This study sought out the perceptions of middle school (any combination of grades 5-9) educators in 19 states regarding the specific learning experiences that should be included in the curriculum for the preparation of junior high/middle school teachers, the skills or characteristics that are needed by a junior high/middle school teacher to best meet the needs of the early adolescent, the desirability of a discrete middle school certificate and the reasons why or why not. Using the data collected, a paradigm was designed for a junior high/middle school teacher training program that reflected the best thinking of these educators. This middle school study utilized a modified Delphi Technique in surveying the perceptions of administrators, teachers holding secondary certificates and teachers holding elementary certificates currently employed at junior high/middle schools, North Central Association associate state chairmen, and college of education professors. The three primary points emerging from this study are (1) that the lines of communication need to be opened between educators in the junior high/middle schools and those at institutions where policies, teacher preparation programs and certification requirements regarding middle school education (and educators) are being formulated, (2) that those same policies, teacher preparation programs and certification requirements be formulated on the basis of research data gathered directly from those educators in junior high/middle schools, and (3) that a middle school teacher's characteristics are considered by those involved currently in middle school education to be more important than his/her skills.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The major purpose of the study was to determine duties of selected junior high school principals in Indiana to accomplish identified responsibilities for instructional evaluation and improvement, staff evaluation, and public relations.Methods and procedures used to determine the duties of junior high school principals in the identified areas involved construction of a focused interview guide based on the survey of research for the study. The population to be interviewed included six junior high school principals, ten teachers and ten students from each of the six selected junior high schools. The responses were then organized by area and presented in three categories, responses of principals, perceptions of teachers, and perceptions of students relative to the duties performed by the principals.Conclusions were drawn from the findings of the study, and research reviewed as part of the study, and the experiences gained in conducting the study.Instructional Evaluation and Improvement1. Principals in general spent little time on program evaluation and improvement.2. Much of the responsibility for evaluation and improvement of the school program rested with the department chairmen.3. Teachers were involved mainly through the individual departments.4. The larger the school the less time the principal had time to devote to the program.5. It appeared principals delegated the responsibility for evaluation to department chairmen and relied on the judgment and evaluation recommended.6. Classroom visitation by the principal was limited to a few brief periods of time.7. The leadership function of the principal in motivating staff self-evaluation and improvement rested primarily on suggestions to the teachers rather than in-service programs.8. Orientation programs were classified by principals as in-service training.9. Principals did attempt to improve personal abilities and understandings of new approaches in education.10. Staff and students were seldom utilized in evaluation and changing the curriculum.11. Staff and students perceived the principal as involved in improving in instruction.Staff Evaluation and Improvement1. Teachers perceived the principal as one who would help with problems when requested.2. Teachers perceived principals as undertaking the necessary duties for staff evaluation including limited classroom observation, written evaluations, and conferences.3. Teachers perceived principals as utilizing department chairmen in the evaluation process.4. Teachers viewed the principal as available to aid the teacher in educational problems.Public Relations1. Principals did little to utilize the staff or students in a specific public relations program for the school.2. The staff and students perceived the principal as doing an adequate job in creating a favorable public relations attitude toward the school.3. Principals were perceived as providing a communication system within the school.4. Parent contact with the school was limited to infrequent visits.5. Principals were active within the community civic organizations.Recommendation for Further StudyRecommendations for further study were gained from the limitations placed on the present study.1. Expand the present study to include more schools to achieve a broader view of the duties undertaken by the principal.2. Study the differences between what the authorities in the field of educational administration advocate relative to the duties of the principal and what duties principals actually do.3. Study the causes and reasons why principals are not completing the tasks indicated by the authorities in the field of educational administration which principals should be doing.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--University of North Texas, May, 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1974. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Thurston A. Atkins. Dissertation Committee: Frank L. Smith, Jr. Includes tables. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Michigan. / "A selected bibliography": p. [58]-64.