Expressed criteria for school principals : a Parsonian analysis
Creators: name: Bond, Arthur James Edward
Publisher: name: University of British Columbia
Year: 2010

description: This study addressed the problem of applying a suitable conceptual framework for the classification of criteria statements and the investigation of the nature and variation in parent and staff criteria lists for the principalship. All criteria statements were classified according to the framework of Talcott Parsons which was described and considered useful for the analysis of lists of criteria. The applicability of the framework as a bias for classification was dependent upon the recognition of four problematic factors. First, criteria which did not specify the contribution which the principal was to make could not be classified according to Parsons' framework. Statements which lacked specificity were grouped in an unclassified category. The second problematic factor pertained to the degree of specificity of criteria statements. Here, a criterion may imply the subsystem in which a contribution is to occur but it may not indicate whether it is to be designated exclusively as an internal or external contribution. The third problem which prohibited exclusive classification pertained to statements which made reference to contributions in more than one subsystem. The fourth problematic factor concerned classifier inference and Parsons' framework. Parsons recognized that power and influence (goal attainment and integration subsystems) are intertwined and the distinction between these contributions may be confused in criteria statements. In this instance or where a statement lacked specificity classification was dependent upon inferences made by the classifier. Predominant subsystems and patterns and variations in priority lists were examined according to all lists, school district area, authorship and authorship by area. The examination of all lists revealed that integrative criteria represented the greatest proportion of classifications at forty-two percent. Pattern-maintenance criteria represented the second largest group of classifications at twenty-two percent. Adaptation and goal attainment criteria represented the lowest percentage of classifications at sixteen percent each. Low standard deviation and percentage scores for external adaptation, external goal attainment and external pattern-maintenance subsystem classifications tended to represent a consensus among participants that activities within these subsystems are low priority contributions. Very few contributions, with the exception of external integration at twenty-one percent of all classifications, were recommended outside the school. As a result, sixty-five percent of all criteria classifications referred to internal contributions. Unclassified statements accounted for two and one-half percent of all classifications. The analysis of lists according to school district area, authorship and authorship by area reaffirmed the importance of integrative criteria and the low priority of external adaptation, external goal attainment and external pattern-maintenance. The analysis of lists according to authorship revealed that staff lists placed the highest priority on internal integration. This result was in contrast to parent lists which placed external integration criteria as a first priority. Parents placed a second priority on internal pattern-maintenance criteria (teaching, values of education) while staff lists placed internal pattern-maintenance as a fifth priority. On staff lists, internal pattern-maintenance was preceded by internal integration, internal adaptation, external integration, and internal goal attainment. These subsystems represent concerns for internal school harmony, resource responsibility allocation - skill in instruction, parental harmony and school discipline. The analysis by author and area demonstrated that internal integration for staff participants and external integration for parent participants occupied high positions regardless of the area in which they live or work. Area III staff participants followed this pattern but placed internal adaptation as a first priority. Across areas parent emphasis on internal pattern-maintenance was higher than the emphasis attributed by teachers. Other patterns, criteria and implications, are discussed.