|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 6issue 6series Year mods:caption 19981998Month March3Day 11mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1998-03-01
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19989999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00097
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 6, no. 6 (March 01, 1998).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c March 01, 1998
School improvement policy : have administrative functions of principals changed in schools where site-based management is practiced? / C. Kenneth Tanner [and] Cheryl D. Stone.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
1 of 23 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 6 Number 6March 1, 1998ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Edit or: Gene V Glass Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Education Ari zona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 199 8, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold. School Improvement Policy: Have Administrative Functions of Principals Changed in Schools Where Site-Based Management is Practiced ? C. Kenneth Tanner The University of Georgia Cheryl D. Stone M. G. Barksdale Elementary School Conyers, GAAbstract Have administrative functions of principals change d in schools practicing site-based management (SBM) with shared governance? To deal with this issue we employed the Delphi technique and a panel of 24 exp erts from 14 states. The experts, which included educational specialists, researchers writers, and elementary school principals, agreed that the implementation of SBM d ramatically influences the roles of the principal in management/administration and lead ership. Data revealed that the elementary principal's leadership role requires spe cialized skills to support shared governance, making it necessary to form professiona l development programs that adapt to innovations evolving from the implementation of SBM. Introduction Americans have begun rethinking and redesigning th e most fundamental aspects of the way we run our schools--a process known as restructuring" or "systematic reform" (Fiske, 1995). One of the most widely used approaches to encourage school improvement through this reform effort is site-base d management (SBM). Ideally, SBM policy moves control and decision making from the c entral office to the local building level. SBM with shared governance represents a major chan ge in the process used to resolve problems. Ideally, instead of problems bein g resolved from a central location by
2 of 23a staff not directly involved, the local school com munity settles dilemmas (Caldwell & Wood, 1992). Moving decision-making authority to th e building level affords parents, teachers, and students the opportunity to have an a ctive voice in decisions made at the school level. We are, in effect, "creating ownershi p for those responsible for carrying out decisions by involving them directly in the decisio n-making process -and by trusting their abilities and judgments" (Harrison, Killion, & Mitchell, 1989, p. 55). As a result, increased autonomy of the school staff to make deci sions at its facility is the expectation. With the expectation of change in the principalship and the demand for the principal to maintain a high level of performance, Wohlstetter a nd Odden (1992) assert that it is necessary to establish a clear definition of the ro le of principals. "Although site-based management appears in many gu ises, at its core is the idea of participatory decision-making at the school site (David, 1996, p. 6). Inherent in SBM is the expectation that the role of the principal w ill change. In particular, those people nearest to the problems, issues, and situations are included in the decision-making process (Goodman, 1994). Critical to the effectiven ess of restructuring is the encouragement of teachers to participate in problem solving and decision making (Thurston, Clift, & Schacht, 1993). This job is the major responsibility of the principal, and the key individual identified as instrumental i n determining the success of schools is the principal (Krug, 1993).Background for the Study In analyzing the emerging role of the principal in the 1990s, Hallinger, Bickman, and David, (1990) concluded that the leadership of the principal is an intricate, context-dependent set of behaviors and processes. T he larger, prevailing context is change, and change in the role of the principal is essential to any reform that is to be both quick and lasting (Carlin, 1992). Daniels (199 0) in discussing his leadership role in SBM stated that While the principal ultimately remains accountable for what happens at the school level, the school's steering committee plays an active role in nearly all decisions made . I gave up veto power in an effort to gain the trust and commitment of the staff. (p. 23) Findings reported by Wohlstetter and Briggs (1994) from their study of 25 elementary and middle schools in 11 school district s in the U.S., Canada, and Australia underscore the status of the role of the principal changing from being the primary decision maker to one of empowering others. Further Wohlstetter and Briggs found that the most effective principals involved in SBM made available four critical resources to teachers and community members: power, knowledge an d skills training, information, and rewards. As a result of the investigation by Ar onstein and DeBenedictis (1991), four basic processes of what administrators do when they manage SBM schools surfaced: Principals are to work collaboratively with staff m embers to analyze problems, set need priorities, resolve issues, and use group dynamics skills. In the early, developmental stages of SBM, Lindelo w (1981) suggested that in the implementation of school-based management, the jobs and functions of the principal would change from those of middle manager for the d istrict to the leader of the school. Over a decade later Wohlstetter (1995) acknowledged that The schools where SBM worked had principals who pla yed a key role in dispersing power, in promoting a school wide commit ment to learning, in
3 of 23expecting all teachers to participate in the work o f the school, in collecting information about student learning, and in distribu ting rewards. (p. 24) Principals have moved from middle managers to leade rs at the school site. Principals in Goldman's (1991) study indicated that their primary role in SBM became one of supporting people and being the advocate for their work. Talking to others and coaching and looking for opportunities to positivel y interact become the everyday expectations of the principal's job. Even though research provides insight into the eme rging role of the principal in the 1990s, Drury (1993) states: "it appears that th e traditional role of the building principal is in a state of transformation, but that the ultimate result remains to be seen" (p. 19). To increase the likelihood that schools ca rrying out SBM are effective, the necessity to clarify the roles of the principal has surfaced (Gleason, Donohue, & Leader, 1996; Guskey & Peterson, 1996). Three themes emerged from the literature as basis for this study: The establishment of the administrative roles of th e individual who occupies the position of school building principal is a controve rsial issue that is pervasive in the educational community (Blase, 1987; Stephens, 1 987). 1. A new form of leadership is necessary to effectivel y support the processes involved in the implementation of school-based mana gement at the site level (Doud, 1989; Vann, 1996; Wohlstetter & Briggs, 1994 ). 2. "The key role change [in SBM] is the principal's sh ift from topdown manager to a supporter and facilitator who maintains his or he r leadership responsibilities" (Spilman, 1996, p. 36). "Teacher involvement in cer tain kinds of decisions can be mutually enhancing: it returns to teachers the powe r to govern their own professional affairs, and teachers, in turn, empowe r administrators to make decisions that enhance the organization's goals" (C onway & Calzi, 1996, p. 49). 3. Purpose of the Study With the policy trend toward the use of SBM influe ncing school operations, the purpose of this study was to detect changes in sele cted administrative functions (leadership, decision making, and management) of th e principalship. Another purpose was to discover the components of a job profile for elementary school principals working under SBM with shared governance. To this e nd, a sample of practitioners and educational researchers participating in various as pects of SBM was polled through the Delphi method.Research Questions Based on the aim of this study, the following resea rch questions were generated as a guide: What changes have occurred in the principal's role with respect to management and administration after the implementation of SBM? 1. What changes have occurred in the elementary princi pal's role with respect to leadership after the implementation of SBM? 2. What are the primary management and administrative tasks of the elementary principal in SBM? 3. What are the primary leadership tasks of the elemen tary principal in SBM? 4.
4 of 23How does the implementing of SBM policy alter the r ole of the elementary principal in the decision-making process? 5. Value of The Study In the past, the organizational structure within s chool districts has supported the strategy of exerting control over the operations an d personnel at the local school from a central office. One prevalent plan to decentralize the organizational management system is the implementation of SBM. However, documentatio n of the roles and primary tasks of the elementary school administrator participatin g in SBM with shared governance has not been completed. Building level administrators w orking in SBM need basic guidance in planning for professional and personal growth. T he results of this study are expected to be of value in training programs, establishment of evaluation guidelines, and identification of leadership skills for educational administrators. During the transition to school-based management, many principals may be asked to assume responsibilities for which they are unpre pared or for which their preparation has become dated. Therefore, development of the job description and principal selection criteria for principals in SBM schools are crucial. The primary functions of the principal in SBM identified in this study may be beneficial t o school systems requiring the performance of specific roles and tasks of principa ls. As a result, applicants and job criteria may be more effectively matched.Method The need to clarify the roles of the principal pro vided a sound basis to select a method of inquiry involving consensus building. Con sequently, the Delphi technique was selected. We assumed that people who do the wor k should be involved in defining roles of their jobs. "Ultimately, it will be the pe ople who carry out site-based management that determine what it is--and can becom e" (David, 1996, p. 9). To reach the goal of clarifying the principal's ro le, the study focused on discovering the functions most often performed by p rincipals in schools operating under SBM policy. Emphasis was placed on narrowing and re fining responses of the selected expert panel to a consensus of opinion (Putnam, Spi egel, & Bruininks, 1995; Tanner & Williams, 1981).The Delphi Technique Early Delphi studies originated at The Rand Corpor ation with Olaf Helmer (1967) and his colleagues. These studies involved a systematic method of eliciting expert opinion on a variety of topics with a focus on scientific and technological forecasting (Sackman, 1974). Putnam, Spiegel, and B ruininks (1995) described Delphi as a process to determine opinions or judgments of a group of people. "Delphi may be characterized as a method for structuring a group c ommunication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individ uals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem" (Linstone & Turoff, 1975, p. 3).Cycle I Uhl (1983) asserted that in the traditional Delphi study panel members are given the opportunity to provide responses to unstructure d questions. The panel members in Cycle I were asked to respond to a query soliciting their perceptions regarding the job of
5 of 23the elementary principal involved in SBM (Table 1). No background information or definitions of SBM were included with the questionn aire to avoid influencing the opinions of the participants. Table 1 Cycle 1: The impact of SBM on the roles of elementa ry school administrators Please respond to the open-ended questions below: L ist item statements that define the roles of the elementary principal whose school is involved with SBM with shared governance. Include any additional comments for other areas that would provide for a more comprehensive P rofile of the Elementary School Principal.I. How has your job changed in carrying out site-ba sed management with respect to? Administration Management Leadership Other II What are the elementary school principal's prima ry tasks in? Administration Management Leadership Other Survey Instruments In order to guarantee that the Delphi statements re flected the panelists' intent, a semantic analysis was conducted on the written repl ies. To begin the analysis, two individuals were named coders. They had the respons ibility to develop sets of responses similar to those of the expert panel members. Durin g the first step in the semantic content analysis process, each written statement wa s recorded on an index card. Next, index cards were categorized into sets of responses with each set representing one content idea. The last step consisted of formulatin g one Delphi item statement to represent each set of responses.Criteria for Consensus Criteria for convergence of opinion was establishe d before the study. In determining whether convergence of opinion was reac hed between cycles, the following criteria were established: (1) At least 60% of the responders must be in agree ment (Skutsch, & Schofer, 1975).(2) There is no significant change (p < .01) in vie ws between Cycles, indicating that stability has been reached (Linston e & Turoff, 1975). Panel Selection Criteria and Process The national panel of experts consisted of two sub sets: 12 school principals in
6 of 23elementary schools that had worked in SBM for at le ast three years, and 12 professionals (authors, researchers, professors, consultants, and administrators) who had attained national, regional, or local recognition as knowled geable educators in the area of SBM. This second category was identified in the study as specialists. Efforts were made to eliminate potential researche r bias by devising a nomination process for selecting expert panel members. First, an extensive review of the SBM literature published in 1988-1995 was performed. Fr om this a pool of prominent educators, school districts, and organizations invo lved in SBM was compiled. Members of this pool were contacted to nominate potential p anel members. Each member of the pool was contacted by telephone and given the opportunity to nominate an expert panel member. Expert panel me mbers were to satisfy one of the following criteria: (a) persons who had written abo ut SBM from field experience or university settings and had been published in a nat ionally distributed journal within the last five years, (b) individuals whose schools had been identified in a nationally distributed journal because of participation in SBM (c) investigators who had done studies related to SBM, (d) persons who had conduct ed training and coordinated programs related to SBM for national, regional, or local organizations, (e) educators who had received recognition in a nationally distribute d journal, (f) individuals who had held positions with a national, regional, or local organ ization or a higher learning institution involved in the implementation, research, teaching, or training in relation to SBM, and (g) principals who had held a position in an elemen tary school implementing SBM for at least three years. Principals assigned to SBM schoo ls, but who lacked three years' experience as an administrator carrying out SBM, we re excluded from this study. Each nominee was contacted by telephone and asked to participate in the national expert panel for this study. During the telephone d iscourse, the purpose and significance of the study, the time frame, criteria for expert p anel consideration, and the responsibility of participants were explained. Each person was assured anonymity. Special effort was made to have participation of a representative expert in as many different regions of the United States as possible. Calls were stopped when 12 specialists and 12 elementary school principals agreed to be me mbers of the panel of experts. A biographical account of the selected panelists is p rovided in the Appendix. Letters to confirm each panel member's participation were sent with the Cycle I questionnaire. Presentation and Analysis of DataCycle I The initial mailing included a cover letter, the q uestionnaire (Table 1) with detailed directions for its completion, and a stamp ed returnaddressed envelope (N = 24). The phrasing of question one in the Cycle I in strument for principals was different from the same query for specialists. Principals wer e asked about changes in their job in SBM with respect to administration, management, and leadership in question one. Specialists were asked about changes in the element ary school principalship in SBM with respect to these same three areas. After four weeks, non-respondents were contacted b y telephone to encourage return of the Cycle I instrument. A follow-up postc ard was sent to confirm the telephone contact. By the end of September, 22 of the 24 expe rts had returned their completed instrument. The two nonrespondents changed occupa tional positions, and neither responded. A total of 513 responses were received, 140 of whi ch addressed change in
7 of 23management and administration. Sixty-four (64) writ ten responses cited changes in the elementary principal's roles with respect to leader ship. There were 188 panel statements regarding the primary tasks of principals in the ar ea of management and administration, while 121 statements related to the primary tasks o f the principal in the area of leadership. The semantic content analysis conducted on these data resulted in the formulation of 57 Delphi item statements for the Cy cle II survey instrument. Cycles II and III A "bogus statement" was inserted as item and a dis torted group answer was reported for this item. The purpose of the "bogus s tatement" was to assess the ability of the survey instruments to withstand manipulation by the researchers (Cyphert & Gant, 1971). The survey instrument consisted of 58 Delphi item statements. In Cycle I, a majority of the respondents commented that administ rative and management tasks of the elementary principal are too similar and tend to ov erlap. Panelists suggested that these two categories be combined in succeeding cycles. Th is suggestion was followed. An external review panel was utilized to confirm t he proper formulation of the Delphi statements prepared for the Cycle II instrum ent as suggested by Linstone and Turoff (1975). The review panel consisted of ten ed ucators. Four members were teaching in a school implementing SBM. They were as ked to review the survey item statements for content validity by making a compari son to the original responses received form the expert panel in Cycle I. The othe r six reviewers, at another location, were asked to examine the final survey instrument f or clarity. Reviewers were asked to report the length of compl etion time. This information was included in the cover letter to the expert pane l members. Suggestions and comments from both review groups were used in construction o f the Cycle II survey instrument. The Cycle II survey instrument was developed in Oc tober 1995 (See Table 2 for the 58 statements). A packet including the survey i nstrument, cover letter, and return envelope was mailed to the remaining 22 members in the first week of November 1995. A fax number was included for the convenience of pa nel members who wanted to return the survey electronically. For identification purposes, each panel member's n ame was entered at the top of the instrument. Detailed instructions were also inc luded on the first page. Each responder was asked to indicate his or her level of agreement with each statement on the following scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2 ), Agree (3), and Strongly Agree (4). At the end of November, non-respondents were contac ted by telephone and encouraged to return the Cycle II instrument. Postcards were s ent to confirm the telephone conversations. By the first week of December, 21 of the 22 panel members had returned their Cycle II Delphi survey form. The final respondent's survey instrument for Cycle II was not received until the first week in January, which was too late to be included in the Cycle II data tabulation. This panel member was dro pped from the study. In Cycle III, the mode for each Delphi item in Cyc le II was reported to the panel. Before providing responses to Cycle III statements, each panel member saw the group mode and his or her response per item to Cycle II. With this information in mind, each person was asked to consider a new response in ligh t of the modal response or state a reason for not changing the Cycle II response. When the mode for each Delphi item is presented in the findings of this study, it is reported as the most frequently selected numeric al scale value. For the "bogus item," number 44, the highest frequency (15) scored by the experts was a scale value of "3"
8 of 23(agree). To find out if the distortion of data by t he researcher would be rejected by the panel, the "bogus item" was reported as a scale val ue of "1" (strongly disagree). Cycle III was mailed to 21 participants, and 21 su rveys were returned. Several statistical procedures were performed on the data o btained from Cycles II and III. The major objective was to determine consensus. Table 2, reveals the mode, reported by item, and t he highest number and percentage of respondents in agreement after Cycle III. Agreement was reached on 51 out of 58 (87.9%) Delphi item statements. A total o f 19 experts were in agreement (90.5%) on two items (40 and 52). (For purposes of verification or reanalysis, the entire data set from this study is available for downloadi ng here in either ASCII or Excel Spreadsheet format.Table 2 Responses to Cycle III (n = 21)Experts in Agreement ItemModen % Changes With Respect to Management/Administration1. The principal makes fewer unilateral decisions41 676.2 2. The principal has an expanded role in administ ration31361.9 3. Time management is more crucial because of the i ncreased responsibility regarding the orchestrating of share d decisionmaking 41781.0 4. Instead of the principal being singularly respon sible for the attainment of the school's goals, all collaborating parties sh are this responsibility. 41885.7 5. There is an increased responsibility for the pri ncipal to build consensus among constituencies. 41676.2 6. The principal delegates more responsibility as a result of having to spend more time involved in a broader array of deci sions. 31466.7 7. The principal has more of a commitment to the em powerment of teachers in decision-making. 41676.2 8. The principal has more responsibility in managin g decisions at the site level (e.g., Issues the School Leadership Team will resolve). 3 14 66.7 9. There is more need for the principal to expand h is/her knowledge base in such areas as group process and interpersonal skills. 41781.0 10. The principal has more responsibility in managi ng resources.41152.4 11. The principal has an increased responsibility i n managing personnel (e.g., Recruitment of personnel, staffing, defining specific jobs, evaluating personnel performance). 21257.1 12. The responsibility of the principal has increas ed to function more as a liaison between the community and the school. 31571.4 13. The need has increased for the principal to sta y abreast of current research/ educational issues. 413 61.9 14. The principal continues to be responsible for t he ongoing, day to day work in the school. 41676.2
9 of 23Changes With Respect to Leadership15. The principal has become more of a facilitator of the decision-making process. 31466.7 16. The principal has an increased responsibility t o build consensus among all constituencies. 41571.4 17. The responsibility of the principal has increas ed to cultivate leadership from the ranks of teachers. 418 85.7 18. There is an increased need for the principal to have more communication with people on a consistent basis--bo th oral and written. 31152.4 19. The principal has an increased responsibility t o provide teachers with the information needed to reach decisions. 414 66.7 20. The nature of site-based management demands tha t administrators develop extensive "people skills." 41571.4 21. The principal has moved away from being the ins tructional leader at the school to a school manager focused on developin g decision-making processes that involve various stake holders. 21466.7 22. The principal must spend increased amounts of t ime networking with other schools, professional groups, and commun ity/business groups. 31466.7 Primary Tasks in Management/Administration23. Building consensus. 316 76.2 24. Staying abreast of the work of the whole school while allowing people to assume responsibility for their part. 416 76.2 25. Dispersing information among various school con stituencies so that all are informed and have information necessary for making decisions. 31152.4 26. Developing a School Improvement Plan (SIP) thro ugh strategic planning. 41361.9 27. Facilitating the involvement of others in schoo l decisionmaking.417 81.0 28. Coordinating among all the school's constituenc ies (site, system, community, state, federal, union). 31571.4 29. Carrying out the ideas developed by the group.3 1781.0 30. Orchestrating meetings. 3 16 76.2 31. Serving as the manager of people at the site le vel (e.g., Providing for the recruitment selection, development, evaluation and, if necessary the separation of faculty and staff members who work in the school). 31676.2 32. Maintaining a safe and orderly school environme nt.41361.9 33. Creating organizational structure (e.g., Work t eams) for school that involves all faculty members in decisionmaking. 41676.2 34. Facilitating programs by management of resource s.315 71.4 35. Recognizing all "SUCCESSES."416 76.236. Providing school-wide staff development on a co ntinuous basis.314 66.7 37. Monitoring site activities in terms of what is legal.31466.7 38. Facilitating research/ data gathering in suppor t of the work of the governance team. 31571.4 39. Managing groups day to day. 314 66.7
10 of 2340. Promoting the vision and the mission of the sch ool.419 90.5 41. Overseeing the budget. 412 57.1 42. Overseeing the operation of the school in areas such as building maintenance, safety, transportation, etc. 31257.1 43. Seeing that the SBM Council (school leadership team (SLT), governance team, etc.) elections are held. 314 66.7 44. Coordinating the social services provided to fa milies in the community. 31361.9 Primary Tasks in Leadership45. Coaching. 31571.4 46. Building consensus. 313 61.9 47. Facilitating the involvement of others into dec ision-making.41885.7 48. Building a school-wide vision of what can be ac complished.41781.0 49. Promoting strategic planning for school improve ment efforts.417 81.0 50. Providing opportunities for professional growth for all staff.41885.7 51. Promoting team spirit. 31257.1 52. Keeping the staff informed. 41990.5 53. Communicating with all the school's constituenc ies.418 85.7 54. Facilitating the change process.418 85.755. Organizing meetings. 31781.0 56. Overseeing the operation of the school (budgeti ng, scheduling, hiring, etc.). 4 16 76.2 57. Carrying out democratically made decisions.4 1466.7 58. Helping the School Leadership Team members to b uild coalitions for the greater good of all students. 41781.0 A statistical comparison between Cycle II and Cycl e III is shown Table 3. The variability from the mean for each Delphi statement is shown as well as the change in the standard deviation. In addition to the modes, means and standard deviations were calculated for more in-depth analysis of the conver gence of opinion. "The mean and standard deviation, taken together, usually give a good description of the nature of the group being studied" (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 366). Means of Cycle II ranged from 2.38 to 3.80. The hi ghest mean score (Mean = 3.80) was reported for item number 40. In item numb er 40, panel members concurred that a primary task of the principal in SBM is to promot e the vision and mission of the school. Item number 21 received the lowest mean score (Mean = 2.38) in Cycle II. Panelists did not agree that the principal's role changed from in structional leader to school manager in SBM. Mean scores in Cycle III ranged from 2.33 to 3.90. The largest means (Mean = 3.90) for Cycle III were recorded for Delphi statem ents 40 and 52. Experts emphasized, again as in Cycle II, that promoting the vision and mission of the school (item number 40) is a primary task of the principal in SBM. For item number 52, experts were in agreement that a primary task of the principal is t o keep the staff informed. Item number 21 received the smallest mean score (Mean = 2.33) f or Cycle III. In Cycle III, more of the participants' opinions converged to the group respo nse of disagreement with the Delphi statement (number 21), which indicated that the pri ncipal's role has changed from
11 of 23instructional leader to school manager.Table 3 Report of Means and Standard Deviations for Cycles II and III and the Difference in Standard Deviation by Item Cycle II (N=22) Cycle III(N=21) Cycle II to Cycle III Change in SD Item Mean SD MeanSD 13.76.4363.76.4360.00023.15.7453.10.641-0.10433.62.6693.71.644-0.02543.71.5613.81.512-0.04953.52.6023.76.436-0.16663.25.7163.15.587-0.12973.62.4983.76.436-0.06283.10.6413.25.550-0.09193.71.5613.76.539-0.022103.25.7863.40.754-0.032112.76.7682.57.746-0.022122.76.5392.81.512-0.027133.33.7303.52.680-0.050143.57.7463.71.561-0.185153.43.5073.33.483-0.024163.52.5123.71463-0.049173.67.5773.81.512-0.065183.43.5983.38.590-0.008193.43.6763.57.6760.000203.71.4633.71.4630.000212.38.8652.33.730-0.135222.81.8142.81.680-0.134233.10.6253.10.6250.000243.48.7503.67.730-0.020253.33.7303.33.7300.000263.10.9953.38.921-0.074273.43.7463.71.717-0.029283.10.8312.95.669-0.162293.14.7932.95.590-0.203302.81.7502.81.602-0.148313.05.7403.00.632-0.108
12 of 23323.48.6023.57.598-0.004333.48.6023.71.561-0.041343.30.5713.20.523-0.048353.62.5903.71.561-0.029363.38.5903.24.539-0.051373.43.5073.33.483-0.024383.19.6803.10.539-0.141393.00.7752.86.573-0.202403.80.4103.90.308-0.102413.33.7303.48.680-0.050423.29.7173.14.655-0.062433.10.9443.10.700-0.244442.90.7682.52.8730.105453.43.5983.29.463-0.135463.48.5123.38.498-0.014473.62.4983.86.359-0.139483.62.4983.81.402-0.096493.43.6763.81.402-0.274503.67.4833.86.359-0.124513.48.5123.43.507-0.005523.71.4633.90.301-0.162533.62.4983.86.359-0.139543.67.4833.86.359-0.124553.00.8372.86.573-0.264563.57.5983.71.561-0.037573.52.5123.67.483-0.029583.57 .507 3.81 .402 -0.105 To assess whether stability had occurred for the D elphi items, a ttest was completed for paired samples on each statement for the two subsequent cycles. The t-value statistic was tested at p < .01 level of si gnificance. This procedure answered the question, "Did the responses change significantly f rom Cycle II to Cycle III?" This procedure was used to determine if another cycle of the survey should be conducted. Seven items failed to meet the criteria for agreem ent (Items 10, 11, 18, 25, 41, 42, and 51 as shown in Table 4). For the "bogus item," a mode of "3" (agree) was indicated by 13 (61.9%) of the 21 panel members. The "bogus i tem" was the only Delphi item out of the 58 that showed a decrease in the mean betwee n these cycles and an increase in the standard deviation (0.105). Movement of panel respo nses from 71.4% to 61.9% consensus indicated that a distorted reporting of t he "bogus item" had influenced panel members' responses. Item number 27, facilitating the involvement of ot hers into school decision-making, received 81.0% group agreement (N = 17). Although agreement was reached on this item, the t-value -2.83 indicated t he means for the paired samples were not stable (alpha = .010) between cycles. Consensus was not reached on this item.
13 of 23 Agreement was reached for item number 49. Seventee n experts (81.0%) "strongly agreed" that promoting strategic planning for schoo l improvement is a primary task of the school principal. However, the t statistic indicate d that the difference between means from Cycle II to Cycle III was significant at the 01 level. Stability was not achieved [t = 2.96 (df = 20) (alpha = .008)] and consensus was no t reached on this item.Table 4 Items With No Consensus AgreementStability Item Mode na %t df 2-Tailed p10 4 1152.4 -1.8319 .08311 21257.1 1.7120 .10418 3 1152.4 1.0020.32925 3 1152.4 .00201.00027 4 1781.0 -2.8320.010**41 4 1257.1 -1.8320.08342 3 1257.1 1.8320.08349 4 1781.0-2.9620 .008**51 3 12 57.11.0020.329 Agreement was defined as at least 60% of the respon ders (13 or more experts). **p indicates there was a statistically significant change (p < .01) from Cycle II to Cycle III.Discussion of the FindingsResearch Question One What changes have occurred in the principal's role s with respect to management and administration after the implementation of SBM? According to the findings in this study, a fundamental change has taken place in the dynamics of the role of the elementary principal. Seven items (shown as item #, statement, and % in agreement) achieving stability and receiving at least 75% agreement reve al this fundamental change: 4 : Instead of the principal being singularly respo nsible for the attainment of the school's goals, all collaborating parties share thi s responsibility (85.7%) 3 : Time management is more crucial because of the increased responsibility regarding orchestrating of shared decision-making ( 81.0%) 9 : There is more need for the principal to expand his/her knowledge base in such areas as group process and interpersonal skills (81 .0%) 1 : The principal makes fewer unilateral decisions (76.2%) 5 : There is an increased responsibility for the pr incipal to build consensus among constituencies (76.2%) 7 : The principal has more of a commitment to the e mpowerment of teachers in decision-making (76.2%) 14 : The principal continues to be responsible for the ongoing, day to day work in
14 of 23the school (76.2%) Other consensus items ranging between 60%-74% agre ement were statements 2, 6, 8, 12, and 13. In conjunction with these findings, Black (1996) reports that many principals, the key players in the success or failu re of school-based management, are 'paranoid' about their changing roles and responsib ilities under this new order. As one panel member stated, "In a sense the buck has passe d from the central office to the school office." Given the findings from this study, we concluded t hat the elementary principal's expertise in management and administration should c ontinue to expand. It was also concluded that principals in SBM would benefit from staff development programs that provide the opportunity to learn decision-making an d management strategies, including time management. Caldwell and Marshall (1982) advis e that in a staff development program which focuses on school improvement "it is assumed that if the individually identified needs of professional staff are met with in the context of institutional goals, the best possible education can be provided for the stu dents." (p. 33) Research Question Two What changes have occurred in the elementary princ ipal's role with respect to leadership after the implementation of SBM? Althoug h consensus was reached on items 17, 20, 16, 15, 19, 21 and 22, only item number 17 achieved better than 75% agreement: 17 : The responsibility of the principal has increa sed to cultivate leadership from the ranks of teachers (85.7%) The other six items ranged from 66.7% to 71.4%. In their responses concerning both the changes in the role of the principal in ma nagement/administration and leadership, the expert panel expressed its frustrat ion in the increased amount of time put forth by site administrators working in SBM. Experts in this study concurred that the SBM proce ss with shared governance has created a time management problem for administrator s. One panel member, a district level administrator, expressed disappointment that "the number of meetings an administrator attends and often orchestrates has in creased ten fold in only a few short years." He went on to say, "gathering ideas and sug gestions often creates time barriers that slow implementation." With these findings serving as a basis for support it can be concluded that the leadership process in SBM has become cumbersome bec ause of the need for information from all of the stake holders. Time to focus on con ducting school-based management processes is a critical factor in the success of SB M (Murphy & Beck, 1995). Elementary principals need to develop a comprehensive plan for coordinating groups and meetings. They will also benefit from leadership training.Research Question Three What are the primary management/administrative tas ks of the elementary principal in SBM? Consensus was reached on 18 items. Items 34 38, 39, 37, 36, 43, 26, and 32 ranged between 60% and 75% agreement, while the fol lowing statements achieved a level of agreement higher than 75%. 40 : Promoting the vision and the mission of the sc hool (90.5%)
15 of 2327 : Facilitating the involvement of others in scho ol decision-making (81.0%) 29 : Carrying out the ideas developed by the group (81.0%) 23 : Building consensus (76.2%) 24 : Staying abreast of the work of the whole schoo l while allowing people to assume responsibility for their part (76.2%) 30 : Orchestrating meetings (76.2%) 31 : Serving as the manager of people at the site l evel (e.g., Providing for the recruitment selection, development, evaluation and, if necessary, the separation of faculty and staff members who work in the school) ( 76.2%) 33 : Creating organizational structure (e.g., Work teams) for school that involves all faculty members in decision-making (76.2%) 35 : Recognizing all "SUCCESSES" (76.2%) Panelists indicate that the promotion of the visio n and the mission was superior to other items related to the elementary principal's p rimary tasks in management/administration. Bennis (1989) stated tha t "true leaders work to gain the trust of their constituents, communicate their vision luc idly, and thus involve everyone in the processes of change" (p. 30). Panel members concurr ed that the elementary principal must function to keep the stake holders focused on the goals set forth in the mission statement. According to theses findings, it may be concluded that strategic planning concepts are vital to SBM. Strategic planning is a tool for rethinking, restructuring, and revitalizing education (Kaufman, Herman, & Waters, 1996). Research Question Four What are the primary leadership tasks of the elemen tary principal in SBM? Statements on which consensus was gained and also r anging above 75% in agreement were: 52 : Keeping the staff informed (90.5%) 47 : Facilitating the involvement of others in deci sion making (85.7%) 50 : Providing opportunities for professional growt h for all staff (85.7%) 53 : Communicating with all school constituencies ( 85.7%) 54 : Facilitating the change process (85.7%) 48 : Building a school-wide vision (81.0%) 49 : Promoting strategic planning for school improv ement efforts (81.0%) 55 : Organizing meetings (81.0%) 58 : Helping the School Leadership Team members to build coalitions for the greater good of all students (81.0%) 56 : Overseeing the operation of the school (budget ing, scheduling, hiring, etc.) (76.2%) Items 45, 57, and 46 (Coaching, Carrying out democ ratically made decisions, and Building consensus) were the remaining consensus st atements. Their level of agreement was below 75%. According to these findings, highest leadership pr iority should be given to keeping the staff informed, one of the keys to the success of SBM. "Particularly in a large school, the distribution of information is critical," accor ding to one panelist. Another panelist commented that creating organizational structures w hereby all those in the school are involved in decision-making is vital. In light of the findings of this study, it was con cluded that in SBM elementary
16 of 23principals need to work toward becoming master faci litators and communicators. Sound backgrounds in strategic planning and group managem ent are essential. Research Question Five How does the implementing of SBM alter the role of the elementary principal in the decision-making process? As noted by the expert s in this study, the pervasive idea that principals will negate their power and respons ibilities because of SBM is not true. Panelists agreed that principals in SBM retain the authority and responsibility for some decisions. They state, however, that in SBM, the pr incipal has a commitment to the empowerment of teachers in the decision-making proc ess and seeks to give teachers the opportunity to be active in the shared governance u ndertaking. The findings suggest that the principal, by participating with others in the decision-making process and seeking ways to empower teachers to be responsible for the resolution of instructional issues, has become a leader of leaders. "Shared decision-making is difficult when the staf f continues to be isolated" (Squires & Kranyik, 1996, p. 29). Panelists suggest ed the principal is responsible for creating organizational structures in the school th at involve all faculty members in decision-making. One principal remarked, "I recogni ze that it is our school, not my school and that synergy produces better solutions t o problems than I can figure out by myself." Inferred from the findings of this study is a need to identify specialized proficiencies essential for leadership support of p roductive shared decision-making. This suggests that professional development programs for administrators may need to be adapted to accommodate the advancement of new compe tencies evolving from the implementation of SBM. It also can be concluded fro m the data that it is a responsibility of the principal to keep constituencies abreast of vital information basic for making informed decisions. Experts in this study noted as a coach, the principal works to create a supportive environment that encourages risktaking and participation in collaborative decision-making processes. Their perception was tha t it is becoming increasingly significant for the principal to create a climate i n which teacher leadership may evolve. Coordinating the development of a distribution syst em through which information is provided to decision makers on how to prepare budge ts, hire personnel, develop schedules, and plan the curriculum has emerged as a n essential role of the principal in SBM, panel members remarked.Summary This study was completed to detect the realities a nd the perceptions of selected administrative functions (leadership, decision maki ng, and management) of the elementary principalship under SBM policy and creat e a job profile for that position. Given the content, level of agreement, and stabilit y of each of the final 48 items, many conclusions may be made. The examples, as shown bel ow, are drawn from the consensus statements having at least 80% agreement among the experts. Changes in Administration, Management, and Leadersh ip After implementation of SBM policy, The elementary school principal working in SBM shou ld share the responsibility of attaining the school's goals with all collaborating
17 of 23parties,Orchestrate shared decision making, Practice time management techniques, Obtain knowledge concerning group process and inter personal skills, and Cultivate leadership from the ranks of teachers. Job Profile The primary tasks of the elementary principal worki ng under SBM policy with shared governance are to Promote the mission of the school, Facilitate the involvement of others in school deci sion making, Implement ideas developed by the group, Keep the staff informed, Encourage the involvement of others in decision mak ing, Provide opportunities for professional growth for a ll staff, Communicate with all school constituencies, Foster the change process, Build a school-wide vision, Advance strategic planning for school improvement e fforts Organize meetings, and Help the School Leadership Team to build coalitions for the good of all students. Recommendations for Further Research To augment the results of this study and to gain a composite of the elementary school principal's role and primary tasks in implem enting SBM, the following recommendations are made for additional research: The results of this study should be expanded to inc lude a comprehensive survey of elementary principals in schools that are implement ing SBM at the National level. This study would further define and clarify the rol es and tasks of the elementary principal in SBM and validate the findings in this study. The Job Profile of the Elementary School Principal in SBM might be used as part of the survey instrument. Comparisons might be made with the find ings of this inquiry and the results of such a study would be beneficial in dete rmining the course of study for principal preparation programs. 1. SBM, as revealed in the literature, requires new sk ills for the leadership roles and responsibilities of teachers and administrators in elementary schools. However, existing literature does not offer specific data to confirm exactly what professional development practices maximize the effectiveness of SBM. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of professional development programs in elementary schools implementing SBM. 2. Items on which consensus was not reached need furth er investigation. 3. Conclusion This study suggests that within the context of a s chool working under SBM policy,
18 of 23the elementary principal's role as leader requires specialized skills to support participative management. Considerations need to be made by colle ges, universities, and job performance centers to assess their administrative training programs for congruence with changes in the field. Consideration should be given to restructuring traditional educational administration training to include the knowledge and skills indigenous to SBM such as principles of strategic management, fac ilitating group processes, building consensus, and enabling communications. References Aronstein, L. W., & DeBenedictis, K. L. (1991). An interactive workshop: Encouraging school-based management. NASSP Bulletin, 75(537), 6 7-72. Bennis, W. (1989). Why leaders can't lead. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Black, S. (1996). Share the power. The Executive Educator 18(2), 24-26. Blase, J. (1987). Dimensions of effective school le adership: The teacher's perspective, American Educational Research Journal 24(4), 589-610. Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Caldwell, S. D., & Marshall, J. C. (1982). Staff de velopment--four approaches described, assessed for practitioner, theoretician. NASSP Bull etin, 66(451), 25-35. Caldwell, S. D., & Wood, F. H. (1992). Breaking gro und in restructuring. Educational Leadership 50(1), 41-44. Carlin, P. M. (1992). The principal's role in urban school reform. Education and Urban Society 25(1), 45-56. Conway, J. A., & Calzi, F. (1996). The dark side of shared decision making. Educational Leadership 53(4), 45-49. Cyphert, F., & Gant, W. (1971). The Delphi techniqu e: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan L11(3), 272-273.Daniels, C. T. (1990). A principal's view: Giving u p my traditional ship. The School Administrator 47(8), 20-24. David, J. L. (1996). The who, what, and why of site -based management. Educational Leadership 53(4), 4-9. Doud, J. L. (1989). The K-8 principal in 1988. Principal 68(3), 612. Drury, W. R. (1993). The principal's role in site-b ased management. Principal 73(1), 16-19.Fiske, E. B. (1995). Systematic school reform: Impl ications for architecture. In A. Meek (Ed.) Designing Places for Learning (pp. 1-10). Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Gleason, S. C., Donohue, N., & Leader, G. C. (1996) Boston revisits school-based
19 of 23management. Educational Leadership 53(4), 24-27. Goldman, P. (1991, April). Administrative facilitat ion and sitebased school reform projects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Documentation Repro duction Service No. ED 332 334) Goodman, J. (1994). External change agents and gras sroots school reform: Reflections from the field. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 9(2), 113-135. Guskey, T. R., & Peterson, K. D. (1996). The road t o classroom change. Educational Leadership 53(4), 10-14. Hallinger, P., Bickman, L., & K. Davis (1990). What makes a difference? School context, principal leadership, and student achievement. (Occ asional Paper No. 3). Cambridge, MA: The National Center for Educational Leadership.Harrison, C. R., Killion, J. P., & Mitchell, J. E. (1989). Site-based management: The realities of implementation. Educational Leadership 46(8), 55-58. Helmer, O. (1967). Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Kaufman, R., Herman. J., & Waters, K. (1996). Educational Planning. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.Krug, S. E. (1993). Leadership craft and the crafti ng of school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan 75(3), 240-245.Lindelow, J. (1981). School-based management. Schoo l Management Digest, (Series 1, No. 23). (ERIC Documentation Reproduction Service N o. ED 208 452) Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Murphy, J., & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based mana gement--taking stock. Kappa Delta Pi Record 32(1), 6-10. Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. ( 1995). Future directions in education and inclusion of students with disabilities: A Delp hi investigation. Exceptional Children 61(6), 553-576.Sackman, H. (1974). Delphi assessment: Expert opinion, forecasting, and group process. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Spilman, C. E. (1996). Transforming an urban school Educational Leadership 53(4), 34-39.Squires, D. A., & Kranyik, R. D. (1996). The Comer program: Changing school culture. Educational Leadership, 53(4), 29-32. Stephens, E. R. (1987). Improving the effectiveness of school-based administration in Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Commission on Sch ool-Based Administration.
20 of 23(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 237)Tanner, C. K., & Williams, E. J. (1981). Educational planning and decision making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Thurston, P., Clift, R., & Schacht, M. (1993). Prep aring leaders for change oriented schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(3), 259-266. Uhl, N. P. (Ed.). (1983). Using research for strategic planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Vann, A. S. (1996). An alternative assessment for m aster teachers. Principal, 75(3), 29-30.Wohlstetter, P., & Briggs, K. L. (1994). The princi pal's role in school-based management. Principal, 74(2), 14-17. Wohlstetter, P., & Odden, A. (1992). Rethinking sch ool-based management policy and research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(4), 529-549.AppendixNational Expert Panel Summary Information Names were not included in order to preserve anony mity. Locations, occupational positions, and panel nomination sources of the sele cted panel members are stated, and reference is also made to the qualifications of the panel members as experts in SBM. The composition of the panel originally consisted of 24 panel members, 13 males and 11 females. Eleven males and 10 females compris ed the panel at the end of three cycles. One of the objectives of the panel selection proce ss was to select SBM experts that represented various regions across the United State s. Of the original 24 panel members, two principals and two specialists were from the Pa cific Coast States of California and Washington. One principal and one specialist were l ocated in the Southwest Region in the state of Texas. The Heartland, comprised of Mis souri and Nebraska, was represented by two principals and one specialist. Four speciali sts and four principals resided in the Southeast Region States of Kentucky, Florida and Ge orgia. The Mid-Atlantic area was represented by three principals and one specialist from Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Two specialists were located in t he Great Lakes area of Indiana and Ohio. Various educational occupations were represented b y expert panel members: (a) principals, (b) assistant superintendents, (c) dire ctor of a center for educational governance, (d) book authors, (e) lecturer and auth or on school reform. (f) director of a school improvement organization, (g) a Governor's L eadership Institute consultant, (h) director of a center for leadership development, (i ) consultant for a performance improvement corporation, (j) director of school pri ncipals, (k) creator of a principal's training center, (l) retired chair of a department of educational administration, (m) staff members of leadership training institutes, and (n) area superintendents. Names of the selected panel members who were princ ipals were obtained from the following sources: (a) Two principals were nominate d by a Dean of the College of Education at a large university. The school is invo lved in the development of educational
21 of 23governance. (b) Two panel members were honored as n ationally distinguished principals. (c) Five principals or their schools had been publi shed, cited, or recognized in a nationally distributed journal. (d) five principals were recommended by the Superintendent's office of school districts involve d and/or cited in SBM literature. (e) Two principals were nominated by university profess ors who had published articles on SBM in nationally distributed journals. (f) One pri ncipal was nominated by the Director of a university program involved in school reform. (g) Two principals were National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) Distinguished Principals. Justification for the specialists chosen to serve on the panel was based on the following criteria: (a) Five had published in natio nally distributed journals. (b) The school districts of three specialists had been cite d in the SBM literature. These specialists were administrators in these districts and were inv olved in the district's implementation of SBM. (c) Four specialists were Directors or staf f members of leadership development centers supportive of SBM with shared governance an d shared decision-making. (d) Two specialists were administrators in school improveme nt organizations. (e) Two specialists have written books relative to school reform, schoo l improvement, and educational leadership. (f) Two specialists had presented resea rch papers at a meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (g) Thre e specialists were involved with their own leadership improvement corporations. Principals on the panel had published in the follo wing nationally distributed journals: The Executive Educator, Principal, The Sc hool Administrator, and Educational Leadership. Specialists on the panel had published in the following periodicals: Educational Administration Quarterly, NASSP Bulleti n, and Principal.About the AuthorsC. Kenneth Tanner, ProfessorDepartment of Educational Leadership310 River's CrossingThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone (706) 542-4067Fax (706) 542-5873 Dr. Tanner serves as Professor of Educational Leade rship, the University of Georgia. His primary research interests are in the fields of educational policy analysis and school design and planning. Dr. Tanner has publishe d three books on planning and written over 100 articles, papers, and chapters, wh ich deal with policy and planning. His recent planning activities may be found at the SDPL 's Web site: http://www.coe.uga.edu/sdpl/sdpl.htmlCheryl D. Stone, PrincipalM. G. Barksdale Elementary SchoolRockdale County SchoolsConyers, GA 30208-4199
22 of 23 Email: email@example.com Phone (770) 483-9514Fax (770) 483-0665 Dr. Stone is the Principal of M. G. Barksdale Eleme ntary School in Conyers, Georgia. She is a proponent of site-based managemen t and has facilitated the resolution of school policies and decisions through shared gov ernance processes modeled as an "umbrella style" organizational decision-making str ucture. Barksdale was awarded the 1998 Connecting Teachers with Technology Grant from USWest/Media One and has been honored as a 1995 Georgia School of Excellence Barksdale is a member of the League of Professional Schools.Copyright 1998 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-26 92). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: email@example.com The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Marshall University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North Carolina--Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba
23 of 23 Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Rocky Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education William McInerney Purdue University Mary P. McKeown Arizona Board of Regents Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson Arizona State University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers University of California at Davis Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of Illinois--UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University