ED 096 742

AUTHORTTTLF

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTE

ERRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 006 416

Niedermayer, Gretchen; Kramer, Vicki V.Women in Administrative Positions in PublicEducation. A Position Paper.Recruitment Leadership and Training Inst.,Philadelphia, Pa.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C.Jul 7472p.

HF-$0.75 HC-$3.15 PLUS POSTAGE*Administrative Personnel; AdministratorCharacteristics; *Educational Administration;Educational Trends; *Feminism; Public Education; *SexDiscrimination; Sex Role; Staff Role; StatisticalData; Women Teachers; *Working WomenFemale Role; *Women Administrators

ABSTRACTThis raper takes the position that women can and

should be represented as administrators in greater proportion totheir numbers in public education, and that concrete steps must betaken to remedy the present imbalance. The paper is based on materialfrom professional publications dealing with sexism and the role ofwomen in education; conferences of educators and interviews withparticipants in these conferences; interviews with people ingovernment agencies, private and professional groups, and severalschool systems involved in reform efforts; reports on specific schoolsystems; reports of special task forces; and on events on the federallevel and in selected States. The publication documents the virtualabsence of women from administrative positions in public education,explores reasons for the declining percentages of women in publiceducation, and reviews and recommends ways to begin reversing this

trend. (Author/DN)

Women in IINT copy Iowa

AdministrativePositions..in Public US DEPARTMENT OF HE A.L.T:i

E DUCATIONL WELFARE

Education 1,1 ( PIPPOEDUCATION

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

t t .t ;

..t 1 to4q.4.1 N If i Ow ()PiNfOlV.

'1 f V WI- Pfif-

A Position Paper f N (1.. co

Prepared by the; :. N . N Old COf f v

RecruitmentLeadership andTraining InstituteJuly, 1974

A. 3;4- ! a`o

- - "". '

r

7

44.4.44464,4

f.

;4

The RecruitmentLeadership andTraining Institute

The Recruitment L.T.I. is a panel which provides technical anddevelopmental assistance to projects funded under the Educa-tion Professions Development Act, P. L. 90-35, Part A, Section504, New Careers in Education Program and administered bythe Division of Educational Systems Development, U.S. Officeof Education.

Dr. Eunice A. ClarkeDirector, L.T.I.Assistant Vice PresidentResearch and ProgramDevelopmentTemple UniversityPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

Panel MembersMr. Warren H. BaconAssistant DirectorIndustrial RelationsInland Steel CompanyChicago, Illinois

Mrs. Christine J. MooreDeanStudent PersonnelServicesHarbor CampusCommunity College ofBaltimore

Mrs. Jean SampsonTrusteeUniversity of MaineLewiston, Maine

Dr. Irving RosensteinAssistant Director,L.T.I.Temple University

Dr. James W. KelleyDirector of Urban AffairsSt. Cloud State CollegeSt. Cloud, Minnesota

Mr. Edward V. Moreno,PrincipalSan Fernando High SchoolSan Fernando, California

Mr. Farley J. SeldonPrincipalJohn Hay High SchoolCleveland Public SchoolsCleveland, Ohio

Dr. Ronald W. Tyrrell,ChairmanDepartment ofIntermediate EducationCleveland StateUniversityCleveland, Ohio

Professor Dorothy F.Williams, ChairmanDepartment ofCommunicationsSimmons CollegeBoston, Massachusetts

Dr. Marion B. WarnerSupervisorBusiness EducationSchool District ofPhiladelphiaPhiladelphia, Pa.

The activity which is the subject of this report was supported inwhole or in part by the U.S. Office of Education, Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare. However, the opinions ex-pressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policyof the U.S. Office of Education, and no official endorsement bythe U.S. Office of Education should be inferred.

Preface

This Recruitment Leadership and Training Institute positionpaper was undertaken out of a conviction net women can andshould be represented as administrators it-, greater proportionto their numbers in public education and out of a belief thatconcrete steps must betaken to remedy the present imbalance.The paper is based on material from professional publicationsdealing with sexism and the role of women in education;conferences of educators and interviews with participants inthese conferences; interviews with people in governmentagencies, private and professional groups, and several schoolsystems involved in reform efforts; reports on specific schoolsystems; reports of special task forces; and on events on thefederal level and in selected states.The Recruitment L.T.I. hopes that this position paper willheighten awareness and lead to a greater understanding of tneproblem of underrepresentation of women in administrativepositions in public education; generate further research,information sharing and discussion; and stimulate the degreeof affirmative action necessary to increase the number ofwomen in administrative positions in public school districtsthroughout the United States.

The Recruitment L.T.I. wishes to acknowledge the assistancerendered by Ms. Gretchen Niedermayer and Dr. Vicki W.Kramer, Options for Women, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,whose research and writing constitute a major contribution tothis paper.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2Chapter 1 Data Reveal Sexual Imbalance in Administration 7Chapter 2 Causes of Sexual Imbalance 14Chapter 3 Towards Solutions Various Modes of Response 28Chapter 4 From Equal Employment Opportunity to Affirmative

Action 46Chipter 5 Conclusiors and Recommendations 54

Footnotes 58Suggested Readings 64

Introduction

Although women staff public school systems in the UnitedStates, men run them. Women are a majority of the publicelementary and secondary school teachers, yet they hold onlyan insignificant percentage of such key administrative posts asthose of superintendent, central office administrator, principaland assistant principal. Men are predominant at all ad-ministrative levels and thus enjoy significantly greater power,status and monetary return. Men hold almost 99% of thesuperintendents' posts, and even at the elementary schoollevel, where women are in the overwhelming majority asteachers, 80% of the principals are men. In state departments ofeducation and on the federal level, men are also predominant.

Although education has long been viewed as a "female"profession, women have been largely restricted to entry levelpositions. Women acquire the basic experience necessary toadvance to administrative positions, but they have beentraditionally barred from advancement just as they have beenin the business world. Graduate schools of education havebeen open to women, unlike law and medical schools in whichonly small percentages of a class are females; nevertheless,the situation of women in education is comparable to that inother occupations anJ is part of a larger social picture in whichmen assume the dominant and authoritative roles.

Although women make up about 40% of the general work force,they make up 10% of the managers at most. Women compriseno more than 100/0 of the established professions such as law,medicine and college teaching.' In addition, women tend to beconcentrated in certain limited specialties within the pro-fessions, for example. pediatrics in medicine or trust andestates in law.

It is now a matter of law and public policy that women shouldachieve a better distribution in the labor focce and, therefore, amore equitable representation at administrative levels in

2

education. During the last few years, sexual imbalance in manyareas of employment has been recognized. Major steps havebeen taken which seek to remedy this condition throughfederal and state laws, executive orders, city ordinances, andresulting litigation, settlements, and affirmative action plans inbusiness and higher education.

The efforts to change employment patterns for women are partof a larger social concern. In the last decade there has been aproliferation of organizations, books and journals devoted tofeminism (the advocacy of "such legal and social changes aswill establish political, economic, and social equality of thesexes")., Feminists, both men and women, have devotedthemselves to the eradication of sexism. One task forcestudying sex discrimination in public schools defined "sexism"as "those attitudes and actions that relegate women tosecondary and inferior status and prevent their equal participa-tion on all levels of our society."3 Although much of thediscussion emphasizes the effects of sexism on women(clearly the most damaged of the two sexes), it should be notedthat sexism involves stereotyping and rigid role-definition ofboth females and males and thus is harmful to both sexes. Animportant concern of feminists is to release individual humanpotential without imposing prior restrictions and judgmentsabout that potential and how it should be expressed.

There are those in education who would dismiss a concernwith sexism as some peripheral matter for a special interestgroup. One school superintendent, reacting to a women'srights report on sexism in his school district, commented, "Ithink we have other priorities ... Not that we don't believe in it.We surely believe in it, but I don't think that we should bepromoting women's lib at board expense." Rather, the failureto confront sexism in education and employment is at theexpense of children and teachers.

3

Some schools have introduced women's studies courses,abolished sex-segregated courses such as shop and homeeconomics, examined physical education programs and sex-role stereotyping in elementary readers. But, as schoolsundertake to reorder practices and materials so that studentsno longer learn that women are inferior and necessarily havedifferent aspirations and roles in society, they must alsopresent young people v4th concrete evidence that those whoaspire to positions of leadership can succeed. They must haverole models of women administrators. In the words of onereport:

Personnel in the schools are a molding factor in thedevelopment of children's attitudes and life styles . . . . Thistask force attempted to evaluate the possible existence ofdiscrimination in the field of personnel. We feel that thepresence of sex bias there would particularly influence theattitudes, feelings, behavior, selection of careers and futureplans of the students.5

The importance of role models is not a new idea in educationand was behind earlier efforts to "defeminize" education byencouraging men to undertake secondary, and now elemen-tary, teaching. Thus, educators long ago agreed on theinterrelationship of employment and education and the validityof attempts at altering lopsided employment patterns.

Such attempts will provide other benefits to education. Fewobservers-of the U.S. educational system will deny that it needsall the talent and commitment available at administrative levels.Women educators constitute a large reservoir of vastly un-derutilized talent. A 1972 New York State commission studyingsecondary school administration concluded that "nothing inour studies has convinced us that males are inherently superiorto females as educational administrators."6 Other studiessuggest that women are in some respect superior asadministrators.' In either view, their potential is virtually

4

unexplored.

One of the few more comprehensive studies to deal with thisissue is the paper of May, 1973, for the Harvard GraduateSchool of Education, "The Dimensions of Discrimination in theLeadership of Elementary and Secondary Education and thePotential for Legal Redress," by Jacqueline P. Clement,Assistant Superintendent of Schools in Hanover, NewHampshire. The author notes that "what has been significant inthis study was what was not there .. . statistical tables, researchdocuments, books, scholarly journal articles."8 Clementsuggests what kinds of data must be gathered:

Specifically, we need information about the number ofwomen who have aspired to administrative roles and failed;the conditions under which more women are likely to aspire;the situation in which women are more likely to succeed; thedimensions of the range of success (to be a deputysuperintendent in New York City or an assistant superinten-dent in Chicago differs qualitatively from being asuperintendent of an LEA of 400). We need to know theincentives and rewards for not aspiring; the attributes of"male-ness" that are perceived as essential to competencein administrators; the actual performance of women ad-ministrators and men administrators; the specific jobdescription whiCh detracts from its desirability for womenand its feasibility for married women. How do single womenfare vis-a-vis married women, single men and married men?What are the specific mores that discriminate againstwomen public school administrators? What characteristicsof women age, race, training, marital status -- are relevantto "success"? We need to evaluate the social and geographicfactors, if any, that mitigate potential failure. What are theprofessional aspirations of women entering as teachers, andhow do their aspirations differ across such variables as typeof institution offering professional and post-secondarytraining, academic achievement. socio-economic status,

5

geographic region, ethnic background?9

One could add to this already impressive list such questions ashow many women hold administrative credentials who are notemployed as administrators,10 or even how many women areemployed as administrators.

Research is needed to produce hard data to support andsuggest new directions in recruitment, training, and selectionof administrators. However, change does not have to wait upontotal awareness or sophisticated research, but doesnecessitate an initial admission that a problem exists whichmust be remedied.

6

1""

a.ea.c0

Data RevealSexual Imbalancein--Administration

Two facts emerge clearly from the available figures on womenin educational administration. Men dominate in all ad-ministrative positions as superintendents, principals andassistant principals and very nearly exclude women at somelevels. The percentage of women in administration, as in theteaching profession as a whole, is on the decline, despite thedeveloping emphasis upon equal employment opportunityover the past ten years.

Enough data are available to demonstrate these basic trends.Insufficient data have been gathered to permit either thepresentation of a complete statistical picture of the present or acomparison of such data over a period of years. Data relating tosex have not been recorded or correlated with other data incontinuing studies of teachers and administrators by theNational Education Association or other professional groups.There is no central source of such data by state. Efforts byothers to obtain data indicate that it may not even be collectedin many states or by most local school districts." Table Ipresents this national picture and illustrates the proportions ofmale dominance in administrative positions in 1972-73.'2

From Table I it is clear that there are many more womenadministrators in elementary schools than at any other level.Even here, however, with 30.8°4 women assistant principals,they are considerably underrepresented in relation to theirnumbers in teaching as a whole (66.4% of all teachers arewomen) and in proportion to their overwhelming dominance ofelementary school teaching positions, where 83.4% arewomen.'3 Beyond elementary schools principalships, there is asubstantial drop in the percentage of women. The declineranges from less than 10% at every other administrative leveldown to .10/0 at the superintendents level.

Table I also shows the administrative functions, other thanteaching, performed by women within school systems. They

Table I- Estimated Number and Percent Distribution of Full-Time Public-School Professional Employess,1972-73, by

Sex

Position1

Number of personsTotal Mn o2 3

Women4

Percentage distributionTotal Men Women5 5 7

INSTRUCTIONAL STAFFTeachers 2.110.368 709.084 1,401.284 100.0 33.6 66.4

9rIncipalsElementary (Including teaching principals) 48.196 38.750 9,446 100.0 80.4 19.6Junior high 9.374 9.102 272 100.0 97.1 2.9Senior high 15.827 15.605 222 100.0 98.6 1.4

Total principals 73.397 63.457 9.940 100.0 86.5 13.5

Assistant principalsElementary 6.483 4.486 1.997 100.0 69.2 30.8Junior high 7.814 7.223 594 100.0 92.4 7.6Senior high 13.289 12.439 850 100.0 93.6 6.4

Total assistant principals 27.589 24.148 3.441 100.0 87.5 12.5

Other instructional staffSchool librarians 40.540 3.324 37.216 100.0 8.2 91.8Counselors 49.770 26.378 23.392 100.0 53.0 47.0School nurses 17.074 239 16.835 100 0 1.4 SatOthers 33,691 16,812 16.879 100.0 49.9 50.1

Tcoal other instructional staff 141.075 46,753 94.322 100.0 33.1 66.9Total Instructional staff 2.352.429 843.442 1.508.987 100.0 35.9 34.1

Central-Office AdministratorsSuperintendents 13,037 11.972 65 100.0 99.9 0.1

Deputy and associate superintendents 853 800 53 100,0 93.8 6.2Assistant superintendents 5.337 5,054 283 100.0 94.7 5.3Other central-office administratorsb 48.488 31.614 16,874 100.0 65.0 35.0

Total central -office administrators 67,115 50.440 17.275 100.0 74.4 25.6

Total Full-Time Professional Employees 2.420.144 893,882 1.526,262 100.0 37.2 62.8

a Includes heads of departments, social workers. visiting teachers.psychologists, and psychometrists.b Includes central-office administrators tor General Administration.Finance and School Plant. Pupil Personnel Services. Instruction - Ad-ministration. and Special Subject areas.

represent 35% of administrators in such areas as instructionand special subjects, which are staff rather than line positions.This is disproportionately low percentage.

Where state and local data can be found, they confirm overallnational data. Statewide in New York in 1971-72 only 2.6% ofthe superintendents were female, 1.7% of senior high schoolprincipals were female, and 20.1% of elementary schoolprincipals were female. In Maine in 1972-73 only 7% of full-timeadministrators were women."

After surveying local figures in 1973, the Women's RightsCommittee of the Dayton, Ohio, Public Schools wrote, "Thesimilarity is striking in comparing local data with nationalfigures. Dayton has slightly higher percentages of women asprincipals, assistant principals and central office ad-ministrators, but no difference exceeds 10 percent."'sKalamazoo found that although 12 out of 45 of the highest leveladministrators were women, 9 of these 12 were early elemen-

Table IIPercentage of Women Administrators in Cook County Job Categories

Job Category Women in ElementaryPositions

Women in SecondaryPositions

Total 0/0of Women

Central OfficeAdministrators 6.9% 1.7% 5.3%BuildingAdministrators 17.5% 11.0% 15.7%ProgramAdministrators 62.0°/0 19.3% 34.5%TotalAdministrativePositions 22.3% 13.2% 18.9%

tary principals.'8 Of the 145 districts in Cook County, Illinois, asurvey showed that only 5.3% of the top posts in centraladministration (superintendents, assistant superintendents,administrative assistants, and business managers) were heldby women. The Cook County documentation of the decreasein participation of women from elementary to secondaryschool positions is a case in point."

School boards, The small percentage of female educational administrators inuniversities school systems parallels the small percentage of women inand important positions which affect school district practices. Onlygovernment 20% of all school board members are women according to aoffices 1973 article.'8 In schools of education, the places where

administrators are trained, the figures are even worse. TheUniversity Council for Educational Administration determinedin 1972 that only 2% of all professors of educational administra-tion were women.",

The same picture emerges in otEces of education at both stateand federal levels. In 1973 only two states, Montana andWisconsin, had women chief officers in departments ofeducation." Where known, the figures on positions held withinstate departments appear correspondingly bleak. Of theprofessional staff in the Connecticut State Department ofEducation 17 °/c were women in April. 1973. In reporting thisfigure, Suzanne S. Taylor, coordinator of research for theConnecticut Education Association, comments. "The situationin state departments in Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,New Hampshire, Maryland, Indiana, Florida, and many otherstates is similarly depressing, according to my co'leagues fromthese states." In the U.S. Office of Education, as of October,1972, there were four men and no women at GS Grade 18, andonly three women arr "ng the 48 people at grades 17 and 16.2'

10

Percentages Comparing recent statistics with what little is available forof women are previous years shows that the percentage of women inon the decline administration is declining. This decline is especially clear in

figures on elementary school principals.

Table 11122Decline in Women Elementary School Principals

1928 1948 1958 1968 1973Women 55% 41% 38% 22.4% 19.60/0

The NEA estimates for assistant elementary principal ; show asimilar trend. In 1969 an estimated 38.4% of assistant r rincipalswere women and in 1973 only 30.8% were women.2

Figures from the N EA estimates of administrators nationally in1970-71 and 1972-73 show a decline even in that short andrecent period.

Table IV 24Decline in Women Administrators

% Wo m 1970-71 1972-73

Superintendents 0.6% 0.1%Principals 15.3% 13.5%Assistant Principals 15.0% 12.5%

Comparisons of figures for a variety of administrative posts inNew York state, in 1970-71 and 1971-72, indicate an overalldecrease in the number oi female administrators, with a small(2%-3%) increase at only two levels, superintendents andmiddle school principals.25 Not only was there a percentagedecline in the number of women superintendents nationallybut "the actual number of women superintendents in the nationdeclined from 90 to 84 in the past decade."20 Although therewere six women who were chief state school officers in 1950,there were only two women holding this position in 1973.27

11

The problem

The percentage of women in teaching has also gone downfrom a high of 900/0 in 1890 to 66.4% in 1972-73. That declinecontinues in recent years; since 1957-58, the percentage ofwomen has dropped from 73.2%. However, it is important tonote that the rate of decline is significantly more rapid inadministration than in teaching. On the elementary level, thepercentage of women teachers dropped from 87.2% (1957-58)to 83.4% (1972-73). Thirty-eight percent of elementary schoolprincipals were women in 1958, and 19.6% in 1972-73.29 It isimportant to recognize that the actual number of women hasgone up, not down in the teaching profession. In 1959-60 therewere 716,156 women teachers in public elementary schoolsand in 1965-66 there were 825,625.29 Thus, there is an in-creasing, not decreasing, pool of women to draw on foradministration. On the other hand,men have moved into theseadministrative positions at a much faster rate than they havetaken teaching positions.

The problem of imbalance in the distribution of the sexes ineducation is first evident at the line between elementary andsecondary teaching: in 1972-73, 83.40/0 of elementary teachersand 46.4% of secondary teachers were women.30 The im-balance becomes more dramatic and approaches sex segrega-tion between teaching and administration.

There would also appear to be a number of other disparitiesrelated to sex, such as age of administrators and years ofexperience, suggesting that women have to wait longer andoffer more to get the few administrative jobs they have.Jacqueline Clement's study found that all the variables relatingto sex, such as age, years of experience and highest degreeheld, are not reported. However, from looking at various kindsof data she speculates "that women superintendents are older,have more training or more experience, and receive less salarythan their male counterparts."3' They would also appear toachieve the superintendency with greater frequency in very

12

small districts. A 1970 study found that in a group of smalldistricts which served three hundred or fewer children, womenheld 8.5% of the superintendencies, as compared to the 1970-71 overall norm of 0.6% women superintendents.32

Differences appear again in a 1969 NEA study ofcharacteristics of elementary assistant principals, whichrevealed that men assistant principals as a group were youngerthan women (medians 40 and 49 respectively) and that 51% ofthe women had 10-19 years in elementary school classroomswhile 51% of the men had taught only 2-9 years. Indeed, nearly25% of the women assistant principals had taught 20 or moreyears in elementary schools, while only 2.2% of the menreported such service. The men were more likely to have beensecondary school classroom teachers prior to becomingassistant elementary school principals (11.50/0 men comparedto 2.5% women)." Such figures, in conjunction with theoverwhelming evidence of male predominance at ad-ministrative levels, tend to suggest a pattern of differentiationrelated to sex that warrants further exploration. Furtherexamination of the causes of underrepresentation of women inadministration is also needed.

13

Causes of Sexual

1411;

Imbalance

O.CO

1.0

Are women toblame?

Women are underrepresented in public school administrationtoday not because they are unable to administer. What screensout women or prevents most of them from moving beyond theteaching level is a process of differentiation based on sex-discrimination.

This paper will seek to identify the most proximate causes ofunderrepresentation and suggest the most immediateremedies. However,in as complex an institution as publiceducation, which is so intertwined with society's ideals andrealities, there is surely no one, simple explanation. Dis-crimination which results in lack of role models is one of thecauses of different and lower career goals held by manywomen and different training undertaken by them. Unfor-tunately, if women's goals and qualifications are perceived asthe only causes for sexual imbalance in employment, peoplemay not confront the real facts of discrimination. Althoughwomen's attitudes and aims are important concerns foreducation, women themselves are not a sufficient cause for thesexual imbalance in administration.

Women's AspirationsProportionally fewer women than men aspire to administrativeposts. Florence Howe, editor of the Feminist Press andPresident of the Modern Language Association, makes aconnection between the lower percentage of women ad-ministrators and the generally low aspirations of women. Sheidentifies aspiration as "the crucial issue in women'seducation."3 There is a growing body of literature devoted toanalyzing and documenting the process of Training theWoman to Know Her Place. An excellent study bearing this titlewas recently prepared for the Pennsylvania Department ofEducation.36 The process results, according to Matina S.Horner, President of Radcliffe College, in women's "motive toavoid success."36

14

The cultural ideals of men's and women's roles are in conflictwith the emerging recognition of equal rights, and thus,creates difficult pressures for the women in selecting andpursuing professional careers. An excellent discussion isAthena Theodore's introduction to The Professional Woman inwhich she explores various reasons for the small percentageof women in professions or positions of authority. Sheindicates that the choice of teaching may not necessarily bereal career commitment; rather it is the path of least resistance,a choice w tch is socially acceptable and correlates with familygoals. It would appear that women who aspire to be teachersare not those career and success-minded women who wouldperhaps be motivated to choose careers in administration. Butpatterns of choice and family life are changing. The book TheProfessional Woman37 is part of that process.

Although Theodore and Howe discuss women's aspirations,both recognize discrimination as an important aspect of theprofessional and educational picture. They suggest that thereare more women who are interested in administrative positionsthan ever reach them. However, men charged with hiring andpromoting in many fields have claimed that women are notinterested and do not apply.

It seems reasonable that since there are some women ad-ministrators, there may be others who would be interested. Ina paper entitled, Wanted More Women: Where Are the WomenSuperintendents?, prepared by the National Council of Ad-ministrative Women in Education, the writer points out thatmost men do not aspire to top positions any more than mostwomen. "Advancement is determined in terms of individualgoals, experience and ability not sex." The problem is that"most school systems are unable to distinguish betweenwomen who wish to make teaching their final goal and thosewho prepare themselves for administration and who seek thechallenge of wider responsibilities. "38

15

Evidence of interest in administrative posts cannot be basedsolely on the numbers who apply. A Maine Times discussion ofthe difficulties of women seeking principals' jobs comments,"One young woman complained that women don't even applyfor top jobs because they feel it's a foregone conclusion theywon't get them. "39 This response to prior discrimination is arecognized phenomenon (the "chilling effect") amongminorities seeking employment, according to a spokesman forthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.o The socialconditioning of women may also prevent them from making anaggressive attempt to enter places where they perceivethemselves not to be wanted.

The most potent evidence that there are interested women whoare thwarted is bound to be in the form of court decisionsfinding discrimination. Although several have affected thebusiness world, equal employment opportunity legislation hasonly recently been applied to education."

Women's QualificationsMen in charge of hiring and promotion frequently claim thatthey cannot find qualified women. A recent attempt to surveythe existing labor pool of women with accepted administrativecredentials, specifically with certificates, revealed that manystate departments of education have not collected this data bysex.42 Putting aside the question of whether certification is thesame as qualification, it is worth looking at graduate schoolfigures. A study by the Women's Equity Action League shows"more than 20% of the doctorates in education in the UnitedStates have been granted to women. Some 13% of theseadvanced degrees were awarded in educational administrationand supervision."43 As Jacqueline Clement points out, onecannot tell whether more women have received degrees insupervision than in administration." Figures on degreesconferred in 1970-71 show that women attained 56.2% of allmaster's in education, 21.2% of all doctorates; and that women

16

received 21.1% of the master's in educational administration,although only 8.6% of the doctorates.45 These figures do show

ecline in the percentage of women at the doctoral levels anda lower percentage in administration than in other fields ofeducation, and this is an important symptom of the problem ofdifferentiation of sexes. But the figures nevertheless suggest agreater pool of women with credentials than is being tapped foradministrative positions. As to the need for the doctorate, a1971 study of the perintendency showed the highest degreeearned by most superintendents was a master's." Andalthough a degree in administration may be a faster route to anadministrative position, it may not be absolutely necessary.

The real iseue Ir -'.,cussing qualifications for administration isnot a meci ink ne of the numbers of people with graduatedegrees or certificates. There are surely certified persons whoare not qualified for positions and qualified persons who arenot certified. There has always been hiring of administratorswithout certification with the expectation that they will getce, .ification after being hired. The Maine Times reports:

Certification has been used as an obstacle to advancementwhen convenient. Last year a woman applied for a prin-cipal's position and was never asked if she held propercertification (which she does). She felt her candidacy wasnot taken seriously, but a school board member assured herthat certification was not required. Yet, two women in ajunior high, who sought an assistant principal's job, weretold to go get their certification first".

A discussion of qualifications should not center on graduateeducation or certification, but on the other attributes andexperiences perceived as necessary for administrativepositions by those men and women who recruit and hire.Inevitably, the focus shifts from the aspirations and thequalifications of women, and comes to rest on the process, thesystem through which administrators are sought, evaluated,

17

chosen and moved ahead. It is within the "system" thatdiscrimination is apparent.

Sex The term "discrimination" tends to arouse anger and deten-discrimination siveness in those who consider themselves men of good will.within Many women also deny or fail to recognize it, something notedthe system both by the Kalamazoo report and by Sheila Tobias, Associate

Provost of Wesleyan University, in her discussion of "MaleChauvinism in Employment "411 Yet, the major causes for sexualimbalance in administrative positions in public education arevery similar to the causes already identified in the litigatior andliterature on discrimination in the private sector.

The Kalamazoo task force defines discrimination as "anyaction or institutional structure which deters a person or groupsolely because of sex."" "Discrimination against femaleprofessionals occurs," according to Theodore in TheProfessional Woman, "when females of equivalentqualifications, experience, and performance as males do notshare equally in the decision-making process nor receive equalrewards."s° The guidelines on "Interviewing and HiringWomen" of the Women's Association of the Harvard UniversityGraduate School of Business Administration remind us that"unintentional discrimination is considered as unlawful asintentional disctimination."" This is based on the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission's interpretation ofcourt decisions of the past few years.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidebookfor Employers52 reminds us that although overt discrimina-tion has declined, "much discrimination, particularly againstfemales, persists through intentional acts." But it also goes onto point to the "unintentional and seemingly neutral practices"through wh!ch "employment systems perpetuate dis-criminatory effects of past discrimination." The courts are nowprimarily interested in "effects of employment practices

18

regardless of their intent." The booklet goes on to warnemployers that, based on court rulings:

If a statistical survey shows that minorities and females arenot participating in your workforce at all levels in reason 'iblerelation to their presence in the population and the laborforce, the burden of proof is on you to show that this is notthe result of discrimination, however inadvertent. There is astrong possibility that some part of your system isdiscriminating . . . .

Those parts of the system that are most likely to be dis-criminating, based on past court decisions, "include practicesand policies of recruitment, selection, placement, testing,systems of transfer, promotion, seniority, lines of progression,and many other basic terms and conditions of employment."

The statistics place the burden of proof on school systems toshow that they do not discriminate. Educators, themselves,must actively look for discrimination and be sensititve to thepossibility that it results from ail kinds of practices that theytake for granted.

Evidence of DiscriminationBecause the law has only recently covered education, onecannot point to court cases proving discrimination in hiringand promotion of administrators. There will necessarily besuch cases. However, in May, 1974, in one of the first EEOCinvestigations of local school districts in the country, theCommission found evidence of discrimination against womenand blacks in 24 Delaware school districts. The investigationwas undertaken in response to complaints filed by theDelaware Chapter of the National Organization for Women andthe state NAACP. The EEOC report found that women werediscriminated against in "hiring, promotion, job classification,benefits, wages, terms and conditions of employment, adver-tising and discharge." The report cited statistical data on the

19

predominance of male administratc:rs (and "men dominatingsecondary school teaching positions and extraresponsibilityjobs that traditionally pave the way fo- promotion to ad-ministrative positions." It also described cases in whichfemales were denied jobs and less qualified masPs hired. (Oneeven had his certification requirement waived for a year.53)

As this issue gains publicity, forcing school districts to reviewtheir practices, there will be more reports of alleged dis-crimination. But claims already exist that are worth mentioninghere.

Item:Dr. Gwen Flannigan, the only woman in the state [Maine) formany years to hold a superintenci3o:'s cE.:,`;ficate, tried threetimes in Portland to become an administrator. Twice sheapplied for a principal's job, once for an assistant sup-erintendent's post. She was told she did not get the assistantsuperintendent's job because they were looking forsomeone to "groom" for superintendent wrich is illegal)."Being a woman, that was the only factor," she claims. Shealso claims it was made difficult for her to get into graduatecourses required to gain a superintendent's certificate untilshe threatened legal action."Item:. . . A Dayton staff member . . . currently is serving as actinghead of the curriculum development department, the firstwoman to serve in an executive capacity on the sup-erintendent's cabinet. Although the superintendent hasrecommended this eminently well-qualified woman to theposition of executive director of the department, the Boardof Education has refused to make the appointment. Current-ly, she is in an untenable position by directing departmentoperations while still handling many of the duties of herformer position at a salary of $5,000 less than her malepredecessor.55

20

There is one area of sex discrimination that has been decidedby the courts. It is only indirectly related to the issue ofadministrative hiring and promotion but it shows that theremay well be patterns that prejudice opportunities for women.The Supreme Court decided in Clevel.-.nd Board of Educationv. La Fleur that arbitrary cut-off dates requiring pregnantteachers to terminate teaching early in pregnancy violate dueprocess and abridge the equal protection clause of the 14thAmendment.56 Such practices remove a significant number ofwomen from teaching for unnecessarily long periods of timeand subtly discourage ambition in women who also wantfamilies.

Other evidence of discriminatory practices has to be deducedfrom a combination of sources. For instance, Wan'4d: MoreWomen discusses patterns of discrimination encountered byadministrative women and comments:

Women educators in the United States long have lived withthe realities of discrimination and are able to write their ownstory of why so few women are in top administrative andpolicy-making positions. Whenever these women cometogether for an exchange of views and observations theyfind emerging gradually the fact that all of them are facingthe same subtle patterns of discrimination. These patternsform an invisible barrier for women who avire to ad-ministrative and policy-making positions."

Other sources for evidence of discriminatory practices areinformal conversations with educators, parallel practicesalready identified in the private sector and, most useful,detailed reports on the two school districts of Dayton andKalamazoo. A pattern of discrimination may appear uponexamination of any or all of the following:

Recruitment techniques. Posting of jobs is often a formality.People are recruited through word of mouth and male sources

21

and decisions already made even before jobs are posted.Active recruiting rarely reaches women.

Criteria for selection. Job qualifications may require certaintypes or years of experience that rule out most women. Suchrequirements may not be significantly related to effectiveperformance of the job. Specific criteria, such as that men arebetter disciplinarians, may be faulty judgments or poordefinitions (discipline is not necessarily physical). Unspecifiedadvanced degrees are not always job related.

Make up of bodies involved in selection. Personneldepartments, screening committees and school boards arcusually dominated by men. Although women are sometimesprejudiced against women, research suggests that "femaleschool board members evidenced the most favorable attitudestoward women administrators." Greater numbers of womentogether tend to give greater support for positive views ofwomen."

Language of job descriptions and forms. The use of the malepronoun often prejudices the description (as the use of thefemale pronoun evidences sex stereotyped jobs of other kindswithin the system). Forms may request information on maritalstatus and age of children, which should be irrelevant to thedecision-making process.

Unequal distribution of extracurricular activites. Postions arestereotyped by sex (safety patrol m, cheerleaders f). Mentend to hold a preponderance of those providing extraresponsibility and greater compensation, and this experienceseems to act as prior experience for administrative posts.

Job progressions. There are certain career paths typicallyfollowed by those who become administrators, and thepositions that typically feed people into administration are

22

dominated by men. Administrators seem to come largely fromsecondary teaching (more men) and a very substantial percen-tage have coached a sport.59

Separate social/ recreational activities and facilities. Sex-segregated lounges and professional or recreationalorganizations isolate women from informal contacts andinformation needed to get ahead.

Different job titles and prestige but similar duties. "Women areusually routed into supervisory positions, program directors,curriculum specialists; men often assume the same duties, butare called vice principal, assistant principal, or assistant to thesuperintendent. if top level jobs require central office or lineexperience, women are eliminated, although close examina-tion of tneir duties reveals that they were performing the sametasks as men."6°

Age factor. The figures show that women often have to he olderto be administrators. Youth and age seem to have differentvalues as applied to men and women. Wanted: More Womennotes that men in their 20's and 30's relocate and gainadministrative experience. Youth acts in their favor. On thecontrary, women seeking positions in other systems are"assumed to be too youthful and inexperienced."6t (NOTE:Women who have made it in business have often "sufferedthrough many years of 'hard labor' before they attainedpositions of power." The company whose executive levelwomen moved "slowly and arduously throough corporateranks and achieved responsibility through longevity" shouldfeel warned that it does not have equal employment oppor-tunity.62

Isolation on the job. Women who are promoted are rarely giventhe kind cf sponsorship or support routinely offered to men.They are often isolated and left to make it on their own if they

23

can. Wanted: More Women explains: "A newly appointedwoman usually has to make her own way. Because heremployers are doubtful about the ability of women in general,they seldom commit themselves in advance to her success.They hedge so that if she 'doesn't work out' they will not havebeen caught in an error of judgment. They give the newappointee and those she must direct the impression that, 'wewill let her try and see how it goes.' Under these circumstances,complaints are likely to Prise."63

Causes of Patterns of discrimination we supported by a compidx ofdiscrimination traditions: Sexism in society is reflected in education, which, in

turn, assures the continuation of these patterns. Biasedselections may he math not so much out of evil intentions asout of a belief that women want certain positions rather thanothers, out of a misguided desire to protect them from stressesthat they are believed unwilling or unsuited to handle, and outof acceptance of many myths about a woman's proper placeand role.

Thinking in such stereotypes not only affects decisions onhiring, it conditions the explanation of those who try tounderstand the causes for the lack of women in administration.As described in Wanted: More Women: Where Are the WomenSuperintendents?, some of these stereotypes were offered in awritten report for a Board of Education.64

Our culture has a rigid definition of woman's role, based mainlyon her role as wife and mother. As the excellent discussion ofthe relationship between sex-roles and work-roles by AthenaTheodore points out, the professions and semi-professions arecug-typed, the male-dominated professions with corres-pondingly more status and reward. The "female professions"are those most closely related to the female role in the home,the "nurturing. socializing, and helping" occupations ofteaching, nursing and social work. Where men have entered

24

female professions, as in public education, they have taken thepositions of authority and become the administrators. SaysTheodore: "Career openings in administrative positionscounterbalance the stigma attached to identification with a'female' profession since sex identities are not culturallyprescribed as relevant to the rational functions of largeorganizations and administrative roles."" As this commentimplies, sex-typing of occupations (as with sex-typing ingeneral) carries with it judgments about value and ability ofmales and females.

The myths about the different and the inferior ways in whichfemales perform relate to the picture of the woman in the home.Most of the literature devoted to examining discriminationagainst women in the job market discusses the array ofstereotypes that conditions the thinking of employers, mostlymen, who think of women in roles of mother and wife." Themore potent myths are: women are too emotional; they do notwant to work for other women; they are too passive to beleaders or, conversely, they become too aggressive and"unfeminine" in positions of power; they have high absenteeand turnover rates; they are best suited to certain kinds of jobs.While it seems unnecessary to rebut them, point by point, here,an examination of the myth of absentee and turnover ratesamong women is particularly enlightening.

The arguments on absenteeism and turnover cite studiesshowing a much higher correlation between level of positionsand age group than between sex and continuity. Of particularinterest to educators is a study of the flow of teachers in and outof the San Diego school system and another for school districtsin Michigan. Both found that "within their twenties, womenwere . . . more likely to tern' inate than men, and were slightlymore likely to move to another district. For groups in theirthirties and forties, termination and mobility rates were thesame for men and women. In their fifties, men were somewhat

25

more likely to move to another district and termination rateswere the same for men and women."67 A survey by the NEAindicates that the curve of distribution of women teachers byage is somewnat different from that of men and that womenhave more breaks in service, presumably related to marriageand families. However, women still outnumber men in all agegroups and have more teaching experience than men as agroup." It seems likely that men are more conscious ofwomen leaving to have children than men leaving to acceptopportunities elsewhere, although both moves have the sameeffect on a school system. It is also important to learn moreabout why women leave jobs and not to assume that the answeris always related to the family. Studies to date have found thatfrustration and lack of opportunity for advancement play a partin resignations and also in motivation for marriage.69

Marriage and child-bearing is central to the stereotyping ofwomen. However, notions of roles and family patterns arechanging. Fewer women are staying home, and some men areopting for a share of child-raising. Even more important, not allwomen marry; not all married women have children. Yet,individual choices and variations are ignored and are prejudg-ed because of a class stereotype. Stereotypes also can becomeself-fulfilling prophecies: some women themselves acceptthem as necessary, and policies are made to conform tostereotypes.

There is no point in blaming people for their attitudes. Men andwomen share many of the stereotypes that affect thepreferences of those who recruit, screen and hire ad-ministrators. A 1973 NEA survey reported that classroomteachers were asked whether they preferred to teach under thesupervision of men or women principals.70 The replies were:

26

Response Total Women Men

Prefer male principal 49.1% 54.9% 45.9%Prefer female principal 2.2% 1.6% 2.5%No preference 48.7% 43.7% 51.6%

These figures show that almost half the men and more than halfthe women prefer males; almost no one prefers females. Yet, asignificant percentage of those who were teaching under theleadership of a female principal were more favorable towardfemale principals or had no preference.

Men and women are subject to the effects of sexism andremedies must focus on both changes in attitude and changesin experience; getting more women into administrativepositions to give people the experience of having womenadministrators. Remedies that deal with changing attitudesmust be combined with immediate efforts to revise systemsand procedures that operate to discriminate. Both approacheswill be considered in the next two chapters.

27

Towards SolutionsVariousModes of Response

During the past few years, the government, professionaleducational organizations, and independent groups haveresponded in various ways to the issue of sexism in education;yet, little attention has been given to the employment of womenin administrative positions.

Initial responses have been characterized by attempts to createawareness of the issue. Such awareness builds pressure foraction and promotes the formation of groups through whichaction can be taken.

It is necessary, as indicated earlier, to view the underrepresen-tation of women in administration as part of a larger problem.But it is also important and possible to isolate this issue whenproposing remedies.

This chapter will discuss a variety of modes of response bygovernment, professional organizations, special interestgroups and schools of education. The responses fall into thesemajor categories: laws, task forces, research, conferences,professional meetings and publications, organizationalchange, and recruitment and training programs. There issurely no one best or sufficient response, since a broad rangeof remedies is necessary. Each of the following categories isrelated to and enhances the others.

Laws and Although the legal foundation for ending sex discriminationenforcement was laid in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was only in 1972 that this

act was amended to inciude the field of education." Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Act of 1972, prohibits discrimination in employ-ment on the basis of sex as well as race, color, religion andnational origin. It applies to all institutions, including schoolsystems, with 15 or more employees. Complaints may be filedwith the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission whichhas the authority, along with the Attorney General, to go to

28

court if attempts at conciliation fail.

The other important federal law affecting sex discrimination ineducational employment is Title IX of the EducationAmendments of 1972, or the Higher Education Act. Its majoremphasis is not on teachers and administrators so much as onstudents, but it does cover employment. A February, 1973,memorandum from the Office for Civil Rights, Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, summarized the act for chiefstate school officers and local school superintendents. It alsoinformed them that regulations to implement the act were stillbeing developed. A: of the spring of 1974 these regulations hadbeen issued for public commentary. They will be issuedformally in 1975.

A bill introduced in 1973 in the House and Senate byRepresentative Patsy Mink and Senator Walter Mondale,respectively, would create women's educational programswithin HEW and encourage efforts to increase the number ofwomen in administrative positions at all levels of education.The Women's Educational Equity Bill is a positive activistapproach, rather than an attempt at prohibiting acts ofdiscrimination, and could lead to many new programs.72

Legislative responses and powers to enforce equal employ-ment opportunity laws are still evolving. There are some statesand cities with relevant sex bias statutes, and the Equal nightsAmendment to the Constitution would certainly have an effecton all forms of discrimination.

The chart on Page 30 summarizes the coverage of two federallaws concerning sex discrimination." More comprehensivediscussions can be found in: Federal Laws and RegulationsConcerning Sex Discrimination in Educational Institutions,distributed by the Project on the Status and Education ofWomen of the Association of American Colleges; and the NEA

29

Federal lawsand regulationsconcerningrace and sexdiscriminationin educationalinstitutions

Which in-stitutionscovered?

What isprohibited?

Exemptionsfrom coverage

chart on Federal Laws and Regulations Concerning Race andSex Discrimination in Educational Institutions. The NEAbooklet, Combating Discrimination in the Schools, LegalRemedies and Guidelines, is another valuable source.

Title VII of Civil Rights Act of1964 as amended by theEqual Employment Oppor-tunity Act of 1972

All institutions with 15 ormore employees

Discrimination in employ-ment (including hiring, up-grading, salaries, fringebenefits, training and otherconditions of employmenton basis of race, color,religion, national origin orsex). Covers all employees.

Religious institutions are ex-empt with respect to theemployment of individualsof a particular religion toperform work at that institu-tion. (Such institutions arenot exempt from the prohibi-tion of discrimination basedon sex, color and nationalorigin.)

30

Title IX of the EducationAmendments of 1972

All institutions receivingfederal monies by way of agrant, loan or contract

Discriminations againststudents or others on thebasis of sex.

Religious institutions are ex-empt if application of theprovisions is not consistentwith the tenets of thereligious organization.Military schools are exemptif their primary purpose is totrain individuals for the U.S.military service or themerchant marine. Dis-

Who enforces? Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Commission (EEOC)

Who can make acomplaint?

Can in-vestigations bemade withoutcomplaints?

Individuals and/ororganizations on own behalfor on behalf of aggrievedemployee(s) or applicant.Members of Commissionmay also file charges.

No. Government can con-duct investigations only ifcharges have been filed.

crimination in admissionsprohibited only in vocationalinstitutions, graduate andprofessional institutions andpublic undetgraduatecoeducational institutions.

HEW's Office for Ci i l Rightsis expected to have primaryenforcement powers to con-duct reviews and in-vestigations.

Individuals and/or organ-izations on own behalf or onbehalf of aggrieved party.

Yes. Government can con-duct periodic reviewswithout a reported violation,as well as in response tocomplaints.

Limitations of Legal Response.Legal responses are usually quite slow since it takes time topass laws and translate them into workable policy. Under TitleVII, the EEOC can only respond to complaints; it cannot initiateinvestigations. Here, too, the process of handing down anindividual decision (or a group decision, in a class action suit)is slow because of EEOC's backlog. However, decisionsrelating to women in educational administration will inevitably

31

appear, following on the heels of such decisions striking downrequired termination for pregnant teachers.

Not only is the legal route often a long one, it is a frighteningone for many individuals. Not everyone will be willing to take it.However, it does provide a way for both individuals andprofessional groups to seek remedies.

Those seeking to bring about change may wish to encouragecomplaints and suits where other methods are not working.Judging from the reaction of business, the very knowledge thatiegal action is possible and other systems have suffereddamaging court decisions may impel people in positions ofauthority to change policies voluntarily.

Task forces During the past few years, various government officials haveand study appointed task forces or study commissions to recommendcommissions policy. For instance, the U.S. Commissioner of Education

established a task force in 1972 to investigate the impact ofOffice of Education programs on women. The resulting report,A Look at Women in Education: Issue and Answers for HEW,deals with sexism in education but devotes only a shortpassage to women in administrative positions." itrecommends additional research, special programs, and dis-semination of information to the public and to educators onlegal implications and on the larger issues involved in sexdiscrimination.

Similar state and local reports have been issued. Task forcesare clearly valuable means for focusing concern, initiatingbureaucratic self-analysis and suggesting new directions forpolicy. They increase the awareness of public officials andeducators and, therefore, make it more difficult for them toclaim ignorance of discrimination. Such reports may lead toaction, as seems the case in Pennsylvania, where the StateDepartment of Education undertook internal implementation

32

Research

of its task force recommendations on "Sexism in Education.",However, they may be used by administrators and governmentofficials to buy time, or they may be disregarded ?Itogether.

In Dayton, Ohio, the Superintendent of Schools established aCommittee on Women's Rights in September of 1972 to assessthe status of women in the Dayton public schools and torecommend an Affirmative Action Program. In two separatereports of February and August, 1973, the committee chargeddiscrimination in employment and sexism in the educationa!system and recommended concrete steps to remedy thesituation. However, a new superintendent disbanded thecommittee and suggested that the issues reported on were nota priority for him. Extensive criticism by the newspapers, thecommunity and the board forced the superintendent to appointa new committee and, presumably, to begin the task again.76

The Dayton example shows how dependent such task forcesare on their creator for essential support. However, it alsoshows the value of a written document that can be taken to thepublic via the press.

Task forces are not necessarily limited to government agor !ciesor school districts. The National School Boards Associationhas also created a commission to study the role of women onschool boards and identify factors that prevent more womenfrom serving on boards of education."

Most task torces engage in research prior to issuing reportsand suggest areas in which further information is needed. Thenecessity for additional research has already been suggestedin this paper. Jacqueline Clement's list of unansweredquestions (see "Introduction") could provide an agenda forresearchers for some time to come.

33

Some of the research needs are beginning to be met by suchgroups as the American Education Research Association,whose task force on women has lc. to the formation of aresearch group on women in education and the preparation ofscholarly papers for their next convention.76

One established group that has attempted to accumulate dataon positive action being taken is Pi Lamda Theta, the honor andservice association for women in education. Its small survey ofabout 100 chapters points up the need for further informationon actions taken by local districts to bring about equality forwomen.79

Established groups may also accumulate important data byincluding questions relevant to sex in their regular surveys.The American Association of School Administrators, in aquestionnaire for a 1971 report on the superintendency, askedfor identification of gender and learned that there are almost nowomen superintendents. However, the study did not attempt tocorrelate sex with such factors as length of service, degreesearned, and positions held prior to appointment.80

Unforton?t,:;y, the National Association of Secondary :c; outPrincipals has stopped asking the sex of respondents in itsquestionnaires, thus making it impossible to correlate the sexof principals with other characteristics.8'

The need for data may in the end be best met by organizationswhose main purpose is to focus on sexism in education. Onesuch group, the Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education,funded by the Ford Foundation and the National Foundationfor Improvement of Education,82 provides material to in-dividuals and groups and publishes a newsletter.

The Education Commission of the States is seeking funding toestablish a national office which would gather information on

34

equal rights for women in education and disseminate this to allstate departments of education.83

Research of this kind must be funded so that educators andpolicy makers know how far they have come and how far theyhave to go. It must also provide information on which to basedecisions about the best ways to get there.

Conventions Meetings to discuss the issues of sexism and discriminationand special are useful for the exchange of information and as a stimulus toconferences action. They generate a cohesiveness and mutual support

which enables concerned persons to act in ways very differentfrom those of isolated individuals.

Special conferencesIn April, 1972, the Connecticut Education Association spon-sored the Connecticut Conference on the Sta is of Women,one of the first to deal exclusively with sexism in education.From it came a booklet, 51% Minority, directed to local groups,providing information on the status of women in education.84

In 1973 statewide conferences concerning sex bias in bothcurriculum materials and employment practices were held in atleast ten states. They were jointly sponsored by variouscombinations of state departments of education, humanrelatioas commissions, teachers' associations, commissionson the status of women, local chapters of the Women's EquityAction League (WEAL) and the National Organization forWomen (NOW). There has also been a national conference onsex role stereotypes. sponsored by NEA with a grant from theU S. Office of Education. At this conference a mailing list of)0.000 was developed and the groundwork laid for theestablishment of the Resource Center for Sex Roles inEducation."

35

A small conference on Women in Educational Policy Makingheld in Der..er in January, 1974, and co-sponsored by theInstitute for Educational Leadership at George WashingtonUniversity and the Education Commission of the States,planned on producing materials for state departments ofeducation, school boards, university faculty in schools ofeducation, and local administrators."

Although such special meetings undoubtedly draw on themost committed and aware women, particularly at the nationallevel, state and local conferences may attract a wider range ofwomen who will develop a sense of mission, gain support andacquire helpful information. Local conferences for womenteachers may be useful in raising the aspirations of an entiregeneration of teachers.

Sexism and employment discrimination are not just women'sproblems; yet, few male educators have had to reappraise theirattitudes as a result of these conferences. With one exception

a three-day conference sponsored by the TeacherLeadership Program of CUNY they have been organized andattended by women.

Certainly, women should take the lead in developing materials,meetings and programs; however, it is important to involvemen in what must ultimately be a cooperative effort. Moreover,men now in positions of power and influence must bepersuaded to help change employment patterns in education,as they have begun to do in some major industries.

Workshops and Caucusesof Established OrganizationsSpecial programs held as a part of regular associationmeetings can be the impetus for further actions on the part ofthese organizations. The American Education ResearchAssociation's 1973 conference offered three hundred

36

divisional programs, only four of which involved sexism(sixteen involved racism). None of the four dealt withemployment." The 1973 convention of the National SchoolBoards Association devoted one out of s3venty-two "specialinterest clinics" to "Sex Discrimination: The Big New Problemfor Boards." However, it plans to give coverage to the "womanquestion" in 1974.0 The special interest clinic on sex dis-crimination featured a speech by Terry Saario, the FordFoundation's program officer for the public education divisionand co-author of the Kappan article on Women in PublicEducation: Sexual Discrimination in Promotions.

The underutilization of women was a main topic of the 1971annual meeting of the National Council of AdministrativeWomen in Education. Speeches given by four educators andRepresentative Edith Green were later published in a bookletentitled W.- 'men: A Significant National Resource.sg All urgedthe greater utilization of women, deplored their underutiliza-tion, provided some informative statistical material on theabsence of women from administration, and urged women andmen to repair the situation. None offered concrete suggestionson how to achieve these goals.

Perhaps nothing epitomizes the need for consciousnessraising among educators more than two panel discussions atthe 1973 convention of the American Association of SchoolAdministrators. The two panel discussions relating to womenwere for the wives of the superintendents, one title "TheSuperintendent's WifeSome Do's, Don't's and Maybe's," andthe other "From Adam's Rib to Women's Lib You've Come ALong Way Baby." The AASA has had no task forces orcommittees examining the status of women in education, andits many publications do not deal with the issue either. The1973 convention did, however, pass a resolution urging that"school systems make continuous efforts to identify women ontheir staffs who are potential educational leaders, that school

37

boards implement policies which exclude sex as a criteria andthat schools of educational administration active,/ seek outpromising potential administrators among women."90 Unfor-tunately, AASA's two seminars for wives (presumably nohusbands of administrators were expected) say more aboutorganizational attitudes than its resolution on womeneducators.

The NEA does have a Women's Caucus which has heldseminars at NEA conventions, but there are many morewomen's caucuses among college teachers in various fieldsthan there are women's caucuses in public education.

Other Their publicationsresponses by Publications issued by professional organizations are impor-profossional tant because they reach more people than do conferences.organizations They are permanent and can be referred to and shown to

others. They also allow for a continuous discussion of manyfacets of the issue.

The National Council of Administrative Women in Educationhas published a number of booklets that reflect its dual aims:"encouraging women to prepare for and accept the challenge"of administrative positions and the urging of systems andagencies to "recognize women's administrative and executiveabilities."91 Among them are such titles as Wanted: MoreWomen and Women: A Significant National Resource bothcited earlier. Unfortunately, these are distributed largely withinthe membership and so have limited impact. However, theNCAWE NEWS refle,As a new activist emphasis in thatorganization.

Publications of of : :r professional organizatons contain fewarticles written by or about women in education. For instance,the Bulletin of The National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, issued nine times a year, contained fewer than six

38

articles concerning women in 1973. However, the editorial staffreports that an issue devoted to the status of women is beingconsidered for 1974.92

The October, 1973, issue of Phi Delta Kappan (the magazine ofPhi Delta Kappa a male educational fraternity with 90,000members) is the most useful and exciting model of what can bedone. The articles in this special issue on "Education and theFeminist Movement," written primarily by women known asadvocates of change, are informative, thoughtful and pro-vocative. Two articles mentioned earlier in this paper, by Lyonand Saario and by Taylor, deal with women in administration.

Self-criticism and internal changeThere are hopeful signs that professional associations aremoving toward not only creative awareness but meaningfulaction. The executive committees of the American Associationof School Administrators and the National Council of Ad-ministrative Women in Education have met to discussstrategies for implementing the AASA convention resolution inadministration.

But the very fact that two such groups exist indicates a basicproblem: sex-segregation within professional organizations.The AASA is a highly influential group of administrators withover 16,000 members (in 1970), of whom only 561 are women.Some of these are retired, and some 'do not seem to beadministrators at all. Librarians and reading counselors areexamples:93 The NCAWE, which dates back to the early part ofthe century. is a parallel organization for women, as Pi LambdaTheta is the parallel women's group to the male fraternity PhiDelta Kappa. Until recently, there were no female members ofPhi Delta Kappa, despite increasing pressure to admit women.In October, 1973, a resolution recommending changes in theconstitution to allow chapters to admit women finally passedon its second vote. It is interesting to note that in 1973,

39

recognizing the detrimental effects of the Phi Delta Kappapolicy, the American Educational Research Association refus-ed to co-sponsor with Phi Delta Kappa an annual award fordistinguished research in education." .

Sex-segregation of professional groups is not only a form ofdiscrimination, it helps to perpetuate it. The ProfessionalWoman describes the effects of separating professional menand women:

Discrimination of a more subtle nature is also evidenced inthe exclusicn of females from the informal networks ofcliques, clubs, and other peer relationships whereprofessional decisions are made, knowledge shared, andfavors exchanged . . .

It encourages the creation of accommodative structuressuch as . . . separate professional associations which widenthe breech between male and female professionals whateverother functions they may perform. It results in femalebehavior which is deviant from the institutional pattern, andwhich places considerable strain on the professional self-image.95

The organizational structure separating men and women ispart cf the overall separation of men and women in emplci-ment. Women lose not only symbolically, but in a real sense,when isolated from the conferences and contacts essential tojob opportunities. If women were members of the sameprofessional groups as men. they would be able to help changeattitudes about women's interests and abilities, and shape thepolicies of these organizatons. Special women's caucusos orpolitical groups are totally different from women's professionalorganizations which are separate from dominant maleorganizations. Recently formed women's groups as, for exam-ple, WEAL and NOW are providing pressure for change ineducation from outside the professions. Even though there are

40

valid arguments that women can develop cohesiveness,strength and self-respect separately, NOW, the largest andprobably most effective feminist organization in the country,has male members.

Innovative Responses to the underrepresentation of women relating toPrograms increasing understanding of discrimination and measures toRecruitment bring about legal changes through professional organizationsand Training do not deal with the recruitment and training of women to

increase the pool of women qualified for administrative posts.Scattered programs have been establishes to deal with thesespecific issues but even the University Council for EducationalAdministration, which represents university departments ofeducational administration and graduate schools of educationin general, has not yet addressed itself to the vital tasks ofrecruiting, counseling and preparing women for administra-tion.

In higher education, there are some special training programsfor women administrators on a college level, funded byCarnegie Corporation. One program includes an internship incollege administration for recent college graduates plusspecial summer institutes in management at the University ofMichigan.% The other is a program of individualized ad-ministrative training at the Claremont Colleges under thetutelage of top level Claremont administrators.91

There are two programs designed specifically for public schooladministrators. The first, Western Michigan University's"Fellowships for the Management of Educational Change,"funded under the Educational Professions Development Act,98was devoted to women and minority men. Of the 25 fellows atWestern Michigan in 1973-74, 20 were women. Significantparts of this program are a required internship and a specialseminar in Human Relations. The seminar focuses on "thedevelopment of skills and strategies for women and minorities

41

to enter and maintain leadership positions."

Teaching women to be aware of and to develop strategies fordealing with the particular problems they may face untilattitudes and discriminatory practices change, is an importantcontribution to their future success. It is debatable whether it isbetter to offer special courses within regular graduateprograms or to establish special programs that tend to isolatewomen. Followup studies on pa. :icipants in both types ofprograms should help to answer this question. Programsrestricted to women participants do tend to silence theargument that women are unavailable.

The second, The National Program for EducationalLeadership, also funded under the Educational ProfessionsDevelopment Act, attempts to develop non-traditional can-didates, not necessarily women, for educational leadership.The Program seeks talented people both inside and outside thefield of education, with emphasis on people in other fields andcareers. and fashions individualized programs for them. It iscommitted to providing "new leadership talent, prepared inunconventional ways."99

The October, 1973, draft report on the first NPEL programexplains that it did not accept as many women as it would haveliked.'00 Attracted through no particular recruiting plan otherthan releases in the public and educational press and someword-of-mouth recruiting, 148 candidates, of whom 51 werewomen, were interviewed; 250 applicants were rejectedwithout interviews. Only eight of the sixty-three finalists werewomen.'," What happened? The NPEL report admits that thewomen who were rejected "appeared in every way as qualifiedas others, or more qualified than others who were accepted."What caused these women to be rejected? Why were theaccepted women "either divorced or separated or single"? Theexplanation: those qualified women who were not accepted "in

42

almost every case were turned aside for 'lack of mobility' i.e., a'family commitment'."

Although "mobility" is never defined, it appears to relate toscheduling rather than geographical location. (The plans forthe program included a home-base university one of five orsix unnamed in the proposal but no substantial commitmentto courses at that institution and the possibility of program-ming almost anywhere related to the individual's needs andinterests.) Since rigid scheduling requirements may excludesome women with family responsibilities from educationalprograms as well as jobs, the report's comments are signifi-cant. It speaks of

. . . a challenge or (sic] to NPEL or similar leadershipprograms to modify schedules in some way that wouldpermit highly motivated, capable women with families totrain themselves on schedules appropriate to their re-quirements for high level positions in a system whosepresent leadership is dominated by males. It is not too soonto explore splitting Fellowships and jobs among pairs ortrios of women to bring their skills and resources into theneeded talent pool. Furthermore. the qualities of femalepersons motivated sufficiently to apply for NPEL make itobvious that a good program modeled on the Fellowshipprogram could be designed to prepare younger women withfamilies for re-entry into professional life at mid-management levels.

These proposals for employing women who do not want full-time positions during those years when they have youngfamilies and for facilitating re-entry into the job market arebeing tried increasingly in business and non-profit institutions.There are also women's groups documenting and promotingthe advantages of flexible scheduling for both women andemployers.

43

Apparently, modification of schedules was too innovative forthe NPEL to consider, even though it claimed to be innovative,non-traditional and to feature "individual programmingfashioned around personal needs of the students."02 Werethe needs for flexibility so very peculiar and inappropriate?They often seem to be, to those who have a male bias. Butperhaps as striking, is that these women apparently did notturn down the fellowship, they were rejected. There is noexplanation of what, if any, demands individual women made.The report merely explains that "23 of the women were marriedand may be considered to have some family commitment, 4 arewidowed and have some dependents." It states as a conclu-sion: "In other words about half of the applicants were personsfor whom 'mobility' was a consideration, regardless of otherattributes." Famil; commitment does not necessarily mean aproblem with "mobility." This is a stereotype. Perhaps moredata on the applications and interviews would show that inindividual cases there were concerns which the NPEL shouldhave taken into account, but unfortunately this report does notdetail them. It seems to work on the assumption that womenwith families are not "mobile."

The reason for examining tnis issue at some length here is notto attack the NPEL, which does appear to offer some hope forbringing women into edwzational administration. Rather, thelanguage of the report (in its explanation for the low percen-tage of women) offers a rare opportunity to examine a writtenrationale for not "hiring" women. Such rationales and theirunderlying rigid assumptions are behind many unsuccessful"efforts" to recruit and hire women. Normally such analysesare not committed to writing or even consciously articulated bythose making decisions.

Continued research, task force reports, conventions andpublished discussions of sexism and discrimination will ul-timately begin to change the attitudes of decision-makers who

44

could, but do not, employ women. Meanwhile, something mustbe done to increase the numbers of women in positions ofleadership in the schools. The chief responsibility rests on thelocal school district, where recruitment, hiring and promotingtakes place.

45

Rd' From Equal Employment

la;Opportunity to AffirmativeAction

O.CO

Equal Employment Opportunity is the law. . . . However,there remains a need to communicate to employers why andhow equal employment opportunity usually requirespositive, affirmative action beyond establishment of neutral"non-discriminatory" and "merit-hiring" policies.'03

"Affirmative action" embodies the notion of doing somethingpositive. It is used by the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission to characterize voluntary or required plans andprocedures to end discrimination and change the compositionof the labor force in any organization, business or agency. Thedevelopment of an affirmative action program necessitates astudy of the work force, and a writ plan with numerical goalsand timetables.

Having a written, operative affirmative action program isthe clearest and potentially most successful way for a businessor institution to change its employment patterns. Such aprogram may make use of the various techniques detailed inthe previous chapter research, task forces, conferences,special training; however, it is distinguished by specificcommitments and specific plans to make measurable changein employment figures. It also places responsibility squarely onemployers; at the loc .. level, school boards and sup-erintendents; at the state level, secretaries of education; and onthe federal level, the Commissioner of Education.

It is important to understand the difference between equalemployment opportunity and affirmative action. Equal employ-ment opportunity, "the right of all persons to work and toadvance on the basis of merit, and ability and potential,"'" is agoal. When it is reached, women, blacks, and other minoritieswill be employed at every level in numbers proportionate totheir respective percentage of the population. It is not enough,as employers and federal agencies originally thought, todeclare that an institution has a policy of equal employment

46

opportunity and to be "neutral" in hiring and promotiondecisions (i.e., not consider the sex, race or religion of anindividual). Employers who have had such policies (given thesame tests to all applicants, applied the same criteria, and soon) have not substantially improved their records.

Overt discrimination (i.e., when an employer admits he will nothire a .voinan for a certain job) is not the only form ofdiscrimination and, by and large, is the exception, not the rule.However, discrimination can be subtle, unintentional and partof long-standing procedures. Employment systems continueto discriminate daily, creating serious unequal opportunitiesfor minorities and women. An employer may, according tocourt decision, give the same test to all applicants for a job andyet be found to discriminate because the test has a disparateeffect and is not job-related.'05 The same qualifications (ad-vanced degree, years of experience) may be applied to allapplicants for a position; however, if they are not valid aspredictors of ability to do the job, they may be discriminatory.

Although an institution may be an equal employment oppor-tunity employer, its employees who are charged with hiringand evaluating for promotion may retain subtle, or not sosubtle, prejudices which color their decisions. Once womenare hired, the company may do nothing to insure their success.On the job, they may suffer from lack of support and subtleundermining of effectiveness which lead to failure and fulfill-ment of the prediction that they cannot administer assuccessfully as men.

The purpose of an affirmative action program has been clearlystated in the Office of Federal Contract Compliance RevisedOrder No. 4 requiring affirmative action by federal contractors:

An affirmative action program is a set of specific and result-oriented procedures to which a contractor commits himselfto apply every good faith effort. The objective of those

47

procedures plus such efforts is equal employment oppor-tunity. Procedures without effort to make them work aremeaningless; and effort, undirected by specific andmeaningful procedures, is inadequate. An acceptable affir-mative action program must include an analysis of areaswithin which the contractor is deficient in the utilization ofminority groups and women, and further, goals andtimetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts mustbe directed to correct the deficiencies and, thus to increasematerially the utilization of minorities and women, at alllevels and in all segments of his work force where deficien-cies exist. X06

Conscious efforts to increase the participation of a specialcategory of people in education are not new. The effort to"deteminize" the schools and attract men into secondaryeducation, and more recently elementary education, sets aprecedent for the acceptability of positive action. Presentrequirements of affirmative action do not involve paying selectgroups of people more money, hiring people who are un-qualified, or deciding on employment purely on grounds ofsex. However, they do go beyond lip service. A determinationthat there must be more women in administration necessitatesfinding ways to make that happen.

A plan. to be effective, must include adequate mechanisms thatare adhered to. Certainly no program will work perfectly or tothe satisfaction of all, but a system must achieve results if it is tobe considered successful.

Primarily, change means identifying and removing barrierswhich prevent already qualified women from assuming ad-ministrative positions. If these barriers are, in part, stated orunstated qualifications for jobs, re-evaluating them does notnecessarily mean a lowering of quality or reverse discrimina-tion. The desire to increase the number of males in elementary

48

schools involved 2 re-evaluation of the necessarycharacteristics of teachers at that level. Re-evaluation is ahealthy process especially in such an unscientific procedure ashiring and promoting. where there is far too little knowledgeeither of how to measure qualifications or of how to make validpredictions of job success. Often job descriptions are writtenmore out of tradition than from careful review of necessaryminimum ability and training.

An affirmative action program may, in addition, involve aid toassist people to become qualified who have suffered from pasteffects of discrimination.'°' For women this aid should involve,above all, formal encouragement and support in the form ofcareer development workshops and special training oppor-tunities, as well as informal encouragement and backing frommen and women who have succeeded. It must also, of course,include active recruitment of women for training programs andfor administrative positions.

Required Most school districts are not presently required to haveor affirmative action programs, although they will now be re-Voluntary quired to report on employment statistics. The National

Education Association's booklet, What is Affirmative Action?, auseful initial guidebook, explains the present situation:

A school system is not required to file a plan unless (a) it is asubcontractor to the federal government with a contract of$50,000 or more (b) a state law or regulation requires thefiling of affirmative action plans, or (c) the system has beenordered to file a plan as a corrective measure for federalagency findings of discrimination. However, voluntarydevelopment of an affirmative action plan is a progressiveemployment practice. Legal prohibition of rar:ielly andsexually discriminatory practices covers nearly every publiceducation program, so it is to the advantage of the schoolsystem to identify all possible sources of discriminationbefore charges may be filed against it.'"

49

Although a voluntary program is not a legal commitment, it canbecome one when it takes the form of an agreement with theOffice of Voluntary Programs of the EEOC. Organizations mayenter into such agreements to avoid suits which may take yearsof litigation and result in substantial financial losses in backpay awards.

Affirmative Effective programs in federal and state education offices areAction at all essential to their ability to apply pressure to local districts andLevels to offer needed technical assistance. Experience in govern-

ment offices to date indicates that the existence of anaffirmative action plan on paper is not sufficient. The U.S.Office of Education's task force found, in looking at such a planand its working at OE, that the number of women actuallydecreased over the period of a little more than a year and theplanned rate of hiring would have required forty years to bringwomen into their appropriate representation at higher levels.Administrators were able to "go through the motions" withoutcoming up with results.'" Newspaper reports on the EEOCinvestigation of Delaware School districts and the StateDepartment of Education indicate that the state has anaffirmative action policy but does not follow all procedures setforth in it, and one district has a plan that may not have formalapproval from the school board."°

However, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department ofEducation has reported increases in numbers of women andminorities in administrative and policy-making positions withinhis department. In a little more than a year "a 13 percentincrease in the number of white women in salary ranges above$13,000 per year (from 67 to 76)"; "a 366 percent increase in thenumber of white women in salary ranges above $17,000 peryear (from 6 to 28)."'" It is clear from this report that somethingnew is happening in this state office; it carries a message tolocal districts that it can be done.

50

Relationship How does an affirmative action program for women relate toto Affirmative affirmative action for blacks and other minorities? Basically,Action for practices and attitudes that support discrimination are related,Minorities whether they affect women or blacks. However, it is dangerous

to assume that on-going programs for minorities can simplyadd women as an additional category and be effective, or that apersonnel department with responsibility for affirmative actioncan function effectively when staffed by male administratorsand female secretaries.

All affirmative action personnel in a district and all facets of aprogram must be coordinated, but it is important to appointsomeone to take special responsibility for programs forwomen, and to analyze the ways discrimination operatesagainst women. Otherwise, the unique problems of womenmay be ignored and the affirmative action program maybecome less effective for both women and blacks.

Guidelines Anyone embarking upon the development of an affirmativefor action program for a school district should consult a variety ofDevelopment available publications, some of Which have been quotedand here."2 The experiences other school districts have had inImplements- developing affirmative action programs, both successful andtion unsuccessful, should be explored. "3 It would also be valuableof Affirmative to look at affirmative action plans and programs in otherAction settings business and higher education. A representative ofPrograms an individual school district should also request assistance

from the state department of education and the Equal Employ-ment Opportunity Commission. Specific guidelines fordeveloping a program are:1. Appoint a Task Force. A task force should be convened, as

in Dayton and Kalamazoo, to make an initial survey of thewzIrk force and employment practices and to presentrecommendations for action. Such a committee must havebroad representation from various levels in the schoolsystem and from the community.

51

2. Select an Affirmative Action Officer. An affirmative actionofficer must be appointed who has sufficient time tosupervise the program. This need not be a full-time job andcan be shared with other persons. But the requirements ofthe task necessitate a substantial time commitment of atleast one or more individuals plus the involvement of a taskforce or committee.The person with primary responsibility for an affirmativeaction program for women should be a woman. Otherwisethe system perpetuates the notion that men in powerfulpositions know what is best for women.The affirmative action officer must have a mandate for actionand derive power and authority from the superintendent andBoard of Education so that she can deal effectively with toplevel administrators.

3. Survey Present Work Force and Employment Practices.Surveys should be taken to determine job classifications inwhich women are underutilized, where women are currentlyemployed in the system and the qualifications which theyhave which would make promotion possible.An affirmative action program must involve all jobs,professional and non-professional, within a system. Some ofthe most blatant sex-stereotyping goes on in non-professional jobs (office workers and custodial personnel),and there can be no significant change in attitudes andpractices unless change is evident at all leseIs.

4. Employ Consultants. Where needed, employ outside con-sultants to assist in the development and implementation ofan affirmative action program. Consultants bring with themprior experience with equal employment regulations andprocedures, offer a degree of objectivity and provideauthoritative opinions which are often more palatable tolocal personnel.

5. Secure Approval. The initial report and final detailedaffirmative action program should be approved by the Boardof Education. There must also be a publicly stated con-

52

tinuing commitment to affirmative action.6. Publicize Program. The initial report and final program

should be widely publicized within the school district and inthe community at large to demonstrate good faith, toencourage women to apply for administrative positions andto allow for input from a variety of sources.

7. Develop Support Systems. Every effort should be made todiscover and meet the real problems and needs of women inthe system through surveys, supportive seminars andinterviews with women who are working within as well asthose who are leaving the system.

8. Review and Report Progress. There must be scheduledperiodic reviews of progress with publically announcedresults to permit means for independent outside review.

53

Conclusions andRecommendations

0.8C0

This position paper has documented what amounts to thealmost total exclusion of women from administrative positionsin public education, explored reasons for the declining percen-tages of women in our public schools and reviewed andrecommended ways to begin to reverse this trend. TheRecruitment L.T.I. has taken the position that remedies arenecessary and possible. Necessary because the absence ofwomen deprives public schools of needed talent, depriveswomen of opportunities for full participation in a basicinstitution and deprives students of role models of women inleadership positions. Possible because present attitudes andemployment practices which exclude women are identifiableand amenable to solution and because there are womenwilling and able to administer.

This is an appropriate time for action. Women's organizationsare exposing and challenging sexism in education; laws andcourt decisions are supporting women's rights to equalparticipation in employment; and life-styles of women and menare changing. More flexible work patterns are evolving alongwith support systems that accommodate the needs of womenwho work child care, maternity leaves and possibilities of re-entry and re-training.

Throughout it has been clear that assigning blame to women ormen is neither meaningful nor productive since the presentsituation results from a complex of forces and procedures. Theemphasis of this paper has been on increasing understandingof these factors and urging continued research and discussionto identify areas for innovation and change.

Major immediate remedies focus on discrimination againstinterested, qualified women. Affirmative action is recommend-ed on all levels local, state and federal aimed at alteringdiscriminatory attitudes and practices and ultimately in-creasing the numbers of women holding administrative posts.

54

Immediate impact can be made by improving recruitment andtraining of women by graduate Schools of Education. Long-term solutions must consider the aspirations of womenstudents, the need for support and encouragement of womenteachers and accommodation to differing life styles.

Some of the remedies recommended in this position paper arealready in motion, as indicated in the "response" chapter, someare in the initial stages of development, and some have not yetbeen tried. It seems useful to summarize these recommendedremedies here, as a possible agenda for those who want toeffect change.

individual men and women educators:Make the elimination of sex-discrimination in the preparation,recruitment, hiring and oromot .n of women as administratorsa priority and insist that all relevant offices and boards dolikewise.Use existing national and local educational organizations andwomen's organizations in a broad range of actions to achieveequality of opportunity for women.Work toward developing greater awareness and understandingof sexism and discrimination and toward building pressure foraction through a variety of avenues: letters to editors andschool officials, talks, panel discussions and debates atmeetings of teachers, parents, administrators, and boardmembers.Be prepared to discuss and take legal action particularly withrespect to cases of blatant discrimination.Act as critics and prodders in every possible situation.

School Districts:Institute affirmative action programs.Aggressively recruit women candidates for administrativepositions.Put more women on selection committees.

55

Establish in-service career development workshops for womento explore career options, discuss sexism and its effects andexamine ways to enter and maintain leadership positions.Develop part-time opportunities for women to remain in thefield while raising children.Hold sessions to make men aware of attitudes and practicesthat perpetuate discrimination.Press universities to provide female candidates for ad-ministrative positions.Insist on state and national data on potential women ad-ministrators.Develop projects which analyze and eliminate sexism inexisting programs.

State departments of education:Develop and implement internal affirmative action programs.Establish policies for directing local districts in developingaffirmative action programs and offer technical assistance.Maintain figures by sex on numbers certified for specificadministrative positions and numbers employed.Work with universities to develop new training programs.Analyze and reevaluate certification requirements.Hold conferences in conjunction with EEOC, Human RelationsCommissions, women's caucuses and others to developawareness, obtain information, and teach effectivemeasures to challenge discrimination.Develop and implement internal affirmative action plans toincrease the percentage of women faculty.Analyze all recruitment and admission practices, courses andplacement services.Offer courses on sexism in education.

Schools of education:Recruit women for educational administration programs.Offer programs with flexible scheduling.

56

Counsel and support women to plan for careers in administra-tion.Offer courses in developing skills and strategies to enter andmaintain leadership positions.Seek funding for innovative programs to train women ad-ministrators.

Professional organizations:Open their membership to women and combine with parallelwomen's organizations.Give substantial and continued coverage in publications tosexism and discrimination.Include these subjects in convention workshops.Hold special conferences.Promote research and dissemination of information.Act as listing sources of jobs for affirmative action employersGive support to individuals who want to take legal action andfile amicus curiae briefs in significant cases.Put pressure on school districts to alter practices.

Federal agencies:Implement internal affirmative action plans.Offer technical assistance to states and local districts.Encourage and fund programs designed to increase represen-tation of women in administration.Withhold funds and take legal action where possible topressure local districts to cease discrimination.

Each school district and educational agency is different.Approaches that will work well in one area may not work as wellin another. The real basis for achieving full representation forwomen in administration will not be a rigid adherence to aparticular set of procedures, but a will to find and create theprocedures that will work in a particular school district oragency.

57

Footnotes

1. Rosalind Loring and Theodora Wells, Breakthrough: Womeninto Management (New York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co.,1972), pp. 7-8, 29: The Professional Woman, ed, with intro. byAthena Theodore (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman PublishingCo..1971). pp. 3-7. All further references are to the introductionby Theodore.

2. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: G. &C. Merriam Co., 1956).

3. "Report of the Personnel Task Force, Committee to Study SexDiscrimination in the Kalamazoo Pulic Schools." April, 1973,p. 1. Hereafter referred to as "Kalamazoo Report."

4. Dayton, Ohio, Journal Herald, September 14, 1973.5. "Kalamazoo Report," p.1.6. Catherine Dillon Lyon and Terry N. Saario. "Women in Public

Education: Sexual Discrimination in Promotions," Phi DeltaKappan, Education and the Feminist Movement issue, LV(October, 1973), p. 120 quoting from Report of the New YorkState Commission on the Quality, Cost, and Financing ofElementary and Secondary Education, 1972, Vol. 3, pp 13-100.

7. Suzanne S. Taylor. "Educational Leadership: A Male Domain?"Kappan (October, 1973), p. 125, cites several studies.

8. "Prologue:" material from this qualifying paper is quoted bypermission of Jacqueline P. Clement.

9. Clement, pp. 14-15.10. Lyon and Saario tried unsuccessfully to obtain this information

for their article, p. 120.11. See Lyon ana Saario, pp. 120-21.12. National Education Association, Research Division Research

Report 1973-H5, 26th Biennial Salary and Staff Survey of PublicSchool Professional Personnel, 1972-73, p. 9. Rep-oduced bypermission of National Education Association Research Divi-sion.

13. NEA Research Report 1973-R8, Estimates of School Statistics1973-74, pp. 28-29.

14. Lyon and Saario, pp. 120-21.15. "The Time is Now" (Report A, The Women's Rights Committee,

58

Dayton Public Schools), February 8, 1973 p. 3: Hereafterreferred to as "Dayton Report."

16. "Kalamazoo Report," p. 2.17. Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education; Research Action

Notes, I (December 31, 1973), p. 7.18. Taylor, Kappan, p. 127 citing Girard D. Hottleman, "School

Boards: Moneyed Men Governing the Poor," TheMassachusetts Teacher, January, 1973.

19. Lyon and Saario, p. 121.20. Taylor, Kappan, p. 124.21. Ibid.22. Adopted from Dorothy Johnson, "What is the Future of Women

in School Administration?" Women: A Significant NationalResource (Washington, D.C.: National Council of Ad-ministrative Women in Education, 1971), p. 35. For source of1973 figures see above Table I.

23. Johnson, p. 34 and see above Table I.24. Figures based on NEA, Research Division Research Report

1971-R5, 25th Biennial Salary Survey of Public-SchoolProfessional Personnel, 1970-71. I, 10 and Table I above.

25. Lyon and Saario, p. 120.26. Kappan, p. 124.27. Johnson, p. 39.28. Suzanne S. Taylor, "Women in Education," 51% Minority,

Connecticut Conference on the Status of Women, (NationalEducation Association /USOE -0- 72-2507), p. 66; NEAResearch Report 1973 - R8; and Tables I and III above.

29. Kenneth A. Simon and W. Vance Grant, Digest of EducationalStatistics (Washington. D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare, 1972) p. 10.

30. NEA Research Report 1973, p. 8.31. Clement, p. 8.32. The American School Superintendent, ed. Stephen J.

Knezevich (American Association of School Administrators,1971), p. 21.

33. Johnson, p. 34.

59

34. "Sexism and the Aspirations of Women," Kappan, p. 100.35. Sandra L. Bern and Daryl J. Bern, Training the Woman to Know

Her Place: The Social Antecedents of Women in the World ofWork (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Department ofEducation, 1974).

36. Matina S. Horner, "Why Women Fail," 51% Minority, p. 8.37. Theodore, pp. 14-19.38. Charlene Dale, Wanted More Women: Where are the Women

Superintendents (Ar!ington, Virginia: The National Council ofAdministrative Women in Education), p. 2.

39. February 22, 1974, p. 3.40. Conversation with EEOC staff member, June, 1974.41. See above p. 30.42. Lyon and Saario, pp. 120-21.43. Taylor, Kcq aan, p. 125.4 4. Clement, pi. 10-11.45. U.S. Department of Education, and Welfare, Earned Degrees

Conferred: 1970-71.46. The American School Superintendent, p. 45.47. February 22, 1974, p. 3.48. Journal of College Placement (April - May, 1973), pp. 2-3.49. "Kalamazoo Report," p. 4.50. Theodore, p. 27.51. Tobias, p. 5.52. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook for

Employers (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Equal E iiip.oyment Oppor-tunity Commission), I, pp. 4-7.

53. Wilmington, Delaware Morning News, May 7, 1974, pp. 1-2.54. Maine Times, February 23, 1974, p. 2.55. "Dayton Report," p. 9.56. Guidepost, pub. American Personnel and Guidance Associa-

tion, XVI (April 19, 1974), p. 2.57. Dale, p. 2.58. Taylor, Kappan, p. 127.59. Maine Times, February 22, 1974, p. 3; The American School

Superintendent, p. 11.

60

60. Clement, p. 48.61. Dale, p. 4.62. Charles 0 Orth, 3rd and Frederic Jacobs, "Women in Manage-

ment: Pattern for Change," Harvard Business Review (July -August, 1971), p 143.

63. Dale, pp. 5-6.64. Dale, p. 1.65. Theodore, pp. 5-6.36. Tobias, "Male Chauvinism in Employment;" Orth and acobs,

"Women in Management: Pattern for Change;" Loring andWells, i..elaxthrough: Women into Management; Women'sBureau, U.S. Department of Labor, "The Mytn and the Reality"(Washington, D.C.).

67. Lyon and Saario. p. 122.68. Clement, p. 10 citing N EA Research Division, Research Report

1967 - R4, The American Public-School Teacher 1965-66, pp.38, 15, 12.

69. M. Barbara Boyle, "Equal Opportunity for Women is SmartBusirt=," Harvard Business Review (May-June, 1973), P. 90;Orth and Jacobs, p. 144; Loring and Wells, p. 147.

70. Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education, Research ActionNotes, I (September 4. 1973), p. 4.

71. For more complete discussion of the laws see Chariot::: B.Hallam, "Legal Tools to Fight Sex Discrimination," Kappan(October, 1973), Do. 129-131; and Combating Discrimination inthe Schools; Legal Remedies and Guidelines (Washington,D.C.: National Education Association, 1973).

72. See Research Action Notes, I (September 4, 1973), p. 1.73. Adapted from Federal Laws and Regulations Concerning Race

and Sex Discrimination in Educational Institutions (N EA, June,1973).

74. Report of the Commissioner's Task Force on the Impact ofOffice of Education Programs on Women (November, 1972),pp. 14-15.

75. "Sexism in Education," Joint Task Force Report (PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education, 1972).

61

76. See Dayton Journal Herald and Dayton Daily News,September-October, 1973.

77. Telephone communication from spokesman of NationalSchool Boards Association.

76. See Taylor, Kappan, p. 127.79. "Current Policies Concerning Women in Colleges and School

Systems," Pi Lambda Theta Compilation.80. The American School Superintendent.81. Telephone communication from spokesman of National

Association of Secondary School Principals.82. See Research Action Notes, I (June 20, 1973), p. 1.83. Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado,

unpublished proposal.84. See Chapter I, Footnote 28.85. See Research Action Notes, I (June 20, 1973), pp. 4-5.86. Efforts to obtain copies of materials prepared at this con-

ference have been unsuccessful.87. See Taylor, Kappan, p. 127.88. Telephone communication from spokesman of National

School Boards Association.89. See Chapter I, Footnote 22.90. AASA Conference:. Proceedings.91. NCAWE Statement: "NCAWE History - Its Purpose How the

Purpose is Implemented."92. Telephone communication with staff member.93. Johnson, p. 38.94. Taylor, Kappan, p. 127.95. Theodore, pp. 30-31.96. Reported in Womenpower: A Monthly Report on Fair Employ-

ment Practices for Women. IV (May, 1974). p. 7.97. Announcement of "The Wonen Administrators Program" from

the Claremont Colleges.98. Information on the program based on original proposal and

January, 1974 report to project officer at OE obtained fromCarol Payne Smith, Program Administratoi, Fellowships for

62

Management of Educational Change, Western Michigan Un-iversity.

99. "A Proposal for A National Program for EducationalLeadership." (Ohio State University: April. 1970). p. 6.

100 Florence D. Shelley, "LAPEL Candidates: A Profile for FuturePlanning." (Draft: October, 1973), p. 8 ff.

101. Figures from Shelley. p. 2 and "Description of Applicants."102. National Program for Educational Leadership "Proposal," p. 9.103. Affirmative.. Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook for

Employers, I, p. 1.104. Ibid., I, p. 4.105. Ibid.. 1, pp. 6. 8.106. Ibid.. II, 0-28.107. Ibid., I, p. 1.108. What is Affirmative Action? Combating Discrimination in

Employment (Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1973), p. 3.109. "A Look at Women in Education: Issues and Answers for HEW,"

p. 69.110. Wilmington, Delaware Morning News, May 7, 1974, p. 2:

Wilmington Evening Journal, May 7, 1974, p. 2.111. Research Action Notes, 1 (December 31, 1973), p. 1.112. Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook for

Employers, 2 vols.: What is Affirmative Action? CombatingDiscrimination in Employment; Loring and Wells; Step by Step:Affirmative Action for Women, first published as part ofWomanpower. Vol. II, pp. 1-12 (Brookline. Mass.: Betsy HoganAssociates: M. Barbara Boyle.

113. The "Kalamazoo Report" and "Dayton Report" are good placesto begin.

63

Note:

Suggested Readings

Research on the literature of women in administration in publiceducation is complicated by the fact that much of the materialavailable deals generally with sexism in education rather thanthe underrepresentation of women in educational administra-

-In. Materials culled from current research and writing havebeen used in preparation of this position paper but further workneeds to be dons dealing specifically with the problem ofrecruitment, training and utilization of women in publiceducation.The following list of books, articles, unpublished materials andresources is a representative selection of material currentlyavailable.

Books and Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook forBooklets Employers. 2 volumes. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Equal Employ-

ment Opportunity Commission.Bem, Sandra L. and Bem, Darryl J., Training the Woman toKnow Her Place: The Social Antecedents of Women in theWorld of Work. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education, 1974.Catalyst. Part-time Teachers and How They Work: A Study ofthe School Systems. New York: Catalyst.Ccmbating Discrimination in the Schools: Legal Remedies andGuidelines. Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa-tion, 1973.Dale, Charlene. Wanted More Women: Where are the Wr.,menSuperintendents. Arlington, Virginia: The National Council ofAdministrative Women in Education.51% Minority, Connecticut Conference on the Status ofWomen. National Education Association/USOE-0-72-2507,August, 1972.Jongeward, Dorothy and Scott, Dru. Affirmative Action forWomen: A Practical Guide. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison -Wesley Publishing Co., 1973.Loring, Rosalind, and Wells, Theodora. Breakthrough: Women

64

into Management. Raw York: Von Nostrand Reinhold Co..1972.Theodore, Athena (ed.). The Professional Woman. Cambridge,Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., 1971.What is Affirmative Action? Combating Discrimination inEmployment. Washington, D.C.: National Education Associa-tion, 1973.Women: A Significant National Resource. Washington, D.C.:National Council of Administrative Women in Education, 1971.

Articles Boyle, M. Barbara. "Equal Opportunity for Women is Smartand Special Business." Harvard Business Review, (May-June. 1973). pp.Issues of 85-95.Periodicals Colloquy. "Education in Church and Society." Issue on sex-

role stereotyping. VI, No. 9 (November. 1973). Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.Orth, Charles D. and Jacobs, Frederic. "Women in Manage-ment: Pattern for Change," Harvard Business Review. (July-August, 1971). pp. 139-147.Phi Delta Kappan. "Education and the Feminist Movement"issue, LV (October, 1973).Tobias, Sheila. "Male Chauvinism in Employment," Journal ofCollege Placement (April-May, 1973).

Unpublished Clement, Jacqueline P. "The Dimensions of Discrimination inMaterials the Leadership of Elementary and Secondary Education and

the Potential for Legal Redress." Unpublished qualifyingpaper, Harvard Graduate School of Education, May, 1973."Report of the Personnel Task Force, Committee to Study SexDiscrimination in the Kalamazoo Public Schools," April, 1973.Unpublished, Kalamazoo, Michigan."Sexism in Education." Joint Task Force Report. PennsylvaniaDepartment of Education, 1972."The Time is Now" (Report A, The Women's Rights Committee,Dayton Public Schools), February 8, 1973. Unpublished,Dayton, Ohio.

65

Resources: Organizations, Newsletters, BibliographiesAhlum, Carol and Fralley, Jacqueline M. Feminist Resourcesfor Schools and Colleges: A Guide to Curricular Materials. OldWestbury, New York: The Feminist Press, 1973.Education Commission of the States: "Equal Rights for Womenin Education: Bibliography.- Denver, Colorado.The Feminist Press. Old Westbury, New York.Know, Inc. A Women's Free Press. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Project on the Status and Education of Women. On Campuswith Women. Washington, D.C.: Association of AmericanColleges.Resource Center on Sex Roles in Education. Research ActionNotes. Washington, D.C.: National Foundation for Improve-ment of Education.The Spokeswoman. Chicago, Illinois.Women Today. Washington, D.C.: Today Publications andNews Service.Women's Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.Women's Studies Newsletter. Old Westbury, New York: TheFeminist Press.Womenpower: A Monthly Report on Fair Employment Prac-tices for Women. Brookline, Massachusetts: Betsy HoganAssociates.

66