A study of the relationship between teacher-prinicipal problem interaction and teacher evaluation of elementary principals in an urban school district in Georgia

摘要

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a relationship between teacher evaluation of elementary school principals on selected administrative areas of responsibility, teachersu27 ratings of these same principals on teacher-principal problem interaction, and teacher demographic variables in an urban county in Georgia.In this study, teachers evaluated principals on the following independent variables: decision making, planning and organizing, supervision and evaluation, staff development, high expectations, and teachersu27 age, qualification, sex and teaching experience. The dependent variables used in this study was teacher-principal problem interaction.The population for this study was restricted to elementary schools in an urban county school district in Georgia. It was further restricted to the elementary school principals being evaluated by their teachers for the 1986-87 school year. This sample consisted of 23 schools and 590 teachers.For this study, there were two instruments used. One of the instruments was the Profile for Assessment of Leadership (PAL) developed by DeKalb County, Georgia administrators and teachers in 1982. The other instrument entitled Leadership Problem Interaction Survey (LPIS) was developed by David J. Mullen (1980). Teachers rated their principals by answering fifty-seven questions on the Profile for Assessment of Leadership (PAL) and ten questions on the Leadership Problem Interaction Survey (LPIS). They also provided data on the LPIS on the demographic variables of age, qualification, sex, and teaching experience. Statistical analyses were conducted including a factor analysis correlation matrix and a multiple regression using Stepwise and Enter methods to test the hypotheses.The major findings are summarized below:1. There was a significant relationship between decision making, planning and organization, supervision and evaluation, staff development, and teacher-principal problem interaction.2. Age had a significant relationship with teacherprincipal problem interaction.3. Principalsu27 high expectations of teachers and students had the greatest impact on teacher-principal problem interaction.