Thesis (Ed. D.)--UCLA, 2009. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-136).

There is no abstract available for this dissertation.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1979. / Title from title page screen, viewed Feb. 14, 2005. Dissertation Committee: Creta D. Sabine (chair), John Brickell, David Franklin, Sally Pancrazio, Samuel Price. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-71) and abstract. Also available in print.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1982. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 79-84).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1981. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 147-157).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1980. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 70-75).

xi, 203, 4 p. A print copy of this title is available through the UO Libraries under the call number: SCA Archiv Theses K672 / This study was concerned with the role expectations held for the position of assistant superintendent in charge of instruction by the incumbents of the focal position, superintendents, and principals; and the assistant superintendents' perceptions of the expectations of superintendents and principals. The purpose of the study was three-fold: 1) to determine the degree of intraposition consensus, or agreement, within the three role-defining groups regarding their expectations for the behavior of the assistant superintendent; 2) to determine whether or not there were significant differences among the three role-defining groups regarding their expectations for the behavior of the assistant superintendent; and 3) to determine whether or not there were significant differences between the assistant superintendents' perceptions of the expectations of superintendents and principals and the expectations expressed by assistant superintendents, superintendents, and principals. The study was based upon data collected from 41 superintendents, 50 assistant superintendents, 86 secondary school principals, and 224 elementary school principals. A comprehensive role norm inventory consisting of 71 role norm statements was used to identify respondents' expectations and perceptions regarding the relationship of the position of assistant superintendent to that of superintendent and principal. In addition to posing two questions dealing with intraposition consensus, the study projected fourteen hypotheses. These hypotheses were related to the problem of interposition consensus regarding the expectations of the role-defining groups, and to the relationship of the assistant superintendents' perceptions to their own expectations and to the expectations of superintendents and principals. The level of intraposition consensus for each of the role-defining groups was found to range from an almost complete lack of consensus to almost complete consensus depending upon the particular role norm in question. All role-defining groups exhibited a higher level of intraposition consensus regarding how assistant superintendents should act toward superintendents than they did regarding how assistant superintendents should act toward principals. Intraposition consensus was also higher on dependent behavior role norms than on independent behavior role norms. Perception errors on the part of assistant superintendents occurred more frequently when predicting the expectations of superintendents and principals for the appropriate behavior of assistant superintendents toward principals, than was the case when predicting the expectations of superintendents and principals for appropriate behavior toward superintendents. Assistant superintendents were found to perceive superintendents and principals as having expectations similar to their own expectations for the behavior of the assistant superintendent. In those instances where statistically significant differences occurred between the expectations of one role-defining group and those of another, these differences occurred most often on role norms dealing with assistant superintendents' behavior toward principals. While statistically significant differences occurred on individual role norms, the expectations of superintendents for the behavior of assistant superintendents did not differ significantly with the expectations of principals on 83 per cent of the role norms included in the inventory. statistically, significant differences were found on only four role norms when the expectations of secondary school principals were compared with those of elementary school principals. When the expectations of assistant superintendents were compared with the expectations of superintendents, statistically significant differences were found on only nine role norms. Thus, the expectations of these two groups were similar for 87.3 per cent of all role norms. The expectations of assistant superintendents were found to differ significantly from those of all principals on nine role norms. Again, the expectations of these two groups were similar for 87.3 per cent of all role norms. Thus, the findings of the study supported the hypothesized relationship that assistant superintendents, superintendents, and principals hold similar expectations for the role of the assistant superintendent. / Adviser: John E. Suttle

The study was designed to facilitate the development of a set of guidelines which could be used by administrative personnel at Kokomo-Center Township Consolidated School Corporation (KCTCSC) in planning and implementing a program of administrative evaluation. A review of literature and research concerning administrative evaluation programs was made to identify principles and desirable practices relative to the development of evaluation philosophy and activities. The review of literature also was intended to focus upon the purpose of evaluation, responsibilities for making evaluations, criteria for evaluation, and acceptance of evaluation procedures and techniques by the administrative team members.The study included a review and analysis of evaluation programs conducted within the nineteen member school systems of the Indiana Public School Study Council as of January 1979. Twelve superintendents of the member school systems provided written descriptive materials. Selected materials were analyzed in order to determine the nature, scope, and procedural characteristics of practical, ongoing evaluation programs.The study also included a KCTCSC team survey. The survey was designed by a committee of representative administrators to solicit the opinions of all administrative team members of KCTCSC on eight specific areas affecting an evaluation program.Conclusions drawn from the findings of a review of the literature, the Indiana Public School Study Council Member Superintendent's Questionnaire, and the Kokomo Administrative Team Evaluation Survey Questionnaire were as follows.A. Administrative performance can and should be evaluated on a regular basis.B. Authorities are not in agreement that only one process of evaluation is correct.C. Evaluation may include two main purposes: the first, to help the evaluatee establish relevant performance objectives and work systematically toward objective achievement; and secondly, to assess the evaluatee's present performance in accordance with prescribed standards.D. Evaluation should require the evaluator(s) to assess the. performance of the evaluatee by rating the evaluatee on a value scale that may have varying degrees of excellence.E. Management by Objectives (MBO) should be a supplement to evaluation procedures that stress rating. Self-evaluation should always be encouraged.F. Formal evaluation of administrative team members should be conducted annually within the time framework of individual state laws. Informal evaluation should be a continuous process, on a day-to-day basis supplementing the formal process.G. The superior or supervisor should conduct the formal evaluation with informal documented evaluation input from peers, staff, students, parents, community, and evaluatee as situations and/or time warrants.H. Particular attention should be paid to amassing specific documentary evidence regarding each behavioral characteristic to be assessed.I. Evaluation should be supported by data, records, commendations, and critical comments, work achieved, spotchecks, special activities and awards.J. Little new information, if any, should be saved for the formal appraisal. Evaluation should concentrate on guidance and counseling, not solely on checking up on the evaluatee.K. The evaluator should enter the evaluation process with a mutual, unprejudiced, and unbiased attitude with respect to the evaluatee.L. The best evaluation system is of no value if the information is simply gathered and stored or ignored.M. Improvement of evaluatee performance involved two processes, assessment of evaluatee and in-service or job development.Guideline recommendations for planning and implementing an administrative evaluation program touch on the following considerations: the responsibilities of the board of school trustees, the superintendent of schools, and the evaluation committee which has been established by the superintendent of schools. Implementation and follow-up recommendations are also a part of the guideline recommendations made as a result of the study.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Auburn University, 2007. / Abstract. Vita. Includes bibliographic references (ℓ. 133-152)

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1985. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 66-70).