Do Rural and Suburban Principals Approach Planning Differently? A Two-State Comparison.

A survey of rural and suburban principals in Ohio and West Virginia explored the different approaches to planning that principals take and examined two possible contextual influences: rural versus suburban locale, and state. A survey instrument based on five types of planning discussed in the literature was completed by 207 West Virginia principals and 441 Ohio principals. The findings did not substantiate a continuum of planning approaches, as the literature suggested, but rather an amalgam. Principals reported an eclectic use of planning approaches, with organized anarchy, in general, the least favored approach. The "new technicist" approach was more favored among suburban than rural principals and among West Virginia than Ohio principals. The interaction of locale and state was significant for the traditional-consensual approach, with aggregate factor scores increasing from rural to suburban in West Virginia, but decreasing from rural to suburban in Ohio. Rural West Virginia principals exhibited significantly higher ratings than other principals on the organized anarchy approach, which permits an organization to take action in the face of uncertainty or duress. Overall, the findings suggest that the particulars of locale (state and locale as they encompass and differentiate prevailing conditions) rather than locale per se account for differences in principals' approaches to planning. Discussion focuses on rural principals' capacities to plan school programs that help sustain rural communities. (Contains 56 references.) (SV) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Do Rural and Suburban Principals Approach Planning Differently? A Two-State Comparison Craig Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory (The Rural Center) Ohio University (Educational Studies) Aimee Howley Ohio University (Educational Studies) Bill Larson Ohio University (Educational Studies) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL. RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. 0 Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official C.) OE RI position or policy. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC" 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE Abstract Rural school principals find themselves completing school improvement plans mandated by SEAs, largely on the model of technical rationality. Given increasing responsibility for rural school improvement, rural principals are nonetheless apt to lack the planning resources (e.g., staff development, consultants, higher education) to which other (e.g., suburban) principals have access. Using a research instrument grounded in theories about planning, we surveyed a stratified random sample of principals (n=651). Results indicate that significant differences by locale and by state are partially explained by two covarying personal and organizational characteristics. Implications concern hopes for principals' capacities to plan school programs that help sustain rural communities.Rural school principals find themselves completing school improvement plans mandated by SEAs, largely on the model of technical rationality. Given increasing responsibility for rural school improvement, rural principals are nonetheless apt to lack the planning resources (e.g., staff development, consultants, higher education) to which other (e.g., suburban) principals have access. Using a research instrument grounded in theories about planning, we surveyed a stratified random sample of principals (n=651). Results indicate that significant differences by locale and by state are partially explained by two covarying personal and organizational characteristics. Implications concern hopes for principals' capacities to plan school programs that help sustain rural communities.