The organizational pattern of the training progress in higher education and its administration and supervision are important factors in within 21st century in determining the nature of the education youth will receive and ensuring that leaders are prepared to meet the challenge. This study deals with the ways in which the principal administers his school and gives leadership to teachers through supervision, curriculum work, types of in-service professional study within 21st century. It is contended here that, to a large extent, the forward growth of modern practices in education will depend upon its leaders. The relationships of the secondary school to the elementary school and the college are from the standpoint of how they affect the secondary school. The scope of secondary education is considered as junior high school through junior college. Thus, school leaders are accountable for students’ success.
If our schools are to help youth understand, preserve, interpret, and improve the American way of life, then it obviously becomes essential that such schools reflect democracy in every aspect of their organization and program. Since we hold that the curriculum is the centre of the school and that all other functions must relate directly toward improving the learning experiences provided, we shall focus in this study upon the organization and administration of the school.
The crucial problem in school administration is that of leadership. Since its rapid growth late in the nineteenth century down to the present time, the American school has never fully reached the goal of being organized and administered democratically. True, many individual schools have been and are now operating democratically, but many schools past and present exemplify autocratic practices in operation. Why are so many schools throughout the nation still functioning more or less autocratically even today? Must leadership be nondemocratic in order to be efficient? Must the beginning teacher be prepared to find that his principal may talk democracy but practice little of it day by day?
Perhaps the answer to some of these questions lies in an examination of what democracy really means in modern school administration. Teachers and administrators may think that they understand the meaning of democracy; they often give lip service to many of its tenets and ideals, but still they fail to practice and live it in their daily relationships with pupils, colleagues, and community adults. A writer in school administration has recently emphasized the responsibility of the principal in developing a democratic school. He believes that the principal must posses a firm conviction that the ultimate purpose of the school is to build democratic characters in children, and that the quickest and most effective method is for him to devote his major concern to securing these characteristics in teachers. With this as a fundamental prerequisite, his further convictions must include an abiding faith in the democratic process and a willingness to follow consistently wherever it may lead (Yauch, 1999).
II. Literature Review
A. The Principles
Educational leadership is most democratic when it frees the creative talents of all who work in the school.
The most crucial aspect of democracy is that of establishing and maintaining desirable human relationships. The school principal has to work closely with his teachers, office staff, custodians, cooks, and maintaining personnel to help them reach their basic common goal of improving instruction for youth. He can do this best when he makes it possible for each person in his teaching and service staff to be free to make his unique contribution to the total educative process. Democratic administration, therefore, becomes a shared and sharing venture. When teachers and other personnel are free to make their own particular contributions and when they cooperate to improve their school—then administration is truly democratic. This concurrent blending of individual freedom and collective effort is the essence of democracy (Alexander, 2000).
There are many aspects of the administration of a modern school. Some of the more significant are the administration of the curriculum, the physical plant, pupil personnel, and faculty relationships. Human relations, the way people live and act one with the other, are at the very heart of all these administrative responsibilities. For example, changing the curriculum is basically a social process—that of changing people. In order to bring about desirable changes in the behavior of pupils and staff, the school administrator must practice good human relations. He can do this best by giving each person with whom he works the freedom and the motivation to make his own individual contribution to the welfare of the school.
Leadership is more effective when it is shared among the group.
The school principal is the administrative leader of his school as a result of an appointment and a delegation of responsibility from the superintendent of schools. The superintendent in turn has a legal responsibility directly to the board of education. Therefore, one might correctly assume that the school principal has direct “authority over” the teachers of “his school.” Legally this line and staff organization (borrowing a concept from the business and the army) still exists in American school administration. But this autocratic, or elite, concept is being challenged daily in our better schools (Melchor, 2001); administration based upon shared leadership is proving its worth in contributing more directly to the basic goals of a democratic society.
Leadership based upon delegated legal authority is called status leadership. The school principal is a status leader because of his legal or appointive position within the school system. As a status leader, he can improve human relations among the teachers, provide certain types of expertise, and promote and coordinate leadership within the faculty. While he cannot legally delegate his basic responsibility for administering his school, he may in practice permit his many leadership functions to be shared.
Shared leadership is based upon the democratic theory that the ultimate authority resides in the group, although it may be delegated when necessary. Thus in planning a Christmas program, the principal may temporarily relinquish the major leadership responsibility to the music teacher. The athletic director is largely responsible for all the details of the football games. Parent recreation nights may be delegated to a committee of teachers who are interested, experienced, and who work well with community adults. Leadership is thereby distributed among the total faculty and shared as situations arise in which different teachers have qualities of expertness to contribute. Such shared leadership may be highly efficient if the principal is an expert in dealing with people (Melchor, 2001)
All individuals affected by school policies or practices should share in their determination.
This principle is basic to the cooperative aspect of democratic school administration. It means that democratic verbalization and philosophy must be translated into democratic methods and practices. The school principal should not independently plan a curriculum, an assembly program, or even a change in daily schedule until basic policies have been determined by the group affected. If this principle were accepted fully, it would markedly change school practices. When it is necessary to make a change in the administration of the noon luncheon period, for example, pupils, teachers, parents, dietitians, cooks, and custodians, should all share directly in making the necessary decisions, if the change affects them. Curriculum change should be carefully planned by teachers, pupils, administrators, and community adults. In this way, common educational problems can best be solved through cooperative effort. Once the policy has been determined cooperatively, the status leader is the one to administer the policy to the best of his ability. However, if he finds it unworkable, he has an obligation to bring the matter before the group for clarification and revision.
The administration unit best adapted to democratic leadership and control is the single school faculty.
In very small cities and in all villages and reorganized school districts, the single school is naturally the one and only administrative school unit. But in cities having more than one school, the practice is increasing to have policies determined in the central administrative office for all schools within the system. This policy has resulted from an ever-increasing complexity of administrative details and pressures, as well as from false assumptions regarding efficiency. It has brought about a hopelessly undemocratic division between policy making and the carrying of the program into action. The basic responsibility for building a curriculum should be that of the individual faculty of a given school. This is essential of the curriculum is to be adapted to local and community needs, individual differences of pupils, and to the varying experiences and abilities of the local faculty.
The same factors pertain to all other administrative aspects of education. Democratic administration is based upon maximum individual participation in face-to-face relationships. The sharing of common experiences in a common school environment is highly conducive to understandings which lead to cooperative administration. Yauch emphasizes these points further:
“The single school, with an organically functioning faculty, provides the best hope for the achievement of these requisites to democratic action. It has its own identifiable community of people, institutions, and organizations. It has a unity of membership and common educational responsibility… In every aspect, the hope of true democratic action lies in dealing with the single school as an organic whole, interacting with other organic wholes, to make up the administrative unit of the school system” (Yauch, 1999).
Democratic school administration practices and extends techniques of group process.
Some of the principles given earlier illustrate the urgency of utilizing group action rather than individual dictation. Not only must schools avoid such elite leadership, but they need to learn how to synthesize the various individuals of the faculty into new kind of dynamic, interactive group. Effectively functioning groups reveal ample evidence that they are far more efficient than any other combination of individuals.
Any leader in the school, therefore—the principal, the guidance director, the teacher who is chairman if a committee—needs to be expert in techniques of group process and action. He needs to use these tools for general teachers’ meetings, for committee meetings, and for community meetings. When the teachers find such techniques valuable, they will employ them with their pupils in solving learning problems.
At the heart of the group action is the attempt of an interested group of individuals to identify a problem or problems which they are motivated to solve through cooperative effort.
The primary function of educational administration is the improvement of the learning process.
The school principal and faculty keep firmly in mind that the school is organized and functions primarily to promote pupil growth and learning. The curriculum should be the centre of the school. Unfortunately, however, many school administrators spend much of their time with problems of building maintenance, attendance, textbooks, schedules, and the like. These matters are all important, but most of them are mechanical and can be routinized. They exist only to promote the curriculum of the school and should never become ends in themselves (Douglass, 2004). The modern school principal expends his major time and effort in giving leadership toward improving the instructional program for youth. All other functions are secondary.
Supervision should be a democratic process for the improvement of instruction.
Supervision is an aspect of administration and therefore must serve to help bring about desirable changes in the behavior of secondary school youth. In small schools, there will frequently be no direct supervision other than that nominally given by the principal or superintendent. In large city school systems, however, the beginning teacher may find himself supervised by his principal, assistant principal, department head, and central office supervisor.
The trend in modern supervision is to provide friendly and helpful consultive service to teachers when they want and seek it. The old-fashioned supervisor who dropped into classrooms unexpectedly to rate teachers is fortunately disappearing rather rapidly. The modern supervisor may await a classroom call or at least announce his coming in advance. He has met the teacher previously and usually asks permission to visit the class. Some supervisors never visit classes in the in the older sense of the word, but drop in to talk to the teacher when he has a free period. Other supervisors consider themselves consultants or resource persons who are ready to help teachers whenever their assistance is requested. Some supervisors render most of their services to teachers through community work.
Modern schools, therefore, are improving their learning programs through democratizing supervision. A beginning teacher in such a modern school should welcome and not fear supervision, since it is provided to help him become a more effective teacher. Such a plan recognizes the uniqueness and special talents of each teacher; it attempts to encourage and develop these individual teaching abilities rather than to make all conform to a common, stereotyped standard. Such supervision will assist the building of a more vital educational program in a modern school.
B. Some Typical Practices
When we look at some schools—let’s say high schools—today, we do not find many of the forgoing administrative principles functioning. Conditions of course vary from school to school, but American education on the whole has not been characterized by democratic leadership of its educational program. Within the past two decades, secondary education has been brought to a large majority of American youth, although economic barriers to this education still exist and are a serious factor in eliminating many able young people. Legally and externally, American secondary education is democratic; yet in its organization and administration it frequently fails to meet the ideals which a free people expect from their schools.
Evidence of the lack of democracy in American secondary schools may be found in the slowness with which they have improved their instructional program, their inability to hold a larger percentage of youth through graduation, the unrealistic number of pupils guided into the professions, the dominance of college preparation, and the slowness in development of community schools.
These problems result in part from a lack of leadership by the administrators of our public high schools. It should be recognized that they are not entirely responsible. Public apathy, inadequate financial support, poorly educated teachers, college domination, and teacher inertia, all are contributing factors. But school administrators have the major responsibility and the authority to overcome most of these factors impeding educational improvement (Melchor, 2001). Their very position as administrators confirms their leadership responsibility to a society which has faith in education to improve democratic living. The type of training given secondary school administrators by colleges of education has been an important factor in this situation.
The High School Principal at Work—Townville Junior-Senior High School has an enrollment of 250 pupils. It is Friday at 9:15 A.M. and the student only marches into the auditorium under the watchful eyes of the faculty. They find seats quietly as the principal comes to the centre of the stage—alone. Whispering and giggling cease as he stands waiting attention. He then gives a series of announcements, explains schedule changes and calls attention to violation of rules. He eventually gives over the platform to the music teacher for group singing. This is regular weekly routine in this school, varied by occasional seasonal pep sessions, band music, athletic awards, and guest speakers. But always the principal presides.
Rural Union High School is a four-year secondary school with only sixty-five pupils, seven miles from the county seat. There are three full-time teachers, and the superintendent teaches three classes and acts as principal. He must also be responsible for four elementary teachers, coach all athletics, and advise the senior class. The many problems of a lunchroom, building repairs, equipment and supplies, operating five school buses, and planning the budget are among his general administrative duties. Miss Jones, the new inexperienced English and social studies teacher, is handed a state-required course of study at the first teacher’s meeting in September and is told by the principal-superintendent to “follow it in every detail.” Subsequent meetings discuss certificates, discipline, textbook accounting, the Christmas program, salaries, county tests, and the proposed new gymnasium (Wiles, 2000). Miss Jones is visited twice for a few minutes during the year by the superintendent, but she is not assisted with her problems nor does the superintendent actually know what she is doing. In early May, the superintendent regretfully tells her that the board of education is not renewing her contract because of “persistent discipline problems.”
The two schools described briefly illustrate the lack of sound principles of democratic educational leadership. The criterion of good administration is the degree to which the principal secures cooperative efforts in improving learning. In applying this criterion to the sample of administrative practices revealed by the two principals above, the appraisal seems fairly clear. The Townville High School principal, in the very brief picture given, apparently operated upon the elite concept of leadership. He seemed to make most of the decisions, and he personally saw that each was executed. Pupils apparently carried out orders. One wonders if there are not both frustration and aggression among faculty and pupils. As students of education, we might well ask what happens in this high school when the principal is absent. This example illustrates, in part, autocratic or dictatorial administration. From the sketchy picture given, we have little direct evidence of the principal’s role in curriculum improvement. But from his handling of the assembly program, we might assume that he permits little shared leadership in instructional procedures (Wiles, 2000).
The principal-superintendent of Rural High School represents, in some respects, the opposite extreme in administration, that of laissez faire. He is so busy with the mechanical and routine details of “running a school” that he has practically no time to help teachers cooperatively improve the educational program of the school. He gives them plenty of freedom, but little encouragement or assistance. He assumes that state-prescribed courses of study will serve all the pupils of his school; when problems of discipline result, he holds the teacher responsible. His administrative philosophy is not clear-cut; it is a mixture of both unlimited freedom and dictatorial practices, with each reflecting his over concern for mechanical detail. This statement can well summarize one type of secondary school administration prevalent today: a conflicting welter of opposing ideals resulting form pressure and expediency.
Improvement of Instruction Subordinated to Mechanical Details— The generalization made just above merits further consideration, for it explains so many administrative practices in secondary schools today. If any one statement can be documented and demonstrated, it is that many high school principals still spend an excessive amount of time in administering various mechanical and routine details. These principals are so busy with absence slips, basketball schedules, assembly programs, honor rolls, discipline violations, attendance records, service club programs, reports, and the like, that they have little time or energy left for working directly with pupils, parents, and teachers to improve the curriculum and instruction. One reason is that the administrative activities are immediate concerns that cannot be safely neglected; the improvement if the curriculum is a long-range activity often with no apparent pressures demanding that it be done.
There are other reasons for this prevailing condition. One must recognize the fact that a large majority of communities fail to provide anything approaching adequate clerical and secretarial assistance for their schools. If a report is to be ready for the superintendent or state department, the principal must in many cases tabulate the data and type it personally. This is an example of penny economy operating the superintendent usually functions as the principal (Alexander, 2000). In small high schools, the superintendent usually functions as the principal. In such high schools, the principal is a designated full-time teacher who keeps certain records and may have a few other similar routine administrative duties. Any consistent leadership in curriculum improvement is consequently difficult if not impossible.
These valid conditions and pressure explain much administrative neglect of curriculum improvement, but not all of it by any means. There are many high schools, both large and small, where fairly adequate clerical assistance is available and the principal either does not have a heavy teaching load or does no teaching. Why, then, the persistent neglect of the instructional program? The reasons, we believe, are these:
Many principals find greater security in mechanical details than in curriculum development.
They are psychologically unwilling or unable to delegate these routine duties to others.
They lack adequate training and experience in coordinating a curriculum improvement program for their schools.
They sincerely believe that a well-administered school is one that runs like clockwork.
They do not know how much to assist teachers with instructional problems.
Such activities as attention to routine details are less time consuming.
They can “get by” without attention to instruction—not so with respect to other responsibilities.
The concept of educational leadership held by the high school principal will largely determine whether he submerges himself in administrative details or gives major time and energy to help coordinate a functional modern curriculum for the school. It is sufficient to point out that in the past the education of high school administrators often emphasized the mechanistic aspects of the school. Courses in general and secondary school administration glorified the role of the efficient high school principal. Educational psychology, philosophy of education, curriculum courses, and the more mechanical and purely administrative details predominated over the more vital aspects of improving the curriculum. Hence, when principals began their work, they were predisposed toward relatively routine administration. Fortunately this picture is slowly changing, and many graduate schools of education now offer a more balanced program for the education of secondary administrators. In some states, however, requirements for state administrative certificates still emphasize courses in school administration.
Many Administrative Functions of Secondary School Principals. — The beginning teacher will often find his principal having many additional responsibilities in the operation of a modern high school. The major responsibility of his leadership is that of putting basic school policies into effect. In addition to implementing curriculum policies, he must see that policies affecting building and grounds, use of library and other facilities, athletic program, distribution of textbooks, faculty committees, publications and dramatics, and the like, are carried effectively. The principal serves as the direct official representative of the superintendent in all except very small high schools. Although democracy and autonomy should reside in each high school faculty unit, beginning teachers must recognize that in the typical situation many decisions are made by the superintendent and passed down the line as policy for the principal and faculty. The principal may act as official school and faculty representative to the community medium-sized and large high schools. He often represents the high school officially in P.T.A. activities, service clubs, youth-serving agencies, and system-wide administrative meetings.
Responsibilities of Additional High School Administrative Staff. — The typical high school of 100 to 250 enrollment will have a principal who teaches part time. In addition, he has many administrative duties and little assistance, although he may have one teacher who gives limited time to counseling, another to visual education, athletics, clubs, and the like.
In large city high schools ranging from 800 to 3,000 pupils, the administrative organization will be rather complex. An assistant or vice principal is the rule; sometimes more than one may be found. The assistant principal usually has responsibility for discipline, attendance, and daily schedules. He may also serve as the guidance coordinator. Some schools call their counselors deans of boys and girls, although these titles are slowly disappearing. Large schools frequently have permanent department heads who may perform some administrative functions. They coordinate instruction, represent their department at meetings, requisition supplies, and possibly supervise instruction. Directors of guidance, audio-visual aids, music, dramatics, athletics, health, and art may also have numerous administrative duties.
The Teacher’s Administrative Responsibilities. — There are three broad areas in which the teacher may expect to carry on certain administrative duties and responsibilities. First, within his own homeroom or classroom he is expected to keep attendance records; to record grades, marks, test scores; and to write pupil reports to parents. He must coordinate school drives and campaigns among his pupils. He will have to order, account for, and distributive supplies, equipment, and textbooks.
Another responsibility of the classroom teacher is to serve on certain schoolwide administrative committees. These committees may be primarily service agencies, but they often perform administrative functions as well (Alexander, 2000). Typical committees commonly found in medium-sized and large high schools include those which help administer the lunchroom, assemblies, athletics, musical organizations, library, ticket sales, and the like.
Teacher Participation in Formulating Administrative Policies.— A recent study pf teacher participation in the determination of administrative policies in a sample of thirty-two smaller Minnesota high schools reveal a number of interesting conditions. Approximately 81 percent of the teachers in the study reported that they helped determine the content of individual courses of study in the curriculum. In only seven other functions out of fifty-eight listed did a majority of the teachers feel that they participated directly. This study reported teacher participation in policy formulation independent of administrators in determining policies in any one of the fifty-eight functions studied. Administrative areas in which most cooperative policy formulation was reported were in community relations, use of buildings and equipment, school control, reports, and records. Areas in which relatively little cooperative participation was found included faculty administration and school finance (Douglass, 2004). Principals consistently reported more teacher participation in formulating administrative polices than teachers reported for the same schools.
One nationwide study revealed that in only the following four administrative activities did as many as 50 percent of the teachers responding share democratically:
Evaluating pupil progress
Preparing daily programs
Building and evaluating courses study
Pupil Participation in Organization and Administration of Secondary Schools.—The extent and degree of pupil activity in various aspects of organization and administration varies markedly from school to school. Frequently, they have no voice in helping plan the curriculum nor in carrying out learning activities. In other cases they may be full participants in every phase of the learning process. In many schools, pupils have a responsibility in determining many school policies and practices through student councils. However, in too few have they been delegated real responsibility (Alexander, 2000).
It is common practice in many high schools, regardless of size, for pupils to do responsible work in offices, libraries, lunchrooms, gymnasiums, and in custodial jobs. Hall traffic, safety, discipline, clubs, and publications are frequently pupil-sponsored and administered (Douglass, 2004).
C. Practices in the Better Elementary and Secondary Schools
Although democratic administration is an ideal difficult to achieve, many schools follow democratic practices in some areas organization and administration. Some modern schools are following democratic administrative practices in the total operation of their institutions. We shall present some of these outstanding practices found in better elementary and secondary schools today.
A Pattern for Cooperative Planning.— In the Drury High School, North Adams, Massachusetts, the principal uses the following plan as a basis for democratic, faculty-administrative school planning:
Each teacher states one or more problems that he believes should be solved before Drury may become maximally effective.
A committee of teachers with the principal plans a program of problems to be worked upon and arranges to have every one of the faculty assigned to a problem of his choice.
The committees on different problems meet and elect chairmen.
The committee chairmen meet from time to time with the principal.
The principal meets from time to time with the committees, especially when his services are needed and requested.
Each committee defines its problem, reads the best literature on the subject, and brings in parents, pupils, administrators, and other teachers, if help may thus be secured in solving the problems. A report showing progress is given to the entire faculty from time to time, for the purpose of keeping the faculty informed and to secure its help and cooperation. After a satisfactory solution is agreed upon, the proposal in written form is presented to the faculty for criticism and adoption.
Committees meet at 8:00-9:00 A.M. on Fridays.
The school helps to provide the necessary books and references needed.
Faculty meetings are arranged for the purpose of considering committee reports.
Preschool Planning.— For the past few years, the Minneapolis public schools have held a week’s planning and orientation program prior to the opening of school. All elementary and secondary school teachers report for work a full week in advance of the pupils’ return and engage in an intensive program of planning and preparation for the year’s work. All principals, in turn, begin working one week before the teachers.
The program for the week is planned cooperatively by teachers and administrators. It has included in the past a general meeting of the total teaching personnel at which the superintendent of schools and chairman of the Citizens Committee on Public Education were principal speakers. Such a meeting has been followed by citywide workshops in which elementary and high school teachers jointly explored critical and crucial educational problems and issues. Both local and outside specialists served as discussion leaders and consultants. Teachers, principals, and central office staff members met and discussed common problems in these workshop sessions. Following the workshops, individual high schools held meetings in which they formulate plans and policies. Departmental and committee meetings rounded out the week’s activities. Such cooperative preschool planning has proved its value in improving the organization, administration, and curriculum of the city’s schools (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005).
Many high schools across the nation are holding similar preschool planning periods. Some, as in Minneapolis, extend for a week’s duration. A majority operate for only one, two, or three days. These usually serve general orientation functions, especially for new staff members; inspirational purposes; explanation of school routine; and general and special planning. Frequently, outside specialists and consultants from higher educational institutions, state departments, and publishing and supply agencies participate. Occasionally, the total staff—both secondary and elementary—concentrates upon a single workshop problem, such as guidance or marking (Caswell, 2006).
Helpful Supervisory Assistance Available.— Although the beginning teacher will find little supervisory help in some schools, in others he will receive helpful, sympathetic assistance. The supervisory policies and the services available to all teachers in the better situations are these:
1. The teachers and the principal develop together policies for the instructional program; the process in itself gives the principal many opportunities for helpful supervision.
2. Supervision is a process of working with teachers where there is committee work in curriculum problems, in-service courses, summer workshops, and other forms of cooperative work.
3. In this kind of cooperative work, the principal finds many opportunities to visit teachers’ classrooms, hold conferences with them, and serve as a consultant to ongoing projects.
4. In large school systems, the supervisors for the system are made available as consultants to such groups.
5. The principal makes use of the abilities represented in his staff to help other teachers. Thus, a teacher with special education in reading will assist English teachers with the improvement of reading; a guidance director will work with teachers in improving guidance in the classroom and homeroom; a teacher with special training in child and adolescent development will serve as chairman or consultant to curriculum study concerned with this area.
6. Good human relations are the fundamental basis for supervision in such secondary and elementary schools, for it is realized that people must gain the confidence and respect of others before they can help others.
The Group Process in leadership.— Good group procedures are evident in the above description of practices which involve cooperative work. Leadership, whether by the principal, vice principal, committee chairman, or department head, makes wise use of group dynamics in an increasing number of elementary and secondary schools. Good leaders have the group participate in defining its problems, as the policy of the Drury High School illustrates. Principals plan with the faculty how they should tackle their problem and set up a situation in which there are groups small enough for study and action. Gone are the days when most teachers accepted with docility the type of faculty meeting where the leader spends half of time in announcements. More principals are using staff meetings to work on curriculum problems. A few schools make use of the observer in group meetings to facilitate the work that is to be done (Wiles, 2000). But, most important, the principal or superintendent makes it a point to see that he helps carry out the action decided upon by the group.
As a conclusion, throughout this study it indicated many ways in which the administrative leadership of secondary and elementary can be improved to help the students achieve their success in terms of their education. This study emphasized that educational leadership must be democratic, but that it need not to be inefficient. Teachers and pupils need to participate actively in many aspects of administration. The training will prepare the educators to face any challenges they may face in 21st century.
1. Alexander, William (2000). Secondary Education: Basic Principles and Practices. An excellent overview of the purposes, agencies, and processes involved in administering the modern high school, together with illustrative practices.
2. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2005). Group Processes in Supervision. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Valuable for its outstanding discussions of the characteristics of a democratic school and of group processes, with a great number of accounts of group processes in action.
3. Caswell, Hollis L (ed.) (2006). The American Elementary and High Schools. (Tenth yearbook of the John Dewey Society.) New York: Harper & Bros.—Deals with the organization and administration of secondary and elementary schools. It is a lucid presentation of the democratic approach to supervision and administrative leadership emphasizing guidance and curriculum improvement.
4. Douglass, Harl R. (ed.) (2004). Education for Life Adjustment. New York: The Ronal Press Co. — A discussion of how faculties work together for in-service growth.
5. Melchor, William T. (2001). Instructional Supervision. Boston: D.C. Health & Co. — The many concrete illustrations of supervision in practice should be of interest to the beginning teacher. These illustrations show how the teacher can work cooperatively with other teachers, principals, parents, and pupils.
6. Wiles, Kimball (2000). Supervision for Better Schools. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.—The whole book can be read profitably by pre-service teachers. The stress placed on human relations, leadership, the group process, staff morale, and staff meetings should make the book a helpful one to teachers.
7. Yauch, Wilbur A. (ed.) (1999). Improving Human Relations in School Administration, New York: Harper & Bros.—Valuable for its presentation of the concept of democracy in school administration. Although written for elementary school principals, many principles and practices are applicable to the secondary school.