Administrators of educational organizations make some decisions and preside over the making of others with the efficacy of their decisions subject to a posteriori discussion and debate. The field has not developed educational decision theories much beyond experience-based models that prescribe how educational decisions should be made. This article considers a nontraditional decision theory with its base in psychology.

An examination of the relationship between principals' behavioral pat terns and teachers' attitudes toward their building administrators is undertaken in this paper. The findings suggest that a discrepancy exists between those goals teachers claim to seek and those which are actually prized. Harvey Goldman is Assistant Professor of Educational Administration at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; James E. Heald is Professor of Educational Administration and Head, Office of Planning and Development, the College of Education, Michigan State University.

PROBLEMIncreased interest in the study of brain-injured children requires that instruments useful for such investigations be available. Benton has already demonstrated the suitability of certain materials for detection of possible astereognosis in children. The present study is directed toward determining the utility of the Goldstein-Scheerer Stick Test and the Weigl-Goldstein-Scheerer Color Form Sorting Testsc4) as means of investigating possible brain injury in children. We need not, for this purpose, become involved in the controversy relative to the meaning of the results obtained by these tests used with adults. C3# 6 , PROCEDUREThe Stick Test materials consist of 20 plastic sticks of which four are two inches, 12 are three inches, and four are four inches long. Half of the sticks of each length are used by the examiner and half by the subject. A standard set of 30 designs is provided. The test is given individually. First the examiner makes one of the designs with sticks from his pile, and then asks the subject to copy the design with his sticks. After this has been done with each of the 30 designs of varying difficulty, the procedure is repeated except that instead of the subject's copying the design he is required to reproduce it after the examiner's design has been withdrawn. The subject is allowed to look at the examiner's design for varying lengths of time from five to 30 seconds. The score is the number reproduced, both from the examiner's design and from memory. Whenever S succeeded in copying the design when it was before him, he was also able to reproduce it from memory.The Color Form Sorting Test materials consist of 12 plastic pieces approximately one-fourth inch thick, of which four each are squares, equilateral triangles, and circles. The four objects of the same shape are each of a different color, namely, red, green, yellow, and blue. The upper surfaces only are colored; the sides and bottoms of the pieces are white. For this test the first task requires the subject to group together those objects which seem to him, for any reason, to belong together. After this sorting has been done, each subject is asked to give his reason for sorting as he did. The next task is to group the objects in another manner. If S sorts them first by color, it is then necessary for him to sort them by shape. Finally, if S groups the objects first according to color and can not shift to grouping by form, the blocks are turned over so that only the white sides are in view. S is then asked to group the figures which were alike. After successfully grouping the figures in this manner, the blocks are turned over and S is retested to see if he can then sort and shift the method of sorting voluntarily. If S sorts first by form and can not shift to color grouping, E sorts the blocks for him according to color. S is then asked if the figures could be grouped in this manner and, if the response is "Yes," he is then asked for the reason. As soon as S sees the color relationship, the blocks are reshuffled and S is given another...

Do search committees and candidates for deanships agree on the criteria by which deans' success should be determinted ? What criteria do search committees use? How do these criteria measure up to the sense that deans have of the realities of their work?To answer these questions, I used solicitations from the Chronicle of Higher Education and identified 40 institutions seeking deans during the 1977-78 and 1978-79 school years. Search committee chairs from these 40 institutions provided their criteria, which I listed and categorized; the seven categories appear below as titles for tables I-Vi 1. I sent the composite list of criteria back to the search committee chairs and asked them (1) to rank order criteria within the seven categories, and (2) to rank order the 10 most and 10 least important criteria without reference to the categories. I sent the same composite list to the deans who had in fact been selected in the respective searches, asking them to rank the criteria according to the relative importance of each with respect to deans' actual functioning in office. From 21 1 institutions I received responses both from the search committee chair and the dean. The following analysis is based on these 21 sets of responses.Both chairs and deans ranked the criteria they regarded as important (for selection on the one hand; with respect to actual functioning on the other) in essentially the same order. TABLE I Demonstrated Skills (General) Tables I and compare the two categories of criteria labeled as &dquo;Demonstrated Skills (general)&dquo; and &dquo;Demonstrated Skills (focused)&dquo; and show a strong similarity in rank orderHeald is Professor of Educational Administration at Northem Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois.TABLE II Demonstrated Skills (Focused) ing of the criteria and no significant differences in the mean rank of importance assigned to the criteria by chairpersons and deans. Only the criteria &dquo;Program Development&dquo; and &dquo;Planning and Evaluation Skills&dquo; were ranked differently. TABLE III Institutional EligibilitiesNo difference in rank order of the means for the criteria related to &dquo;Institutional Eligibilities&dquo; was apparent. TABLE IV PersonalAlthough rank orders were identical for &dquo;Personal&dquo; criteria and the means were not significantly different, a very interesting discrepancy exists with the frequency counts. &dquo;Vision for Education&dquo; and &dquo;Health and Vigor&dquo; were found on only two of the 28 original lists of published institutional criteria and yet, when called to the attention of chairpersons on the composite list, both rank near &dquo;Earned Doctorate&dquo; in importance for both selection and functioning.

No abstract