{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/88619"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/88619","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"A descriptive analysis of planning structures and functions as perceived by superintendents and practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States","abstract":"The study was based on the need for descriptive information on comprehensive planning as it currently exists in educational institutions and to make the information available to the profession. The problem of this study was to describe the structural and functional arrangements of formal planning organizations in education as perceived by superintendents and as practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States. The six objectives of the study were to ascertain selected descriptive characteristics within the selected school districts, including: 1. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents; 2. Professional and selected personal characteristics of the planning incumbent; 3. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced by the planning incumbent; 4. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by the planning incumbent; 5. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced and perceived by the planning incumbents; and, 6. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents and practiced by planning incumbents. A survey questionnaire, based on the literature, was developed for superintendents and planning incumbents. Of the 223 questionnaires mailed, 164 (74 percent) of the superintendents responded. Forty-nine (30 percent) responded that they did have planners and 49 planners' questionnaires were returned. On the basis of the data in this research, the following conclusions were drawn relative to the objectives of the study: 1. Education planning is an\"evolving\" but not yet a major aspect of the school districts surveyed. 2. The role of\"facilitator'' or helping others to plan was generally agreed upon by superintendents as the role of the planner. 3. Planning operations in public school systems probably are not under the leadership of personnel who could be .considered\"professionally trained\" in planning., nor do operations have long enough service and experience to adequately assess their impact change at this time. 4. The superintendent tends to be seen as the key factor in the success or failure of the planning process. 5. There is general agreement among planners as to similarity in regard to current practices in planning. 6. Planning, as it is practiced is not\"as it should be\", although there is general agreement among planners on what\"should be'' in terms of planning functions and structures. 7. Commitment of central office administrators, other than the planner; is not as high as is needed for success of the planning function. 8. There was only slight association in the perception of the role of the planner as viewed by superintendents and planners.","abstract_html":"The study was based on the need for descriptive information on comprehensive planning as it currently exists in educational institutions and to make the information available to the profession. The problem of this study was to describe the structural and functional arrangements of formal planning organizations in education as perceived by superintendents and as practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States. The six objectives of the study were to ascertain selected descriptive characteristics within the selected school districts, including: 1. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents; 2. Professional and selected personal characteristics of the planning incumbent; 3. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced by the planning incumbent; 4. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by the planning incumbent; 5. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced and perceived by the planning incumbents; and, 6. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents and practiced by planning incumbents. A survey questionnaire, based on the literature, was developed for superintendents and planning incumbents. Of the 223 questionnaires mailed, 164 (74 percent) of the superintendents responded. Forty-nine (30 percent) responded that they did have planners and 49 planners' questionnaires were returned. On the basis of the data in this research, the following conclusions were drawn relative to the objectives of the study: 1. Education planning is an"evolving" but not yet a major aspect of the school districts surveyed. 2. The role of"facilitator'' or helping others to plan was generally agreed upon by superintendents as the role of the planner. 3. Planning operations in public school systems probably are not under the leadership of personnel who could be .considered"professionally trained" in planning., nor do operations have long enough service and experience to adequately assess their impact change at this time. 4. The superintendent tends to be seen as the key factor in the success or failure of the planning process. 5. There is general agreement among planners as to similarity in regard to current practices in planning. 6. Planning, as it is practiced is not"as it should be", although there is general agreement among planners on what"should be'' in terms of planning functions and structures. 7. Commitment of central office administrators, other than the planner; is not as high as is needed for success of the planning function. 8. There was only slight association in the perception of the role of the planner as viewed by superintendents and planners.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Lusk, David Lee"],"institution":"Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University","degree_name":"Doctor of Education","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":"Educational Administration","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1976,"date_issued":"1976","date_published":"1976","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:26Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/88619","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Educational Administration"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Lusk, David Lee"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2019-03-26T19:52:57Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-03-26T19:52:57Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1976"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Education"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/88619"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The study was based on the need for descriptive information on comprehensive planning as it currently exists in educational institutions and to make the information available to the profession. The problem of this study was to describe the structural and functional arrangements of formal planning organizations in education as perceived by superintendents and as practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States. The six objectives of the study were to ascertain selected descriptive characteristics within the selected school districts, including: 1. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents; 2. Professional and selected personal characteristics of the planning incumbent; 3. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced by the planning incumbent; 4. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by the planning incumbent; 5. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced and perceived by the planning incumbents; and, 6. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents and practiced by planning incumbents. A survey questionnaire, based on the literature, was developed for superintendents and planning incumbents. Of the 223 questionnaires mailed, 164 (74 percent) of the superintendents responded. Forty-nine (30 percent) responded that they did have planners and 49 planners' questionnaires were returned. On the basis of the data in this research, the following conclusions were drawn relative to the objectives of the study: 1. Education planning is an\"evolving\" but not yet a major aspect of the school districts surveyed. 2. The role of\"facilitator'' or helping others to plan was generally agreed upon by superintendents as the role of the planner. 3. Planning operations in public school systems probably are not under the leadership of personnel who could be .considered\"professionally trained\" in planning., nor do operations have long enough service and experience to adequately assess their impact change at this time. 4. The superintendent tends to be seen as the key factor in the success or failure of the planning process. 5. There is general agreement among planners as to similarity in regard to current practices in planning. 6. Planning, as it is practiced is not\"as it should be\", although there is general agreement among planners on what\"should be'' in terms of planning functions and structures. 7. Commitment of central office administrators, other than the planner; is not as high as is needed for success of the planning function. 8. There was only slight association in the perception of the role of the planner as viewed by superintendents and planners."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Doctor of Education"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A descriptive analysis of planning structures and functions as perceived by superintendents and practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Educational Administration"],"dc:creator":["Lusk, David Lee"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2019-03-26T19:52:57Z"],"dc:date.available":["2019-03-26T19:52:57Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1976"],"dc:description.abstract":["The study was based on the need for descriptive information on comprehensive planning as it currently exists in educational institutions and to make the information available to the profession. The problem of this study was to describe the structural and functional arrangements of formal planning organizations in education as perceived by superintendents and as practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States. The six objectives of the study were to ascertain selected descriptive characteristics within the selected school districts, including: 1. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents; 2. Professional and selected personal characteristics of the planning incumbent; 3. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced by the planning incumbent; 4. Characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by the planning incumbent; 5. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as practiced and perceived by the planning incumbents; and, 6. Relationship between selected characteristics of the planning structure and planning functions as perceived by school superintendents and practiced by planning incumbents. A survey questionnaire, based on the literature, was developed for superintendents and planning incumbents. Of the 223 questionnaires mailed, 164 (74 percent) of the superintendents responded. Forty-nine (30 percent) responded that they did have planners and 49 planners' questionnaires were returned. On the basis of the data in this research, the following conclusions were drawn relative to the objectives of the study: 1. Education planning is an\"evolving\" but not yet a major aspect of the school districts surveyed. 2. The role of\"facilitator'' or helping others to plan was generally agreed upon by superintendents as the role of the planner. 3. Planning operations in public school systems probably are not under the leadership of personnel who could be .considered\"professionally trained\" in planning., nor do operations have long enough service and experience to adequately assess their impact change at this time. 4. The superintendent tends to be seen as the key factor in the success or failure of the planning process. 5. There is general agreement among planners as to similarity in regard to current practices in planning. 6. Planning, as it is practiced is not\"as it should be\", although there is general agreement among planners on what\"should be'' in terms of planning functions and structures. 7. Commitment of central office administrators, other than the planner; is not as high as is needed for success of the planning function. 8. There was only slight association in the perception of the role of the planner as viewed by superintendents and planners."],"dc:description.degree":["Doctor of Education"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/88619"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["A descriptive analysis of planning structures and functions as perceived by superintendents and practiced and perceived by planning incumbents in medium student population school districts (15,000-25,000) in the United States"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Education"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:20:26Z"}