Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

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 306-314).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1969. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1960. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1971. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1973. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1963. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

This investigation was concerned with the relationships between the superintendent of schools, the board of education, and the local teachers' professional organization in Tucson School District One for the period 1941-1978. Because it was the largest school district in the state of Arizona, as well as one of the largest in the United States, School District One may be considered a microcosm of many older school districts throughout the country. Many problems encountered by District One for the first time during the late 1960s and 1970s had been experienced by other large school districts in earlier decades. The relationships between the school board, superintendents, and the local teacher organization moved through three distinct phases in the years covered by this study. The first phase was a period of consensus during the years when Robert D. Morrow was superintendent of the school district. The second phase, under the administration of Morrow's successor, Thomas L. Lee, was one of transition. The harmonious relationships between the superintendent, trustees, and teachers' organization began to become strained. The third phase, under Wilbur Lewis, Lee's successor, was characterized by conflict and ended in a teacher strike in 1978. During the years 1941-1978, the superintendents' relationships with both the school board and the teacher association changed from that of close cooperation to one of increasing hostility. Among the school board members themselves, little effective dissent existed prior to 1972. In that year, the first of two major critics of the school trustees was elected to office. When she was joined on the board in 1975 by the second dissenter, the community realized that the era of cooperation and quiet disagreement was at an end. The local teachers' organization, the Tucson Education Association (TEA), began in 1917 as little more than a social and educational arm of the school district. As the teacher groups nationally became more militant in the 1960s, the TEA developed a more aggressive attitude towards educational and professional conditions in Tucson. In 1978, relationships within the school district had deteriorated to such a degree that two of the most dramatic incidents in the school district's history occurred: the teacher strike in October, and the resignation of the superintendent the following December. Years later, the effects of these two events could still be observed.

This investigation was designed to discover the reported patterns of perceptions and behaviors of building principals involved in the 1978 Tucson Unified School District teacher strike. The theoretical framework developed for this study was based on perceptual psychology and included the following areas: (1) perception; (2) empathy; (3) adequacy/self-concept; (4) relationships; (5) stress; and (6) perceptual framework. An interview schedule was developed, based on the theoretical framework, employing a Likert-type attitudinal scale together with an open-ended comment format. Quantitative data were collected based on the principals' responses to the scale items and qualitative data were collected based on the principals' comments on the scale items. Forty principals who were principals during the strike were interviewed in-depth regarding their perceptions and behaviors on the following aspects of the strike: (1) issues and causes; (2) influences; (3) stress; (4) relationships; (5) post-strike views; and (6) attitudes. All the data were collected during the field interviews. The principal sample was a volunteer sample selected from the total population based on their willingness to participate. Among the findings, the following appeared to be the most significant: (1) salary was perceived as the major strike issue and the way the School Board and District Office handled the issues as the primary cause of the strike; (2) the principals perceived themselves and the Tucson Education Association as having the most influence on the teachers' decisions to strike and the teachers' strike behaviors; (3) the principals reported experiencing the most stress during the strike and the least stress before the strike. As a group, the high school principals experienced the most amount of stress and elementary principals experienced the least amount of stress; (4) a break in relationships with significant others, especially teachers, was a major strike concern of the principals; (5) most of the principals perceived the strike as successful in terms of the teachers achieving their goals but costly in terms of relationships; and (6) the majority of the principals were opposed to the act of striking.

The purpose of this study was to validate a revised instrument measuring instructional leadership in public high schools. In addition, the study attempted to identify components of instructional leadership and to determine differences in the leadership functions performed by principals, assistant principals, and department chairpersons. Responses to the revised study instrument, Sources of Instructional Leadership (SOIL), were made by 300 certificated personnel in eight comprehensive high schools. Validation evidence was gathered in three phases: (1) responses by the entire sample to the Instruction-Related Contact (IRC) instrument; (2) responses of a subsample of 28 teachers from two schools to the Teacher-Initiated Contact (TIC) instrument; and (3) structured interviews with 12 of the 28 teachers. The validity of the revised SOIL instrument was supported by all three validation phases. The IRC instrument was most highly correlated with the SOIL instrument within roles, suggesting that the contact with teachers about instruction was strongly related to perceived leadership. Similarly, in the regression analysis, nearly half the variance in SOIL mean scores was accounted for by the IRC mean score for the same role. In addition, the coefficient of this variable was in general the only significant coefficient entered. The TIC instrument appeared to provide strong validation for the SOIL scores of the department chairperson, based on Spearman Rank Order Correlations, but was less effective for principal and assistant principal. The interview data provided validation for the relative ranking of roles on each item for the SOIL instrument, as well as the prediction of highest and lowest department chairpersons within a school. A factor analysis resulted in six or seven factors for each role, with the first factor accounting for the largest proportion of the variance. For the principal role the primary factor involved managerial functions in creating policies, facilitating communication, and securing resources to improve instructional programs. For both assistant principal and department chairperson roles, the primary factor involved direct instructional interventions. Descriptive statistics and ANOVAs provided evidence that the three roles perform different instructional leadership functions. Overall, the assistant principal performed the most important role, and the principal the least important.