Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||Administrative Staff Development: An Assessment of Programs and Preferences in a Chicago Suburban District|
|Department / Program:||Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Abstract:||The primary purposes of this study were to: (1) describe the Administrative Effectiveness Program (AEP), a model for increasing both individual and group administrative effectiveness, (2) assess the extent of its implementation and effectiveness in its home district, and (3) explore general factors which positively affect administrative staff development.
The study was carried out through a combination of case study and survey procedures. Administrators in a Chicago suburban secondary school district were the subjects of the study. First, the AEP staff development model was described in detail, using program artifacts as the major source of information. Description of the model included: (1) nine basic goals which gave it direction, (2) ten prescribed activities which were designed to both achieve program goals and generally increase group and individual administrative effectiveness, and (3) a set of leadership responsibilities for planning and implementation of administrative effectiveness activities.
Results of eight survey instruments were used to assess degree of program implementation and effectiveness and to provide insights into general factors which positively influenced administrative staff development. Combined survey and case study data showed that major differences between the proposed and actual AEP were: (1) the lack of completion of prescribed AEP components by a considerable number of administrators, (2) the absence of a number of leadership activities which had been proposed, (3) rather unbalanced role group and building participation in staff development events, and (4) the development of several services which were not specifically proposed but became extensions of the learning program for administrators.
In general, AEP goals were highly valued, and administrators perceived that they were achieved to a moderate extent. All goals were valued to a greater extent than they were achieved. Program components designed to help administrators reach AEP goals were seen as moderately or slightly less effective in doing so. Personal value or usefulness of components was viewed similarly. Administrators were quite positive about the usefulness of other staff development activities supported through the AEP.
A number of improvements were suggested for the model, prior to its implementation in other settings. (1) The status of top level support for the program should be explored. If such support is lacking, it would be wise to cultivate it before proceeding with the program. (2) Communication about the program should be thorough and effective, highlighting expectations for participation, reasons for the program, its goals, proposed timelines, etc. (3) Responsibilities for monitoring completion of various components and phases of the program should be determined and communicated to those involved. (4) The groups responsible for planning and implementation of the program should be representative of the administrative roles which the program will affect. (5) Administrators who supervise other administrators should be more actively involved in a counseling/supervising role than what was apparent in the initial AEP. (6) Prescribed activities should be reviewed to determine which could best be carried out in supervised workshop settings where people would have planned time to complete them and also have access to both group and individual work. (7) The planning of additional activities such as voluntary seminars should take into account the factors which were found to have a positive impact on staff development success.
In general, both specific and broad conclusions of the study were compatible with themes which exist in the literature. While the AEP model differed from models and practices discussed in the literature, administrators' preferences and factors which were found to affect staff development success were quite similar.
Thesis (Educat.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1981.
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2014-12-12|