No description available.

In the 8-4 plan there was departmentalized instruction in the high school grades. When the junior high school was organized, it followed the same pattern. The departmental system is predominant in the junior high schools today, but non-departmentalization has become the practice in many of them. Current practices range from complete departmentalization to complete non-departmentalization. The writer's observations and current literature indicate a trend in the direction of non-departmentalized instruction. / Typescript. / "July, 1950." / "Submitted to the Graduate Council of Florida State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts under Plan II." / Advisor: R. L. Goulding, Professor Directing Paper. / Includes bibliographical references (leaf [30]).

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.