practice 32, the national group 3$0

52

and the specialist group 3$#5 • The mem score of the Texas

group was 1#99» of the national group 2.10, and of the

specialist group 1*07. As may be noted, there were small

mean score differences between the scores of the three groups#

Abases 3 vMmmm mrwmmmt appearance.-

Recorded data in Table XOTII indicated that 123 teas super-


ists answered the iteia. Ninety-eight per cent of the Texas

group reported performance of this activity and 100 per cent

of the national group reported performance, Texas supervisors

ranked the item 41*5, national supervisors ranked it 22.5,

and educational specialist# ranked it 41. The aean score for

the Texas group was 2.26, for the national group 1.54, and

for the educational specialist group 2.13# A mean difference

of .72 appeared between the scores of the Texas group and the

national group; a aean difference of .13 existed between the

aean scores of the Texas group and the specialist group. A.

difference of .59 was found to exist between the scores of

the national group and the specialist group,

IWBMfftyl. M l J& discipline.—As shorn

in Table XOTIII, 123 Terns supervisors, 160 national super-

visors, and 30 educational specialists answered the item,

Sinety-four per cent of the Texas group reported performance

of this activity, and 99-4 per cent of the national group

reported performance. The Texas group ranked this item 37,

53

the national group 19, and the specialist group 2$»5f The

mmn score of the Texas group was 2*22, of the national group

1*44, and of the specialist group 1#6|»- A mean difference of

1*0$ was found between the scores of Texas supervisors and

national'supervisors, This difference indicated a very wide

variance of emphasis on the activity# A mmn difference of

• 59 was found between the scores of the teas group and edu-

cational specialists* The Texas supervisory group plaeed

less emphasis upon this activity than did the national super-

Tiaory ©roup and even less than was recommended fey educational

special!ats.

S1«B» »i>*g««tion8 on haw to Inltltta and carry through

M laafeyuatlonal unit*--Table XXZIX show®' that 123 Texas super-


ists answered the item* The activity was performed by 9® per

cent of the Texas group and 99#4 per cent of the national

group# The Texas supervisory group ranked this item 26, the

national supervisory group 24, and the specialist group 25*5*

The mean score of the Tems group was 1*72, of the national

group 1.33, and of the specialist group 1«60« The national

supervisory group placed more emphasis upon this activity

than did either ©f the other two groups, and the Texas group

placed less emphasis than was recommended by the specialist

group#

t^hefff jiisi mAM, m JIsi

problem pupils, and talented pupils,—Pata in Table XL

54

represent the responses of 123 Texas superviaora, 160 national

supervisors, and 30 educational specialists* Tie Texas group

reported 100 per cent performance; the national group reported

99.4 per cent# The Texas group ranked the activity Ik,5, the

national group ranked it 16, and the specialist group ranked

it 28#5* The mean score of the Texas group was 1*44, of the

national group 1*40, and of the specialist group 1*63# The

greatest aean score difference was between the mean scores of

the national supervisors and educational specialists# Both

supervisory groups placed more emphasis upon this activity

than was rmwmmded by the specialists*

M m M m mBtia in j a s B B S M * ^

According to data in Table I I I , 123 Texas supervisors, 161

national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists responded

to the item* Texas supervisors reported 93 per cent perfor-

mance ©f the activity; national supervisors reported 99*4 per

cent performance# Among the forty-three items in the section,

Texas supervisors ranked this one 27, national supervisors

ranked it 18, and specialists ranked it 27* Texas supervisors

and specialists gave it the same rank, but the national group

ranked it much higher than either of the others* The mean

score of the Texas group was 1*90, of the national group 1*43#

and of the specialist group 1*60# The greatest mean difference

appeared between the scores of the Texas supervisors and the

national supervisors# This mean difference was #47* & dif-

ference of *17 appeared between the scores of the national

55

group and specialist group# A difference of *30 existed be-

tween the scores of the Texas group and educational specialists.

Encourages saefc professional activities aa professional

iSiSM# wr^tlnfo nd s£egking.--Table XLII lists data con-

cerning responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 16© national

supervisors, and 10 educational specialists• The Texas group

reported 92 per ©eat performance of this activity, and the

national group reported 91*3 per sent# A ranking of 39 for

the Texas group, of 43 for the national group, and of 40 for

the specialist group indicated a low relative value and em-

phasis on the item. The mean score of the Texas group was

2*37* of the national group 2*34* and of the specialist group

1.97* A mean score difference of #03 was found between the

scores of the fearns group and the national group but a much

larger mean score difference of #40 appeared between the scores

of Texas supervisors and specialists# loth supervisory 'groups

gave almost equal emphasis to this item but less than was

reeoirsaended by the specialists# A *37 mean difference existed

between the scores of the national group and the specialist

group*

& m m m § M teach.erii*«»-4a shown in

Table XLUI, 123 Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors,

and 30 educational specialists answered the item* The Texas

group reported 95 par cent performance, and the national

group reported 100 per cent* The Texas group ranked the

56

activity 35, the national group 2$, and the specialist group

30. The mean score of the Texas supervisors was 2*07, of the

national supervisors 1.63, and of the specialists 1.63* The

mean scores of the national group and specialist group were

the same hat a difference of *44 appeared between these scores

and that of the Texas group*

"»•* demonatration lessons to fo»t«r wofegaloaal

growth.—One hundred twwtjr-tlirae Texas »«p«m»or», 146

national supervisors, arid 22 educational specialists provided

the data for Table XLI?. Texas supervisors reported a per-

fonaance of 94 per cent; the national group reported 96.6 per

cent performance* Texas supervisors ranked the activity 36,

the national group 25, and the specialist group 32* The mean

score of the Texas group was 2,20, of the national group 1.60,

and of the specialist group !•?!• A mean difference of »60

existed between the scores of the Texas group and the national

group, and .49 was found between the scores of Texas super-

visors and educational specialists. The national supervisory t

group gave the greatest emphasis upon this activity but the

Texas group gave the least emphasis. The rankings supported

this emphasis.

immm tea in vmmrinM &o demonstrate. —Table II*? shows that 123 Texas


specialists answered this item in the questionnaire. The

$1

Terns group reported 91 per mm% performance, and the national

group reported 96*2 per sent. Of the forty-three items listed

la this section, the Texas group ranked this erne as %$w the

national group as 21*6, and the specialists as 31. The mean

seore of the Texas supervisory group was 2*|l# of the national

group 1*6$, and of the speeialist group 1.7©* 4 »ean differ-

ence of *6$ was found between the stores of the Texas group

and national group, and a mean dlfferenee of .63 between the

stores of the Texas group and educational specialists* Only

*02 differenee was found to exist between the seores of

national supervisors and educational specialists. The Texas

supervisory ©coup gave mteh less emphasis to this activity

than did the others*

Gives demonstration lessons.—Bata in Table XL?I repre-

sent responses of 123 Texas supervisor®, 159 national super*

visors, and 30 educational apeeaalists* The Texas group

reported $$ per eent performance of this iteaf the national

group reported 77#9 per eent performance. The Texas super-

visors ranked the activity 41, national supervisors 42, and

edueational specialists 42* Since there ware forty-three

items in the seetionf the rankings showed the relative im-

portance placed upon it by the group# The Texas supervisors

had a mean score of 2.70, the national group 2.26, and the

specialists 2.20. A small mean score difference of .06 ex-

isted between the seores of national supervisors and educa-

tional specialists hut a difference of «4V was found to exist

5#.

between the sco res of the Texas group and the specialist

gi*oup# and a difference of *50 between the scores of the

Texas group and the national group# . _

M U s S t in preparing to observe demonstration

lessons»-~Aocording t© data in fable XLVI1,'123 Texas super-

visors, 15* national supervisors, and a# educational special-

i s t s responded to this item* ferns supervisors reported 91

per cent performance; the national group reported 97»5 per

cent . The Texas supervisory group ranked t h i s ac t iv i ty 23,

the national supervisory group 30, and the spec ia l i s t group

35# The mean score of the Texas supervisors was 2*3$, of

national tuperviaors 1*66, and of specialists 1,75* The mean

difference between the scores of the Texas group and national

group was *76, and between the scores of the Texas group and

specialists was *63* There was a difference of only #09 be-

tween the mean scores of the national group • and the specialist

group* Texas supervisors gave much l ess emphasis to t h i s

activity than did either of the other groups*

Circulates descriptions and aumslto $£ tood teaching

practices t toowft demonstration jgd means.—Table XX.YZIX

Hats data from responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 160

national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists* The

Texas group reported 94 per cent performance of the activity;

the national group reported 96*9 per cent performance# The

Texas supervisory group ranked the item 31, the national group

59

tk$ and the educational specialists 22*5# The mean score of

f«ai supervisors was 1«&9» of national supervisors 1*5$# and

of educational specialists 1*57» There was only *01 differ-

ence between the scores of the national group and the specialist

group* There was a difference of *31, however, between the

scores of the Jex&s group and the national group, and a *32

between the scores of ferns supervisors and educational

specialists# '

Works <£k2 i»**-S.ervicf training program*—As shown la

Table XXIX* 123 Texas supervisors, 131 national supervisors,

and 21 educational specialists answered this item. Texas

supervisors reported 100 per cent performance of the activity

and the national group reported 96*9 per cent* The Texas

group ranked this item as number 2 of the forty-three items

in the section; the national group ranked the item 14*5* the

educational specialists ranked it 9* Hanking of the Texas

group indicated relative importance of the activity# The mean

score of the Texas group was 1*22, of the national group 1*37,

and of the specialist group 1*19* I small difference of *03

existed between the scores of the Teaas group and specialist

group* Th# national group indicated relative importance to

the activity but gave less emphasis than did either of the

other groups*

flam, mI W f i r n £sz MMM smm £m teachers and/ or principals * —Data for Table 1* came froa the

60

responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 159 national supervisors,

and 30 educational specialists# Texas supervisors reported

that 98 per cent of the group performed this activity; the

national group reported 92*3 per cent perforaanoe* • The Texas

group ranked this item 3, the national group t% and the educa-

tional specialist group 14* The mean score of the Texas group

was 1.31, of the national group 1.62, and of the specialist

group 1.30* Mean scores indicated only *01 difference between

the Texas group and specialist group# A difference of *31

existed between the mean scores of the Texas group and the

national group and a difference of *32 between the scores of

the Texas supervisory group and educational specialists* The

national group gave less emphasis than did either of the others.

Conducts ln«»aerrtee institute courses.—Table U shows

that 123 Texas supervisors, 159 national supervisors# and 30

educational specialists responded to this item* An $$ per

cent performance was reported by the Texas group; an $5*5 per

cent performance was reported by the national group. Texas

supervisors ranked this item 30, national supervisors ranked

it 37, and the specialist group 33*5* The mean score of the

Texas group was 2*06, of the national group 1*91, and of the

specialist group 1.73. The Texas supervisory group showed

less emphasis with a mean score difference of *15 between

the national supervisors1 score and of .33 between the

specialists1 score*

61

£U&* and' conducts H I for-'

trays data supplied by 123 Texas supervisors, 154 national

supervisors, 'and 30 educational specialists. The Texas super-

visory group reported 37 P®r cent performance; the national

supervisory group reported 77*3 per cent performance* The

Texas group ranked the activity 2$*5, the national group 40,

and tilt specialist group 33*5* The mean score of the Texas

group was 2*01, of the national group 2*23, mi of the spe-

cialist group 1*73* The difference between the mean «*ores

of Texas supervisors and national supervisors was *22, and a

difference of •21 appeared - between the scores of the Texas

group and the educational specialists* A difference of .50

existed between the scores of national supervisors and educa-

tional specialists. Both supervisory groups gave less emphasis

than was recommended by specialists, however, the national

group gave 1ess emphasis than did the Texas group*

IMm Mi ££ aeetinEs

for new -teachers*Recording to data in Table UII, 123 Texas

supervisors, 1£9 national supervisors, and 30 educational

specialists answered the itesu The Texas supervisory group

reported 94 per cent performance of the activity; the national

supervisory group reported 96*9 per cent. The Texas super-

visors ranked the iten 13, the national supervisors 14*5, and

the specialists 6*5* The two supervisory groups placed

relatively equal values upon the activity but the rank of 6*5

placed upon the itea by the specialists indicated considerably

6a

more value. The mean score of the Texas group was 1*58, of

the national group 1*37, and of the specialists 1.17. The

specialists recommended more emphasis than was given by either

of the other groups# The mean difference between scores of

the Texas supervisors and national supervisors was .21, and

the difference between the scores of the Texas group and edu-

cational specialists was .41. A difference of .20 appeared

between the scores of the national group and specialist group.

iarlfglfif « l f t eoaducted in local

school system.--Data in Table U ? were supplied by responses

of 123 Texas supervisors, 157 national supervisors, and 30

educational specialists. The Texas supervisory group reported

96 per cent performance of this activity, and the national

group reported #9*$ per cent. The Texas supervisors ranked

this item 21*5, the national group 36* tod the educational

specialists l$«f* The Texas group and the specialist group

ranked the item in near agreement, however, the national group

considered it ouch less important# The aeaa score of the

Texas group was 1«70, of the national group X.#Sf and of the

specialist ©roup 1.43* The seta difference between the scores

of the Texas group and national group was .15; the difference

between the scores of the Texas group and the specialist

group was .27. A larger difference of .42 existed between

the scores of the national group and specialist group#

M i Mlllii teachers .re rdiiy further 4&~

training s shown in Table LY, 1*3 supervisors,

63

163. national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists an-

swered the item, The Texas supervisory group reported fS p©r

cent performance of the activity, and the national group re-

ported 9**1 par cant. Texas supervisors ranked the activity

25, the national supervisors 31*5# and the specialist group

lanked it 24, The mean score of the Texas group was 1.6?, of

the national group 1.6$, and of the specialist group X*$7*

Small mean score differences of from .01 to #11 between the

different mean scores Indicated near agreement in emphasis

and value for this activity.

j&ME 'imtemSS MM -a-M Mlacrgals.--Table 171

shows that this item was checked by 123 Texas supervisors, 146

national auperviaora, and 24 educational specialists. Data

also showed that the Texas group of supervisors and national

group of supervisors reported 100 per cent performance of the

activity* The Texas group ranked the item 9, the national

group 6*5, and the specialist group 2. Educational specialists

considered this item of relatively high value as shown, by the

ranking. Bankings by the two supervisory groups also indicated

relatively high emphasis. The mean score of the Texas group

was 1.37, of the national group 1.19, and of the specialist

group 1.00. A mean difference of ,18 appeared between the

score# of the Texas group and the national group; a difference

of .29 between the scores of the Teams group and specialist

group. A small mean score difference of .09 existed between

64

the scores of the national supervisory group and the ©dura-

tional specialist group.

l£Mt iUfher conferences |<|/ wrk on specific

mUm•-'•Inforttation in faille LTII represents data from the


and 29 educational specialists. ferns supervisors reported

1 0 0 P @ r «®*ft Performance, and the national group reported 99.4

per cent. The Terns group ranked this item #, the national

group ranked it 9* and the specialist group ranked it 17.

loth supervisory groups considered it more desirable »r%,io did

educational specialists* The mean score of the Texas group

1.31, of the national group 1.24, and of the specialist

group 1.33. The mean scores also indicated nor# emphasis upon

this. itea by both supervisory groups than was recommended by

educational specialists* Small differences of from #03 to

.14 appeared between the scores of the groups.

sBBimmm MM, M mM -BISMsffiS*--One hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors, 162

national supervisors^ and 30 educational specialists responded

to this item to supply the data for Table m i l . This » s a

10© per cent response from all groups. Both supervisory

groups reported 100 per cent performance of the activity.

Terns supervisors ranked it 10.5, national supervisors ranked

it 11, and the specialist group ranked it 1. In the series

of forty-three it ess in this section, specialists considered

65

tfa.it on® to be the most important* flit nean score of the

Texas group was 1*17# of the national group 1*2$t and of the

specialist group 1*07* A mean difference of .09 existed be-

tween the scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors,

and a difference of ,30 appeared between the scores of the

Texas group awl specia l i s t group* An #11 di f ference was f o w l

between the scores of national supervisors and educational

specialises*

Attaints and cpf t t i lMttg £o facu l ty aeetim&s -when requested;

m m As sis wawftwr si m m i & M i n t*m.« UX EMA

tram tk« responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 160 national

supervisors, and 30 educational specialists* The Texas group

reported 100 per cent performance of t h i s activity; the

national group reported 9$«# per cent performance* The Texas

supervisors ranked the item 12, the national supervisors 21,

and the specia l is t group 11* The mean score of the Texas

supervisors was 1*43# of national supervisors 1*46, and of

spec ia l i s t s 1*23* A small mean difference of .03 existed be-

tween the score of the Texas group and the score of the national

group* A larger difference of *20 was found between the scores

of the Texas group and the specialist group# The mean dif~

ference of #J?3 between the scores of the national group and

the specia l is t group was the largest difference to appear

among the mean scores of the three groups*

66

1eM§, tern ml list sag m

cording t© the data lii Table 3-X, 123 Texas supervisors, 160

national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists answered

the item# The Texas group reported 9$ per cent performance;

the national group reported 93«1 per cent [email protected] of this

activity# feseas supervisors ranked the item 33, the national

group 31» awl the specialists 36• The mean score of the Texas

group was 1.37, of the national group 1.81, and of the spe-

cialist group 1#47« A mean difference of *44 appeared between

the scores of the Texas group and the national group, however,

a smaller difference of #10 existed between the scores of the

Texas group and the specialist group# A difference of #34

appeared between the scores of the national group and the

specialist group#

I&M& MdtrifM J&ii ***** ***&• wx»

123 Texas supervisors, 159 national supervisors, and 30 educa-

tional specialists answered the item# The Texas group reported

93 per cent performance, and the national group reported $1»1

per cent performance of the activity# The ?«ai supervisors

ranked the item 2Q, the national supervisors 41* and the edu-

cational specialist group 12# The mean score of the Texas

group was l#d2, of the national group 2#2$, and of the spe-

cialist group 1#27» Itarge seaa differences existed between

all mean scores# The mean difference between the scores of

Texas supervisors and national supervisors was #43; the

mailto:[email protected]

67

difference between the scores of the Texas group and specialist

group was .65# A difference of .96 was fowl between the

scores of the national group and the specialist group.

BaSm V M m w m , iOlfe individual building principals.--

Information in Table MIX represents data .frost responses of

123 f «xa» supervisors, 161 national supervisors,, and 30 • edu-

cational specialists* ' The Tsms- group reports 99*2 per cent •

performance; the national group reported 9$*$ per cent perfor-

mance of this activity. The Texas supervisory group ranked

this item 6, the national group ranked it $9 said the specialist

group ranked it 6.$« The mean score of the Teag&a group was

1*37, of.the national group 1*22, and of the specialist group

!#!?« The mean difference between the scores of the Texas

group and the national group was .15, and between the scores

of the Texas supervisory group and the specialist group was

*20* The seaa difference between the scores of the national

group and the speeialiat group was *05* Relatively equal em-

phases and values were placed upon this activity by the three

groups.

X a s s m is W r i t e s will imw& M a om» ercec-

t.ivmesa.-.According: to data- in Table LII1I, 123 Texas super*

viaora, 145 national supervisors, and 22 educational special-

ists responded to the item. The Texas group reported 100 per

cent performance of the activity; the national group reported

99*3 per cent performance. The Texas group ranked it 4.5,

the national group S*5# and the specialist group 3* The

rankings placed this item high in the series as feeing a tela*

tiv#ly important activity. ' The mean score of Terns -super-

visors vffl3 1*29, of national supervisors 1*19, and of spe-

cialists 1*09* The raean differences were small, ranging from

•10 to *20*

Bagiftw la profaasioaftl study with sojMwflftftiitii from mi-

and colleges*—Bat a in Table Ull show that 123

Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors,' and 30 educational

specialists marked this item on the instrument• The Texas

group reported 96 per cent performance of this activity; the

national group reported 96*9 per cent. The Texas supervisors

ranked it IB, the national group of supervisors ranked it 26,

and the specialist group ranked it IS,5* The mean score of

the Terns supervisors was !*$$, of national supervisors 1*61,

and of educational specialists 1*43* Mean score difference®

ranged from *03 to .IS with the smallest difference between

the scores of the two supervisory groups and the largest dif-

ference appearing between the scores of the national group

and educational specialist group*

Reads imtffSrtiMl m & rsaaareh part&lnlng to

the field supervised (during hours s©ent on the lob) •—•One

hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors, 160 national super-

visors, and 29 educational specialists provided the data for

information in Table I*X¥* The Texas group reported that 9?

6f

per cent of their nmher perfomed this activity; the national

group reported 94*4 per cent performance# The Texas group

ranked the it est 19# the national group 33*5, and the specialist

group 16* The national supervisory group placed less emphasis

upon this activity than did either of th® others# The mean

scores attested to this fact* The mean score of the Texas

group was l»5#f of the national group 1#7## and of the spe*»

cialist group 1*35» The mean score difference between the

scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors was *20;

th® difference between the scores of Texas supervisors and

specialists was .23; the difference between the scores of

national supervisors and educational specialists was *43#

This difference of *43 was the greatest difference among the

three groups*

M&feeg toNtisfcteal mamunt M § own ae,|iiyltilfta for the

case from the responses to the item of 123 Texas supervisors,

161 national supervisors, and 29 educational specialists. The

Teams .group of supervisors reported 9t per cent performance

of the activity! the national group report^ 9#*1 per cent#

Texas supervisors ranked the activity 24; national supervisors

ranked it 20; and educational specialists ranked it 15* The

mean score of the Texas group was 1*72, of the national group

1*45# and of the specialist group 1*31* Both supervisory

groups placed less emphasis upon the activity than was recom-

mended by educational specialists* The mean difference

70

between the scores of Teas supervisors and national super*

visors was .27, and the difference between tit# scores of the

Texas group and the educational specialists was *41* A dif-

ference of «14 appeared between the scores of national super-

visors and educational specialists.

When simple analysis of variance m$ applied to the data

in tfei* section, a significant F-3core of 14*4- ma produced#

T-score computations between the mean scores of Texas super-

visors and educational specialists yielded a wt"-score of

4#1* A °t*-score of 3*5 was also computed between the mean

scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors. Both

of these scores were significant at the #0$ level—a fact

which indicated significant differences in the activities in

which the two supervisory groups engaged and the recommended

values set upon such activities by the of educational

specialist®.

Findings |n the Area jgJ CtMCTianlj

While worldli in the area of curriculum development the

supervisors

. M m 0 M school cwtrtmam— A® shown in fable URTII, 12> Texas supervisors, Iff national

supervisors, and 30 educational specialists responded to this

item* The Texas supervisory group reported 100 per cent

n

performance of the activity; the national supervisory group

reported 99*4 per cent# There were thirteen iteaa in this

section, and the Texas group racked this on© 7, the national

group ranked it 2, and the specialist group ranked it 7* The

Texas group and specialist group placed the same relative

value upon this activity, however, the national group considered

it of much greater value* The mean score of the Texas group

was li3S# fche national group 1*26, and of the specialist

group 1*63. The mean score differences between the scores of

the Texas group and the national group was *09| a difference

of *M appeared between the scores of Texas supervisors and

•educational specialists# A difference of *J7 was found be-

tween the mean score# of the national group and the specialist

group. •

m m m % m M A efchfr »n»,»pfHwgy offtgnri in gamin*

m . g£ lit sch££i system*—Accord-

ing to data in Table UVXXX, 123 Texas supervisors, 162 national

supervisors, and 29 educational specialist# answered the item#

Texas supervisors reported 100 per cent performance of the

activity, and the national group reported 99*5 per cent# The

three groups ranked the item 1, considering, it the most im-

portant activity in the section. The mean score of the Texas

group was 1*20, of the national group 1*10, and of the spe-

cialist group 1*14* Very low differences appeared among the

mean scores of the three groups* They ranged from *04 to *10;

the *10 existed between the mean scores of the supervisory groups*

72

H E ins t ruct ional guides. and jag-

m s m M M k t m . M Jh t fS cm&mmim the responses

to' t h i s item of 123 ferns supervisors, 160 national super-

visors, and 30 eduoational specialists were recorded l a f a b l e

UIX, The Texas .©romp reported 99#2 per cent performance of

the activity, and the national group repor ted 93 »6 per cent*

The Texas group ranked the Item 4, the 'na t iona l group 3, and

the specia l i s t group 6» The mean score of the Texas group was

1«39# of the national supervisory group 1#31*' and of the spe-

c i a l i s t group 1.57* Both supervisory groups placed more « -

phasis upon t h i s ac t iv i ty than was recommended by spec i a l i s t s .

The mean dif ference between the scores of Texas supervisors

and national supervisors was *0$| a d i f ference of .1$ appeared

between'the scores of Terns supervisors and special is ts* The

greatest dif ference of .26 existed between the scores of

national supervisors and special is ts*

j £ the j f f ^ S f . i o n s£ S H i M 2 * - -

Xnfona&tion In Table LIZ represents data fro® the responses

of 123 Texas supervisors, 14# national supervisors, and 23

educational spec ia l i s t s . Texas supervisors reported per

cent performance of this activity, and national supervisors

reported 99*3 per cent* The Texas group ranked t h i s item 2,

t h e na t iona l group 5# the specialist group 2* The na t iona l

group considered t h i s I t ©a of l e s s importance than did the

other two groups# The mean score of Texas supervisors was

1.30, of national supervisors 1»3$* and of s p e c i a l i s t s 1.22.

73

These mean scores bear out the emphasis and value of the rank-

lags of the three groups, k aean difference of .OS appeared,

between the scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors

and also between the scores of Texas supervisors and special-

ist is* A difference of .16 existed between the scores of

national supervisor# and specialists*

Mm ^ntinuiMK §mmm M. sm&wiim mMm M&k a view cMmim ||g currjcyil»»**-Table WCI indicates that


tional specialists responded to the item# Texas supervisors

reported that they performed this activity 100 per cent; the

national supervisors reported 93.8 per cent performance• The

Texas group ranked this item f, the national group 7, and the

specialist group 3. The mean score of Texas supervisors was

1,37, of national supervisors 1*46, and of specialists 1.23.

There was a mean difference of #09 between the scores of Texas

supervisors and national supervisors and a mean difference of

#14 between the scores of the Texas group and the specialist

group. A mean difference of .23 appeared between the scores

of the national group and the specialist group.

j h m w M ^ a S s a M I s i s s M M

on ourrloulua eongftittees.—Sata in Table LU1I came from re-

sponses of 123 Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors,

and 30 educational specialists. Texas supervisors reported

74

99#2 per cent performance of this activity; national super-

visors reported 97#5 per cent# The Texas group ranked this

activity 6, the .national group .ranked it 4*. and the specialist

group 12# Both supervisory groups placed aaore emphasis upon

this activity than was rocosaaeixded by educational specialists*

The mean score of Texas supervisors was 1*41# of national

supervisors 1*27* and of specialists 1*33* A ss&ll mean dif-

ference appeared between the score of Texas supervisors and'

national supervisors, however, a difference ©f *42 was found

between the scores of Texas supervisors and educational spe-

cialists. A larger difference of #46 developed between the

mean scores of national supervisors and educational specialists#

Organises and leads eoawi»t.«y» for cooperation in cur-

riculum revisions-Table LXZ1IX shows the responses .of 123

Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors, and 29 special-

ists* The Texas supervisors reported 9# per cent performance

of this activity, and the national group reported 69*4 per

mmt* The Terns group ranked it S, the national group 9, and

the specialist group ranked it 5* The mean score of the Texas

group was 1#45# of the national group 1*91, and of the spe»

cialist group 1*34* These mean scores bear out the rankings

of the item, .by the three groups# A mean difference of #46

appeared between the scores of Texas supervisors and national

supervisors, and a difference of #11 was found to exist be-

tween the score® of Texas supervisors and specialists# A

75

larger raean difference of *47 developed between the scores

of national supervisors and [email protected]*

0,m*M Serves m a member of curriculum development eomntUem Aa shown in Table LIXIY, 123 Texas supervisors, 160 national

supervisors, and 2f educational specialists responded to the

item# Texas supervisors reported 99*2 per cent performance

of the activity; national supervisors reported 97*6 per cent*

flie Texas supervisory group ranked the item 3, the national

group ranked it 6, and the specialist group ranked it 4* The

mean score of Tems supervisors was 1*33» of national super*

visors 1.41, and of educational specialists 1*31* Small mean

differences of from #02 to *10 appeared between the mean

scores of the group*

M & l tmfaliitem iS prtnaratlon £g£ imMlc«tion.-

Information in Table &XX7 came from the responses of 123 Texas

supervisors, II# national supervisors, and 29 educational

specialists to this item# The Texas group of supervisor® re**

ported that they performed the activity 93 per cent, and the

national group reported #8*6 per cent performance. The Texas

group ranked the item 9, the national ©roup 10, and the spe-

cialist group $•!* These rankings indicated that the three

groups considered this activity to be of relative importance

within the total thirteen items in the section* The aean score

of Texas supervisors was 1*21* of national supervisors 1*92,

and of educational specialists 1*76* A mean difference of

76

*41 appeared between the mean scores of Texas supervisors and

national, supervisors; a mean difference of .25 M s found be*

tween the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists# 4

smaller difference of *16 developed between the stores of

national supervisors and specialists*

M M f as la Sis stiiBss sJL

fable LXX?I indicates that 123 Terns supervisors, 162 national

supervisors, and 29 educational specialists answered the item.

The Texas supervisory group reported 95 per cent performance

of the activity; the national supervisory group reported $7*7

'per cent* The Texas group ranked this ite® 10, the national

group 11, -and the specialist group $*5* The mean score of the

Texas supervisory group was 1*69, of the national supervisory

group 1*93* and of the specialist group 1*69* The mean score

of the, Texas group and the specialist group urns the same with

a difference of *34 developing between these scores and the

score of the national supervisory group*

M i f i aa& mmwMm it

and principals*—Bata concerning responses to this item of the

123 Texas supervisors, M l national supervisors, and 29 edu-

cational specialists were recorded in Table LZXTIX* The Texas

group reported 92 per cent performance of the activity.? the

national group reported 90*7 per cent performance* The Texas

group ranked it 11, the national group 8, and the specialist

group 10* The mean score of Texas supervisors was 1*##, of

77

national supervisors 1*90, and of specialists 1*76* Small

mean score differences of from *02 to .14 indicated near

agreement in emphases and values placed on the activity by

the gr&ups*

&&S2 224 BBffHTtff HlSSffi aatgrtalg £S£ PUBil st£.--

data in Table UDCVXXX em® from the answers of 123 Tarns


specialists* The Texas group reported % per cent performance

of this activity while the national group reported 93 per cent*

This report indicated that the Teams group considered this

activity of much lege importance than did the national group*

All three groups ranked the item 13, the laat in the aeries*

The mean score of the Texaa group was 2«77, of the national

group 3*01, and of the specialist group 3«57« A a#an differ-

ence of *24 appeared between the scores of Terns supervisors

and national supervisors; and a mean difference of .20 de-

veloped between the scores of Texas supervisors and special-

ists* A larger difference of #44 existed between the mean

scores of national supervisors and educational specialists*

fr.par«« profeaaional reading Hats wo> aa annotated

bibliographies. —One hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors,

161 national.supervisors, and 20 educational specialists re-

sponded to this item in the instrument* The Texas group re-

ported 91 per cent performance of the activity, and the

national group reported t?»6 per cent* Both supervisory

groups ranked the item 12, and the specialist group ranked

it 11* Since tier® were only thirteen items in the section,

this indicated that the three groups considered the, activity

of relatively little importance. The mean score of the ferns

supervisors was 2.99# of national supervisors 2.2$, and of

specialists 1*02. A snail mean difference of .04 appeared

between the scores of ferns supervisors and national super-

visors? a larger difference of .47 developed between the scores

of Texas supervisors and specialists. A difference of *43

was found to exist between the scores of national supervisors

and' specialists*

Wxm simple analysis of variance was applied to the data

in this section, an F-Score of .14 was produced. This score'

was not significant at the .05 level. There were, then, no

significant differences in the activities in which the two

supervisory groups engaged and the recommended values set upon

these saiae activities by the group of educational specialists.

Findings Jjt Area, <g£ Evaluation and Research

Working in the .area of evaluation and research the

supervisor!

8PHTMSOT study aod «q>«rlamtatlon In aathoda mid

subieet-iaatter organization. —Table VHX shows that 123 Texas


79

specialists answered the item. The Texas group reported 100

per cent performance of this activity; the national group

reported 97*k per cent • Texas supervisors linked the it« ?#

the national group 3, and educational specialists 1. Sduoa-

tional specialists considered this activity; of auch aore im-

portance than did the other two groups, though there was more

difference between the ranking of the Texas group than the

national group. The mean score of the Texas, group was 1.67,

of the national group 1«59* and of the specialist group 1»1J#,

A small mean difference of *0# appeared between the scores

of Texas supervisors and national supervisors, however, a

much larger difference developed between the scores of the

Texas group and the specialist group. This difference was

• 54« A difference of #46 existed between the scores of

national supervisors and educational specialists. Both super-

visory groups gave less emphasis to this activity than was

recommended by educational specialists*

K»«p« t«ach«ra informal «na abr«a»t of research dmralop-

B«pt« m a helpa th«a «rolr m m r H h find!mm to wryday

classroom situations*--As shown in Table LXXXX, 123 Texas

supervisors, 1|9 national supervisors, and 29 educational

specialist® responded to the it«u The Teams group reported

100 per cent performance of the activity; the national group

reported 98.7 P«r cent. The Texas group ranked the item 9,

the national group 4*5,# &ad. the specialist group 6 . The mean

do

score of the Texas group was 1*79# of the national group 1«67,

and of the specialist group 1.31. A difference of #12 ap-

peared between the stores of the Texas supervisors and the

national supervisors? a difference of .4$ developed between

the scores ©f Tems supervisors and specialists* A difference

of #36 was found t© exist between the scores of national

supervisors and specialists* The supervisory groups placed

less emphasis upon this activity than was reconmended by

specialists*

M S 3 fr»6<A« tfl, g.H!fe SB 5tiB2l2 experimental progaduraa

S M H thm* —Information in faille LXXXII came from


and 29 educational specialists who answered this item in the

questionnaire* The Texas group reported 100 per seat perfor-

mance of the activityj the national group reported 94*5 per

cent# Out of the thirteen items, Texas supervisors ranked

this one as 10, national supervisors ranked it as #, and

specialists as 3* Th@ mean score of Tessas supervisors was

1.90, of national supervisors 1.66, and ©f specialists 1.2&«

Specialists placed aore value upon this activity than did

either of the supervisory groups# k small mean difference

of »G4 appeared between the scores of the Teasas ©roup and the

national group; a difference of #62 was found to exist between

the scores of Terns supervisors and specialists# A difference

of developed between the scores of national supervisors

and specialists.

si

fgfeg resource .people and professional .books available

£8£UZ & q w i b l » to teachers• —Table LX1XIII indicates

that 123 Texas supervisors, l6l national supervisors, arid 29

educational specialists answered the it©a* Texas supervisors

reported 100 per cent performance of the activity, and

national supervisors reported 97.5 per cent# Texas supervisors

ranked the item 5, national supervisors 7, and specialists 2#

The mean score of the Texas group was 1,54, of the national

group 1«75|. and of the specialist group 1*24* Both rankings

and mean scores indicate the relative emphases and values

placed upon this activity by the three groups, A mean differ-

ence of ,21 appeared between the scores of Texas supervisors

and national supervisors. A difference of *30 was found to

exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists;

a difference of #51 developed between the mean score# of

national supervisors and specialists.

Encourages teachers to write suiBmary reports £f their

SM/O£ ®XPeriB*ents»~-Sata concerning responses of 123

Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 29 educational

specialists were recorded in Table LXXXIV# Texas supervisors

reported 94 per cent performance of this activity, and the

national supervisors reported per cent* The Texas group

ranked the item 11, the national group 11, and the specialist

group 9. the supervisory groups were in agreement in relative

rank of the itam among the thirteen in the section; the

82

specialists gave it more relative importance* The mean score

of Texas supervisors was 2#1S, of national supervisors 2*29,

and of specialists 1*66* Hie specialists placed more value

upon this activity than did either of the supervisory groups*

A snail mean difference of *11 developed between the scores

of Texas supervisors and national supervisors* A much greater

mean difference of *62 appeared between the scores of Texas '

supervisors and specialists# A difference -of waa also

found to exist between the mean scores of national supervisors

and specialists*

of Puails and elans spe-

situations which jfiU 3523*

growth * —Ac c ordina to data in fable LXXXV, 123 Texas super-

visors, 156 national supervisors, and 2? educational special-

ists answered the item* The Texas group reported 100 per cent

performance, and the national group reported 9?»4 P«r cent*

The Texas group ranked the item S, the national group 2# and

the specialists 4* The national group considered this activity

of greater importance than did the Texas group and'the special-

ist group* The mean score of Texas supervisors was 1*70, of

national supervisor# 1*43, and of specialists 1*29* A dif-

ference of *14 appeared between the scores of Terns super-

visors and national supervisors; a difference of *41 was found

to exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists*

A difference of *14 existed between scores of national super-

visors and specialists*

#3

M m m citx-wide J«Mi*ilsss

for imerovinjt Instruct ion. ~»Sata in Table LXXXVX came fro®

answers to the it«* fey IBS Texas supervisors, 161 national

supervisors, audi 3® educational specialists* fexaa supervisors

reported that 93 F«r east of their group performed this aetiv-

Ity; £6*8 par cent of the national group of supervisors re-

ported that they performed the activity. Texas supervisors

ranked the activity 6, national supervisors ranked it 9* and

specialists ranked it 7.5* The swan score of Texas supervisors

was 1*70, of national supervisors 1.43, and of specialists

1.29. Both supervisory groups gave less emphasis to this

practice than was recommended by specialists. There was a

®ean difference of .27 between the scores of Texas and national

supervisors; a mean difference of .41 between the stores of

Texas supervisor* and specialists. The snail difference of

#14 was found to exist between the scores of national super-

visors and specialists.

lUfMWf. JUS^f §M IfftfMl MSS**W

One hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors, lit national

supervisors, and 30 educational specialists answered this item.

Texas supervisors reported 100 per cent performance of the

activity; national supervisors reported 94*4 per cent. The

Texas group ranked this item 1, the national group 6, and the

educational specialists 10. The mean score of Texas super-

visor® was 1.21, of national supervisors 1.69, and of special*

ists 1*77* The rankings and mean scores indicate that Texas

supervisors place store emphasis upon this activity than did

the national group and the specialists. A small mesa differ-

mm of .0# appeared between the score® of the 'Rational group

and the specialists* A mean difference of #4$ developed be-

tween the scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors,

and of #S§ between the score# of Terns supervisors and edu-

cational specialists.

M tump* and .data and to diagnose

s m m gill UUOIVm shows response*

of lai Texas supervisors, 162 national supervisor®, and 30

educational specialists. f«a® supervisors reported 100 per

cent performance of the activity; national supervisors re-

ported 96.2 par cent performance. Texas supervisors ranked

the ite» 2, national supervisors ranked it 4«S# «M special-

ists ranked it S# The mean score of Texas supervisor® was

X.39# of national supervisors 1.67, and of specialists 1#$0*

A different© of «2* appeared between the scores of Te»»

supervisors and national supervisors; a difference of .09 was

fonad to exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and

special!sta# the greatest difference among the scores was

•37, which appeared between the scores of national «iipervi«or§

and educational specialists# ,

Mil in m mmMml. of the instructional

, l a g g IS M »MMMS§£ lag M shown in Table

IXXXXX, 121 Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors, and

IS

30 educations.! [email protected] answered the item* Texas super-

visors reported 99*2 per cant performance of the activity,

and national supervisors reported 99*4 per cent* Hi® Texas

group ranked this item 4* the national group 1# and the spe-

cialist group ?*5» Tbe mean score of Texas supervisors was

1*45* of national supervisors l«t$# and of specialists 1#33*

Bankings and mean scores bore out the fact that the national

supervisory group placed the greatest eajtiasis upon this

activity* The mean differences were ® m H $ ranging from .05

between the scores of national supervisors and speoialists to

•17 between the scores of Texas supervisors and national

supervisors#

SuggMta agthoda of aoaatraetiag Informal ta»t8 for

classroom use•—Iaaforraation in Table XG represents responses

from 123 Texas supervisors, 162 national supervisors, and 29

educational specialists. Texas supervisors reported 91 per

cent performance; the national supervisors reported 6S.3 per

cent. The Texas group ranked the item 12, the national group

10, and the specialist group 12* The mean score of the Texas

supervisory group was 2#23, of the national supervisory group

2*21, and of the specialist group 1«90« High rankings and

mean scores indicate relatively little emphasis and value

placed upon this activity# k mall mean difference of .02

appeared between the scores of Texas supervisors and national

supervisors, however a much larger mean difference of #33 was

found to exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and

mailto:[email protected]

36

specialists, k mem difference of .31 developed between the

scores of the national supervisory group tad the specialist

group.

m Itefgf Miii»g|l|g at i n n mmi M H §

M A t *&$*! system.—Table IGI indicates

that 123 Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 29

educational specialists answered the item. Texas supervisors

reported 75 per cent performance of the activity? national

supervisors reported 41*6 per cent# The three groups ranked

this item 13, or last in the series* The mean score of the

Texas group was 2.74, of the national group 3»30, and of the

specialist group 2.03. The per cent of perfonaance reports,

the rankings of the item, and the large raean scores all attest

to the relative undesirability of the activity# Large mean

differences were found to exist among the ate&a scores of the

groups. A mean difference of .56 appeared between the scores

of Texas and national supervisors; a difference of .71 * »

found to exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and

specialists# The largest mean score difference, that of 3U27,

m & found to exist between the scores of national super?!sort

and educational specialists*

i S S ^ B is Sis M S B M a i M t>.w for the

faftifflg prograu—Bata concerning responses of 123 Texas


specialists were recorded in Table 2£IX. Te»s supervisors

#7

reported 93 P@r cent perfonaance of the activity; national

supervisors reported 70*2 per cent performance. Texas super~

visors ranked the item 3, national supervisors 12, and educa-

tional specialists 11* The mean score of Texas supervisors

was 1.56, of national supervisors 2*61, and of specialists

1*10* The national supervisors considered the item of little

relative importance, as attested fey the ranking, per cent of

performance, and mean score. A mean difference of 1.05 ap-

peared between the scores of Texas supervisors and national

supervisors; a difference of .06 developed between the scores

of Texas supervisors and educational specialists. A differ-

ence of •#! was discovered between the mean scores of national

supervisors and specialists.

Mlt.liti.Cftl Finding:®

Statistical computations for this section produced a

significant F-Score ©f 4*1—an indication that there were dif-

ferences in activities engaged in by Texas and national

supervisors, and/or differences between activities and the

values set upon these same activities fey educational special-

ists* A *t*~sc©re of .#2 resulted from computations with mean

scores of Texas supervisors and those of national supervisors.

This *t«-score indicated that the difference did not exist

between the activities engaged in by these two groups. A com-

parison of the mean scores of Texas supervisors and specialists

gave a "t*-acore of 2,60, which was significant at the .05

level# There were differences between the activities engaged

$$

in by Texas supervisors and til# values set upon the activities

by educational specialists.

findings ia SilS |^Sgg£4|S2|f'»«?'^'^-

Working ia the arm of evaluation, selection, and use of

instructional supplies and equipment, the supervisor!

. litei ffform of m rnmmm m .giili. to

agwliea and/or equipment . —According to data in Table XCXII,

123 Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors, and 29 edu-

cational specialists answered the item. The Texas group re-

ported 96.7 per cent performance; the national supervisors

reported 9^*1 per cent# Texas supervisors ranked the item 5,

national supervisors 7, and specialists 6, The mean score of

Texas supervisors was 1.66, of national supervisors 1«$6, and

of the specialists 1.41. The rankings and mean scores place

the three groups in near agreement as to relative importance

of the activity. By a small margin, the supervisory groups

failed to emphasize the activity to the extent recommended by

specialists, k mean score difference of .10 existed between

the scores of Texas and national supervisors, and a difference

of .25 was found between the scores of Texas supervisors and

specialists* A difference of .15 appeared between the scores

of national supervisors and specialists*

J&Ela S U & teaohera and s i t e S2 3SS2SES JBSBSE

y d equipment. —Sata ia Table X6X? were the results of answers

89

given to this it88i fey 123 Texas supervisors, 159 national

supervisors, a M II educational specialists. The Texas group

reported 99«2 per cent of performance of this aetivity; the

national grot#,reported 100 per cent. Texas supervisors ranked

this item 4, national supervisors 2, and specialists 2, The

mean score of Texas supervisors was 1,53, of national super-

visors 1»||# and of ,specialist« 1*|2* The rankings and aesn

eeores verify the emphasis and value ptetd, upon the, item by

each of the three groups. • There was a mean difference of *20

between the scores of Texas supervisors and national super-

visors, and a mean difference of .21 between the scores of

Texas supervisors and specialists. A very small difference

of • 01-wag found between the scores of national supervisors

and' specialists.

!®ly £& titaMjL.A criteria for .aelftstiom jft£ materials

JSC instruction»—One hundred twenty-three Texas aupenrtsora,

162 national supervisors, and 29 educational specialist* an-

swered this item# Texas supervisors reported f#*4 per cent

performance of this activity; the national supervisors reported

9$#1 per cent# Texas supervisors ranked the itea 6, national

supervisors ranked it 3, and specialists ranked it 1. The

specialists considered this activity the most important in

the series of fourteen for this section* The mean score of

Texas supervisors was 1.6S, of national supervisors 1.46, and

of specialists 1.17. These mean scores substantiated the

previous rankings of the three groups. A mean difference of

90

•22 appeared between the scores of Texas and national super-

visors; ft difference of *51 developed between the scores 6f

Texas supervisors and educational specialists. A difference

of' .29 was found to exist, between the scores of national

supervisors awl specialists.

Prerlwra Md recomaenda Mgtot,* M audlo-ylimal ga-

terlala.—Table ICTI shows that 123 Texas supervisors, 160

national supervisors, and 29 educational specialists responded

to this item# The Texas group reported f#»4 per cent perfor-

mance of the activity; the national group reported 92»5 per

cent# The Texas supervisory group ranked this item 9f the

national group 11, and the specialists 11# The mean score of

Tessas supervisors was 1*37, of. national supervisors 1*89,

and of specialists 1«80. Mean scores and order of rankings

indicate the three groups1 placements of emphasis and value#

The mean ranges were small, ranging from *02 to *09#

. M w f n mi mrnm&i « # i * 3 as& ass&mm&> i a s M -

ing furniture* for JMEShUSft*4*4^0 ^ in Table XBYXX,. 12>

Tema supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 2$ educational

specialists responded to the item# Texas supervisors reported

#9»4 per cent performance; national supervisors reported M*$

per cent. Among the fourteen items, Texas supervisors ranked

this m® 13•5# national supervisors ranked it 12, and §pe«ial-

iati 12* The aeaa score of the Teas group -was 2«24, of the

national group 2.01, and of specialists 1«86» High mean

91

tcores.&iid 1 « makings indicate relatively little emphasis

and value upon this activity. Mean differences fro® ,15 to

#3# appeared among the scores of tile three gi*®mp#y A aieaa .

difference of «23 wu found to. exist between the scores of

the T«KM and national supervisors, and a different# of «3f

developed between the scores of Texas supervisors and special-

ists. fhe mtnimm difference' of #15 was found between the

scores of national supervisors and educational specialists*

ISlMtff £ # teM Ii2

in Table XCVIII represents responses of 123 Texas supervisors,

161 national supervisors,, and 29 educational epeei&Hstir.

Texas supervisors reported 97»& per cent performance; national

supervisors reported 93.2 per cent- Tessas §wp«r*ieoris ranked

this item 2, national supervisors ranked it 2, and specialists

ranked it 10. Both supervisory groups considered the item

high in desirability; hi^ier than was recoasmended by educa-

tional specialists. The mean score of Texas supervisors was

1«4&* of national supervisors l.ol, and of special!eta 1.72.

The aean scores indicated that the Texas and national' super-

visors placed more esiphasts upon the activity than was rec-

ommended by specialists. The mean differences ranged from

•11 to .24. The difference of ,24 was between the scores of

Texas supervisors and specialists.

M s fit epwdtififfi IB locating iss& ££ inoxBttaalm «-terlals.~>0ata concerning responses of 123 Texas supervisors,

92

162 national supervisors, and 2# educational specialists were

recorded in fable XOXX» Texas supervisors report;#4 99$2 per

cent performance of this activity; national gi^pervlsors re-

ported 97*5 per cent. Texas supervisors ranked til# it em 3,

national supervisors 10, and specialists 9# The mean score

of Texas supervisors was 1.53, of national supervisors 1.33,

and of specialists 1*71* Rankings and mean scores indicated

that the Texas group placed more emphasis upon the activity

than 414 the other two groups. A mean difference of *30 ap-

peared between the scores of Texas amI national supervisors;

a ae&n difference of *10 was discovered to exist between the

scores of Texas supervisors and specialists. A small differ-

ence of *12 appeared between the scores of the national

supervisory group and the specialist group.

M m is s&s. s m m am s£ feasts & &

auPBlameDtal books j£ £he claaaroon.—According to data in

Table C, 123 Texas supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and

29 educational specialists responded to the item. The Texas

group reported 99# 2 per cent performance of this activity;

the national group reported 9$*$ per cent. Both supervisory

groups ranked this item 1, and the educational specialists

ranked it 3# All group# Indicated emphases and values for

this activity. The mean score of the Texas group was l*3Gf

of the national group 1.27, and of the specialist group 1.34.

Small mean score differences developed between the various

scores of the groups.

93

M m atlMta? M X amllfti B8& «qulw»nt jjUl Ja lg£jl<—

Data in Table came from the responses of 123 fm m Super-

visors, lk& national supervisors, and 26 educational special-

ists. The Teams group reported 95#9 per cent performance of

the activity; the national group reported 97*9 #er cent*

Texas supervisors ranked the It an 11# national ®wpervIsort 6,

and specialists 4* The mean store of the Texas group ma 1.96,

of national group 1«53» and of specialists !*>$* A difference

of *43 appeared between the scores of Texas and national super-

visor#} a difference of *61 developed between the stores of

Tens supervisors and specialists. A difference of *1# was

found to exist between the scores of national supervisors and

educational specialists#

Organi«aa aa effaetlye plan for dirtrUwtlat auppUaa

and affeyrialf and equipment*--One hundred twenty-three Texas

supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 2# educational

specialists answered the item. Tessas supervisors reported

19*4 per cent perfonaance of the activity; the national super-

visors reported 70*i per cent* Out of the fourteen items in

this section, Texas supervisors ranked this one 12, national

supervisors 14, and specialists 14* The mean score of Texas

supervisors was 2*19, of national supervisors 2*63, and of

specialists 2«14. The mean difference of *44 wis found to

exist between the scores of Tessas and national supervisors;

a difference of *0$ appeared between the scores of Texas

supervisors and specialists* A difference of *49 developed

94

between the scores of national supervisors and specialists# .

Til® national group gave less emphasis upon th i s item than did

either of the others,

I S &ft at lgetioa of instructional ma-

S S M l &E £C JSM&S£-—Table GUI shows

the responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 152 national super-

visors, and 30 educational specialists# Texas supervisors

reported 99.2 per cent performance of the ac t iv i ty ; national

supervisors reported 96*9 per cent. Terns supervisors ranked

the item 10, national supervisors S, and special is ts 7,5. The

mean score of Texas supervisors was l#g?, of national super-

visors 1*60, and of special is ts 1#43# A mean difference of

•27 developed between the scores of Te»s and national super-

visors, while a difference of #44 existed between the scores

of the Texas group and the educational specialists* 1 dif-

ference of #17 was found between the scores of the national

supervisory group and the specialist group*

M M r n e s s a / a m r o directions g g ^ ^

•--As shown in Table Clf # 123 Texas

supervisors, Id© national supervisors, and 29 educational

specialists answered the itesu The Texas group reported 91##

per cent performance ©f the ac t iv i ty ; the national group re-

ported 85#6 per cent. The Texas group ranked the item 13#5,

the national group 13, and the specialist group 13, Since

there were only fourteen items in the section, t h i s making

95

indicated that the three groups felt tills practise had little

relative value. The mesa score of Texas supervisors was 2.17,

of national mpmfimrs 2*20, and of specialists 2.00. Mean

differences ranged from *®3 to #20, the greatest difference

toeing between the scores of national supervisors m A educa-

tional specialists.

A«l«t. arlnelattlt is BffiOTfr&M £&i S2£ s£

approved instraatloaal aaterlala .aa|0^,--Inform»U<>B

in Table 0? resulted fro® responses of 123 Texas supervisors,

M l national supervisors, audi 30' educational specialists.

Tli© Texas group reported 99#2 per cent performance of the

activity! the national supervisors reported 96#3 per cent .

The Texas group ranked the it ©a ## the national group 5#

the specialist group 5# The mean score of the Texas group

was 1.7&, of the national group 1.51, sad of the specialist

group 1*40* A difference of *27 appeared between the scores

of Texas and national supervisors. A difference ©f *3# de-

veloped between the scores of Texas supervisors and special-

ists. A smaller difference of .11 urns found, to exist between

the scores of national supervisors and specialists. Both

supervisory groups gave less eaphasis open this activity than

was recommended by specialists, though the greatest difference

was between the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists*

jjfcwflftM H a at is

olftMKPMi use.~~fable GVI includes data from the responses of

96

123 Texas supervisors, X60 national supervisors, and SO edu-

cational specialists. Texas supervisors reported 96*7 per

•cent performance of the activity; the national supervisors

reported 96*3 per cent# • Texas supervisors ranked the activity

7, national supervisors 4, and specialists 7.5* The mean

score of Texas supervisors was 1#73, of national supervisors

1*46, and of specialists 1*43* Little difference appeared

in the ranking of the ite© by Texas supervisors and special-

ists, however a difference of .30 developed between the mean

scores* A difference of .25 was found between the scores of

Texas and national supervisors. A snail difference of .0$

developed between the scores of the national group and educa-

tional specialists*

Statistical Findings

A simple analysis of variance computation was made on

data from this section with as F~$cor© of 2*10, which study

indicated that there were no significant differences in the

activities in which the Texas supervisory group and the

national supervisory group engaged, or with the values set

upon these same activities fey the group of educational

specialists#

Findings tip Area Administrative Activities

Working in the area of administrative activities the

supervisors

97

Aa £&£ m M & B S S H , salection. a M placement

8& teachers• —Table GVII reflects responses to this item of

123 Texas supervisors, 160 national supervisors, and 29 edu-

cational specialists# 'Texas supervisors reported 54#4 per

cent performance of this activity? the national supervisors

reported 70#6 per eent# The Texas group ranked the item 4»5,

the national group 4* and the' specialist group 2* The mean

score of the Texas group was 2.91, of national supervisors

2,6$# and of specialists 1*45* The supervisory group® were

in near agreement in ranking and mean scores, however a large

difference appeared between their scores and those of the

specialists# A difference of 1#4& developed between the scores

of Texas supervisors and specialist®; a difference of 1*20

was found to exist between the scores of national supervisors

and specialists# The specialists placed much more value upon

this activity than did the supervisory groups As reflected by

the Bean scores and the rankings#

m s h M, imtimM* *»

Table CTIII were the tabulated responses of 123 Texas super*


ists# Texas supervisors reported 9#9 per cent perforata## of

this activity} the national group reported 26*3 per cent#

Among the nine items in this section, Terns supervisors ranked

it 9, national supervisors and specialists l» The mean

score of Texas supervisors was 3#$7, of national supervisors

3#56, and of specialists 3*03# The per cent of performance.

9$

rankings, and moan scores attest to the fact that low eoph&ses

and Tallies were placed upon this activity by all groups. A

difference of *31 appeared between the scores of Texas and

national supervisors; a difference of «*Vdeveloped between

the scores of Te»s supervisors and specialists, 4 difference

of .53 was fowl between the $mrm of national supervisors '

and specialists.

isam SB SSSi Wtmlm £E tr«|nlnR asg MMSftStt*. 2®r

mittee#—One hundred twenty-three Texas supervisors, 159

national supervisors, and 39 specialists responded to the item*

Answers mm recorded in fable CXX. Both supervisory groups

reported 53*6 per cent p*rforaanoe of this activity, the

Texas group ranked this item k*% the national group 5, and

the specialist group 4. The mean score of the Texas super-

visors was 3*07# of national supervisors 2»$?# and of special-

ist g 1.39. The reported per cent of performance, the rankings,

and mean scores of the supervisory groups indicated near

agreement, however the lower mean score of the specialist

group shows that they recommended such sore value be placed

upon the activity. A difference of .20 existed between the

scores of Texas and national supervisors; a difference of 1.6S

appeared between the scores of Texas supervisors and special-

ists. A difference of .94 developed between the scores of

national supervisors and educational specialists.

99

M S 2 iSBSte' MClftSM JSM M m SS22S& si ratlngg—

Data ia Table CI show that 123 Texas supervisors, M O national

supervisors, and .39 specialists responded to the item* Texas

supervisors reported 36.6 per cent performance of the activity;

the national group reported 47*2 per cent, tems supervisors

ranked the item S# national supervisors ranked it 6, and edu-

cational specialists ranked it 9# the mean score of the Texas

group t m 3*54, of the national group 2* #9, and of the spe-

cialist group 3.1?» Data indicated little emphasis and false

for this activity, however the national supervisory group

gave more emphasis than did the Texas group and sore than that

recommended by specialists. A difference of .35 appeared be-

tween the scores ©f Texas sup wiser# and national supervisors;

a difference of #37 **as found to exist between the scores of'

Texas supervisor* and specialists. A difference of #2# de-

veloped between the scores of national supervisors and spe-

cialists.

jjeoQBggend,® rsasaijmmeat ftf teachers to other .grades or

tatoftlf MitbiM the school axatem.—Inforaation in Tafcle CXI

represents responses of 123 Texas supervisors, 161 national

supervisors, and 29 educational specialists. Texas super-

visors reported 53-6 per cent performance of this activity;

the national supervisors reported T$*$ per cent# fhe Texas

group ranked the item 7, the national group 3, and specialists

7* The mean score of the Texas group was 3*39, of the national

group 2.3$, and of the specialist group 2#45* Thorn# the

100

Texas and specialist groups ranked the item as number 7, tilt

mean. scores indicated that the ferns group gave less emphasis

upon the activity than w recommended by the specialist group.

The national group gay® more emphasis than was recommended by

the specialist group, though the sieaa difference was only #07«

A difference of 1*01 appeared between the scores of the Texas

and national groups, tad a difference of .94 was found to

exist between the scores of Terns supervisors and specialists.

worfcg J&&! tfHnr a & ii as*

ofdlaatlag th« «atir« Instructional nntrm throve fr»<«wnt

iSS££ oth«r a«aa»«—According to data in Table

GUI, 113 Texas supervisors, 162 national supervisors, and 30

educational specialists answered the item. The Texas group

reported 97*6 per cent performance of the activity; the ••

national group reported 97*5 p«r cent# Among the nine it ens

in this section, the three groups ranked this activity 1#

The mean score of the Texas group ms 1.63, of the national

group l«33ff of the specialist group 1.10* High relative

emphasis and value was placed upon this activity. A differ-

ence of .30 appeared between the scores of Texas and national

supervisors! a difference of .53 developed between the scores

of Texas supervisors and specialists. A difference of .23

-ms found between the scores of national supervisors and

specialists*

101

Prepares written reports of M s su&erviaory activities

& £ liS S£ auperintendent. —Table

CZIZI includes data from responses of 123 Texas supervisors,

119 national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists. The

Texas group reported 77*2 per cent performance; the national

group reported #4*3 per seat# The Texas and national super-

visory groups ranked the item 2# the specialist group ranked

it 3* the mean acore of the Texas group was 2.27, of the

national supervisory group 2.03, and of the specialists 1.90.

The three groups ranked the item relatively high m a desir-

able activity. A mean difference of .24 appeared between

scores of Texas and national supervisors; a difference of *37

was found between the scores of Texas supervisors and special*

lata. ' loth supervisory groups gave less emphasis than was

recommended by the specialist group, however the differences

were not great*

M S M I S to this

item by 123 Texas supervisors, 159 national supervisors, and

30 educational specialists were recorded in Table CXIV. The

Texas group reported 61.0 per cent performance; the national

group reported 54*1 per cent. Texas supervisors ranked the

it en 6f the national group and the specialist group 5* The

mean score of the Texas group was 2.94# of national supervisors

3*04, and of specialists 2.03* A small difference of .10 ex-

isted between the scores of Texas and national supervisors;

a difference of .91 appeared between the scores of Texas

102

supervisors and educational specialists* ' The difference of

1*01 developed between the seer®# of national supervisors and

specialists* • leither of the supervisory groups gave the em-

phasis that was recommended by the specialist group#

Wlitf coanitteea such as sifonr sur-

veys. etc*—Data in Table CIV reflect, responses of 123 Texas

supervisors, 1$S national supervisors, and 30 educational

specialists* The Texas group reported 59#I per cent perfor-

mance? the national group reported 5^*9 per cent* Texas

supervisors ranked the item 3, national supervisors 7* and

specialists 6. The mean score of the Texas group was 2.93,

of the .national group 2*97, and ©f specialists 2*13* The two

supervisory groups were in near agreement* with only *04 dif-

ference in the mean scores. A difference of *10 was found

between the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists* The

greatest difference of *#4 appeared between the scores of

national supervisors and specialists*

Statistical findings

Simple analysis of variance computations for this section

produced a significant F-Score of 3.47* This indicated that

differences existed between activities engaged in by the two

supervisory groups ted/or the values set upon the activities

by educational specialists* A *t«-score of 1*01 was derived

frois computations between the mean scores of the Texas super*

visory group and the national supervisory group* . This score

m

was not- significant at the #05 level# Computations aade be-

tween the mean scores of Texas supervisors and specialists

produced a •f-score of 2#70# significant at the .05 level# .

The results indicated that there were no significant differ-

ences in the activities engaged in by Terns supervisors and .

national supervisors, but there were significant differences

existing between activities engaged in by T®ms supervisors .

and values set upon these activities by educational specialists.

Findings in the Area of Professional QrcMai»a.tipm

Working in the area of professional organisations the

supervisor?

and participation la srofutloMd

•Information la Table CXVI represents the re-

sponses of 123 Texas supervisors, 15$ national supervisors,

and 29 educational specialists* The Terns group reported

96*7 per cerst performance of the activity; the national group

reported 96*2 per cent# The ferns ©roup ranked the item 2*5,

the national group 3, and the specialist group 3* The mean

score of Texas supervisors ma 1*39# of national supervisors

1*63, and of specialists 1*69# Very siallar rankings show

relative emphasis and value placed upon this activity by the

groups4 The Texas group placed more emphasis upon the prac-

tice than did either of the others# A mean score difference

of .24 appeared between the scores of Texas and national

supervisorsj a difference of #3© was found between the scores

104

of Texas supervisors and specialists* A aa&ll difference of

*06 developed between the scores of national supervisors and

educational specialists* .

Snceuraw taacher membership and participation In ae-

sroprlate arofeasional organisations«—According to data in

Table crfll, 123 Texas supervisors, 160 national s^ervisors,

and 29 educational specialists answered the it®®, Texas

supervisors reported 96*7 p©r cent performance of the activity?

the national supervisors reported 95 per cent* The three

groups ranked this item 5, out of the series of six# The mean

score of Texas supervisors was 1*41, of national supervisors

1*66, and of specialist® 1*36* Both supervisory groups plaeed

more emphasis upon this activity than was recommended by

specialists, even though the it an received the same ranking*

A difference of »2f appeared between the scores of Texas and

national supervisors! a difference of *45 developed between

the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists* A difference

of *1# was found between the scores of national supervisors

and specialists*

. Belongs to and participates in meetings of professional

organlzat ions*—Pat a in Table CXVIII earn# fro© responses of


tional specialists* Texas supervisors reported 100 per cent

performance of the activity; the national supervisors reported

99*4 per cent* Of the six items in this section, the three

105

groups ranked this om first • They gave the highest relative

laportance to this activity. The mean score of the Texas

group was 1.14> of national supervisors 1.21, and of the spe-

cialist group 1.2I« These mean scores indicated that the

groups considered this item to fee a most desirable one for any

total supervisory program. Small mean score differences ap-

peared fro® *04 to til*

WfiriM an OQBBltfM or hold» an o H l a In Brofomlonal

or&anigations.—As shown in Table CXH, 123 Texas supervisors,

161 national supervisors, and 29 educational specialists re-

sponded to this item. fe»a supervisors reported 9$.4 per

cent perforaaaace of this activity! the national supervisors

reported 99*4 per cent. Texas supervisors ranged the itm 4#

national supervisors 2, and specialists 4* The mean score of

the Texas group was 1*15# of the national group 1.60, and of

the specialists 1*75* Both supervisory groups placed greater

emphasis upon the activity than was recommended by the special-

ist ©roup, thou# the Texas group placed m m emphasis than

did the national group. A mean difference of #25 appeared

between the scores of Texas and national supervisors? a dif-

ference of *40 developed between the scores of Texas super-

visor# and specialists* A difference of *15 was found to

exist between the scores of national supervisors and specialists.

Shares results of h£g .ifcydy and .attendance at professional

yiffllMg M i l H i C*X recorded the

106

responses of 123 torn.® supervisors, 162 national supervisors,

and |0 educational specialists* The Texas group reported 100

per cent performance of this activity* the national group re-

ported 9?#f per ®m%* 'The Texas group ranked the itesi'a.S,

the national group and the specialist' group 2« The mean '

score of the Texas group was 1«35*. of the national group 1.64,

and of the specialist group 1.47. This activity was emphasized

by the Texas group to a greater extent than by either of the

others. 4 mean differesc® of #29 appeared between the scores

of Texas and national supervisors; a mean difference of .12


ist®# .The differences ranged from #12 to .29#

Writes for ss. JSHM & E ITOttfflrtff

or magazines.—As noted In Table CXXI, 123 Texas supervisors,

160 national supervisors, and 30 educational specialists an-

swered the item. Texas supervisors reported 55*3 per cent

performance of this activity! the national 'supervisors r®»

ported 66.9 per cent * Out of the six. items in the section,

the three groups ranked this activity 6* They placed ,r«la*»

tively little emphasis and value upon the practice. The mean

score of Texas supervisors was 3*06# ©f national supervisors

2.39* and of specialists 1.90. A difference of .17 appeared

between the scores of Texas and national supervisors? a dif-

ference of 2#l6 was found to exist between the scores of Texas

supervisors and specialists. A difference of .99 developed

107

between the scores of national supervisors and specialist••

The two supervisory groups considered this activity of amok

less value than did the specialists#

Statistical Findings

Sisiple analysis Of variance computations produced an

F-Score of l«34f not significant at th® »05 level# This in-

dicated that there wort no significant differences either in

the activities engaged in by to® supervisors and national

supervisors or in the values set upon these same activities

by educational specialists#

Findings in the 4fftfc of Public Belations

Working in the area of public relations the supervisors

Interprets the school m B M M i n

Table CXXII show the results of responses of 123 Texas super-

visors, 15$ national supervisors, and 29 educational special-

ists* The Texas group reported 96.7 per cent performance of

the activity; th® national group reported 96.S per cent. The

Texas supervisory group ranked this item 3* the national

group 1, and the specialist group 1* The mean score of the

Texas group was 1*67, of national supervisors 149# and of

specialists 1*17« Relatively equal importance was placed up-

on this activity, especially by the national group and the

specialist group# A mean score difference of .0# appeared

between the scores of Texas and national supervisors? a mean

score difference of .50 developed between the scores of Texas

m

supervisors and educational specialists. 4 .42 mean score '

difference was found to exist between the scores of national

supervisors and specialists# The per cent of performance, the

rankings, and the aean scores gave emphasis and value to this

activity*

l H I tt'M «—malty —According to data in

faMt CXXII1# 121 Texas supervisors, 161 .national supervisors,

and 10 educational specialists responded to this itea. Texas

supervisors reported 97.6 per cent performance} the national

supervisors reported 97#5 per cent. Among the eight items of

this section, the Texas group ranked this one as 1, the

national group 2, and the specialist group |# The mean score

of the Texas group was 1.59, of the national group 1.43, and

of the specialist group 1.66. Small mean differences ranged

from .07 to .23 with the greatest difference between the scores

of national supervisors and specialists. This activity was

considered desirable by the three groups.

f w y p M M l newspapers and gamines.—Qna

hundred twenty-three Tesssas supervisors, 157 national super-

visors, and 30 educational specialists responded to the item

and supplied data found in Table CXXXV. Texas supervisors

reported $6.9 per cent performance; the national supervisors

reported 63.4 per cent. Tessas supervisors ranked the item 5*

national supervisor* ranked it 7, and specialists ranked it 6#

The mean score of the Texas group was 2.10, of the national

109

group 2*93, «nd of the specialist group 1»7G» Neither of the

'supervisory groups gave as much emphasis upon the activity

m was recommended by the specialist group* The Tessas group,

however, gave more emphasis than did the national group# A

difference of »I3 appeared between the scores of Texas and

national supervisors; a difference of *40 developed between

scores of Texas supervisors and specialists* A difference of

1.23 was found to exist between the scores of national super-

visors and specialists# According to mean scores, the spe-

cialists recommended more value for this activity than was

recognized by the supervisory groups#

Praparo* eahibtt* o£ Instructional mat«rlal» figg pupllg'

work*—Data in "Table CXXV came froa recasts of 123 f mm

supervisors, 161 national supervisors, and 30 specialista.

The Texas group reported 91*1 per cent performance of the

activityj the national group reported 95 per cent* Texas

supervisors ranked the item 6, national supervisors 3, and

specialists $* The mean score of the Texas group was 2*19,

of the national group 1»$9, and of the specialist group 2.07*

Bankings and aean score of the national group indicated that

they gave this activity more emphasis than did the other

groups* A mean difference of #30 appeared between the seores

of Texas and national supervisors; a small difference of *12

was found to exist between the scores of Texas supervisors and

educational specialists. A difference of .#lt developed between

the scores of national supervisors and specialists#

n o

Plans.' gg yurfel pafc»g jj| rad la pnp/i?r tel#vi.iilo pro-

grams.—Table CXXVI Indicates data which came from responses

of 123 Terns supervisors, 162 national supervisors, and 30

educational specialists. file ferns group reported 69 per cent

performance of the activity* the national group reported 99*4

per seat* The Texas .group ranked this item S, the national

group 5# and the specialist group ?. The mean score of the

Texas group was 2*66, of the national group 2*00, and of the

specialist group 1##3* Neither supervisory group placed the

amount of emphasis upon this ite® that was reeosasended by the

specialist group. A difference of .66 appeared between the

scores of Texas and national supervisors; a difference of *$3


ists* , The small score difference of .17 was found to exist

between the scores of national supervisors and specialists.

Participates in w w a m a which gsofc to secure tfaa interest

j&M ,c.ogRM:a$io.H s£ £&3 ia fraorlM & £ aehool

program. —Table CXX?XX reflects .data which came fro® the re-

sponses of 123 f«a» supervisors, 154 national supervisors,

tni it specialists# The Terns group reported 96*7 per cent

performance of the activity; the national group reported 67.7

per cent. The Texas group ranked the item 2t the national

group 4# and the specialist group 2* The mean score of the

Texas supervisory group was 1.72, of the national supervisory

group 1.9$* and of the educational specialist group 1*21.

H I

Bankings and mem scores place emphasis and value upon this

activity# A mem difference of *26 was found between the

scores of Texas and national supervisors} & difference of «$1


ists* The largest mean difference of *77 found to exist

between the scores of national supervisors and specialists#

IS workshops*-*A8 shorn in Table c...

0 x m u f 123 Texas supervisors, 15# national supervisors, and

30 educational specialists answered the item. The Texas group

reported 9$»9 per cent performance of the activity; the

national group reported 76#6 per cent* Greater participation

in tils activity appeared in the Texas group# The Texas

group ranked the it era 4* the national group waked it 6, and

the sfeclalist group ranked it k* The mean score of the Texas

group was 2.11, of national supervisora 2*43f ted of special-

ists 1.47« The specialists recoiaraended sore value upon this

activity than either of the supervisory groups placed upon it*

A difference of %yi appeared between the scores of Texas and

national supervisors; a difference of *64 developed between

the scores of Texas supervisors and specialists* A difference

of #96 was found between the scores of national supervisors

and specialists*

Iste. iSEsesmE M itis M m M ste assis M S i

schools«—According to data in Table CXXIX, 123 Terns super-

visors, 160 national supervisors, and 30 specialists responded

112

to till# item# Texas supervisors reported £1«2 per cent per-

formance j the national supervisors reported §%•$ per cent

performance of the activity, this report, relleets the fact

that about one half of the national group performed the ac-

tivity# The Texas group ranked the item 7# the national group

&, and the specialist group ranked it 5# The mean score of

the Texas supervisory group was t«3## of the national super-

visory group 3»Q7* and of the educational specialist group

1*53* The supervisory groups placed less emphasis upon this

activity than was recommended by the specialist group. A aean

difference of .69 appeared between the scores of Texas and

national supervisors; a difference of .65 was found to exist

between the stores of Texas supervisors and specialists# 1

difference of 1.54 developed between the scores of national

supervisors and specialists.

Statistical findings

Statistical computations for this section produced a

significant f-Score of 3.3. A *t"~score computation was made

to find the point or points of existing differences. When the

aean score of the Texas group and the aean score of the national

group were compared# a •t^-score ©f 1.4# m $ found—a value

not significant at the .05 level. This result indicated that

the differences did not lie in the activities of the two

supervisory groups* Computations between the aean score of

the Texas group and the mean score of the specialist group

resulted In a H^-score of 2.70# This score was significant

U 3

a t the #05 l eve l . There were d i f fe rences in the a c t i v i t i e s

engaged in by Tern®. supervisors and the values set upon these

same a c t i v i t i e s by educational spec ia l i s t s*

AS S s , i Z S S . M , M i | t o t i Aot l r l t l ea i a t ;

Working In the ©re® of addi t ional a c t i v i t i e s and d i s t r i -

c t ioa of t ime, the supervisor repor ts !

Mdltftoâl fteti.iAMe:g*^^fftbl© CXXX ^how» tha t t he f e » s

supervisors reported sheading time i n twenty d i f f e r en t m&

addi t ional ac t iv i t i e s# 11fhty, or approximately 65 per cent ,

of the supervisors reported tha t they had m addi t ional ac-

t i v i t i e s . I s S M S ASt I B E M a c t i v i t i e s in

**hich more supervisors engaged than in any other s ingle one

thouî handling textbooks and f i lms were also part of some

supervisory programs* As many as one, two, and th ree super-

v isors reported a c t i v i t i e s as show i n the table*

fi£ t jê .—Table CXXII presents a

s tructured form t o which the supervisors were requested t o

conform In designating d i s t r ibu t ion of time* t h i s s t ruc ture

followed the out l ine of the questionnaire *fhieh was divided

i n sect ions . Supervisor® reported approximately | 1 per cent

of t h e i r time spent in la*a.f*rviift educat ion 23 per cent in

t i l Research, 21 per cent i n ffjglilg,)

11 per cent in gmtiimfaM*

s u w l f e s and equipment. 6 per cent i n

aJ4

I per cent in mlllilrgMl organizational and 3 per cent in

rn&M&Mmsm* ..

eoffiigggtg. —Supervisors eoianented that the time reported

was approximate, that the time changed from .year to year, that

a®**# time was spent ia some areas when special situations

aroie* and that adding or releasing assisting personnel tended

to change the time allocation. Supervisors also reported that

some additional activities were not included because of the

temporary nature and the small amount of time allocated,

Siw^ry

The purpose of Chapter III was to present the data ob-

tained from individual sections of fart. J§ of the questionnaire

submitted by Texas supervisors, national supervisory and edu-

cational specialists. Data were analysed to determine pos-

sible significant differences in activities engaged in by

f ®»s supervisors' and national supervisors and la values placed

upon these activities by educational specialists. Consider-

ations dealt with the seven sections of the instrument from

which data were gathered? namely, nuatfeur mm-

te &£ respondents answering t&e itcni.f jgr jMt of

St H i SSStoSl* of 'Mm nitWla the section, mean

se^rta of the groups, and mean differences among the scores

of Texas supervisors, national supervisors, and educational

specialists. Tables in Appendix B show these data.

115

Table® XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, and XXII sunuarise

information dealing with rankings and aean score of activities

in the areas depicted by the sections in Part I of the

instrument*

Significant differences appeared in activities engaged

in by Texas supervisors and the values placed upon these same

activities by educational specialists ia Section X, frofss-

alBti famll Section III, IVjriffiffiAgTt asi issamki 3<»«ioa

v, AdalBlatratjje AotiTltiaa: and Section TO, M U s

Significant differences appeared la Station It Frofes-

.qional Growth P between the activities engaged im by Texas

and national supervisors#

No significant differences appeared in, the activities

engaged in by tmsm supervisor® and by nation!!. supervisors

and'the values placed upon these activities % educational

specialists in Sectionll, Curriculum Development; Section

IV, lanM.fi S M IflHtaUSfct aad Section VI,

JProfeaaloml Qrmm^?mX&m*

TASUB XVII

EAIHIO® AND MEAN SCQKES OF ACTI?miS II Til Aim OF IN-SERVICE EDUCATION

It era lb*

. laaldlims (Mean Scores) It era

lb* Activity - 4la • t f t ' . .st«.. : ES<i A Yisits eljutarooms in order to

analysis the ttaciier«learn-ing situation

14.5 iu m

3 ; (1*17) ;

13 (1#29)

A«1 Visit* on tiMh«n* invitation

' 16.5 ' (1*47) '

29 ' : (1*64)

.,6*5 (1*17)

A-2 Makes unannounced visits 41#5 t : 12*34) (1.22) tl.63)

» IoM» follow-up conferences . with, teacher aftsr class visitation

4.5 % ! (1«47) '(fc!i) (1.15)

B--1 ©isemsses child growth char~ act eristics with teachers «ad suggests how to adapt method# to stages of development ;

21.5 (1.60) ft#32)

20

B»»2 ; Helps teachers organize instructional materials

16*5 ' ; (1.50)

10 ;(i.26)

22.5 ' (1.57)

B-3 Assists teachers with the development of daily, weekly and semeater programs

: 40 (1*95)

22.5 :

(1.54) |#»5 (1*#9)

B-4 Helps teachers to locate and identify their own in-structional problems

7 (1.45)

,4*5 „ tiuxa) ;

6.5 (1.17)

S»5 ; Uimmm® educational phil- ; oaophy or objectives with teachers

2$.5 (1.72} Itu ! 25.5

(1.60)

116

11?

TABLE XVII

Itea No.

B~6

I-?

B-9

1-10

8-11

1-12

W 3

B-14

8-15

B-16

Activity «. 43j

Discuses teaching methods with teachers and suggests new techniques and methods

Encourages and guides teachers in the reading of profes~ sional literature

H®lp® t«aeher« to feel secure fey making the® aware of the strong points in their programs

Guide# teachers in setting up * system for recording pupil progress *

Advises teachers on classroom arrangement and appearance

Suggests how to improve classroom discipline

Gives suggestions on how to initiate and carry out an instructional unit

Aids teacher® with special Pupils

Assists teachers in grouping pupils for instruction

Encourages professional activities such as writing •ad speaking

Arranges for interviaita-tlon for teachers

tses demonstrations to foster professional growth

IftfjMitjwt ; (Mean Scores) ?s® } m* _ &

10.5 a.33)

I 2 1 (iao)

21 11#53)

| ?1.S3)

1 (1.20)

1 U«ot)

10 (1.20)

32 (1.99)

13# j (2.10) 3d.6

a.#?)

ttlsi as. 5

jIl*f4) 41 T2.13)

11.22) 19 J(1.44)

ai.s liJi)

26 (1.72) j

24 11.13)

25.5 (1.60)

14.5 (1.U) 16

(1*40) 2d.5 (1.63)

fx.90) fii | (1»43) 27 (1*60)

?2.37) ti.34) tl.97)

11.07) 28 11.63) fl.63)

36 1 (£.ao) | 11*60)

32 11.71)

Ill

TABLE xm~-Confcintted

Item No#

i ^akiys (Mean Scores)

Item No# Activity •» 43a f S ! • ES^

C~1 AfTmage# for demonstration llssons and assists teachers preparing to demonstrate

. 3# (2.33) fjult)

:IX * turn

C-2 Gives demonstration . lessons ti-TQi

'

(2*26) kz

C-3 Assist! teaehers preparing to observe demonstration lessons

23 . (2.38)

30 . tlMl ? U

G—4 Circulates descriptions and examples of good teaching practices through demon- ' strations and other means 1U 24 '

fl*#) •22.5

» • Works in the in-service training program

2 ' (1.22)

;14»5 Cl*3?l

' *

Plans and arranges for iiv-service training tourses

. for teachers and/or • principals

3 (1.31)

•87 (l»62)

;14 :(3lr30)

B-2 Conducts in-service institute courses |2.06> 11.91)

:33*-5 {1*73)

i-3 Plans and conducts institute sessions

23.$ (2.01)

40 (2.23)

33*5 4 (1*73)

B-4 : Plans and conducts induction ©r orientation meetings

• for new teachers tLsa) 14.5 % Cl»37)

; 6.5 (1*17)

1-1 Evaluates in-service train-ing courses conducted in local school system

21 (1*70)

|6 t

(1**5) %*** fc

11.43)

8-6 Encourages and advises teachers regarding further in-service training

25 (1*67) 1

31*5 „ (1,6*)

:24 (1.57)

11-9

TABLE xyiI~~Continued

Ho. ,

Rankings (Mean Scores)

Ho. , Activity - 43a TSb HSC ESd

S Hold* conferences with teachers mad principals

9 {1.371

6.5 t (1,19)

2 [1.0#)

1-1 Holds Individual teacher conference to work ©a specif!© problems {fill)

9 (1.24)

L7 ll.W

1-2 Holds group conferences with teachers to work on common problems

10.5 (1.37)

11 (1.28)

1 (1.07)

1-3 Attends tad contributes to faculty meeting*; acts in capacity of consultant

12 (1.431

21 (1.46)

.1 11.23)

JS»»4 Hold* office hours where teacher® can get help

33 (1*37) ll.&L)

16 4 11.47)

B«5 j Holds Meetings with principals

20 (1.82)

U (2.25)

12 ;i.27!

Holds conferences with iadittdual building principals

6 (1.37)

J (1.22)

6.5 [1.1?)

F Engages in activities which will improve his mm effectiveness

4.5 (1*29)

6.5 CI.19) [1.09)

F-l Engages in professional study with consultants from universities and colleges

1& <X.5*>

26 (1.61)

ii.5 11.43)

F-2 Reads professional liter-ature {during hours on job)

19 CI.5^)

|6 11.35)

120

TABLE mi—Continued

Item lo. Activity - 43*

1 lies

IssMism m Scares i)

Item lo. Activity - 43* TSb 8SC 2Sd

?-3 WBJX.BE analytical summary of feia mm activities far -the purpoae of forraula-ing a suparTiaory plan

24 (1.72)

30 (1.45)

15 (1*31)

a - limber of lttnt is tha section

b - Texas suparri&ors

c - Rational supervisors

<1 « Educational specialists

TABLE XVIII

BANKINGS AID MEAH SCORES Of ACTIVITIES Uf TIE ARIA OF CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Ite»l 10. :

{Mean Scores) Ite»l 10. : Activity • 13a TS» *3*

A Bit©grates school district policies regarding ettr. (1.3$)

a {1*26) (1.63)

A-l Cooperates irith other super-visory offieere in carrying out the instructional pol-icies of the sehool system

1 (1.20)

1 4 (1.10)

1 (1.14)

A-2 frmmts um instructional guides to teachers and sug«

; gests techttifttes fortheir use 4 (1.39)

3 (1.31)

6 0L57)

B-* Participates in the produc-tion of cmrricmlua materials

2 (1.30)

5 (1.3$)

a (1.22)

B-l Makes a continuing analysis of curriculum problems with a view to ©hanging the cw-riculua (1.37)

7 (1.46) (1.23)

B-2 Suggests nmm of teachers, i principals, and others to he ;

include# on curriculum committees (i.4i) ;

4 (1.37)

12 0L#3)

B-3 I Grgaiiiues and leads cosmittees for cooperative curriculum revisions

$ (1.45) .

9 1 (1.91)

5 (1.34)

B-4 Serves as a mealier of curric-uluxa aerdlopraeat committee fl»33)

6 (1.41)

4 (1.31)

B-5 Edits curriculum materials in preparation for publication

9 (1.51)

10 t (1.92)

$ (1.76)

111

X22

TABLE XTOI—Contlimed

Item io. Activity * 13a

(M®m Scores)

Tgb IS® m®

10 u . w

11 fl.fj)

i.s (1,69)

11 fl«#t)

6 U.fo)

10 a.76)

13 (M.77I

13 C3»oi)

13 ca.57)

12 (2.29)

12 (2.251

11 ci. m)

B-6

1-?

B-B

B-9

Writes or collaborates la the writlag of teaching guides

Writes ami distributes supervisory bulletins to teAehers mi principals

Plans m& prepares written materials for pupil use

Prepare© professional read-lag lists, m&h m anno-tated bibliographies

a « Swaber of item® in section

b •» ferns supervisors

c » Wat tonal supervisors

4 - Educational specialists

TABLE III

RAHKXN05 AHD MBAK SCORES Of ACTIVITIES AREA OF EVALUATION AND RESEARCH

Item Activity *» 13&

(Mean Scores)

jd

A

A-I

A~2

A-3

A»4

B-l

B»2

B-3

Encourages study sad experi-mentation in swethod® and subject-matter organization

Keeps teachers informed and abreast of reseaareh

Helps teachers to set mp simple experiments and to ev&lmate them

:«« resource

able to t eaeliers

•1# and. avail*

courage® teacher© to wit® iwraary reports of their study and/or experiments

Analyses educational needs of pupil® and plans specific lesxHiJBg situations

Analyzes city-wide achieve-ment surveys

Encourages the use of standardise and iaforaal tests

Helps teachers to interpret tests and data and to diagnose tad correct pupil difficulties

f (1.67)

9 a*n)

10 (1.90)

(1#54)

11 (2.16)

(1,701

6 (1.70)

1 (1.21)

(1.39)

(1.5?)

4.5 (1.67)

(1.66)

(1.75)

11 (2.29)

(1.43)

9

(1.43)

2 (1.69)

4.5 (1*67)

1 (1.13)

6 (1.31)

3 (1.23)

(1.24)

(1.66)

4 (1.2f)

,7.5 4 (1.29)

10 (1*77)

5 ( M O )

123

124

TABLE II1~*Continued

Item 9o.

'Rairieftuui {Mean Scores)

Item 9o. Activity - 13* fgh m c ESd

B-4 Aids principals in an ap-praisal of instructional program

4 0L45J

i (i.ae)

7-5 -Cl.33)

B-5 Suggests methods of con-structing informal tests for classroom use

ia (2.23)

10 (2.21)

12 (1.90)

B-6 Writes or directs construc-tion of test® geared to the curriculum of the local school system

13 (a.?4)

13 (3*30) (io3)

B-7 Assists in the selection of standardised tests for the testing program (i.56)

12 (2.61)

ll (1.50)

a - number of items in section

to * Texas supervisors

c - National supervisors

& - Education*! specialists

TABU: S

M M U M M MEAN SCORO OF ACTITOIBS M THK mm or immcnom mwmm m

mmmm

JUyyciaas (Mean Scores)

Item So. Aetivitf «* 14* i JWWfcaHat Q i f gg6 ESd

4 WtM surreys of conditions - or need for instrae-

tioaal supplies or equip-ment (X.66)

0m

(X.J6) 6

(1*41) B Work® witk teaokers and ©tkers

to secure proper supplies and equipment 4

(1.S3) 2

(1.33J 2

11*32) 1*1 ' Helps to establish cri teria

for selection of notorial® of inctrnetien 6

(1.6S) 3

(1.46} 1

(1.17) B~2 Freflewa and reeoiiaaends

purchase of audio-irisual materials Q

(1.17) U (l.«9)

11 (i«ao)

8-3 : Evaluates and recommends supplies and equipment, in-cluding furniture, for purchase

13.5 (2«24)

mm 12

11.^6) B-4 evaluates and reeoaasesds

books for adoption a

(1.4S) a

(1*61) 10 (1.72)

B-5 i Acts as consultant in locating f ree or inexpen-aire Materials .* . <!•») 10

l i . i l 9

(1.71) B-6 ! Helps t© determine feasie

textbooks and supplemental 'books for olaaarooa

: 1 (1.30)

i (1.27) (1*34)

m

126

TABLE IX*

It«3» J f O ,

Bankings (Mean Scores)

It«3» J f O , Activity « 1 4 ® TSb N8C

0 Helps to determine how supplies ®M equipment will toe used

11 (1.96)

6 c i . 5 3 1

k ( 1 . 3 5 )

C~1 Organises m effective plan ' for distributing supplies, materials and equipment

1 2 (2.19)

1 4 ( 2 , 6 3 )

14 (2.14)

C » 2 Assists teachers in the selee* tlou of instructional materials for a particular unit

1 0 Cl.g?)

£ (1.60)

7 . 5 % ( 1 . 4 3 )

C - 3 • Introduces and/or prepares directions for the use of new supplies and equipment

13.5 (2.17)

13 ( 2 . 3 0 )

13 (2.00)

c4- Assists principals is pro-* aotiag effective u s e of approved instructional ma-terials and equipment

If ( 1 . 7 8 )

5 ( 1 . 5 1 )

5 (1.40)

c - 5 j Studies effectiveness of instructional supplies in classroom us# (1*73) C i * 4 i )

7 f J

( 1 * 4 3 )

.

a - Humber of items in the section

to * Teas supervisors

0 - Msttioaal supervisors

ft - Educational specialists

f AHL8 III

RAKKIKGS Mm MAM SCORES Of ACTIVITIES Iff THE AHA OF AMBfXSftAfOT ACTIVITIES

Item 1®,

{Mt«^SoSre®). Item 1®, Activity - 9a : rsh me ESd

A Participate® in recruitment, selection, and placement of teachers

4. 5 (2.91)

4 (2.65)

2 (1.45)

A~1 Writes questions for teaehers* examinations (3.87)

f :(3.561 (1*03)

A-a 1 Serves on oral interview or 1 training sad experience

cowittee 4.5 (3.07)

5 |2.#7J

4 (1.39)

A-3 Bates teachers * services aad keeps records of ratings

S (3.54)

6 (2.S9)

9 (3.17)

A-4 Recommend# reassignment of teachers the school system (3.39) ( 1 . 3 8 )

7 (2.45)

A-5 : Works with ©th.tr supervisor® and administrators ia m* ordioating the entire in-struct ioail program through frequent staff meetings or other means

1 (1.63) (1.33)

1 (1.10)

A-4 Prepares written reports of ' his supervisory activities for the superintendent or assistant superintendent

#*

mm

2 (2.03) (1.90

A-7 Assist® with sehool-bullding problem® {housing surveys, etc.)

6 (2.9k

it (3,04)

5 (2.03)

127

12$

TABLE Xll—Continued

i«iMsa (MeancScore#)

It®® Mo. Activity - 9* TS^ NSC ES<*

A*S Works oa administrative committees, such as I 3 . 7 6 salary fturrty** at cetrm 12*93) (2.97) (2.13J

a • fiMtoer of itesis in the section

b - Texas supervisors

c - National supervisors

d • Educational specialists

TABU nil

hahkiics aid mm scorns Of ACTIVITIES I I f i l ASIA OF PROFESSIOHAL ORGAHIZATIOHS

Rankings

Item 1*.

(Mean Scores) Item 1*. Activity » 6® TSb NSC i s d

A Encourages membership ami participation i a profes-

j sional organisations 2.5

{1*39) (1.63! ( 1 . 6 9 )

A-l Encourages teacher member-' ship and participation 3a appropriate organizations

5 {1,41) (1.68) (1.66)

A-2 Belongs to and participates in conferences of profes-sional organisations

i 1 (1.14)

: 1 (1.21)

1 (1.25)

A~3 Works on committees or holds i office ia organisations !

4 U.35)

2 (1.60)

4 (1.75)

8 : Shares with principals and teachers result® of study and attendance a t meetings

2.5 •u.35):

4 (1.64)

2 (1.47)

e Writes or edite articles for professional journals or magazines

6 0*06)

6 C2*i9) :

s I

^r4

J

a - Number of it«ns i a t he section

h - fmm supervisors

6 - national supervisors

d - Educational specialists

129

TABLE XXIII

RAUKIJfGS AID MAM SCORES OF ACTIVITIES II THE M M OF PUBLIC H8LATI0N3

1 iankinss

It®® No.

(Mean Scores} It®® No. Activity » la TSb NS° 1 #

A Interprets the school program to coaaaunity 11.6?) (1.59)

1 (1.17)

A»1 Talks to eoasunity groups 1 (1*59)

2 (1.43) ( L w

A-2 Prepares articles for lay newspapers mA magazines

5 4 {2.10}

: 7 (2.93)

6 11*70)

A-3 Prepares exhibits of instruc-tional materials and I pupils* work j

1 6 (2.19)

3 (1.89)

# (2,07)

A-4 Plana or participates in radio and/or television program

6 i (2.66) i

5 (2.00)

B- Participates in programs ntjiofe seek to secure in-terest and cooperation of participants in issproving school program.

2 {1*72} (1.9^) ;

2 t (1,11)

B-l Participates in parent workshop

k (2.11)

6 (2.43)

4 (1*47)

B-2 1 Helps lay groups make sur-veys of needs of schools

7 {2.36}

« g (3.07)

5 (1.53)

a - Number of Items in section

b - Texas supervisors

c — national supervisors

i * Educational specialists

130

cam & rr

APPXJCATIOH OF CRXTXRIA TO FIHBXH08

The purpose of this study was to analyse and evaluate

the role of Texas elementary school supervisors in Texas public

schools* These efforts took the direction of investigating

the possibility of relationships existing between certain

personal and prof essional background characteristics of Texas

elementary school supervisors and the activities in which

they engaged, determining the activities in which Texas ele-

mentary school supervisors engaged, determining the emphasis

placed upon the activities in Which Texas elementary school

supervisors engaged, and evaluating the activities in which

these elementary school supervisors engaged* The evaluation

process was to be based upon a comparison of activities engaged

in by elementary school supervisors in school systems in

cities of over 200,000 population and values set upon the

activities by a group of educational specialists.

It was hypothesised that there would be no significant

differences in the activities in which Texas elementary school

supervisors engaged as a result of the relationships to such

personal and professional background characteristics as sex.

title by which they were known, assignments, number of per-

sonnel and plant facilities supervised, academic education

131

m professional experiences, additional net!Titles for which

they were responsible, and allocation of time spent in adain-

istaring the supervisory program*

Statistical treatment of data derived from a study of the

activities in which aale and featale supervisors engaged pro-

duced aignificant differences for Section 1, wtiioh wis con-

earned with activities dealing vith professional growth, i* ©.

in-service education; Section III, nrhieh deals with activities

in the area of evaluation and research; and in Section ?,

which concerns administrative activities*

A study was made of the kind and degree of activities

engaged in by those supervisors who held Master of Education

degrees, Master of Arts degrees, and Master of Science degrees#

A study of the emphasis placed upon the activities revealed

a significant difference in the activities for Section 71,

which, deals with professional organisations* The mean score

was 1*45 for those holding the Master of Education degree, a

1*43 for those holding the Master of Science degree, and a

2*70 for those holding the Master of Arts degree* The holders

of the Master of Arts degree considered the activities less

desirable than did the other groups*

A study of other personal and professional background

characteristics failed to show significant differences in the

activities in which the Texas supervisors engaged*

The hypothesis that there were no significant relation-

ships between certain personal and professional background

m characteristics, such as sex, title, work. assignments, number

of personnel and planus supervised, academic education* ex-

perience, and other professional responsibilitiea and the

activities in which Texas elementary school supervisors en-

gaged can be accepted* except in the areas of sex and academic

education* Significant differences did appear in the rela-

tionship of these two characteristics and the activities in

which the supervisors engaged*

The second hypothesis was that there were no significant

differences between the activities engaged in by Texas ele-

mentary school supervisors and the soundness of these same

activities as rated by a group of educational specialists*

Mean scores were computed on data for Texas elementary

school supervisors and for data from educational specialists*

These mean scores were baaed upon the value-scale which

designated set sums for degrees of performance and for degrees

of performance which educational specialists recommended as

desirable* For comparative purposes data concerning practices

of national supervisors were included in the computations*

Treatment was given these mean scores by the use of simple

analysis of variance and "-technique* Computations were

made with data taken from the several sections of the question-

naire, independent of each other*

Data in Section I, which deals with professional growth

and in-service education of supervisors, were treated and

produced an F-Score of 14*4* This was highly significant,

134

si nee a score of 2*99 muld be meaningful at the .05 level.

A "-score of 4*1 resulted from a comparison between the mean

scores of Texas elementary school supervisors and those of

educational specialists# This score was significant at the

•05 level—a fact which indicates that there were significant

differences in the activities in which Texas supervisors en-

gaged and those same activities recommended by specialists#

Data in Section II, which treated the activities of cur-

riculum development! did not shown a significant F-Seore»

This result showed that there were no significant differences

between the activities engaged in by Texas supervisors and

the recommendations of desirability by educational specialists

for this area*

Section III, Evaluation and Research. produced, when

treated statistically, a significant F-Score of 13*2* An

F-Score of 3«23 was significant at the *05 level# T-compu-

tations with these data resulted in a score of 2*60, which

was of consequence at the #05 level and indicated significant

differences between the activities engaged in by fex&s super-

visors and those recommended by educational specialists for

this section of the instrument*

Computations dealing with data in Section 17, Instruc-

tional Supplies an^ Equipment* produced an F-Score that was

not significant and therefore showed that the activities en-

gaged in by Texas supervisors and recommendations made by

135

educational specialists for these same activities were in

near agreement.

Treatment of data from Section f, which pertained to

administrative activities, showed a significant- F-Score of

3*47» A score of 3*40 waa significant at the .05 level*

Computations between the mean scores of Texas supervisors and

educational specialists gave a score of 2,56. A score of

2.12 was significant at the .05 level. There were, then,

significant differences between the activities engaged in by

fexas supervisors and recommendation® for these same activ-

ities by specialists for this section*

Data from Section TI, which dealt with professional

organisational were treated and produced a score that was not

significant* This result indicated that there were little

differences between activities engaged in by Texas supervisors

and recommendations by specialists for this section of the

questionnaire.

When the data for Section m , Public Relations, were

treated statistically, a significant F*Score of 3*1 was pro-

duced. The .05 level of significance is 3.47. A *t»-score

of 2.70 was obtained by computations between the mean scores

of Texas elementary school supervisors and educational special-

ists# A score of 2*1$ was necessary for significance at the

.05 level.

There appeared significant differences in the activities

in which Texas supervisors engaged and those activities

136

recommended by educational socialists in Stations I, II, ?#

and -Til* Tills indicated that the supervisors either did mot

perform activities considered desirable by educational

specialists or placed greater or less emphasis upon these '

activities* In each case the differences resulted frost under

emphasis of the activities by the Texas supervisors#

The hypothesis that there wire no significant differences

in the supervisory activities engaged in by fm&a elementary

school supervisors and the soundness of such activities as

rated by a group of specialists must therefore be rejected#

Significant differences did appear among the areas dealing

with professional growth, evaluation and research, adminis-

trative activities, and public relations* la these areas the

supervisors indicated by their responses, through the question-

naire, that they did not perform the activity or performed it

to a lesser degree than was recommended by the educational

specialist group*

Ho significant differences appeared among the areas of

curriculum development, instructional supplies and equipment,

and professional organisations* In these areas the supervisors

performed or emphasised the activities to a greater or lesser

degree in agreement with the recommendations of the specialist

group* In this case, the above hypothesis may be accepted

because the emphases and values of the two groups were in

near agreement•

m Til# third hypothesis was that there were no significant

differences between factors involved in the sub-problems as

they related to Tea® elementary school supervisors and to

elementary school supervisors in school systems in cities of

over 200,000 population* (These supervisors were identfied

in the study as 'national supervisors**}

Computations were made from data taken from the sections

of the instrument in which the mean scores of feasts elementary

school supervisors were compared with the mean scores of

national supervisors* Sections X, XXI, V# and VII showed .

significant F-Scores* The significant differences in activi-

ties engaged in by Texas supervisors and national supervisors

In Sections I and ? were the result'-, of less emphasis by the

Texas group* Significant- differences is activities engaged in

for Sections.Ill and fIX were the result of less emphasis by

the national group* In Sections II, If, and VI the F-Score

was not meaningful*

Section I, which dealt with professional growth* revealed

a significant F-Score and a *t"-score of 3*5# which also was

significant* Section XII # dealing with evaluation and re-

search, gave a significant F-Score of 4#1; however, the

"t*-ecor« of *62 between-the mean scores of fems supervisors

and the mean scores of national supervisors was not signifi-

cant* Section V# having to do with administrative activities,

produced a significant F-Score of 3*47* The ®t"-score of

1.01 between the scores of Texas supervisors and scores of

136

national supervisors was not significant• Section VII, re-

lating to the area of public relations, did show & significant

F-3eore of 3*$* The »t*~score from this computation ma not

significant.

?h# hypothesis that there were no significant differences

between the activities engaged in by fexas elementary school

supervisors and those engaged in by national supervisors was

rejected, since some differences did appear among the aetivi-

ties as they related to professional growth, evaluation and

research, administrative activities, and public relations#

fhe hypothesis may be accepted in other areas of activities

as they relate to curriculum development, instructional sup-

plies and equipment, and professional organisations*

Significant differences were determined on the basis of

variance between emphasis on activities by the two supervisory

groups and values plated upon these saae activities by the

specialist group*

Since criteria were applied to findings of various sec-

tions of the instrument, it became possible to acoept or

reject an hypothesis in part.

chaftbr ?

wimmm, ®mvmtm§ m wmmumrxoMB

This study concerned itself with the personal and pro-

fessional background characteristics and supervisory activi-

ties of Texas elsMentary school supervisors* It further

investigated the emphasis placed wpan these activities by

Texas and national supervisors and the relationship to values

set upon these same activities by a group of thirty educa-

tional specialists*

One hundred twenty-three supervisors fro* fexas schools

took part in the study* - This number represented those who

responded out of a total of 109* Response was aad® to a

structured questionnaire in which the supervisors were re*

quested to mark activities listed according to an arbitrary

scale of emphases and values* A numerical value was assigned

to the scale, ranging from J, to the value of £ representing

the aost desirable activity and It ant with the strongest ea»

pitasis*

The data dealing with the national supervisors and edu-

cational specialists were provided by a previous study by

Lans# These data were used for coaparative purposes in the

present study*

119

140

Findings

Findings wr« lalditfd under headings according to til#

organisation of the questionnaire*

General

Finding* from Fart A of the questionnaire were theses

1. Seventy-two women and fifty-one men responded to the

questionnaire used In tills study. This less approximately 5#

per cent female and 42 per cent male* Th« smaller schools

employed mors mm than women.

I* Elementary school persoaae1 in Texas schools were

known by fifteen different titles, the predominant on* feting

that of 'elementary supervisor*" Fifty respondents ware

given this title*

I* Elementary school supervisory personnel worked in

eleren different types of grade organisation, the most common

being that of 1-6 (first grade through sixth)*

4# The number of building supenrisory programs for which

the supervisor was responsible ranged from 1 to 45* with an

average of 9 to each supervisor*

5« The various supervisory programs administered by re-'

spondents included 17,536 teachers* The number ranged frost

4 to 471* with an average of 143 teachers for each supervisor*

6* Sixty-five respondents received their highest degree

fro* a university, 46 fro* a teachers' college, and 10 from

other institutions*

7* Two of the respondents held bachelor's degrees, 112

held master's, and 9 held doctor's* Seventy-nine, or

Ikl

approximately 64 par caat, raealvad the higieet degra® daring

the Xaat tweXre y ©are—1950-1962.

0* Hiaefcy-aiae, ©r approximately 10 par eeat of the re-

apoadea&a, had keaa 1A the profeaaloa fro* 16 to 55 7Nr«*

The average avnber of /oar* la the profeaaloa vaa 2)«lt

9* Sixty-aix, or approximately 50 p@r ©tat of the re-

apoadeats, reported, that they had been In the present school

ayatea 10 yeare or loans however, the average was XX«6 years.

10* Ono hundred thirteea, or approxUiAtely 92 per coat

of the reapoadeats, reported teahlag experience la the ele-

meatary aehool#

XX* 8eventy-»even, or approxlaateXy 6> par oeat of the

reapoadeata, reported experieaee la the sseoadary

classroom.

12* Sevaaty, or approximately 57 par oant of the raspoad-

eate, raportad experience aa aa eleaeatary school principal.

X|« Thirty-one, or approxl»a&ely 25 par oast of the re-

spondeata, report ad experience aa a aecoadary aehooX principal.

X4« Thlrty-alx, or approadUsately 29 par oaat of the group,

raportad experience la other administrative positions*

X5» Eeapoadesfca raportad XO different poaltloaa from

which they assumed the preaeat respoaaihiXltiaa • Seventy, or

approadjwtaXy 57 par ceat, antarad their preaeat work dlreatly

from aa eXemeatary teaching or elementary priaeipalahip

position.

m

16* Statistical treatment of data concerning the activi-

ties wfigid la hy ami and woaen showed a significant dif-

ference 1& three of the a area sections* These sections vara

If Professional Growths III# Evaluation and Research: and T,

Mialalgtratlve Activities^ Sex was the only variable con-

aider«d under this treatment*

17# Statistical evaluation was given to mean score re-

sponses according to the type of master*s dagree held. In

Section ¥It frefaaaioml Organizations. a significant differ*

ence appeared between those activities engaged la by respond-

ents who held a Master of Arts degree and those holding both

a Master of Sduoatlon and a Master of Science degree* Mean

scores were high* indicating eapfcaais for activities in this

station as much leas than the over-all average of those in

the questionnaire*

Findings trm Fart B of the questionnaire wera as

follows?

1* A summary @f information concerning activities hear-

ing the highaat esiphaaes shows that the tea top choices for

aach of the groups, or a total of thirty choices, vara mada

up of twenty-one coamon activities* Fourteen of the items

game fro® Section It Professional Growth, dealing with

visitation, conferences, professional assistance, la-service

programs, and personal enhancement* Two of the items came

143

from lection XI, Ciigrioi*I<aai Envelopment,. imcliidlag preparation,

participation 1n and impmfmtmt of the carriculum* Two items

came £t@m Section III, Evaluation and Research, pertaining

to experimentation and testing* On# Item ewe from Section

IT, laitfiMtlanal 3upb11«« m i £SDteSS£. iiseuMlng the pro-

distribution, and utilisation of supplies and

equipment* One item came from Section ?t Administrative

Activities* which treats of personnel relationships. One

item came from Section VI, Professional Orjsaniz&tions, nhieli

relates to membership and participation*

2. 4 mummy of the information concerning the activities

bearing the laaat em&hasis shows that the ten top choices for

eaah of the groups, or a total of thirty choices, were is&de

up of seventeen items* Three of the items came from Section

i. y*«f—»ioa«i amtii: f « " smion n , ffmramiAwB is-

velopaent; one from Section III, Evaluation and Research:

one from Section I?, Instructional Supplies and Equipment;

seiren from Section Vf Admlniatrati v® Activities a one irm

Section ?I» Professional Organizations; and three fro® Sec-

tion Vll# Public lelations*

*f<» f M i ' f y W T T T Y"TTt f Y ¥1t*T w t t mmjI I f Y T T T il»1p J*<gf mdmg JkJ+mJk g l » S S dBAJh**

amy be found the rankings end mean scores of the three groups

which reflect emphases and values of the activities.

3« Statistical treatment of data from Part 8 of the

questionnaire shows these factst

m a. In Section III, ivaluatlon and Research. titer#

were aignifleant differences in th# Activities la which th»

Texas supervisor® engaged and the recooaended values gat

thereon fey educational specialists. For this section there

were no • significant differences between the activitiaa e»-

gaged in by the T m t supervisors and by the national super-

visors.

b. In Section f, Malnlatr&tive Activities* there

ware significant differences in tha activitiaa la which ! «M

supervisors engagad tad the activities engaged in fey national

supervisors. There ware also significant differences between

activitiaa engaged in fey Texas supervisors and the values

placed upon these same activitiaa fey educational specialists.

c. In Section ¥11 f Public Relations. there were sig-

nificant differences between the activities engaged in fey

Texas supervisors and tha values placed upon these aativitiaa

fey educational specialists* There were for this section no

significant differences between the activitiaa engaged in fey

Texas supervisors and those engaged in fey national supervisors.

d. In Sections I, II, If, and ¥1 no significant <Hf»

ferences developed between the activitiaa engaged in fey the

Texas supervisors and the national vuparvlsora or the valuaa

placed upon these activitiaa fey educational specialists*

4. Texas aiiperviaora gave leaa emphasis to all activities

than did either the national group or the educational

specialist group.

145

I# f«3»® «ad national, supervisors placed

the greatest emphasis upon professional growth, and the least

emphasis upon administrative activities* The educational

specialists placed the greatest emphasis upon evaluation and

research and the least upon administrative activities.

6« There were greater differences between the mean scores

of Texas supervisors and educational specialists than between

the scores of Texas supervisors and national supervisors and

between the scores of the national supervisors and educational

specialists*

Gonelmaions

Findings in previous chapters have provided evidence to

support a number of conclusions concerning the activities of

elementary school supervisors in Texas public schools* Some

of the most important ones are these:

1. A» judged by academic achievement elementary Mfcool

supervisors la Tama public schools art wall educated and

professionally prepared for supervisory responsibilities.

2# Although elementary school supervisors have a varied

background of professional experiences, they are primarily

recruited fro® the elementary teachers and principals within

the local school system#

3* &argitr school systems tend to employ sore women

supervisors while smaller systems tend to employ more men*

146

4* Texas and nation*! supervisors agree that the greatest

eaphasls should be placed upon activities dealing w4tb pro-

fessional growth*

5* Since educational specialists considered evaluation

and research the «o*t desirable area of supervisory respon-

sibility, Texas supervisors need to give More emphasis to

activities relating to this area.

6* Texas supervisors, national supervisors, and educa-

tional specialists considered administrative activities as

the least desirable responsibilities for supervisors*

7* There is more agreement between emphasis of Texas

and national supervisors upon activities than between the

eaphasis of Texas supervisors and values set upon these same

activities by edueatioaal specialists*

f • Xvldence found in this investigation warrants the

conclusion that Texas supervisors need instruction and di-

rection in utilising desirable supervisory practices*

9* Slate there ware significant differences between

activities engaged in by Teas supervisors and national

supervisors and values set upon these saae activities by

educational specialists, it aay be concluded that both the

Texas and national supervisory programs should be changed

to Incorporate emphasis upon activities prescribed by educa-

tional specialists as criteria*

m

Mmommmd&tiom

The following recoiaaendat ions are suggested as a result

of the findings mad eoacluaiona of tills atudyt

X* It la rmommdmi that all educational foraea join

efforts to re-evaluate the role of the elementary school

auparvisor In feasas public aehoola* It la suggested that

the superintendent, la tooperatiom with ®e»b«rs of the staff,

aaonine tha supervisory activities la the school system In

light of profesaleiial research and reports in addition to

tha findings of this study.

2* It is recommended that tha local system make efforts

to adjust to a supervisory structure compatible with prev-

alaat practices in other school systems.

3# It ia recommended that a change ha made in the

present role expectations of the elementary school supervisor

by greatly restricting the areas of r ©spoasiMlit ies *

4# It ia recommended that efforts be la&de to determine

effects upon classroom instruction of tha supervisory activ-

ities engaged la by supervisors*

5* It is reeoraaended that teachers be included in the

organisation of the supervisory program of services and that

they also be informed of the many service® available through

a continuous program of in-service education.

6* It ia recommended that special efforts be made to

adapt to various instructional and administrative situations

without penalizing the supervisory program*

m 7. It is recommended that a change be made in the rati©

of supervisor~teaeh«r and superrisor~facilities *

#• It ia recommended that a checklist of activities he

used for evaluation, job-analysis, .and inventory of the

supervisory program.

9# It is recooaended that the practices of superrision

he separated fro* the enforcement of disciplinary functions*

10# It is recommended that supervisors he relieved of

penfunetory responsibilities of a non-supervisory nature*

11* It is recomended that the trend toward more coopera-

tive planning he continued*

It* It is recomaeaded that emphasis he encouraged toward

activities dealing with classroom situations*

13* It is recommended that colleges use this or a similar

list of supervisory activities as a guide toward emphasizing

the desirable practices, la light of the evaluation ©f the

educational specialists*

14* It is recommended that a continuous study he made

within each system for an understanding of and appreciation

for the scrriees available through the supervisory program.

15* It is recommended that every effort he made to pro-

vide supervision by which the child will he benefited*

16* It is recommended that local, state* and national

professional groups continue to do research involving the

role of the elementary school supervisor.

17. I t i . ™ w « 4 « i that local, w aat ioml nupenriaory group. M»m«« i n t t M < u u a r „ i | | ^

evaluation of tuiwaTiiory *ctiviti«8«

APPENDIX AS 1MTM TO 8UPEHINTKHDKNT3

NTS #5313

Mr* John Boef Superintendent 4twood Public Softools Atwood, Texas

9ht Six*}

Under the approval of the School of Education in North Texas Stat# Sniversity, Denton, Texas, I a» attempting to study, analyse and evaluate elementary school super-visory activities in Texas schools* Many school mm are of th© opinion that a study of this nature would be useful*

Some limited studies have been made of the general super-visory areas in Texas but none have dealt primarily with the elementary school* State level personnel and others have expressed interest in this endeavor.

The study will include all Texas schools employing ele-mentary school supervisory personnel and I would appreciate permission to include your school. If this permission is granted pleas© indicate your preferences on the inclosed card*

lour assistance in this study will he greatly appreciated,

f ery truly yours,

Qyrm I# Todd

James I# Bougherty

150

appendix A-i{ m m m postal card

Penaiaaiori i s granted f o r t h i s school eygtea t o be a par t o f your study* •»««Iee So

f l i c ' queatioanft ire ahoald be maileds 1* D i r e c t l y t o the s u p e r v i s o r . . . . . . . » • * * • * • *m

2* To t h i s o f f i c e * « • • • * * • » • • • • • « • • • • • • » » • • » •

Do you desire a- apeeiwn copy of this questionnaire? .Yea l o

.So you des i re a summary of the tabulated resu l t s o f t h i « study! »Yes Mo

M'gaa&ire

151

AFP1WXX Bs QtfgSTIONIlAlRfi

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION - NOHTH TEXAS STATE UKI78RSITT

DSHTQM, TEXAS

"Study, Analysis, and Evaluation of the Role of the Elementary

School Supervisor in delected Texas Public Schools**

Professor Directing Study: Br# Janes H« Dougherty

Student Conducting Study: Cyrus 1* Todd

Bear liementary School Supervisor*

Tour cooperation is needed in a state-wide study of the role of the elementary school supervisor in the total educational program, the information requested in this questionnaire will be used a® the basis for the study. All information reported iriH be held in strict professional confidence* and none will be connected with..you as an individual or witn your school or school system* In fact, the Information will be recorded by code number and need not be connected with you personally in any nay#

The instrument has been constructed with the idea in mind of saving you valuable time* Please read carefully and answer each question# When it is completed please return it in the self"addressed envelope provided. lour cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated*

Tour superintendent has given permission for members of your system to cooperate in this study*

Thank you for your contribution in considering a real problem which is of great importance to all of us*

Very truly yours,

Cyrus 2. Todd

Barnes R* Dougherty

152

OTITIONIAIBI

For the purpose of tilts study the respondent mm% be « regularly employed member of the school sysfcen with super-irisory responsibilities assigned in some area froa kinder-garten through trade six* except subjeet-s&tter areas#

If you qualify aeeording to the above criteria please fill out the questionnaire. If you do not, please return the questionnaire in the instated envelope# fhank you#

Questionnaire Code lumber 1«

FA8T A - ftlMllAL IMPOSMAflON

title of person suteLttiag report

Grades supervised —

iuiaber of sehools supervised

lumber of teachers supervised

Cheek each that applies*

Institutions of Mgh#r learning of which you are a graduates

Idberal Arts College teachers* College

f nivertity _ _ Horaal School

Others (Pleas* specify)

litest degree held . Bate obtained

tafeer of years in profession of education —

Number of years in present school system

Muaber of years in present position

lumber of years as teachers in elementary school _

Number of years as teacher in secondary school

Number of years as principal in elementary school

Nunber of years as prinoipal in seoondary school

Iwber of years in other administrative positions

Position held before assuming present duties

153

154

mt » - supervisori mnram

The major responsibility .of the elementary school supervisor Is to improve the t©aching-leariilrig »ittt*tioa la' til® elemeatary schools* la carrying out this major responsibility, he engages ia 4 variety of aativit£©3 which tovt heern grompid iato seven somewhat arbitrary categories *

la order to get your rations as to the relative e®~

tiil« places! ©a theee activities, pleaeecheck the items pted according to your best estimate. Pleaee mark jJ|

item»»

MXKfXQJSf la tit# riAt Mad ®©1«®» circle the aamber which indicates the emphasis which yom flue# oa the smperviaory activities lifted helow#

la rating m e the following ecalesi

1 .• t 3 4

Ueed oftea or 0«ed Some Seldom feed lot B«ed Emphasised

SBCTIOH I. Vorlda< In «k* uef ef aroftaaloiMl growth (in-service education) the

A. Tleiti classrooms la order to analyse the

teaching-learning situation • • • • • • • • • • * 1 2 3 4

1* Visits oa teachers* invitations I a H

2* 'Mice# unajanounoed visits • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4 &

B. Holds follow-ap conferences with teacher after class visitation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

1. Discmsses child growth characteristics with < teachers and smggesta how to adapt methods

to stages of development • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

2. Helps teachers to organise instructional materials # * # * • < « • » * # * » » • « # » i 2 3 4

3» Assists teachers with the development of dally, weekly, and sweeter programs • * • • . 1 2 3 4

4# Kelps teachers to locate aad ideatify their owa instructional problems • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

155

5« Discusses educational philosophy or objectives with teaoltera . . . . . . . . . . . • X 2 | 4

6* Biacmsses t reaching nethode with teachers} auggests new techniques and methods X 2 3 4

7* Ineouragef and guides teachers in the reading of professionaX literature # • • • • . * 1 2 3 4

d. Helps teachers to feal secure tar making then aware of the strong points in their program • • • 1 2 3 4

9» Guides teachers in setting up a system for recording pupil prograsa . . . . . # . . . • 1 2 3 4

1G» Advises teachers on eXasarooti arrangement

and appearance • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

11. Suggests how to i&prove classroom discipline * * 1 2 3 4

X2« Gives suggestions on how to initiate not carry through an instructional unit • * t * • * « I 2 H

13* Aide teachers with special pupiXs such ass sXow Xearaers, profcXem pupils, and talented pupils • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

14* Assists teachers la grouping pupils for instruction • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

15* Encourages professional actiritiea of teachers such ast professional writing and speaking • • • • • • * • « • • • • • • • • • « • 1»2 3 4

16« Arranges for intervisitation of teacher® • • • « X 2 3 4

C. fses demonstration 1 m m m to foster professional growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

X* Arranges for de«oaatration lessons and aaalats

teachers preparing to demonstrate • * # * # • * * 1 2 3 4

2* Gtives demonstration lessens • • • # • • • * * • • 1 2 3 4

3# Aaaiata teachers preparing to observe demonEtration lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4« Circulates description* and examples of good teaching practices through demonstrations and ofeSir means • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

156

0* Works la the in-service training program * . , 1 2 3 4

1. Hans and arranges for in-servoce training

course* for teachers and/or principals « * • 1 2 3 4

2* Conduct* in-service training sow®#® . * » . 1 a 3 4

3* Plans and conducts institute sessions . • • 1 2 3 4 4* Plans and conducts induction or orienta-

tion meetings for new teachers . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

5# Ivaluates in-service training courses conducted in local school system . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

6* Kncourages sad advises teachers regarding

further in-service trminiag . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

S* Holds conferences with teachers and principals* 1 2 3 4

1* Holds individual teacher eonferenees to work on a specific problem . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

2* Holds group conferences with teachers to work on towson problems • • • • 1 2 3 4

3# Attends and contributes to faculty meetings when requested| acts in the capacity of a oonsultant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4« Holds office hours where teachers

can get help * • • * • • • « • * « • • • • • 1 2 3 4

5» Holds group meetings with principals . . . . 1 2 3 4

6* Holds conferences with individual building principals • 1 2 3 4

f» Engages in activities which will improve his own effectiveness . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

1* Sngages in professional, study with consul-tants from universities and colleges . • . . 1 2 3 4

2. Reads professional literature and research pertaining to the field supervised (during hours spent on the job) . . 1 2 3 4

3» Makes analytical summary of his own activities for the purpose of formulating a supervisory plan • • • * • • • • • * * « • 1 2 3 4

157

iSSfXOI 21# In the^araa of, curriculum development the

A* Integrates s«h©ol 41striot policies regarding «Hrriculu» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

li Cooperates with other jupervisosy officera In cariy ing out the instructional policies of .tli# school syste® • 1 2 3 4

2« Presents new instructional guides, etc»# to teachers And suggest* techniques for their use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

It Participates in the production of ewrtivvdm materials • • » • • • • » • • • • « • • » # • « • 1 2 3 4

^ 1* Makes a continuing analysis of curriculum problems with a view to changing the eurrioulu* * . « . 1 2 3 4

2# Suggests names of teachers, principals, and others to be included on curricula* coa&ittees * * • • • » * • • • # • • * * « • » 1 2 3 4

3* Organists and leads committees for cooperative curriculum revisions « « « . * » « 1 2 3 4

4* Serves as a member of curriculum development committee ( » 1 2 3 4

$# Kdits curriculum materials in preparation for publication * . 1 2 3 4

6# Writes or collaborates in the writing of teaching guides 1 2 3 4

?• Writes and distributes supervisory bulletins t© teachers and principals • » • • » 1 2 3 4

#* Flans and prepares written material for pupil use • • » • « 1 2 3 4

9* Prepares professional reading lists sueh as annotated bibliographies 1 2 3 4

S1CTI0H XII. In the area of avala at ion and research* the s ^ m a s o H

A* Encourages study and experimentaticn in methods and subjeet-aatter organisation « • « • • • • • • 1 2 3 4

158

1» Keeps teachers iaforaed and abreast of re-search developments and helps them apply research finding* to everyday elassrooa situations • 1 2 3 4

2* Helps teachers to tot up sismle experimental procedures and to mlmat® then < * » » » . « 1 2 3 4

3* lUkis resource people and professional books available and Hilly accessible to teachers. * 1 2 3 4

4« Encourages teachers to write summary reports of their study and/or experimentations 1 2 3 4

I# Analysts the educational needs of pupils and pitas specific learning situations Which will Bring about desirable growth • • « • * 1 2 3 4

1* Analyses a±;t^wid« achievement surveys for Im-plications for improving instruction • 1 2 3 4

2* Encourages the use of standardised and informal tests 1 2 3 4

3* Kelps teachers to interpret tests and data and to diagitoss and correct pupil difficulties 1 2 3 4

4* Mis the principal in an appraisal of the instructional program in a particular room or school * i « * * . * » • i • 1 2 3 4

$« Suggests methods of constructing informal tests for classroom use • • • • • • « • • • • 1 2 3 4

6« Writes or directs construction of tests geared to tie curriculum of the local school system 1 2 3 4

?• Assists in the selection of standardised tests for testing program 1 2 3 4

SECTION IT. In the area of evaluation, selection, .. . - * * -• -• f§fi4 BSC

"" ' 7 tie supervisor:

A» Makes surveys of the conditions or need for in-structional supplies or equipment * * # * « « » • 1 2 3 4

B« Works with teachers and others to secure proper supplies and equipment 1 2 3 4

159

1*. ftelps to est*blish criteri* for the selection of materials of instruction f 1 2 3 4

a* Previews and retoismends purchase of audio-visual materials 1 2 3 4

3. Ivaluates and m e i i r t i supplies and equip-ment, including furniture, fop porch*** • • • 1 1 3 4

4* Kr*lu*t** *ad recownends book* for Adoption * 1 2 3 4

5* Act* as consultant in locating fr*« or inexpensive a*t*ri*ls . . • 1 2 3 4

6* Help® to determine the proptr use of basic textbooks and «apploii*itt*l books is the classroom . « « . , . . 1 2 3 4

G. Helps to determine how supplies and equipment will be used 1 2 3 4

1. Organisea an effective plan for distributing supplies and Materials and equipment • • • • • 1 2 3 4

2* Assists t*A*li*r* in the selection of instruc-tion*! materials for * particular unit or aubjsct * . . 1 2 3 4

3# Introduces and/or pr*par*s directions for the u** of n«w supplies and equipment 1 2 3 4

4« Assists principal* in pro«otii»g the affective use of approved instructional materials and omnipotent . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

5- Studio* the effectiveness of instructional *upplia* in clAssroos us* • • • 1 2 3 4

38CTI0H ?• In th* ar*a of adgtiniatrative activities the supervisor*

A* Participates in til* recruitment, selection, and

placement of t*a«h*rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

!• Writes questions for teachers* examination# • 1 2 3 4

2« S*nres on oral interview or training and experience ooamittees « , 1 2 3 4

3* Sates teachers* services and keep* records of rating* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

160

4« tecowienda reassignment of teachers to other grades' or schools within the school system * « 1 2 3 4

5* Works with other supervisors and admin-istrators In coordinating the entire instruc-tional program through frequent staff meetings or other stun 1 2 3 4

6* Prepares written reports of M s supervisory activities for the superintendent or Assistant superintendent • * « • • • • « * • • 1 2 3 4

?• Assists with school-building probleeis (housing surreys eto«) • * • • * » • • • • « • 1 2 3 4

i# forks on administrative committees such as salary surveys, etc. • * * . 1 2 3 4

S16TZ0K In the area of professional organ!-satioa. the supervisor} '

A* Encourages Membership and participation in professional organizations 1 2 3 4

1# Encourages teacher membership ami partieipa-tion in appropriate 'professional organizations 1 2 3 4

2« Belongs to aad participates in nestings or conferences of professional organisations • • 1 2 3 4

3* Works on committees or holds an office in professional organisations . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

1* Shares results of his study and attendance at professional meetings with principals and teachers ( 1 2 3 4

C« Writes for or edits articles for professional Journals or magaslnes • « . « 1 2 3 4

SECTION TO* In the area of public relations,

the supervisor! "

A* Interprets the school program to the community* • 1 2 3 4

1* Gives talks to community groups » • • • • » « 1 2 3 4

2* prepares articles for lay newspapers and magasines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

3* Prepares exhibits of instructional materials and pupils9 work . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

161

4* Flaaa, OF partiaipataa la radio and/or talatfaion jwograoa # # # ' • « « • • * • » * * X 2 H

B. Participate* in prograna lAidi aaak to aaeura tfea iat«r«#t and eooptration of th« participants ia improving the school program • • • • « * • • • 1 2 3 4

1. Participate in parant workshop . . . . . . . X 2 3 4

2. lalps lay groups to make aorvaya of tba naada

©f tlia soliools * • » • » • » * * » * « • * • • X 2 3 4

SECTION ¥111 •

A. Additional aativitiaa* Flaasa 11 «t feelow any additional major activities

vbich kma not ba*n included ia tfc* @&a#k list* In-dieatt th® emphases on thaaa aetivlties by asing tha rat lag aoala on the chaak list.

1* '. ' l.1 " x. JI|: :i' . u . ( . ;i.,... ... r 1 2 3 4

8* 1 2 3 4

3* - n ; ; .• y • - . | j ••- ..., n ; | ; 1 2 3 4

4. 1 2 3 4

5* „ 1 2 3 4

B* Bov tka amparriaar diatritataa hia work tisa*

Plaaaa indicate in torna of approximate percent-ages tha tim# you spend ia «aefe of tha araaa eovtrtd ia the cheek Hat# Raaeafcar, va are intaraatad in tha long range supervisory program, not the program for any particular year# '

1* Xa-aarvioe education (visitation* demonstration, conferences, etc#) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 1 ..

2* Bvalaatioa and research (tasting experi-mentation, etc#) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^

3* Curriculum development %

4* Xvaluatioa, selection and use of inatruc-tioaal supplies and equipment • » %

5* AdBd.aiatra.tiTa 4

164

AFPMDIX C--Continue£

Schools Sefaools

Floresville tlowt Bluff (Corni Ghriati)

Floydada Fort Sam Houston (Fort Worth)

Freieriekslmrg IIIIJSImL i i 0

Pirk OalTeitoa

Giadewater iota# Greek 'I^T yiniii IMI %flr HM\ fninu

M i l dread Prairie Grapevine Greenville Gastine Hals Center BarlandaXe Harlingen Henderson Hereford Highland Park Hondo Itiret-luieaa-Bedford

Imriag Jacksonville Jasper Killeen lingsviXle Eirlyvllle Lake Tim (Sam Aagelo)

I»a®ar (Rosenburg)

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 1 x X 1 X X X X X X ;

X x X : X X X X X X X X

X X X X

hampassas Laredo lit Vega {Waco) Lerellftnd little Cypress Mriagsfcon Lockhart Longview mMmk f JWhhJI ** ZiUji jCXH Marshall McAllen KsKiiiney Mesquite Midland Mineral Veils Mission Mowat Pleasant Hederland Mew Braunsfel Mw Deal North last (San Antonio)

IJorth. Bast (Houston)

Nortkside ($m Antonio)

Odessa (Bator) Orange Palaoioua Palestine ~f&& "inirniM-yim .4Mb

raapa Paris Pasadena Pharr-San Juan-Alamo

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

* # • Jk X X

1 6 5

A P P E N D I X C ~«»C o a t i n u e d

S c h o o l s 1 III 8 • a

S c h o o l s : «H| , 1 JFCJL 1 o o jf"

Fittiturg ; I | S p r i a g B r a n c h X P l a i n v i e w X X I S t a n f o r d x F © * t A r t h m r X 1 S t r a t f o r d

S w e e a y X F o r t W M k w X X

1 S t r a t f o r d S w e e a y X

F o a t X X S v e o t w a t a r : X X F o t e e t : X X TarkillirtCIl |, SW^ PP'-Wr P| Wjk W»flr X X

l i w d o l p h FL«M X 1 T e m p l e ~ X X IiayBiondville *p» X : f&rmll X

X

t i c h a r d « o n ! X Tixtrkmi X R o b s t o w a X : T u l l a X X Angela X X T y l s r X

:

Safe A s t M k l o X X TUI X ; x tea B e n i t o if* JI-

X ? « g a X ; x

S a a g o v l l l c i X : V i c t o r i a X X 8eguin 8hmst&

: X X WACO X x 8eguin 8hmst& T mm W & x s h & c h i e > «» A

x S l a t o n X X W e a t h a r f o r d : x X S a y d a r & • X • W h i t ® S e t t l e m a a t S o o o r a X ; . X i 1 ( F o r t W o r t h } : X : S o u t h P a r k , Wiehita Falls ' X { B d a u m o a t } S o u t h S a n A a t o a i o

X X M i a & s f c o r o X { B d a u m o a t } S o u t h S a n A a t o a i o J

•WW Xoakusi X X

APPENBXX 1

f i l f f mMJmmmm mJLm ¥

RESFOBSES OF SOFKRVISORS AND KDUOAfJOHAL $*sexuj8Ts mmmtm Qummmn

VlSTTAflGM fr &«*&&<(*•*

CO ( 0

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

oi

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

i

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-Z H

-X--X-cn Z

•X--5C-•X-w H

Total number of respondents un 30

Number answer ing i t em 123 15$ 29

Per cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing

100 m this act iv i ty 100 m

Rank of i t em (among 43) 14*5 3 13

Mean s c o r e s 1.4J ; 1.11 1.29

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 2£ #16

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

*#*Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

TABUS %1B¥

mmwm m mmmtmm km mmtmm s i r III# AIUM**! I # w | # l l # m l y p | f &0**Sf

£%w M A A t t n * # TMWirvif ' f r t s v*t #iRIIw,' MRIpnw • #>#1v Jk4Ji*

CO rt X H

CO Jh 0 CO • iH >

<u a 3 co

CO O CO

0 > £ H

2 a 10

r-j CO fl3 4-> £ t» .2 S 4-* (ti aj -H u u

^ a H w

•5C-

2 H

* -x-co £

-x-* * C/D H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y

Rank of i t e m (among

43.)

M e a n s c o r e s

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s

im

m

162

129

100

3 0

1 6 * 5

i « 4 t

6 # 5

1.11

. 1 7 47 >30

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

• • • T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

1 6 7

TABLE XXVI

Gf SUPERVISORS JU© f R g M B f f i f f f

T i s i f i

mcktxmL

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* & H

-X--X-co £

-X-* * CO H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 161

r

30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m w 150 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y $$


43J M e a n s c o r e s

41«5

3U34

39

ZM 43

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •12

Si. ir* *29


**National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

***Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

1 6 a

# 1 Hf W YirtfTT .Immkm JMkwAA

msmmm OF S«PBE?ISOBS im mmmim* i l S ^ T A f f S M ttffcYHfrl t M I AM f|&

I f W J W I ^ I P ** $JW

MMTMMM M M TIACHERS

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

*>c £ H

-X-CO £

•X--X--X-co H

Total number of respondents m Uz 3©

Number answer ing i t em 123 1 4 4 JUr'

26

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 1 0 0 9 9 . 3

Rank of i t em (among

4 3 J 4 . 5 4 . 5 4

Mean s c o r e s 1 * 4 ? 1 . 1 6 1 . 1 5

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s

# 2 9 # i a




169

m i » m m

responses of m m m m o m Am m m m o m i s p e c i a l i s t s moimim wmmmmw of m u d cmora

" i#xTO t e a c h e s

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-x-£

EH

4C--X-co

•51--X--)$• CO H

Total number of respondents % 162 30

Number answer ing i t em 123 xm 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 99.2 99# 4


JA> 21.| 12 20

Mean s c o r e s 1«60 1*12 1 .50

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •W . J 2

*Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

**National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational Spec ia l i s t s ,


1 7 0

IkMM m x

RESPOHSSS of Buvmrimm m educatxqkal mokwwQ MMAMIQM OF m m m f x o m i

1-UTERIAL3

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* z H

* -• *

CO £

-X-*

CO

H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g xZj Ml i t e m xZj Ml 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g

n th i s activity- n 9 M

Rank of i t e m (among 43 ) 16# 5 10 22.5

M e a n s c o r e s 1*5Q 1*26 1.57

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *24 * 1 1 •07

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s .

**Na t iona l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s ,

* * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .

171

TABLE 1XX

SMVtNQVQ n v 4TT0itnfT(tnt)Q S I K l A K S f l EIG&ISIIQ

o f n o a i i JiiP ^^"SPP^Wf^PT Spppip

iffl) OTSif XOf&I*

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* Z H

-X-

C O

Z

* *

C O

H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 1 6 2 3 0

Number answering 1 2 3 1 6 1 i t em 1 2 3 1 6 1 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming

9 4 97*% this activity- 9 4 97*%


4 0 mJ»1 M l i t m *9**

Mean s c o r e s 1 . 9 5 1 . 5 4 1 . 8 9

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s « 4 1 . 3 5 * 0 6

S l £ .


**National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

Iff® £*fm

TABLE 1YYT

m m m o r & U 1 G I M ASS

m m mummt nmumn mb to Tmmm m wmim m " " GOT I M S f O T T X G l A I , F I O B I W

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* £ H

* -x-CO

£

-X-•fr * CO

H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 1 6 2

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m Ml 3 0

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 99*9 im


4 3 J

M e a n s c o r e s

f

1 . 4 5 t*u

6 * 5

1 . 1 7

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 1 7 • 1




1 7 3

tmm xixii

m m m m of shpii?isoes i m m m m m i specialists x&omum mmmmn o? mmom km mmmrn

WX1S fS48EBto

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

# z H

-x~ -X-

55

-x-•X--X-CO H

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m m 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 9 9 . 9 100


42J 2d«5 17 25.5 M e a n s c o r e s 1.72 X*tt 1*60

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •19 # 1 2

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Na t i ona l S u p e r v i s o r s .

• ^ N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• • • T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .

174

m | ttt its f r r t T T JTaSIm® JLJO&JL JLX

JUSWKSIS or w n s r z a o M AID D o a t i i o i t A i SMCIAUBTS REWARDING BISOBSSIOH OF TRACHIMO METHODS AMD

KIM tBCHHIQBIS WTH 1EACHEHS

CO

u CO

u •waal A

CO CO 4->

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

e fA 2 ® CD

.2 3 •55* z H

* • •3 u

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

e

G «r-i

0 > £ n

55 % w

* 4-* U o •e £ W w

•55* z H

•s:-§ •fr

CO H

Total number of r e sponden t s 123 162 3 d

Number answer ing i t em 123 159 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g this activity- 100 100


J2) 10.5 z 21

Mean s c o r e s 1*33 1*10 1.53 -

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *23 •43

Slg# #20

*Texas Supervisors and National Supervisors .

**National Supervisors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

***Texas Supervisors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

17§a

H&BtM 3 X S T ?

RfiSPOHSKS OF SUPERVISORS A ® ED&CATIOHAL S P E C I A L I S T S REGARDING ENCOURAGEIffifSf I I ® GUIDANCE I I HEADING

F E D f l S S I O m i , LITERATURE

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

•X--X-co Z

•X-•X--5C-

H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s m ' 16a 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 1 2 3 159 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 9 # 100


43 )

M e a n s c o r e s

34,

1.33

33.1

1*72

37,

1##3

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • XI *©0




1 7 5

TABLE IH? wmmmm of wnmaom Am mmi&mi spbgiausts

BE64RDIKG ASSISTS! TO TMCHEBS XI TO! THEM wmbmmm- '

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£

H

•& -X-CO

Z

•X--X-* CO H

Total number of respondents 133 m 30

Number answering 161 i t em 123 161 3 0


100 this act iv i ty 100 xm


A3J 1 i 10 Mean s c o r e s 1.20 XM 1.20 Mean s c o r e

d i f f e r e n c e s •12 •12 .m




178

f i « l w YTWT #, AAfiikV «!*-

B88P0K3SS OF SfPESTOOES MM K09GATXOHAL ttWfkk &flTmfL * W0W> IWA IMS* A 0WWM& tW Ttt5

AooJISJTASwJB # v Ij2^U 11 &Hq - AS wMmmmMQt S ? A m t m OF w o i i i m n m m v

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-S5 H

•3'c * co £

-X--X--X-co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1*3 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 m | 0

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 93*$ 9 1


kU 3 2 n $8.5

M e a n s c o r e s 1*99 2.10 lift?

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s #11 %

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Na t iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s ,


177

TABU; Z M U

AM BWCATIOKAL SPECIALISTS JUSOABDXKO ACTIOS TO ;EACHEBS OH CUSSBOOK

AHBAWMOHT AND AFPEABAHCB

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

*

£ EH

* * •

w £

* -X-tf-CO H

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 3.22 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m 1 5 9 1 0

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 9 6 100


-jU M e a n s c o r e s

43US 2 . 2 6

2 2 * 5

1*54 41 2,13

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 7 2 .59

9i £• * 1 3


**Na t iona l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .


1 7 #

«Mtt¥ m f f f f f f f JLpULv JL jLJ»

BESP0H3E5 OF supmisoas AND EDUCATIONAL 8FWIUIOTS mmmiMG FOR s t r & a i M a v o r

CU3SRQ0M I I S e i F H I E

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* £ H

* -X-CO £

-X--x-CO H

Tota l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 123 160 i t e m 123 160 10

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s ac t iv i ty 94 99.4

Rank of i t e m (among _y> 37 19 ag.s

Mean s c o r e s 2.22 1.44 1 * 6 3

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s 1.G& •19 • 5 9

*Texas Superv isors and National Superv i sors .

**National Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

***Texas Supervisors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

1 7 9

m «tit w f f f t T

RESPONSES OF 3 H P K T I S 0 8 8 M B SPECIALISTS BSOABBIHG 3 U 0 0 S 8 T I 0 N 3 TO TKACHlffiS ON HOW TO I H I T I A n

CABRI THROBta OH AH IHSTIUCTIOHAt SHIT

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

*

£ H

• » *

CO £

*

-X-*

Ifl H

Total number of 162 respondents 1 2 3 162 3 0

Number answering 1 2 3 1 5 6 i t em 1 2 3 1 5 6 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing m this activity- m 9 9 * 4

Rank of i t em (among 4 3 ) 2 6 2 4 2 5 . 5

Mean s c o r e s - 1 . 7 2 % 1 1 1 * 6 0

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * 3 9 ^ 7 • l a



*$*Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

1$Q

T ABX.E H i

$ 8 P £ R V X 3 0 B 3 A © I W C A f t Q M I , S P I G I A I O T S AS$XSfAMOI TO f E A O H I E S H O T

titHlftYA? UltttTf CI | f K - 4 # l i rPFAJw

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

•3C--X-

IS

-X--X--X-

H

Tota l number of r e s p o n d e n t s 3,50 1 6 2 | 0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m xm im 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 1 0 0

Rank of i t e m (among w _ )

M e a n s c o r e s

H * 5

i *jyf&

1 6

1 . 4 0

2 3 . 5

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 1 9

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .

* * N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .

l i i

TABU xtx

o r a i w v w s g 4 ® mmmmi s p k c i a u s t s kswmm to tmmnm i n © © h o t s ' ' '

9OTS1A FOE INSTRUCTION

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

«• £ H

X CO 2

-X--X-*

CO H

T o t a l n u m b e r of 123 1 6 2 r e s p o n d e n t s 123 1 6 2 3 0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 123 X6l i t e m 123 X6l 3 0


93 9 9 » 4 th i s activity- 93 9 9 » 4


M) tf U 27

M e a n s c o r e s !«pO 1 * 4 3 x.6o

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 4 ? , 1 ? , 3 0




132

n * n w & i r t * T t

MSPOHSKS 0 ? SBPEHVISOaa ASD EDUCATIONAL S P B B I A K S I S EEQABSIHQ EHCOUHAGBMZtiT OF n K O T S U O U I .

U f l f f f H f

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* •se-en Z

-X--X--X-co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s m 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m 160 3©

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 92 91.3

Rank of i t e m (among 43.)

M e a n s c o r e s

3 9

Ml 43 4 0

1*97

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • § 3 .37

Slg.

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Na t iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .



3 4 3

VAflff t T? TTT m Ift jiff

msmmm OF svnwisom AUQ mmmnm T i f T tat ©will *&wvw% iHiM

FOR T140IIS MflWISIfAflOM

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-x-S5 H

•X--X-c o £

•5S* -X--X-

T o t a l n u m b e r of 162 r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 16© i t e m 123 16© 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 95 100


4 U 35 M 30

M e a n s c o r e s 2.07 1.63

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .a. kit, tp #00 •44




104

TABLE XIXV

OF M f i i r a o B S m wmumomiL wmmxm WM op mmom TO . fostse frgfessxohal moms

CO U O 2 » TO X > <D U H <L>

a 3 CO

ai ti O •rH

£

CO u O CO •rH >

<1) a 2 CO

d d o •H 4-> (ti u 3 T3 W

U a) Qu CO

* £ H

•X--X-co £

-X--X-tt CO H

Total number of respondents

Number answer ing i t em

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty

Rank of i t em (among 4 3 )

Mean s c o r e s


IM3

9k

3 6

162

1 4 6

9 6 * 6

1.60 1m*I I | M

M 1XX # 4 9

^Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s ,


3 J §

t m u t m u s poises of mfwmimm km bbuoaworal

MQkWIMQ ARRANGED NTS ' fob mmmnmm u$nom

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X~ Z H

•X--X-co 2

-X--X-

CO H

Total number of respondents 123 162 30

Number answer ing i t em 123 i f i 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 91 96.3


A3-' Mean s c o r e s 2*33

31.5 31 1.70

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •69 m M

^Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

*#National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

m

YABpl ZMX

r e s p o n s e s OF m m m t m m ANB i m m o m $mumw mmmiMQt mfmiimm

d i m o DSMONSTEATIOM I » S 0 « '

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-Z H

w

£

-X-* * cn H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 1 6 2 m

Number answer ing i t em 123 1 5 9 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty i t 77*9


M > 43 42 42

Mean s c o r e s 2 . 7 0 2*26 2 * 2 0

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * i&ML * 0 6 . 5 0




1&7

TfWTT • * j b j k i w X«a*

K E S I O T B S OF mfmt$m im munoMAh smuum REGARDING ASSISTAHCE * 0 TEACHERS PgSPABXJtQ

' TO O B i l S f l SBMONSttUTIOW I M »

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

lists

* £ H

-x-- X -

C A

£

•3C-•>(-

- X -

co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of

3M r e s p o n d e n t s , 1 2 3 3M K>

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m I S # a

P e r c e n t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g

91 9 7 . 5 t h i s act ivi ty- 91 9 7 . 5

R a n k of i t e m ( a m o n g

41_> %% 3 5

M e a n s c o r e s V 1 * 6 6

JLt f Jr

M e a n s c o r e . 7 6 » 6 3 d i f f e r e n c e s . 7 6 • 0 0 » 6 3

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s .



i d #

TABU smzi 8ESK>ffi^C„SBffKf?2f f® mamomi smuxim ssstmim oxmuaxm w mmsxm&a m

HAMPUE3 QT GOOD TEACKKG PRACTICES

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* & H

• £ -X-C O z

•3C-•5C--X-uy H

Total number of 123 m n respondents 123 m n

Number answer ing 123 i t em 123 3 0


9k 96*9 this activity- 9k 96*9 Rank of i t em (among

n 24 .12*5

Mean s c o r e s 1.89 urn 1*57

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *•31 .01 • 3 1

• T e x a s Superv i sors and National S u p e r v i s o r s .



l&9

m $ m m m o f mnmiBom Am mmvmimki* m m t m m § bisaimiq wore at the

i M n m c i mkxmm program

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* 2 H

-7-CO

* # * co H

Total number of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

Number a n s w e r i n g i t e m X'23 131 21

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g this ac t iv i ty 10© 96,9


k&

Mean s c o r e s

2

1*22

14.$ 1 X* jf

9

1*19

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •15 l i d •©3

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat ional S u p e r v i s o r s .

**Nat ional S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s ,

* * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s .

190

TABLE L

R E S S 2 ? S 1 2 « O F J i r S ? i T I 3 a r i 3 k m s f v s j i j o m i * s p e c i a l i s t s mOAMMMG PUNS Aim AUPMQMMMW3 FOB I M W f J g l

t h a i h i h q COUBSSS m m a i m s A ® m i u G i m u

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•3C-£ H

*

c o Z

-X-tt -X-CO H

Total number of respondents 1 6 2 3 0


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 9 $ 9 2 . 3


Mean s c o r e s

3

1*30 .

n

1 * 6 2

1 4

1 , 3 0

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 3 1 . 3 2

S i g . * 0 1




1 9 1

TABLE H

aBQ*JaBi*g TBMmapommLXTi or res smmsw rot coraomm dmsotiss cookses

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ H

-X-CO 2

* * CO

Total number of respondents Hi 3 0

Number answer ing i t em m 1 5 9 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty if i i s a

o ? i >

Rank of i t em (among 4 1 )

Mean s c o r e s

M 2 . 0 6

3 7

1 . 9 1 1 . W

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 1 1 * Jul # 3 1




192

table l h iispqmses qf sypiifisoaa u© wmmsma* nwrnuusm

REGARDIm TMM OF OT1I7XS0ES FQI PLANING ANB G O T O C f l l G I H S f l O T I S M X O i S

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-x-55 H

•X--X-c / 3 £

-X-•X--X-w H

Total number of respondents 123 U2 30

Number answering 123 154 i tem 123 154 30

Per cent of super -v i s o r s performing

$7 rr.3 this activity- $7 rr.3

Rank of i tem (among 21*5 43) 21*5 w 33.5

Mean s c o r e s 2.01 a* 23 1-73

Mean score d i f ferences •at

Sig*


**National Superv i sors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

***Texas Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

1 9 3

T A B U i m

u s e s o f a o p s m s o a s Aim mwnom. s p s c i a u s t s xmwim mfommsn r o s i k b b o t i o h a s s

ORIEtfTATIOH MBETIHGS FOB WBt I 8 A 0 H H I S

CO

<D H

CO u O CO •rH > a) a 3 CO

CO u O CO

O > + 2 *

a CO

nj G O • H 4-» aS u 3 TJ w

u a> 0, CO

-x-£ H

•5C-CO £

•$(-•&

•& CO H




1 2 3

1 2 3

9 4

1 6 2

w

3 a

R of i t e m (among

)

M e a n s c o r e s


13

1 * 5 6

9 6 , 9

1 4 * 5

1 * 3 7

6 * 1

1*17

.20




194

T A B U £ S f

of m educational ' mmmxm mmmion w in-seotxcs tkainiko COURSES FOB imkt* SOHOOW

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

i

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-Z H

* * CO z

* -X-

H

Tota l number of r e s p o n d e n t s m L62 >0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 123 : 157 n i t e m 123 : 157 n

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g

# 9 * 0 th i s activity- 9 6 # 9 * 0


M_> 2 1 . 5

M e a n s c o r e s 1 . 7 © 1

M e a n s c o r e *15 d i f f e r e n c e s *15 * 4 2 • 2 7

S l f i

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat iona l S p e c i a l i s t s .

* * * T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat iona l S p e c i a l i s t s .

195

TABLE LV

PONSES O f bw: R 1 M S X M &

isoks urn mmhtiomi specialists Gvmmmm m tiachsks FOE

EE i l - S E l f l S I m i M I M G

CO (ti X! 0) H

cc o CO •H >

0 CL 2 CO

CO Jh o CO

o > £ u

« a,

CO

«-j CO aJ 4-j d co .2 3 4-> (ti

'u u u

3 0

-5 £ H w

-X-2: H

•X--X-co £

•3S* # •5C-CO H

Tota l number of r e s p o n d e n t s


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y

Rank of i t e m (among 43 )

1513

f #

M e a n s c o r e s


1.67

1 6 2

161

9 8 * 1

5 1 * J

1*6#

30

3 0

2 4

1.57

i 0 1 ,U , 1 0


• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat iona l S p e c i a l i s t s ,


1 9 6

TABI& Vfl r s s m s e s o f s u p m x s o a s A m m m k T i o w k t

$pmxmmB ummim mmmmGm WITH TEACHBBS km PRINCIPALS

CO

X <D H

CO u O CO

• H > u <u a 3 CO

CO u o CO

O > £ H

a, CO

«-j CO 0) +J £ co 9 3

cti cti u 3 W

O <D a co

# 2 H

•5C--X-co 2

-X-*

CO H


Number answering i t em

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity-

Rank of i t em (among 43 )

Mean s c o r e s


123

123

100

162

1 4 6

10©

30

2 4

9

1*37

6 * $

1.19 1.0#

>1* (.09

• T e x a s Superv i sors and National S u p e r v i s o r s .

^ N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• • • T e x a s Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

197

t u u m i

" • " S f f i S J S y f f i K B B f m z u a n REQABBIMQ XHDITXDBAl TBACHSS OOWEBBMOKS TOR

WOWC OH SPECIFIC PBOBLEMS

CD X Q) H

CO

o CO

• rH >

<D CL 2

CO

CO u O CO

• iH >

d £ 3

CO

r - j (Q Co -4-> £ c o °. 3

cti 03 u T3 H

a a) a co

-x-£ H

•& -X-CO Z

-X--X--X-co H


Number answering i t em

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty

Rank of i t em (among 43)

Mean s c o r e s


1

10®

1 . 1 1

1 6 *

1 6 2

n*k

9

1.24

3 0

XT

« n • 1 4 03




m

TABLE m i l 8S®2E?LSLS5SESE?? vmuaut. sfbsiausts

bbmhkkq iromroju, m e m cowsbsbces to MOSS os cohmon m w m

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

-X-co Z

-X-•X--X-co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 162 3 0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 1 2 3 1 6 2 i t e m 1 2 3 1 6 2 3 6


tm 1 0 0 th i s activity- tm 1 0 0

Rank of i t e m (among « _ > 1 0 . 5 1 1 1

M e a n s c o r e s 1.57 um 1.07

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *11 # 3 §




199

TABU! LXX

UESP0MSE3 OF SBFERVI80B8 ISO M W C m O M i 3 P S C I A U S T S aEQABBIHO HESFOKSIBILXTIES ? 0 S OOTOIBBTIOKS I S

THE CAPACXTT OF A OOH3BLTAST

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

£ H

* * co £

*

•fc CO H

Total number of respondents m u z 30


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- m


_ 4 | )

Mean s c o r e s

12

1.43

21

1*46

11

1.23

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s m *23




m

TABLE «

RESPCNSB3 OF 3UPEOTISQ8S AHB BDUOiTIONAL SPECIALISTS UUBBim tm HUOTieB OF HQ1DIHG OFFICE BOOKS

W W mCBESS CAM QET HELP

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-&

H -X-C/3 £

•X--X-% iO H


Number answer ing i t em 1 2 3 160 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 9 # 93.1


M_>

Mean s c o r e s

3 3

1.37

35

1.81

36

1.47

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s m * 3 4

51*11* * 1 0



***Texas Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

201

^AWTt* f TT

nmwtmm a* supievisqis a® smroAn^HAi, $PECXALISfS RIOA80J14G GROUP XXE&]

*xm mmimu

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

•&

CO £

-X-*

* CO H


N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 159 30

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 93 £1.1

R a n k of i t e m (among

43.)

M e a n s c o r e s

20

l . * 2

41

2 * 2 5

12 %

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •43 *9$ # 6 5




TABLE IfXTT

msmwm of supervisors a ® w i w x o m smssxm tmmmM,

Gowmmm wm mmi?m

-

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z E->

4C--X-CO £

-X--X-4C-10 H

Total number of 162 respondents 123 162 30

Number answer ing M l i t em 12% M l 30


9$*$ this act iv i ty Aft ¥%

|ry t m 9$*$


42J 6 $ 6 » s

Mean s c o r e s i .37 1.22 1.17

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .15 .05 #20

*Texas Superv i sors and National S u p e r v i s o r s .


***Texas Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

203

TABLE m i l

mm m a h m e m o m , specialists liMBXIia A©TI¥lfISS EIGAaiD II SOB f i l FU8P09B

of mnwtxm his ow» bffectothkss

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-Z H

•X-•X-CO £

•55--X-* CO H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 3 0


P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 100 99.3


42J 6*9 3

M e a n s c o r e s 1.29 1*19 1,09

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •00 *00 • 20




TABLE TXIF

mnmmm m mfsmmm km mmimM* SPECIALISTS vMMtm fmmBimm* mm mm CONSULTANTS WOfWt TIKtTtfIPC«3Tr«?»TI?C! i i m flAT t "GTffi@ CtLKJl'l U WX V&lw.Li JUa«3 Am# I w W p W m

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-£ H

•x--X-co £

•X-

-X-

H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 4 # # 3 ©

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g

m i t e m 1 2 3 m 1 0

P e r c e n t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g

9 6 . 9 t h i s activity- 9$ 9 6 . 9

Rank of i t e m ( a m o n g

4 3 J 1$ 2 6 I S . 5

M e a n s c o r e s 1*0 IM 1 * 4 3

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 0 J * 1 # . I S


* * N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .


TABLE LX?

•smmmm of m mmx®mi* s n o x m m A wflflhlfA mkWtWl Mmm "

1 ttffHTWft. hWWT'i*W V£ WWW

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* -x-co £

* # *

H

Total number of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 1 6 2 30

Number a n s w e r i n g i t e m 121 Mo 29

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g this activity- 9 7 94-*4*


43J 1.9 33.5 M

Mean s c o r e s 1 mA A# fw 1.35

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *20

Sig*

^ T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat ional S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s .

•••Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s .

rPA VtT V f "PITT JL JUDJjflli IdJLy JL

8 E S P 0 B 3 2 S OF SUPEOTISORS i S B S D O C A U O J t t i S P E C I A L I S T S w a a p i m uwmcu smuxz or ac t iv i t i s s for

— purpose op roMrao a o p m j a o w f u s s

CO Ctf X <D H

CO u O CO •H > u <D CL 3 CO

a o •H 4-i

£

CO u o CO • H > <D a 3 CO

c o 4-J CO •H r—J (X) 4-»

cti a d

<V cl,

u 0

W co

•K-£ H

•3C-- X -

CO £

4C-•3C-•5C-CO H

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s



of i t e m (among

M e a n s c o r e s


123.

9#

162

161

3©

2 4

wm

9$*l

20 IS

1 0 1

* 1 4 M

n'Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Na t iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .


^ ^ T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .

207

TABLE I4XVII

m w m m or s c m n . S S f J 1 ® EDUCATI0M1, spec ia l i s t s BCRAtXOH or IGlOOIi BIOTfclOT m m m to cmtRXWUM

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

•X-£

H

•X--X-co £

* * * CO H

Total number of respondents I23 Uz 3 0

Number answer ing 123 i t em 123 159 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing

100 $9 #-4 this act iv i ty 100 $9 #-4

Rank of i t em (among 33) J t ?

Mean s c o r e s 1.35 1.26 1*63

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s «G9 .37 •a#




TAAU3 W i l l

W f Q W m OF OTEHTISOBS AID E00CATIOKAI# SPI0XAI*IOT a w s i w coootatiqh mm mwm .

mvmmmt mmmm

CO flj X <u Eh

CO o CO

•H >

u q> a 3

CO

CO o CO

O >

3 I Z §•

CO

flj d o • H 4-» a) u si

CO 4-1 CO

*5 cu H w

* H

* -X-co 2

* •55* * CO

H

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s



Rank of i t e m (among 13_)

M e a n s c o r e s


1 1 1 mm

123

100

1

1 . 3 )

i6a

162

99.5

1

1.10 1

,10 >04


• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .


IA8US U K

ESSPOMSSS OF mmmiBom Am MRCATIOM SPECIALISTS wmmtm fmmmmim OF IIISTAYCTIOIM SNBIS

AHP W T T K Q M FOR M I L USE

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-z H

•$<--X-co £ T

S***

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 16© 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s ac t iv i ty 99-2 9^.6


Mean s c o r e s

4

1*39

3

1.31

6

1*57

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s # 0 3 #26 .id

• T e x a s Superv isors and National Superv i sors .



810'

TABLS MX

mmmmu OF gmmimm AND munomi* $mum mmmxM pmmifinoM m mommm m

m m i Q V I M MATERIALS

CO X <D H

CO U O CO

• rH > u <D a 2

CO

CO u *73 0

C *H o > £ ^ * o » 2

CO

'-j CO Cu 4-i £ co .2 3 -4-> cvj rt u u 3 <U "5 £ W w

-X-£ H

-X-co 2!

-X--X--X-in H



P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity-


M e a n s c o r e s


X23

123

162

X 4 ^

f 9 * 3

1«30 1.3# 1*22

, o *




2SPL

TABLE Tjnrt

1ISF0HSIS OF StfPEEVISORS A»B IBUCATIOHAL SPECIALISTS RimRDIM CQHTIJTOIMG ANALYSIS OP OtlEEICHUM

WOT TOW fO &MM<m

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-Z H

•X--X-co Z

•X-

•X-CO H

Total number of respondents m 1 6 2 3 0

Number answering i t em m 1 6 0 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 1 0 0


H i $ 7 3

Mean s c o r e s 1,31 1 * 4 6 1 . 2 3

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 1 4




212

TABI#E SrJHfTT

m t m m o f wm FOE

l.i® m a u L t s n mmmi B OF SBOOESTIHO K I B ) OF PEB30HHEL

I P OB CURKIOBMM BCWITTHS

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

£ H

* -X-co £

-X-•& -X-co H

Total number of respondents m u t 3 0

i Number answer ing

i t em 1 2 ? usx P e r cent of s u p e r -

v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 9 9 , 1 9 7 . 5


IS)

Mean s c o r e s

6 4

1 . 1 ?

IZ

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 4 6

i i f # • 4 2


^ N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s ,

*$*Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

t m m UXXII

.IS OF 3y?IR?IS0ES AMD EDUCATIONAL SM5CIAUST* RECORDING LEADERSHIP I I COOFIEAflfl a i l l S w M M

E r o s i o n s

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

-X-£ H

•x--X-CO 55

-X--X-«&

CO H

Total number of respondents xm 1 6 2

Number answer ing i t em 1 2 3 1 6 0 39

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 9# # 9 * 4


M_)

Mean s c o r e s

$ 9

1 * 9 1

5

1 * 3 4

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s # 0 •57

a i * « .11




Z2Jk

tabm t a x f

mmm OF mtmuBom and raoAtiom SWIA; EBGAEDIMG MEMBEBilJF Oi SilUSBJJW

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

£ H

-X--X-co 2;

-X--X--X-cn H


Number answer ing 123 162 29 i t em 123 162 29


99.2 97 #6 this activity- 99.2 97 #6

Rank of i t em (among 13) 3 6 4

Mean s c o r e s 1.33 jL * if-X x*n Mean s c o r e

d i f f e r e n c e s •xo •02




215

TABUS T.TT¥

EESPOMSES OF mmmSQRS A® IBPGATIOMIi SPBBIAUST3 REGARDING fll PRACTICE OF EBITIHa CaRBIG8Ltffi MTERIALS fOR THE PUBPOSS Of PUBLICATION

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

1X1

•5C-- * C O 55

-X-

•5C-co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s us 162 n

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m JL&j w 29

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 93


1 3 ) 9 1 0 a*5

M e a n s c o r e s 1.51 1 * 9 2 1.76

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s a# • 2 5




TABLE L X I ? I

RESPONSES OF amwnsQ&s A ® e w c a t i o h a l s p i e x A L i s i f s mcfioE or f m m m m m ' m m ~ tmmtm mum

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ H

-X--X-co 55

-X-•&

CO H

Total number of 1*3 162 respondents 1*3 162 3®

Number answer ing

U2 i t em U3 U2 29


95 #7*7 this activity- 95 #7*7


n > 10 21 # * 5

Mean s c o r e s 1.69 1*93 1*69

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s # • 2 4 *00




m

fABUI UXVXX

orarcsoas m metmm, SPECIALISTS OOWOSITXQK AND BIMIWTIOI Of m m t r m s z smjMtm

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* CO

Z

* -x--X-co H

Total number of respondents X23 1 6 2 3 §


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty n

Rank of i t em (among 13) n $ 10

Mean s c o r e s 1 . 9 © 1*76

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s M *14



• • • T e x a s Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

m

T A B U u x r a i

o ? s o r a t r a o i t a w BPOCATJOHAI. S P E C I A L I S T S M OF F l l l r A l l t f l © ! §W

f o e w m u a i

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* £ * «• co 2

-x-•5'c tf-

H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 1 6 2 3 0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m m 1 5 7 2 d

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- % 9 3

Rank of i t e m (among y _ ) 1 3 1 3 1 3

M e a n s c o r e s 2 . 7 7 3 * 0 1 2# 5 7

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * 2 4

JSXjJ* * i §




TABUI M M

wmmnsm or mmmmm A® mmmimit $pmuum$ msAmimjmfAunon or m m m m m t m a

umn mm m ANNOTATED mmommm

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-Z H

-X-co £

-X--X-4C-C O H


N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 m 2$

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 91


J3»

M e a n s c o r e s

12

2,29

12

2 * 2 5

11

i.ta

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .04 •41

3ig» *4f




m

TABLE U H

msmmm OF JU© xmxmats tmrnx mswmmmM u mm mmmm&ttQn m m m m k m o r g a n i z a t i o n

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

# Z H

-3C--X-tn £

•& -X-10 H


Number answer ing i t em m 1 5 6 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 1 0 0 9 7 . 4

Rank of i t em (among 1 3 ) 7 3 1

Mean s c o r e s 1 . 6 7 X « f 9 1 . 1 3

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s mOB • 4 6 • 54




TABUB t . n r r

mm of Mfmtmm fmnm o f fittftttflinKS A N D

i l f f t mMWPfIt A l i Ji# JJitiAli i #

f i l M M Of

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ E->

* •» to £

•&

-X-

CO H

Total number of r e spondent s m ]&Z 3 0

Number a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 159 2 9

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g this activity- 100 9«U7


Jl> 9 4# 5 6

Mean s c o r e s i*n 1.31

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .12

Sig. * 4 $

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat ional S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s ,

• • • T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat ional S p e c i a l i s t s .

TABUS LXXXII

RESPONSES of SUMBFIAORB AMD am*TIOW& &mmx®& moAwxm mmmu TO TEACHERS II « E » m

AMD STAUIAFXIS S W B « O T

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* Z H

* -X-co £

-X--X-•X-CO H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 1 6 2

Number answer ing 1 2 3 1 6 1 i t em 1 2 3 1 6 1 2 9


m this activity- m 9 4 * 5

Rank of i t em (among M_> 10 $

Mean s c o r e s 1 . 9 0 IM l * 2 f t

Mean s c o r e • f t # 6 2 d i f f e r e n c e s # 0 4 • f t # 6 2

$ i g *




223

Immim rbspoiois or sararaoss m mmiosu. smxmara

REOARDIHQ THE PRACTICE 0? MAJCIHG n H I K t PEOPLE ahb m m m o m . books available to teasitos

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

«• £ H «• •3S-co £

•3C-# * CO H

Total number of respondents i s t 162 30

Number answer ing i t em m 161 29

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 100 97.5

Rank of i t em (among j j )

Mean s c o r e s

5

1*54

?

x*n a 1.24

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .21 •51

Sig. *30




nk

TAS&S U Q C O T

wmmwm® of $mwamm im WGMIQMI mmikum — MGQWMmm TO TMGWm TO BEPOHT

OF

CO nj X a> H

03 u o CO •r-f > u 0) a 3 in

d O

• H 4-» cd £

CO ?H O CO •H > h a) a 3 0}

aj a o

•H 4-> c t i u 2 TJ W

U Q) a, ca

-X-£ H

# c/D £

•3C-# * in H





4 L >

M e a n s c o r e s


m

123

9k

I I .

2 * 1 #

M f Aai*

1 6 1

J O

11

2.29 1*64$

# 1 1 »63 • 4 2




225

TABUS I*KXZ?

tESFOHSSS OF SWEBTOQKS A8D SP. tm m s f i e s of jm&rzim the

m & r a a i i m T i O M F o i

ialists wm&miM A1

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* S5 H

* -X-co £

-5C--X-* CO H


Number answering i t em 123 27

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 100 f?»4

Rank of i t em (among 1%) a a 4

Mean s c o r e s Xt?0 1*43 1*19 Mean s c o r e

d i f f e r e n c e s >27 y -JfjN 4; •41




tABLE HOT I

m mmwmom m mmnrnm ~"~ ornwnat mmms foe

ro» iM?io¥isa m$mmnQM smnmm

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

it 2 H

«• * CO 2

•K-*• co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 30


P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 93


M) M e a n s c o r e s

6 *

a«70

9

1*43

'US' JC

(*9 1*29

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •tt ,14 .41




2 2 7

T A B U u m n

R f i s p o n 3 E s o r s c r n r i s o i a m mmioui. amimsta « M H p S THE PRACTICE OF KBCOURAQBffiNT OF I B S

o s o f 3 M H D U U U Z B ) a n d imoouTtma

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z H

-X--X-CO £

•X--X-X CO H


Number answering i t em 1 2 1 162 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 1 0 0 94.4


W Mean s c o r e s

1

1« 2 1

6

1.69

1 0

1.77

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •Jyit •Hit



*** Texas S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

n$

TABLE mam

« W 0 ? 3UFEHVI30RS A » SB00A5I0HA1 W B C I A I U T S QASDIHG A33ISTAIiQE TO TKACHBSS IN I!

ADS APPLIIMQ TK3T DATA

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£

H

* -X-iO 55

-X-

W H

Total number of respondents X23 16a 30

Number answer ing i 6 a i t em 3J3 i 6 a 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 100 96* a


ID 2 4*5 5

Mean s c o r e s 1.39 1*67 1«30

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •at •37 • i f

Sig.




7ABLS T.XTYTT

RESPONSES OF SUPESVISOES AMD SBU6A7I0HAZ. S P E C I A L I S T S I I O - A I O U G ASSISTANCE t o PHIMCIPALS I I AFPRAJSIMG

INIfEyOTIGMAl . PROGRAM I I P A B I X C U M E i m i U t 1

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-£ H

-X--X-co £

-X--X--X-co H

Tota l number of r e s p o n d e n t s im 1 6 2 s o

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 1 2 3 16Q 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 9 9 * 2 f 9 * 4

Rank of i t e m (among 1 3 )

M e a n s c o r e s

k 1 * 4 5

1

IM 7 * 5

1 . 3 3

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * 1 7 * 0 5 * 1 2

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat iona l S u p e r v i s o r s .

• • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat iona l S p e c i a l i s t s ,


TABUS M

Rrnmmm of supsa?isoH3 im smutiomi &pmxui$ts mokmim m v u m i m m snaoftarxHa methods of ,

GOJisYTOfiss tmn FOB QLhSBmm m%

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* z H

CO £

* -•J'e -K CO H



P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s ac t iv i ty 91 as.3

Rank of i t e m (among 13)

Mean s c o r e s

12

2,23 10

2*21

12

1*90

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s .02 #31

3ig. .33




231

M B U S I C I

8 B S S S S S ? « 2 , » 2 S * S y i 5 2 S S s A ® k w c a t i o h a l msxman I M U n U O m P R A 0 I I 0 B OF CGHSTKBSTXOli OF WESTS

QBAHBD TO TBS COBBICOMK QT LOCAL 3 0 8 0 ® ,

CO aj X <u H

CO u O CO • iH > u <D a 3 O)

CO O CO

O >

^ S 2 §•

CO

•—j CO Co 4-> d to .2 S +5 rt nt -H (J VJ

pj 0 rg CX W

•jc Z H

* -X-co £

*35* *

-X-co H




Rank of i t e m (among 2 3 )

M e a n s c o r e s


123

m

75

13

2 . 7 4

1 6 a

1 6 1

4 1 . 6

1 3

3 . 3 0

3 0

2 9

13

2 . 0 3

>$6 1 » « 7 jfeig*

,71




212

TABLE X6II

8SSF0IBS8 OF SWECTISORa AHS BWCATIOHU. 3HSCIALXSTS HSQAHDIHO THE HUCTKI OF MSISTITO I» THE

sbwstiok or swhmsbizsd t ss ts

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-Z H

-X-CO Z

*-# *

CO H

Tota l number of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 16a 30


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 93 70.8


_13 M e a n s c o r e s

3

1.56

12 2.61

11 1*50

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s 1*05

l i f t .06

• T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Nat iona l S u p e r v i s o r s ,



233

TABLE X C I I I

mm OF wmwim

...... km «IWCATIOWU. SFBClAl t lSTS - - FOfi ISSTStrCTIOHAL S H P P M I 3 AND EQUIPMENT

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

-X-£ H

•x--X-co £

* •X-* CO H

Total number of 1 6 2 respondents 123 1 6 2 3 0

Number answer ing 123 1 6 0 i t em 123 1 6 0 29


96.7 this act iv i ty 96.7

Rank of i t em (among 1 4 ) 5 7 6

Mean s c o r e s 1 * 4 6 1 . 5 6 1 w JfeJL

Mean s c o r e • 1 0 d i f f e r e n c e s • 1 0 * 1 5 # 1 1


•^'National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational Spec ia l i s t s ,


2 3 4

WAtkt W Yf* TIT AM>Qkm- AwX f

RE3P0MSE3 OF f W B i n s m 4MB I B I O A f l O M A i . S P E C I A H S T S mmmim mommtim mmn m a a m *

FSOPEB S U F F U S S A i d IQUIFtCSJtT

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

z H

•se-tt CO

Z -* * CO H

To ta l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 16f 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g

M i t e m 123 159 M P e r cen t of s u p e r -

v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g 99*2 im t h i s a c t i v i t y 99*2 im


14) 4 a 2

M e a n s c o r e s 1.53 1.33 1*32

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * 2 0 St




235

t m m ic?

IMPOffilS Of S0FSR?ISO8S AND EDUCATIONAL SPECIAU3T3 tmkmtm wmmmmmt of critmxa for thi

mtmi im m materials OF INSTRUCTION

0} X a) H

CO u o CO •H > u a) a S3 CO

CO u o CO

O > +> H * S * *

CO

~J a> 03 +4 $2 CO ° 3

ci +->

cti u 3 W

o 0) cu CO

* £ H •5C--X-CO 2

tt * -X-co H





M e a n s c o r e s


12%

123

6

I M

162

162

*9 A

•29

96.1

3

l«i|&

1

1.17

•29 .51




236

fimxrnm

TABLE XCVI

OF SUPMYISORS m $mumn ISCAABIIA AID mmmmAtiom FOE M PURCHASE OF mm.Q-n.mki mtmam

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z H

* w Z

•5F -X-C0 H

Total number of respondents im I6A 30

Number answering i t em 1 2 3 1 6 0 29

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 92 . J

Rank of i t em (among X&-)

Mean s c o r e s

9 XI 11

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s #02 ..09 • 0 7




23?

.V ,

TABLE XCVII

b w i b m or n t w i H n ass w o m m m . t r m i A u s n 8E0A8BIS0 S7A10ATX0B AMD RZCOJMEKDATION FOB

nmmn or mnm m wtxmm

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* -X-co £

•5C-•3C-* CO H

Tota l n u m b e r of 162 r e s p o n d e n t s 1313 162 30

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 123 Ul 2d i t e m 123 Ul 2d

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g

39.4 th i s ac t iv i ty 39.4

Rank of i t e m (among 14) 13.5 1.2 12

Mean s c o r e s 2,24 2*01 1.36

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *23 • 1 5


**National Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .


I l l

fUlQY & f m t f f # mMmm 4kh0 W mdhm s k s p o h s x s o ? mfrnmiBom MM

wmmim mmmim aud wmommmAfion or BOOKS FOE A B O m O H

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ H

* - X -

co 55

-X-

CO

H



P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 9 7 * 6 9 3 . 2


1 4 )

Mean s c o r e s

% m 1 * 4 $

2

l « 6 l

1 0

1 X# f #

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s a s • 2 4




2 3 9

1* A Hf W iAi5jU& A U M

HESPOMSES OF STJPIETOORS AHB S P E C I A I ^ S T S m i l o o i f s f m i r $ m i x * i o g a t x h g wnm 0 1

i i t i x p i H s i y i mumim

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-55 H

# -X-co a

•X-* -X-c o H

Tota l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 123 162 3©

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 162 2$

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y 99*Z 97*$


14J 3 W 9 M e a n s c o r e s 1.53 1.S3 1.71

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •30 •12 .10


^ • N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and Educat iona l S p e c i a l i s t s ,

* * # T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .

a t o

m m m o f m mQAlB1M

T A B L E G

'H3 AND MHJCATIOHAL 8 P B G I A H S T S X I S S f l M I X I O U S E OF

1 8 T i l

t T

exa

s S

up

erv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* • f t

CO z

•X-•X-

CO H


Number answer ing i t em 1 2 3 1 6 1 2 9

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 9 * « *


I X ' i 1 3

Mean s c o r e s 1 . 3 0 1 * 3 4

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 0 3 • 0 7 • 0 4




2 4 1

tmm c i

i f S f S I H 2 ^ J I M L O T i A f I 0 N A I ' s p e c i a l i s t s ASSIST A NCI I I MZTESMBttHO lOif SUPPLIES

A ® m t v m m WILL S I u s ® • •

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* -X-co Z

•X--X-* CO H

Total number of respondents 123 JUSSI 30

Number answer ing i t em 123 ijyf 26

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 9$ *9 97.9


H j IX 6 4 Mean s c o r e s 1*96 1.53 1.35

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s *43 * Xd M




%k%

TABU CXI

•"XJSKtSJ IEESS!SSf.AM! wwmtiowi e m o u u r a 8BM8BXM0 B3aP0N3IBIIJTI89 ICR BISTBIBUTIOM OF

SUPPLIES, MATERIALS, ADD

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tion

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-Z H

•x--X-co 2

•5C-•5C-

CO H


Number answering i t em 123 161 m

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- $9*k

Rank of i t em (among 14 )

Mean s c o r e s

12

2*19

14

2.63

14

2.14

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s #44 •49

Slg.


^•National S u p e r v i s o r s and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

^ ^ T e x a s Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

m

t*7 U* f*TTY & MftMJmik %0 JmJL X

msmmm of svpsmzsom m smtmBn mamxm A33ISTAHCE TO m C B S B S I N IMS SELECTION OF

SPECIFIC I M S O T O T O m MkTWOAW

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-£ H

-X-co 55

*-•X-X 10 H



P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 9 9 * 2 9 6 . 9

Rank of i t em (among 1 4 ) 1 0 $ 7 * S

Mean s c o r e s l . $ 7 1 . 6 0 1 * 4 3

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 2 7 , 1 7



Texas Superv i sors and Educational S p e c i a l i s t s .

^4i{'

TAB« 01?

mm Of SUPERVISORS AID glftGATIOttU, SPECIALISTS tammim mumnom m the M.x OF m

amiiEB Am Mmimmm

Tex

as

Su

pe

rvis

ors

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* * co £

* *

CO H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s 1 2 3 3 0

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 1 2 3 1 6 0 29

P e r cen t of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s activity- 9 1 . $ $5*6

Rank of i t e m (among U)

M e a n s c o r e s

1 3 . 5

2.17

13

2 * 2 0

1 3

2 , 0 0

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s S3 * a o , 1 ?




2 4 $

TABUS e ?

RESPONSES OP SUPERVISORS At© EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS wmiamim assistance to prihcipals in pioMontm

EFFECTIVE USE OF SUPPLIES A® EQUIPMEHT

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-x-S 5

H

45--X-co z

-X-K X CO H

Total number of respondents 12} 162 30

Number answering i tem 123 161 30

Per cent of super-v i s o r s performing

96*3 this activity 99.2 96*3

Rank of i tem (among

i t . ) a 5 5

Mean s c o r e s 1*78 1.51 1*40

Mean score d i f ferences •27 ft 11 *3$


• •Nat iona l Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s ,

• • • T e x a s Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

i a b u s c v x

a g 3 1 * g ^ ? f , .?£. ^ m w c a t i o k a i , a m i m m utamxm mt m m or the wrwirossss or IKSTRBCTIOHAt 3 B P K J K 8 IK THE CU3SHOOK

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

« • z H

* -X-co £

-X--X--X-1ft H


Number answering i t em 1 2 3 UQ 3©

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 9 ^ . 7 9 6 * 3

Rank of i t em (among X4_)

Mean s c o r e s

?

1 * 7 3

7 7 « 5

1 * 4 3

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s . 2 5 .OS . 3 ©




2 4 7

^ ktSt IP i A|«WiW W 1 XX

KBSPOHBBS OR 30MTI3OS$ AND EDUCATIOHAL SPBCIAU3TS wouanm PAWIOIPATIOS I S TKK SECKDIINBKC, 3SUKTI0H, AID PLACEMENT OP TEACHERS

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-£ H

•X--X-

£

-X-•55-

C/3 H


Number answering i t em 123 160 29

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 54.4 70 .6

Rank of i t em (among _§_)

Mean s c o r e s

4 . 5

2 . 9 1

4 <$|i J ? I t ©5

2

1*45 Mean s c o r e

d i f f e r e n c e s • 26 urn Sin*




2 4 J

TABLE CVXIX

EISPOMSSS OF I M M W A X O M , B M U M N MQKMMXM THE I S 6 0 T X O t OF FRITING ffllSflOMi

Wm wiwfPUP w1- wif 1RWW p* ^?r- JJP' <PBP i 1 ! wfttqir ^|p|fW)i|r iff 4P#^I^

FOR TEACHERS* nummnom T

ex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

ucati

on

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

* z H

*• £

* •3S-

co H

T o t a l n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s m ut

N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g 1 6 0 i t e m 123 1 6 0 Z9


9 . 9 2 6 . 3 th i s activity- 9 . 9 2 6 . 3


_£> 9 9 $

M e a n s c o r e s 3 * # ? 3*S& 3 . 0 3

M e a n s c o r e

Mv d i f f e r e n c e s . 3 1 . 5 3 Mv S i ( »


• ^ N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .


t 4 f * * * • r

fttAtat W /'TY

RESPONSES OF M F I E T O O B S AHB IWeATIQKAl* SJPSGIAUSTS HQASBIHG K S S P O i S I l E H f l i S FOR I H f S K 7 I B t #

TRAIHIBO, AND SEFIRISMOS G O l i i l f f l l S

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* * CO

* * * CO H



P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 53.6 53*6


_J_>

Mean s c o r e s

4 . 5

3.07

5

2. *7

4

M9

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s . 2 0 •94

i&g# i»6*




250

TABLE CX

RESPONSES Of SUPSETISOES AND EBUCAflOHAL SPECIALISTS mmmztm m pbactici of eating mmm* $mxm AM TAMA tmoma of m t o g s

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ H

•se-tt w £

-X-*

CO H


Number answer ing i t em 125 160 2 9

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this act iv i ty 3 6 , 6 47 • 2


JL>

Mean s c o r e s

$

3*54

6

2.39

9

3 . 1 7

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •35 3 7




251

TABU CXI

NWOKBS OF s vnmaoss u s i w c m o u i SWQIAUSTS amsoiNQ BESWHSIBIUTISS roa mussismsKr

OF m c w n s CTBIH THE SCHOOL M R M

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£

H

•X--X-CO 2

•X-•3'c * CO H

Total number of respondents 123 162 3 0

Number answering i t em 123 161 29

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty

Rank of i t em (among 9)

Mean s c o r e s

7

3*39

3

2.3$

7

2,45

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s 1*01 • 07 * 9 4




*52

TABLE e m

RESPONSES OF SUPERVISORS AM BPmUMSTS RECiARJJXNG work with wmms in cooKDiHArcwa the w »

xmmmTim&h program

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tion

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

-X-55 H

* -A-

C O £

•5C--X-*

C O H

Total number of 162 respondents 123 162 3 0

Number answer ing 16 Z i t em 123 16 Z 30


97.6 97.5 this activity- 97.6 97.5

Rank of i t em (among _9_) JL I 1

Mean s c o r e s 1*33

Mean s c o r e •30 d i f f e r e n c e s •30 * A?

Mm S i g » .53




m

TABUS CTIlf

m m r n m w m m m m m j m h $ m u m n W&WIW&& ttfSMIWVYItftWr A W% mMWwmMw WW wtfFlift? AifVltJ fimXJkwM*mJUKI * v

S9PS&HT8SBIH? OR m f B M Z M M M M W

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

H

•& -X-co £

*-* * CO H

Total number of respondents i t s l i t 3®

Number answering i tem 123 159 3©

Per cent of super-v i s o r s performing this act ivity 7?.a &M3

Rank of i tem (among

9 )

Mean s c o r e s

2

2L27

2

a.§3

3

1.90

Mean score d i f ferences • 2 4 • 1 | • 1?


• •Nat iona l Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s ,

• • • T e x a s Superv isors and Educational Spec ia l i s t s .

254

wJflNek w

RESPOHSES Of 3UP1WIS0ES AMD I0OOATIQKAJ. SPECIALISTS mmmim m$fommiunm tot assxstangs

WITH saiooL-iaiyiiKQ PBOBI»S '

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•3C-55 H

# -X-co £

* •fr •SC-UD H

Total number of respondents 1 162 3©

Number answer ing i t em m 159 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s performing this activity- 6l*0 54.1


-9-' Mean s c o r e s

$

2„94

i

3.04

5

2,03

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •20 um •m




255

f l f l f ft-WW Ammmm wm*?

S B S I S S S » 2 L 3 S S S n E S < ® S * ® 8HJ0ATI0HA1 3PBCIAUSTS w m o i m hobs oh A a t t m a n t m i r g c o t w m E i a .

SUCK AS SiUBI 3UKVE13 *

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

# 2 H

-X-co £

• fc

• fc

CO H

Total number of 162 respondents

% mm Jkmjp 162 30

Number answer ing m i f # i t em m i f # 30


59,8 5*.9 this act iv i ty 59,8 5*.9

Rank of i t em (among 9 ) 3 7 6

Mean s c o r e s 2.93 2*97 2,13

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s #04 t i 4 .go

Sig .




J! Jkm&m wjm* 4*

mmmmm m mmmmm im mmmmi* SPECIALISTS MMBERSHXP AFIB PA1TOIMYI01 II'

PS0FE3SI0IAS, 0RGAHIZATI0K3

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z H

* * CO z

* * K CO H


Number answer ing 123 15# i t em 123 15# 19


96.2 this activity- 9 6 . 7 96.2


j f t j 2 . 5 3 3 Mean s c o r e s 1 . 3 9 1 * 6 3 1 * 6 9

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s # jEJl •06 .30

*Texas Superv i sors and National S u p e r v i s o r s .



f AM*E CXVII

RESP0HS1S OF StJPERVISQHS k m SPECIALISTS HEQAM TMOHEE MBB1SHIP A W PARTICIPATION I»

osmmunom

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Nati

on

al

Su

perv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tion

al

Sp

ecia

list

s

fc H

•» § «• *

w Eh

Total number of respondents 123 162 3 0

Number answer ing i t em X23 1 6 0 2 9

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 9 6 * 7 9 5


6 )

Mean s c o r e s

5

X.4X

5

IM 5

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •a? *1* .45




TABLE CXYIII

mmmm w mnmmm m spiciausts mmmm mmwumm mmmmif m fmimmm it

special mmmmmxki* mmmmwm

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z H

«• * CO <5

-X-•&

CO

H


Number answer ing i t em 123 162 2#

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 300 99*4


JL>

Mean s c o r e s

I 1.14

1

1*21

1

1*25

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s •07 •04 • i i




259

TABLE C1IX

RSSPOKSES of a® regarding won 01 mmnms or office-holding in

PECFESSIONAL OSGAHIEAflOHS

Cfl CO

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

oi

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

i

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pec

iali

sts

* 2 H

-X-C O &

•fc

•fc * C O H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 , 1 6 2 30


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 9 1 * 4 99 .4

Rank of i t em (among _6_) 4 2 4

Mean s c o r e s 1.35 1.60 1*75

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s t 2 5 .15




260

TABLE CXX

RESPOHSES OF $mmsom Aim smumtB mmmtn® SHARING WITH PEIHCIPUS A ® TEACHES RESULTS

of m m tm professioial WEfiios''

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

* * CO 55

tt *

CO H

Total number of respondents i&t 30


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 100 97*5


6 )

Mean s c o r e s

M 1.35

4

1*64-

2

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 29 •i7 *1*




2 6 1

f A8&E OXXX

e s p o u s e s o f s o m r a o E s Mm §?mnust* u r n e m PBACTICE OF Iffi lTIMa 0 1 EDITING MATERIALS FOE

PEOFESSIOKAX* OEG&KIEAflQIS

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* z H

* * CO 2

•X-•X-•X-

H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 1 6 2 j o


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity- 5 5 * 3 6 6 , 9


A) Mean s c o r e s

6

3 * 0 6

6

fc*d9

6

1 , 9 0

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s . 1 7 • 9 9

Big* 2 * 1 6




TABLE c a n

w a a m m o a s A m m e m w u . a m e m m s M 6 « ® » iKtrararajfioh o ? to school mxsm

W f l l

CO ctf X <D H

CO U O CO *rl >

u <D a 3 w

CO u

r j o 2 CO o > T3 u

* 8, 55 §•

CO

cti d o

• H

4-> U 3 T3 H

u <D

CO

-X~ £ H

* -x-co £

•55*

-X-CO H




R a of i t e m (among

1 2 3

123

X 6 2

15#

3 0

96#?

a )

M e a n s c o r e s


1.67

1

1.59 1

1.1?

.50 31g.

* T e x a s S u p e r v i s o r s and Na t i ona l S u p e r v i s o r s .



S 6 3

TABLE CIXII

fiX3FDNSS$ OF S0PIBVISOES AND mmiQMh SPECIALISTS PRACTICE O? i n n TALKS fO

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-Z H

* -X-CO £

tt * # CO

H


Number answer ing i t em 123 Ml 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 9 7 . ^ 97.5


i ) Mean s c o r e s

1

1*59

2 3

XM

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s * X6 #23 # 0 ?




TABLS C f f i f

M B OF km mmumt§ FEEFAlAf lOH OF ARTICX£8 F 0 1 U T W i

A f f l MAGAZINES

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* £ H

* -X-co £

-X-

CO

H


Number answer ing i t em 123 157 3©


6 3 * 4 this activity- 6 3 * 4


_a_> 5 7 6 Mean s c o r e s 2.10 * • 9 3 1 . 7 0

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s . 8 3 • 4 0

i i i i i # • 4 0




2 6 5

ThMs g o t

msspohsss or sBPgKnaoas urn smuusss taaamm PRKPABiTIOH OF KXHIMTS 0 ? MSTBBOIIOKU,

MRMIM ASB nnu< mdsk

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

-X-£ H

•X--x-co £

-X-%

H

Total number of respondents 1 2 3 X62 30


P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 9 1 . X N

Rank of i t em (among j j 6 3 8

Mean s c o r e s 2 . 1 9 1*09 1 . 0 7

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s # 3 0 M a a '




266

ui,A¥x

siaiwgss of supeh?isors km Bwmz&um$ ma&miMG fum 01 pasticipatxqh 11 m h o a p ~ '

miMi$ion momms

CO d X 0) Eh

CO u O CO •rl > <D a. 2 co

CO u O CO

O > +2 * S » §•

CO

'-j CO CO 4-> c! co .9 3

cti aJ u 3 TJ W

u <l) a

-x-55 EH

# -X-co £

-X-* * CO H


Number answer ing i t em

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this activity-


A) Mean s c o r e s


1 2 3

\9%

162

162

9&»4

30

2#66

7

1.83

,17 • $ 3




267

TABLE CXOTI IP I UHlfU (III V 4(iPPflPW

HK3P0K3B3 Of S0P1BTO08S A KB EDUCATIONAL SPECIALISTS w a m i m pabticipation w programs weoh sssx

TO WraOTS THE SCHOOL PBOOHAH

Tex

as

Su

per

vis

ors

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

* & H

•X--X-co £

•X-•&

CO H

Total number of respondents im 162 30

Number answer ing i t em 123 154

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 96.7 Am m

f f i f


_ ! > % 4 a

Mean s c o r e s X.ft U9$ 1.21


iig!7 •Si




2 6 $

TAB&B OXXVIII

KSSPGMSIS OF SIPBITOGSS A© OTCAHOHAL mmmtm THE PMCTICE OF nmmitmon w

PARENT WMTOQM

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•X-55 H

•x--X-co 2

-X-•& 45* CO H


Number answer ing i t em 1 2 3 1 5 * 3 0

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s per forming this act iv i ty 9 5 . 9

Rank of i t e m (among &)

4 6 4

Mean s c o r e s 2 * n 2 * 4 3 1 . 4 7

Mean s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s • 3 2 #|N§

S i g # . 6 4




2 6 9 PPWF Jf

tms cxxix 5 * ? ! J 3 M 2 ^ r o specialists iimmx

ASSISTANCE TO U T QSOWS II MAIIN0 f«IWS Of THE m Op THE SCHOOL ' ' '

Tex

as

Su

perv

iso

rs

Na

tio

na

l S

up

erv

iso

rs

Ed

uca

tio

na

l S

pecia

list

s

•x-£ H

* -X-C/3 £

#

•X-CO H


N u m b e r a n s w e r i n g i t e m 123 1 6 0 30

P e r cent of s u p e r -v i s o r s p e r f o r m i n g th i s a c t i v i t y S1.2 52*5


JL> M e a n s c o r e s a»3$

$

3iOT 5 1.53

M e a n s c o r e d i f f e r e n c e s 1*54

Sig* •65


* * N a t i o n a l S u p e r v i s o r s and E d u c a t i o n a l S p e c i a l i s t s .


270

fftiff pYYY JLMMJkm wAiU.

ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES II VHICB TEXAS KLBCSNTAET

SCHOOL SUPIRYISOKS IMAGE

Activity Kespoadent

Testing , . . . $ Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . § Textbook* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Films . 5 Suaner School 3 Non-Engliah Speaking FrograsiS • * • • • • 3 Bulletins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Counseling and Guidane© . . . . . . . . . 3 Census • • • • • • • 2 Transportation . 2 Mimeographing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Pupil Accounting . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Attendance Office » » X Substitute Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . I Pre^Sdiool Programs . . . . . . . . . . . X Civil Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X Night School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Library Heeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X Follow-Up Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -CuXtural Activities . . . . . . . . . . . X No AdditionaX Activities SO

27X

ff l A B t »

HOW ELEMENTARI SCHOOL 30PBOTISORS DISTRIBUTE TIEXM TIME

Activity Average Per Cent

Xa~»ervice education {visitation, demonstration, and conferences, etc#). • * 31

Evaluation and research (testing, experimentation, etc*) . . . . . . . . . . 23

Curriculum development . . . . 21

Evaluation, selection and use of instruc-tional supplies and equipment . . . . . . 11

Administrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Professional organizations . . . . . . . . . 5

Public relations . . . . . . . . 3

272

BIBLIQGEAPHY

Books

Adams. Harold P. and. Frank Q« Mokey« Basic Frjaeliilia off AwsiXS^Tf' ihUlI i^ "IXSX r

llfW XOYlEf Affll@Fl0wl jEKKMC P#®paH|r| <&?$£• Arkin, Herbert and Raymond 1« Coltoii, Tables Hew Tork, Barnes and Nofcl*, lite, , 1 ^ 1 #

4ycrf Fred 0*. K«W Tork,

% .I,, IA HM- m. j9| Safe. V barticyf Aaoipn «*#•

fu 0* Heath

oaal Suoerrialon,

Relation®, Boaton,

Instruction mat ruction.

Briggfj t&oiaaa H. and iJosepfe Justaiaa. mrovu&i Smoeryiaioa. a reriaion rewfork,Macmillan Comjiajiy, If ft#

Buytwu Vllliam I* and I«eo Brueokner, edltt®% Mm 7«rk| Appleton-Century

ttuu&erlain, J#o X* and W i l t W. Kindrad, TfadMnr third edition, l&glewood Cliff®, Star Jersey,

Craaer, Roscoe ?. and Otto S* Doaiaa, Sttperylaioa in the Elementary " fflmk JBJrOJB WTm j JKJfOw#

Crosby. Muriel E«, II * * " * t ^ ,

Slsbree, Willard S« and Harold J#

, <$arper

lew

Good, Carter f»#

H O C » « w xors, a, seeoad

eriiaiimok mmpmy9

Tork, kppl#bon~>

. , editor. liefeiOMry jtf Education, Hew tork, Hi look «i43»r» ® * » iwIT

S e a r c h ,

imrw=m

Good, Carter ?• and Douglas 1* Scates, 'lew Tork, Appleton-Century-Crofts,

273

r i m

m Huggett, Albert #• tad T« H. Stinnett, Profeanional Problaaa

'"** Teaekera. lew Xork, M&os&llan Compaii7,195S.

Idnquist, ,1* Ft# A first Coarse in ftatigfeiea* , Cambridge, Maasachusetta/Houlhton-^ifflin Company, X94&*

MeHimr, gatim, Psyctologic&l Statistics* lew Tork, John filer and S®ai# Inc., I960.

McHerasy, CtwsterT., MuaatlooalSuDertialon. Sw loric, Me&raw-Hill Book ©©apsa^, Xffl»

Weletoor 3«>enrt»loa.

Hoop*. Herold ind HweU B. Valttn, fyaoaaul AdB^ftraUoa ,|g jdacation* lew York, fi&rptr and iritliri,

Moll, Tie*or 1»

Bo»ton

Otto, Hoary

Jrofts Xne«» 1954*

leeder, Edwin i.. firarflaioa .in tM§ IXmtirtaMr likool. Boston, Hoapiion»-Mifriin *

#

edition.

Articles

Anderson, teer ¥•, ®il*eng Why and low of fe&olier Supervise Katioa** gohoolg* L I Sept ember, 1953), 6l~62#

Aufceil, Henry, "Teachers Appraise Supervisors," Journal of

Armstrong, W* I#. *trhat Teaekera Prefer in Supervision,n

Metliod, a n r (February, 1936), 270-272.'

275

Arnold, William I*# *Tha Administration and Supervision of

M s s s s i 2 s ' H w

Bail# faul M», *Bo Teaeh«rs leaaiv® the KIM of Inspiration ^ s£ frmwfit, » <*«r.

CaKpfcall, loland F#, "frinoiplea of an Effect ive Oxfiaita*

&5aMi»iUSî99iiW@ê M

Caswell, H. L., *8©* toll Supertrisioii fee Advanced?" Educa-t ional Maliiod, m m (October, 1941), 7* «

Catiîran, ley W., "Organisation (?) f o r Smjiarvision," Journal of f easier tdmealion, IX ( toe, 195#), X6}-V?0.

ChftpBAB> Gall Hi| *Segiaai»* feacfcar and the Supervisor. * Clearing House. milTNovesfcer, 1917)* 1

Cody, Eobert !•, "Organising for Supervision,* XXXIX U p

Oorder, Geneva, "Evaluation of Supervisory Services • for Mewly Appointed Teaekerg * MLmmtmev School Journal, 33? (May, 1954), 509-516.

Croaalay. Joirn B«t "Supervision and Eating are Compatible," Bulletin H i XX*I (October, 1957), 73-77.

Beneia&rk, George IN, guest editor, Supervision lumber,* tdaettlon. IXCTIII (D««ab«r, 1957), 195-241.

Farley, Genevieve J»,and John J« Santosuosso, "Kffeot of

sion?* j§§!

276

Farleya Genevieve J« 1ml John J# Santosuosso, "Technique® of tiirtlpril" imtrrttfrPt.

Farley, Genevieve J., *W}$®t is Good Supervisi Journal* Ell (Beceaher, 19131, 573-575•

lamesf 8* X«# ^Improving teaching Through Supervision* How

t l o n 4 8 2 S a B a s "

Hastings, Richardson, "Supervising Teachers," Education Digest, m (January. 1956). 3-10. '

Illlyard, Joseph i,# *&ole of the Supervisor in the Improve-ment of the Teacher-Learning Situation, • Social Studies, StHll (Hay, 1957), W - M 7 »

Jantsen, John M. and James 6* Stone, "More Effective Super-vision of Beginning Tochers, "Journal of T^aflp* J$§~ c at ion. X ('June, 1#5P ),

Jordon, Willia* 6«. "Supervision Revisited," Elementary School Journal. M X (October, I9fi)» 26-30. ' ' '

Kearney. Mil© E», "For Good Supervision; Facta and Follow-Up,"

a U w n r ftliawJ.. m r a ToetoWr, mi),

Kurtss. Grace W.f "Intern Experiences Elementary School

'#

lyt®, George C.# "This is the Kind of Supervision that Teachers Welcome and Appreciate,® Nation'a Schools. JMKXX (July, 1951)7 33-34. " -

Landry, Thomas R., "Louisiana Supervisors ibeamin® Their J*« atiTM.*tduBftioMa SS& smmXttein, XL? (S eptemher, 19591, 305-311#

Lewis, Claudia and Charlotte I# Vinson, "Supervising the Beginning Teacher " Mueatioaal Leadership. XVII (Becem-her, 1959), 137*141*

MeGann, Lloyd I*. "Legal Aspects of School Supervision,* American School Kimi Journal. CXXXII (June, 1956), 45-46,

Moore, Walter J., compiler, "Selected References on Elementary-School Instructions Evaluation and Supervision," Elementary School Journal. LX (October, 1959), 51-54*

^SSSSSTim^mxtm

277

Mutt, 8* W## *Th© Attitude of Teachers toward Supervision,* 1 1 (February, 1924), -

_ ,, _. "Superrtsioa ©f Instraetioa,« Review of Educa-tional Mammh* XIII (October, 1943)#

.» ®toennUi©a# Organisation and Administration,w

Litf M § m & > XIX (October, 1949)»

Pace, 04 I* and Arfcter I« Browne, "Trends and. Surrey Stu I S M f ® r II CBwember, 19SiJ

Surrey StMits," «,.. .... m ***. *•» ft »

Phillips, C» A., "Tbe Work of Supervisors and Birectors,® Sehool and Cwanaltr. S C U T (Hay, 1954), 13.

Paulsen, Frank 8., "AdnlnlstrattM Prlnciplss and TwdlniqiMa

°£&^%MrnwM?rm9n m *•** _ _ , , . « "Supervision in Modem Sekools,* Mueational

»3X (December, i ® F ,

Eeplogle, ?emon lt«A "What to Teacher* Want?* Idneatioiaal leaderato* fit (April, 1950/f 44$* '••

St. Mary. Maurice E*. "Team Atroroach to Supervision.<

Valentine, P. F», "A <Job-Analy8is of Elementary Supervision,* IflMWtt & Metkod. ? (March, 1926), 379~2*2,

fan Antwerp, Harriett, *feiteliers» Evaluation of tile Iffective-— - -* Supervisory Aetivltiea,* Eduoatlonal Method.

r, 1936?, 441-447• s*3w»#

Wiles, Kimball, "Supervision,* & Resmonk-1 edited by Chester®* aarrisj, » w folS, MaealHan Company, I960*

27*

Publications of Maimed Organizations

Brook*, §m*h$ *8u#*rriaion a» ?1ewed by the Superriaed,' National Education Aasociation, Addresses and ~ *1 p | l # imi'ifH/PPITfti iiaiffif

Measuring Efficiency tributions to Educati

m - „ _ Jo, 175 CliwTork, liireau of Publications. Teachers College, Ooluiabia University, 1935 , iriii.

jpeyvliie School*! A§ Appraisal

rt Circular Mo* a#. Washington.

Frimseth, Jane, fcotniiaft £o

felly, Oiraular Mo. 2#9, wasaxag&on, Superintendent «* Documents, Government mat lag

Office, 1911»

Qa«h# Joha £*| *01aa® Visitation Time-Schedule aa a Supervisory

r W* wH jf m

Ald,wJ XXJ?X2T

, MT-., f Eleaeatary School Principal as a Builder of f taimiig Morale,* T1&& IeariooktJjigMgaa Department ' ' School w r ^ l m W *

WP pipsPippp W'BPlPW^ #pij®P8p|p8|lp|pPf!pl ^ w "IP «pi !p^ ~ ™ * w ^

X«ai»g, Jaaes I«, "Search for Eeputability for Disreputable toaryi«i®»#* gplatia, si. tje J§A of itcoiiary" leiool Prlnclpala, XLli (Kaitofe,

National Education Association. Department of Elementary School Principals & I Thirt y~seveath XearWot iffe4 te

»4l

# * * * * •

.i Department of Ewral Education. " learbc * ~ " - * jtfjjKBC H 'BtiU yearbook, 1949, Washington,'

iMsasas as k s I t M T o £ 1 ' a i a 1 f f i i f t a K j t M l D# C«, If

national Society for the Study of Education. In-Service

Southall. Maycie, A fti

'mmt of Public Instruction. 1921#

279

Stoek, BarX* K*. "CXassroaa Teaeher « d the Program of 0¥»«r-> m a e l ^ a l ^ i M a . ™ _ox _gecoadarr*ie&€>oI

0 my**##»

Southern States Workshop* stiip Serrlce* State ¥ m m m $ x f s t .

Texas Education Agency. &ivision of leseai Texas, 1961*

Waks, Meyer, "Supervisor's Written Report**

ismww;™ ttepu&Lished Material®

Caroiehael, YilXias &«. *The Status of the Supervisor in Texas Independent SekooXs," unpublished doctoral dissertation. School of Education, iaylor University, Waeo, Texas, 1956.

Hoffman, Ja*es ©•, *A Study ef the Perception that Adsinis* tratorg, llememtary Teaehersf Consultants, mud Special Area Teachers have for the Elementary Special Area Teacher and Consultant Bole,* unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, CoXXege of gduoatlon, Michigan State University, Ann Arbort 195$*

Lans, BaXph V*t *An Analysis of the Activities of - Seneral IlesieKtary Supervisors ia Cities of Over 200,000," unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Mutation, iniversity of Southern California, Los Angeles, X95^«

Pitkhu, Dorothy Bi| "An Evaluation of the Principles of Supervision in team of Activities and Adainist ration Provisions,* unpublished doctoral dissertation. Collage of Education, University of Texas, Austin, 1948«

Stoops, finery, 'Organisation and Administration of Certain Major Supervisory Services in Large City School Systems,* uupwbll sited dootoral dissertation, SehooX of Kdueatioa, * University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1941*

UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc277799/... · TABLE Of CGHTINTS Page tTIW flW 9ART Ml *£ maa y#...

Documents

Transcript of UNT Digital Library/67531/metadc277799/... · TABLE Of CGHTINTS Page tTIW flW 9ART Ml *£ maa y#...