The purpose of the study was to examine the effects of three Indiana public laws upon the role of the public school superintendent with various publics.Population was defined as practicing Indiana public school superintendents having a minimum of ten years experience as superintendent in Indiana prior to 1978. Five superintendents were selected for personal interviews and the sixth member of the population was the writer.Literature related to the role of the school superintendent was reviewed.Three Indiana laws were selected which were passed by the Indiana General Assembly during the last ten years. Laws selected were: (1) Indiana Public Law 162, the Student Due Process Statute, (2) Indiana Public Law 217, the Collective Bargaining Statute, and (3) Indiana Public Law 57, the Open Door Statute.Analysis of the data obtained in the interview was based upon the formula: R = A + T + C, where R = Role A = Autocratic Behavior exercised by the superintendentT = Time expended by the superintendentC = Control the superintendent has over outcomes, results or goalsSpecifically each superintendent was asked if the degree of autocracy, the time involved and the control of outcomes in working with six publics had increased, decreased or remained the same. The publics selected were school boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and school attorneys.Findings: Public Law 162 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent in working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents and students; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and attorneys; the control of outcomes by the superintendents when working with boards, administrators, faculty, parents, students and attorneys.Public Law 217 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent in working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys; the control of outcomes by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators, faculty and attorneys.Public Law 57 did affect: the degree of autocratic behavior exercised by the superintendent when working with boards and parents; the time spent by the superintendent when working with boards, administrators and parents; the control of outcomes by the superintendent when working with boards.Conclusions: (1) Public Law 162 had the greatest effect and Public Law 57 had the least effect upon the role of the superintendent. (2) No superintendent spent less time with any publics as a result of Public Law 162 and 217. (3) No superintendent spent less time working with administrators, parents, students, faculty and attorneys as a result of Public Law 57. (4) Public Law 217 had no effect upon the role of the superintendent in working with parents and students. (5) Public Law 57 had no effect upon the role of the superintendent in working with faculty and students. (6) The three laws had the greatest effect on the role of superintendents when working with boards and administrators and the least effect when working with students and parents. (7) The three laws required increased time expended by the superintendent. (8) The relationship most affected by Public Laws 162 and 217 was with administrators and the relationship most affected by Public Law 57 was with boards.3
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:BSU/oai:cardinalscholar.bsu.edu:handle/176399 |
| Date | January 1978 |
| Creators | Glancy, Perry Leon |
| Contributors | Marconnit, George D. |
| Source Sets | Ball State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Format | v, 123 leaves ; 28 cm. |
| Source | Virtual Press |
| Coverage | n-us-in |
Page generated in 0.2036 seconds