THENORMATIVE ROLE OF'THE * , ” SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER . EN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND-g; , 1 ‘ ’ f ,. _ ATYPF. 0FDIFFERENTIATEDSTAFFlflGq_gffj_' V * Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D, MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY PHILIP H. SHERIDAN 1 9 7 3 LIBRARY Michigan Sm: University This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE NORMATIVE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND-A TYPE OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING presented by Philip H. Sheridan has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. Educational degree in Administration \ J 3““- Major professor Date Novgwar 27, 1972 0-7839 ABSTRACT THE NORMATIVE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND-- A TYPE OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING BY Philip H. Sheridan Statement of the Problem In recent years, the role of the public school secondary teacher has expanded and become more demanding. Many creative and competent teachers have found themselves bogged down in technical and clerical duties or overwhelmed by the many complex and important things to do that, few if any, tasks are well done enough to leave them with any sense of accomplishment. An increasing number of edu- cators are proposing differentiated staffing as a potential solution to some of these problems. Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools', a large suburban school district, main effort in the area of differentiated staffing has been concentrated in the Secondary Resource Teacher Program. This program has undergone considerable growth and change since its inception in 1953. The purpose of this study was to map out that portion of the normative structure that pertains to the Philip H. Sheridan role of the resource teacher. The normative structure was composed of the view of the resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. These are the professionals of the Montgomery County Public Schools system that have the greatest influence on the role of the resource teacher. The following views were considered: (1) the way the resource teachers view their own position, (2) the perception of the other relevant populations of the school system. Design of the Study The sources of the data for this study were groups of randomly selected Montgomery County Public School teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors, who occupied their position the school year (1970-71) prior to the study. An instrument, The Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher, was constructed to collect the required data. The one factor analysis of variance was used to determine if there was any difference in the perceived role of the resource teacher by the four relevant populations. Tukey's post hoc procedure was used to determine between which groups the differences existed. The .05 level of significance and the appropriate degrees of freedom were used for both tests. Philip H. Sheridan The agreement score develOped by Professor Robert Leak of the University of Washington was used to indicate the extent of agreement within members of a given group and the extent of agreement on the role of the resource teacher when considering those tested as one group. 2. Findings The data suggest that: The position in the role network of the resource teacher with probably the most influence on the role was the secondary principal. There was no significant difference in the perception of the role of the resource teacher found to exist between the principals and the resource teachers in the areas of Staff Development, Research - Planning - Evaluation - Reporting and Adminis- tration. A significant difference was detected between the resource teacher's perception of the role and the principal's perception in the area of Instruction. The principal perceives the resource teacher as being more actively involved in the instructional program, especially in the area of appraisal, than does the resource teacher. Efforts to develop the resource teacher program to supplement and carry on some of the functions Philip H. Sheridan traditionally identified with central office supervision has been successful in terms of both the resource teacher and the supervisor under- standing the role the resource teacher is to play. The resource teacher is placed in a rather diffi- cult, uncomfortable role conflict position because of differences in perception of the role of the resource teacher by two important counter positions-- the teachers and the principals. This is especially true in the area of teacher evaluation and the role that resource teacher is to play. The principals perceive a more active role in evaluations for the resource teachers than do the teachers. The range of agreement within a group was the lowest for the resource teachers than for any of the other groups. The range of agreement within a group was the greatest for the principals than for any of the other groups. The majority of the items in the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher was found to have a high degree of agreement when the four groups were considered as one. Forty-four of the fifty-one items in the inventory had an agreement score of 600 or higher. THE NORMATIVE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND-- A TYPE OF DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING BY 4 Philip Herheridan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. Herbert C. Rudman, Chairman of my Doctoral Committee, for his insightful suggestions, his patience, and his continued support and encouragement; To Dr. Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. Calhoun C. Collier, Dr. Fred Ignatovich for their support and their willingness to serve on my committee; To Dr. Samuel M. Goodman, Dr. Calvin A. Blatt of the Montgomery County Department of Research for their invaluable assistance with the methodology and the pro- cedure of the study; To the Montgomery County principals, teachers, supervisors, and resource teachers, who must remain anonymous but without whose cooperation and kindness this dissertation would not be possible; To the Michigan State Mott Fellows of 1970-71 for their companionship and backing throughout this program; To Mrs. Hazel Sheridan, my mother, for her unceasing support in all my educational endeavors; To my wife, Janet, and my children, Larry, Tim, Susan, Ann, and Dan, for their patience, encouragement, and understanding throughout the entire doctoral effort, I owe a deep debt of gratitude. ii Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY . . . . . . Introduction to the Problem . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . Significance of the Study . . . . . Limitations and Scope of the Study . . . Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . Related Theory. . . . . . Assumptions Upon Which the Study Is Based. Hypotheses To Be Tested. . . . . . . Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . Historical Background . . . . . . . Definitions. . . . . Basic Concepts of Differentiated Staffing. Problems of Implementation. . . . . . The Resource Teacher Program . . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE. . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Development of the Instrument. . . . . Testing the Instrument . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . Sample Description Data. . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . General Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Instruction. . . . . . . . . . 1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . Staff Development. . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . Research—Planning-Evaluation—Reporting. . iii Page [—4 21 33 36 50 58 62 62 62 66 67 68 73 77 77 77 79 82 83 86 86 Chapter Page Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Administration. . . . . . . . . . 89 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 94 Summary of Test of the General Hypotheses. 95 Role of the Resource Teacher . . . . . 97 The Range of Agreement Among Resource Teachers. . . . 98 The Range of Agreement Among Teachers . . 99 The Range of Agreement Among Principals . 99 The Range of Agreement Among Supervisors . 100 Highest Agreement Scores of the Four ' Groups When Combined. . . . . . 102 Lowest Agreement Scores of Four Groups When Combined . . . . . . 102 Inventory Items With a Great Difference in Agreement Scores Between Any Two Groups . . . . . . 103 Summary of Efforts to Establish the Role of the Resource Teacher. . . . . . 106 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . 108 Background of the Study. . . . . . . 108 The Purpose of This Study . . . . . . 110 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . 110 Major Findings and Discussions . . . . 112 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 113 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 115 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 117 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 119 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 120 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 124 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 125 Finding . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 128 Reflections and Implications . . . . . 132 Implications for Montgomery County Public Schools. . . . . . . . . 133 iv Chapter Page Implication for College of Education . . 135 Implications for Further Study . . . . 136 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 139 APPENDICES Appendix A. Jury of Experts in Differentiated Staffing and/or the Role of the Secondary Resource Teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland . 147 B. Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. . . . . . . . . 149 C. Letter Requesting Participation in the Survey Concerning the Role of the Resource Teacher. . . . . . . . . 154 D. A Summary of All of the Responses to the Inventory by Category of Response . . . 155 E. Agreement Score for Each Inventory Item . . 158 F. Rank Order of the Mean Agreement Score for Each Item of the Inventory . . . . . 160 G. Annual Report of the Professional Responsi— bility and Staff Organization Committee . 162 H. Role of the Resource Teacher--Effective February 1972. . . . . . . . . . 170 I. General Procedure for Resource Teacher Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 174 J. Evaluation of Resource Teacher Services . . 176 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Classification of Inventory Statements Accord- ing to the Number of Experts Agreeing on the Category . . . . . . . . . . . 65 2. Summary Table of Responses . . . . . . . 71 3. Sex of Professionals Selected to Participate in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4. Academic Disciplines of the Selected Teachers and Resource Teachers . . . . . . . . 72 5. Grade Level Organization of the Schools, of the Principals, Teachers, Resource Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 6. The Mean Response Score for the Four Groups on Each of the Five Sections of the Inventory . 79 7. ANOVA Tablee-Instruction Section . . . . . 80 8. Cell Summary and Post Hoc Comparisons for the Section on Instruction. . . . . . . . 81 9. ANOVA Table--Staff Development Section . . . 84 10. Cell Summary and Post Hoc Comparisons for the Section on Staff Development. . . . . . 85 11. ANOVA Table--Research-Planning-Evaluation- Reporting Section . . . . . . . . . 87 12. ANOVA Table--Administration . . . . . . . 90 13. ANOVA Table-~Curriculum . . . . . . . . 92 14. Cell Summary and Post Hoc Comparisons for the Section on Curriculum . . . . . . . . 93 vi Table Page 15. Summary of the Differences Between the Mean Response Scores of the Four Groups for the Five Sections of the Normative Role Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 16. Lowest and Highest Agreement Scores for Indi— vidual Inventory Items by Resource Teachers' View of Their Own Position and the Mean Agreement Score of All Four Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 17. Lowest and Highest Agreement Scores for Inven- tory Items by Teachers' View of the Position and the Mean Agreement Score of All Four Groups . . . . . . . . . . 100 18. Lowest and Highest Agreement Score for Inven— tory Items by Principals' View of the Position and the Mean Score of all Four Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 19. Lowest and Highest Agreement Scores for Inven- tory Items by Supervisors' View of the Resource Teachers' Position and the Mean Score of A11 Four Groups . . . . . . . 101 20. Rank Order of the Twelve Highest Mean Agree- ment Scores and the Response Category Selected Most Often. . . . . . . . . 103 21. Rank Order of the Inventory Items with the Lowest Mean Agreement Scores. . . . . . 104 22. Inventory Items with the Greatest Difference in Agreement Scores Between Any Two Groups . 105 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Florida Model of Differentiated Staffing . . 41 2. Temple City Model of Differentiated Staffing. 42 3. Organizational Structure and Teachers' Roles. 44 viii CHAPTER I THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STUDY Introduction to the Problem This study of role perception finds its rationale in the fact that an increasing number of professional educators are proposing differentiated staffing as a potential solution to some of the problems of education today. Since 1965, there has been a great deal of interest generated in the concept of differentiated staffing. The professional literature has been increasing in abundance with descriptive articles--the pros and cons--on the subject. Differentiated staffing projects are taking place in Beaverton, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; Temple City, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland.1 The Florida State Department of Education has taken the initiative in developing state-wide support for dif— ferentiated staffing by conducting a feasibility study of flexible staff utilization and developing a master plan for establishing a network of pilot projects on a 1James L. Olivero, "The Meaning and Application of Differentiated Staffing in Teaching " Phi Delta Kappan, September, 1970, pp. 36-40. state-wide basis.2 Highly respected educators such as J. Lloyd Trump,3 Dwight Allen,4 and James Olivero5 are endorsing differentiated staffing as a method for organiz- ing schools for the current scene as well as the near future. Differentiated staffing is one of the most inter- esting and elaborate of the new organizational patterns being tried. The implications of this innovation are extensive. If it should be implemented and survive the trauma that would accompany a change of such magnitude it has, according to its proponents, the potential to transform the schools and the teaching profession. The program has been resisted in some localities and there is evidence to believe that its implementation will be further resisted. The public school teaching profession has been heavily concerned with formal requirements as a 2Marshall L. Frinks, "Toward More Effective School Personnel Utilization," Educational Technology, February, 1970, pp. 73-74. 3J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Focus on Change-~A Guide to Better Schools (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1962), pp. 23-35. 4Dwight W. Allen, "A Differentiated Staff: Putting Teaching Talent to Work," The Teacher and His Staff, Occasional Paper No. 1 (Washington, D.C.: National CommiSsion on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1969), p. 10. 5Olivero, 92. cit., p. 38. basis for raising professional status and income. Accord- ing to Janowitz, This pressure has led to an emphasis on rigid entrance and training requirements often unrelated to actual teaching requirements. The teaching pro- fession has resisted the introduction of subpro- fessionals and other labor-related approaches to mass education.6 Changes in educational practices tend to be piece- meal, imposed from above, and without impact on the organization as a whole.7 Differentiated staffing is, by definition, a school-wide re-deployment of staff. Changes will be carried out by the staff and with very extensive side effects. Differentiated staffing stresses the instructional team and flexibility of student grouping as an alternative to the self-contained organization-- one teacher and thirty students-~of the traditional pattern. Its implementation will certainly require a change in organization of learning activities, but more importantly it will require a change in the teacher's image of his role. The traditional conception of the role of the teacher is of an independent entity, operating alone and self-sufficient. This model of the teacher is 6Morris Janowitz, "Institution Building in Urban Education," in Innovation in Mass Education, ed. by David Street (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969), p. 291. 7H. M. Brickell, Organizing New York State for Educational Change (Albany: New York State Department of Education, 1962), p. 19. probably obsolete, just as a self-sufficient doctor, lawyer, or architect is rapidly given to the assemblage of specialists in some type of "firm or clinic."8 Differentiation is a new word to describe a very old process within human organizations. It describes the division of labor or the separation of tasks via speciali- zation or departmentalization. English describes this change in role in the Temple City Project: Staff differentiation is a radical change in education because it means changing the role of the teacher vertically as well as horizontally. It is when the vertical dimension is added that the term "hierarchy" is appropriate. The concept of teacher's hierarchy remains, to date, a rather controversial one. It is necessary for the realization of a career ladder. . . . The Temple City Model was the first of its kind to make a radical departure in conceptualization of vertical roles for teachers, accompanied by ranges of pay, status and authority. Such roles grew from an analysis of tasks conducted in the Spring of 1967 by the project steering committee. Various tasks were regrouped into more specialized roles along a task difficulty continuum. Then these tasks were subdivided into new roles and given titles accord- ingly.9 Don Barbee, in his definition of staff differen- tiation, also greatly stresses the changing role of the teacher. Differentiated staffing is a concept of organization that seeks to make better use of educational person- nel. Teachers and other educators assume different 8Jansen T. Shaplin and H. F. Olds, Team Teaching (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 87. 9Fenwick W. English, "A Handbook of the Temple City Differentiated Staffing Projects 1965-1970," Temple City California, Temple City Unified School District, 1970, p. 2. (Mimeographed.) responsibilities based on carefully prepared defi- nitions of the many teaching functions. The dif- ferential assignment of educational personnel goes beyond traditional staff allocations based on common subject matter distinctions and grade level arrange- ments and seeks new ways of analyzing essential tasks and creative means of implementing new educational roles. The resource teacher program, which is a form of differentiated staffing, was instituted in Montgomery County, Maryland in September, 1953. Since the inception of the resource teacher program, and its enlargement and modifications over the years, Montgomery County has pro- posed, but not implemented, other phases of a differen— tiated staffing and responsibility program. Statement of the Problem The major purpose of this study is to carry out an initial mapping of that portion of the normative structure that pertains to the role of the secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. The normative structure will be composed of the views of the relevant populations. The following will be considered: (1) The ways the resource teachers view their own position, (2) The perceptions of each of the other popu- lations of the school structure of the resource position. 10Don Barbee, "Differentiated Staffing: Expec- tations and Pitfalls," TEPS Write-in Papers on Flexible Staffing Patterns No. l (washington, D.C.: National Com- mission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, March, 1969), p. 7. Significance of the Study Role theory is a body of knowledge and principles that at one and the same time constitutes an orientation, a group of theories, loosely linked network of hypotheses, isolated constructs about human functioning in a social context, and a language system which pervades nearly every social scientist's and educator's vocabulary. Role perceptions are expectations held by par- ticularized or generalized others for the appropriate behavior that ought to be exhibited by the person or persons holding a given role. The normative or pre- scribed quality of role expectations represents the "oughts" and "shoulds" of a given role. Data gathered in this study will lead to further understanding and clarification of the normative role expectation for the position of secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County. The data will help to identify areas of consensus, uniformity, and differen- tiation. Knowledge of the normative role of the secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County should assist in preventing role conflict and strain; or help to identify areas where it exists. Information relative to this study will be useful to those persons interested in the development and improvement of the resource teacher program in Montgomery County. Results of examining hypotheses posed will expand current thinking concerning the role of the resource teacher in relation to principals, supervisors, and teachers. Further knowledge of how other adminis— trators perceive this role may serve as a stimulus for administrators to examine and evaluate their own per- ceptions in this area. University educators in edu- cational administration may find the perceptions suggestive of the kinds of experience and knowledge, which should be provided students in differentiated staffing seminars. Limitations and Scope of the Study The study provides for role perceptions of the resource teacher position to be identified by the princi- pals, teachers, resource teachers, and supervisors of the secondary schools in Montgomery County, Maryland. Although the resource teacher may interact with all of the school's populations, the investigation is limited to the previously mentioned four groups. The study measures agreement or lack of agreement of the groups' perceptions of the role of the resource teacher. The study is further limited to only those members of the group who have held their position at least one year prior to the study and to the secondary teachers and resource teachers of English, math, science, and social studies. The data collected in the formal instrument will be restricted to the responses to the role norm inventory and generalized only to the population sample investigated. Definitions Principal.--A public school executive officer whose full-time supervisory assignment includes Grades 7-9, or Grades 10-12. Resource teacher.--A twelve-month teacher, whose assignment to direct instruction and contact with students is less than full-time, and whose other responsibilities involve consultative and advisory service in an academic discipline of a secondary school. Supervisor.--A professional assigned to the office of the superintendent, who is involved in instructional leadership on an academic discipline. Teacher.--A ten- or twelve-month professional, whose assignment to direct instruction and contact with students is full time. Expectation.--"An evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position. This refers to what should happen, not to what will happen in the sense of antici- pation."11 11Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 58. Role.--"A set of expectations, or evaluative standards, applied to an incumbent of a particular position."12 Role conflict.--"Any situation in which the incumbent of a focal position perceives that he is con- fronted with incompatible expectations."l3 Disagreement.--Will be defined as a difference between the role perception of two groups as measured by a one-way analysis of variance at the .05 level. Agreement.--Is defined as no significant dif- ference between the role perception of two groups as measured by a one-way analysis of variance at the .05 level. Related Theory Organizations are social systems, made up of people who occupy various positions in a vertical (hierarchial) and horizontal relationship to each other. Any given position is the location of one individual within the system. How individuals behave in these positions is dependent in part on how others actually expect them to behave. This composite set of expected behaviors of an individual holding a position is classified as role. Roles are interdependent in that 12 13 Ibid., p. 60. Ibid., p. 248. 10 each derives its meaning from other related roles--not only for the given role incumbent but also for the incumbent of other roles within the organization.14 Further clarification of the terminology of role theory is necessary. Role expectation refers to a belief held by others as to whether or not a particular behavior is part of another individual's position. Gross defines role expectation, "as a set of evaluation standards applied to an incumbent of a particular position."15 Role expectation may also be directional; that is it may be either prescriptive or postscriptive. It may also have an intensity ranging from permissive through preferential to mandatory. "Role perception" is an estimate of another person's expectation for one's own role. If the other person is seen as having a right to hold this expectation, it is regarded as a legitimate role. If he is not seen as having the right to this expectation, then it is classified as illegitimate. A role having a clearly defined boundary is referred to as a "specific" role. While a "diffuse" role, in contrast, is defined with great leeway for variation in role behavior by the indi~ vidual incumbent. l4Jacob W. Getzels, "Administration as a Social Process," in Administrative Theory in Education, ed. by Andrew W. HalpinTChicago: MidWest Administration Center, 1958), p. 153. 15Gross, QB: cit., p. 67. ll Conflicts which occur within organizations may be clarified through the utilization of concepts relative to role theory. The most common occurrence of role con- flict is conflict within roles and between roles. One type of conflict occurs when the manner in which a person thinks he is expected to behave is different from the way others really expect him to behave. His role per- ception is different from others' role expectation for the same position. A second kind of conflict may take place when two reference groups have conflicting expectations of a role incumbent. Also, there may be conflict among indi- viduals holding similar positions within the organization. Basic to most formulations of the role concept is the assumption that consensus exists on the expectations applied to the incumbents of particular social positions. Cottrell, for example, presents a series of hypotheses concerning the degree of adjustment for roles. Several of them are concerned with role adjustment as a function of such variables as "the clarity with which roles are defined," and the consistency with which others in the individual's life situations exhibit to him the reasons called for by his role.16 16Leonard S. Cottrell, "The Adjustment of the Individual to His Age and Sex Roles," American Sociologi- cal Review, VIII (1942), 618. 12 There has been an increasing tendency to consider role consensus an important variable for the study of individual social behavior, the functioning of social systems, and the cultural organization.17 That the members of a social system must agree among themselves to some extent on expectations is a matter of definition. Gross on this point states, It was our assumption that the extent to which there is consensus on role definitions may be an important dimension affecting the functioning of social systems, whether they are total societies or subsystems within them. In addition the degree of consensus among sig- nificant role definers as perceived by an actor may be an important variable affecting his behavior.18 Foskett presents a slightly different point of view on this subject of consensus. Role norms have been viewed traditionally as commonly held rules of behavior, shared expectations or socially defined patterns of behavior. Agreement as to the content of roles has been, for the most part, assumed. More recently, and as a result of attempts to carry out empirical studies of roles, the alternate view that agreement is itself a variable has started to emerge. As systematic empirical data becomes available it is increasingly clear that full agreement even among occupants of a specific position is atypica1.19 Unquestionably, role perception is an important determiner of an individual's behavior. The concept of 17Gross, gp. cit., p. 42. 181bid., p. 21. 19John M. Foskett, The Normative World of the Ele- mentarygSchool Teacher (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1967), p. 80. l3 role may be used to explain the difference in an indi- vidual's behavior in different situations. His behavior varies according to how he defines each social situation in which he finds himself and according to how he per— ceives others expecting him to behave. Similarly, the concept of role may also be used in accounting for dif- ferences in a set of people; individuals who occupy the same position may hold varying expectations as to what constitutes appropriate behavior in it. Thus there are studies which lend support to the basic notion that malfunctioning in a social system may have its source not only in structural strains deriving from actual inconsistencies among expectations of these in component roles, but also in perceptual conflicts deriving from the different views of the various indi- viduals occupying the position, even when the actual expectations are not inconsistent. The institution of a differentiated staffing model into a school system involves a redefining of the once generic role of the classroom teacher. "Differen- tiating roles means assigning personnel in terms of training, interest, ability, aptitude, career goals, and the difficulty of tasks."20 In addition to changing 20Ray A. Edelfelt, Redesigning the Education Profession (Washington, D.C.: National CommISSion on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, January, 1969), p. 17. 14 the role of the teacher, changes must be made in the role of other personnel. Roles are highly interrelated within organizations. English, writing in Phi Delta Kappan says, Field practice suggests that the first roles to be changed with differentiated staffing are those of the so-called "middle management" levels: principals, coordinators, supervisors, and directors. This fact also accounts for greater resistance to the concept from those in middle management roles than from other administrative levels in school systems.21 English also suggests that, "Under a differen- tiated staffing scheme, the teachers new and stronger voice in directing the allocation of resources of the organization is not considered as a force for democrati- zation, but rather of tightening the bolts by creating a split in the ranks."22 This is why some union leaders find the concept threatening. Finally, Merton made the point, "that along with increasing specialization and bureaucratization there is an increasing tendency to differentiate oneself and less 23 sense of commonality." This idea is backed up by Soles' study. His findings indicated that there were 21Fenwick W. English, "Teacher May I? Take Three Giant Steps: The Differentiated Staff," Phi Delta Kgppan, December, 1969, p. 211. 22Ibid. 23Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glenece, Illinois: Free Press, 1957), p. 246. 15 many differences among role expectations of personnel within and among the schools he studied. And he concluded that, "it may well be that differentiation of task and role functions of teachers may be such that they are bound to see their role obligations in different ways."24 Assumptions Upon Which the Study Is Based The following basic assumptions are derived from the theory and underlie this study: (1) That the theory of role perception and role analysis is a valid one and can be applied to this study. (2) That school systems are social systems and that the role of the resource teacher can be determined. The perceptions of the resource teachers, princi- pals, supervisors, and teachers concerning the role of resource teacher can also be obtained and analyzed. (3) That the data-gathering device will indeed measure what the study seeks; the expectations of the secondary school principals, teachers, resource teachers, and supervisors for the role of the resource teacher. 4Stanley Soles, "Teacher Role Expectations and the Internal Organization of Secondary Schools," The Journal of Educational Research, XLVII (January, 1964), 234. l6 (4) That the research and conclusions derived will be of value to those school officials who now have, or will have, resource teachers or differentiated staffing positions in their school systems. Hypotheses To Be Tested The issue to be explored in this thesis is to determine the agreement on the perceived role of the resource teacher by the different groups that make up the relevant school population. The role of the resource teacher is separated into the five areas of instruction, staff development, research-planning-evaluation-reporting, administration, and curriculum. The Normative Role Inventory of the Secondagy Resource Teacher was specifically designed to include a series of statements reflecting each of these categories. General Hypothesis I: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and scores of the principals on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Instruction of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondarngesource Teacher. R 17 Operational Hypothesis HIb: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teacher and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Staff Development of the Normative Role Inventogy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teacher and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and scores of the principals on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. General Hypothesis II: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the Normative Role Inventogy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Instruction of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondapy Resource Teacher. 18 Operational Hypothesis HIIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventopy of the SecondaryiResource Teacher. General Hypothesis III: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the section classified as Instruction of the Hprmative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIb: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the section classified as Staff Development of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. 19 Operational Hypothesis HIIIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the super- visors on the section classified as Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventory of the SecondaryAResource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondapy Resource Teacher. Overview The literature pertinent to this study is reviewed in Chapter II. Chapter III is devoted to reviewing the design of the study. A detailed review is made of the sampling procedures used, the hypotheses to be tested, the instru- ments to be used, the procedures to be followed in the collection of the data, and the procedures to be followed in analyzing the data. An analysis of the data and a summation of the support or rejection of the hypotheses is set forth in Chapter IV. 20 The final chapter, Chapter V, sets forth a summary of the study, with conclusions and the recom- mendations which have evolved. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Historical Background The literature on differentiated staffing, because it is a relatively new and a not well-defined concept, and because many aspects of staff utilization become part of a model for differentiated staffing, tends to be found in education journals, magazines, conference reports, and brochures. Hypothetical models, proposals, and the writ- ings of university professors also serve as sources for information on differentiated staffing, along with research in related fields such as staff utilization studies, team teaching, and the use of para-professional aides. Although the term "differentiated staffing" is a relatively new one in educational literature ,the concept is one that can be traced back in the historical records of education in this century. Its course seems to be similar to that of the industrial development in the United States, although the transitions usually occur at later periods. 21 22 Modern industrial organization is based on division of labor and standardization of organizational operations.1 This division of labor and standardization resulted in simplified jobs and job training, which per- mit the easy substitution of personnel on various jobs. Automobiles, once handmade by a few skilled craftsmen, are now assembled by thousands of workers performing small, specialized, simple tasks that require little training to master. Differentiation is one of the principle hallmarks of modernization. It has developed in response to the need for greater efficiency in the accomplishment of increasingly complex tasks, and the growing degree of technical proficiency required at every stage in the process.2 Schools stand about midway between the old craft and the new factory system of production.3 Historically, the division of labor in the schools was a relatively late phenomenon. The earliest manifes- tation was the distinction between teachers and custodians. As schools grew, the graded school, beginning in 1884, lPatricia Caye Sexton, The American School (Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice HaIlm Inc., 1967), p. 73. 2Lee Firester and Joan Firester, "Differentiated Staffing: Some Reflections," New York State Education, March, 1970, p. 28. 3Sexton, pp. cit., p. 74. 23 emerged.4 This process of differentiation continued to include subject specialists and then an administrative hierarchy. In 1908, superintendent William Wirt at Gary, Indiana, introduced the widely used "platoon" plan.5 Specifically, this meant discarding the idea of providing a school seat for the exclusive use of each child. Groups alternated between the classroom and other activities and this resulted in more specialization of teachers. The Batavia plan initiated in 1919, was a form of supervised study in the elementary grades.6 Under this plan two teachers were assigned to each room, one to help the pupils in the preparation and the other to conduct the group and class exercise. This early plan has some resemblance to current differentiated staffing models. Toffler, in his recent book Future Shock, describes mass education as an "ingenious machine constructed by industrialism to produce the kind of adults it needed."7 He continues with his analogy: L. Firester and J. Firester, pp. cit., p. 28. 5Adolph E. Meyer, Development of Education in the Twentieth Century (New York: Prentice Hall, 1939), p. 185. 6H. G. Good, A History of Western Education (New York: The MacMillian Company, 1945), p. 481. 7Alvin Toffler, Future Shock (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 354. 24 Yet the whole idea of assembling masses of students (raw material) to be processed by teachers (workers) in a centrally located school (factory) was a stroke of industrial genius. The whole administrative hierarchy of education, as it grew up, followed the model of industrial bureaucracy. The demands for the augmented functions of schools and the increasingly high minimum quality of education expected from the schools in the last two decades has resulted in an even finer division of labor in the schools. The following positions are the result of these demands for quality in education and for the increase in the scope and function of the schools: community school directors, testing experts, guidance counselors, psy- chologists, visiting teachers, and paraprofessional aides. The term "paraprofessional" includes teacher aides, clerical aides, monitors, intern teachers, and volun- teers. Many of these professionals and paraprofessionals have no direct contact with students in an actual class- room but are related to the extended functions of the school. Another important factor in the historical develop— ment of the differentiated staffing models that appear in today's literature was the critical shortage of teachers in the fifties and early sixties. Lloyd S. Michael, in explaining the purposes of the National 81bid., p. 355. 25 Association of Secondary School Principal's Commission on Staff Utilization, stated: The Commission had its genesis in problems associated with the shortage of well-qualified teachers for the secondary schools of the United States. There was such concern that school systems in their efforts to compete with problems relating to the teacher shortage might engage in a number of practices which would in reality lower the quality of education in the secondary schools. . . . Members of the Com- mission believe that, in contrast to such adoptions, it would be better to see if experimentation would reveal ways of meeting the teacher shortage and at the same time improve the quality of education through better utilization of the time and energies of staff and student, changes in curriculum and design and teaching methods and reorganization of administrative patterns.9 The review of the literature seems to spotlight the middle 1950's as the period when the thinking about and the experimentation with the concept of differentiated staffing, as it is used in this study, had its real beginnings. Dean Francis Keppel of the Graduate School of Education at Harvard in his 1954-55 report to the president of Harvard described a differentiated staffing proposal very similar to what is being promoted today. He stressed this need of a change or "breakthrough" in his annual report. He asked: . . . if schools should not consider a reorganization which would lead to teams of teaching personnel, including a leader, perhaps certain subject specialists and a staff of junior status members including young teachers and "aides." Leaders of 9Lloyd 8. Michael, "Commission on Staff Utili- zation," National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals' Bulletin, January, 1959. 26 such teams could handle many aspects of relations with parents and could give supervision to the work of junior members, many of whom will teach only a few years. Each of the leaders would be directly responsible for the quality of work done in his division of the school work, and would be expected not only to supervise the inexperienced teachers or teacher's aides, but also to play a major part in pupil's lives by themselves teaching in the class- room for which they are responsible. The teams and their leaders would have different responsibilities at the several levels of school work--elementary, junior high and high school. In the last case, for example, the leader might be in effect, a new type of chairman for a subject area. The young career teachers, who started at junior status, could aspire to their standings in due course. The previous mention of a teacher shortage was at its peak in the middle and late 50's and much of the rationale behind those favoring differentiation in staff- ing is and has been directed to the solution of this pressing problem.11 In 1956 the National Association of Secondary School Principals received a grant of $650,000 from the Fund for the Advancement of Education for experi- mental studies on the utilization of teachers in secondary schools.12 This Commission on Staff Utilization, headed by Dr. J. Lloyd Trump, fostered and publicized experimental programs in team teaching, flexible scheduling, and use loAs quoted in Mathew Gaffney, "Higher Education's Relationship to Staff Utilization Studies," National Association of Secondary School Principals' BuIIetin, January, 1958, pp. 188;89. 11L. Firester and J. Firester, pp. cit., p. 28. "Annual Business Meeting Report," National Association of Segondary_School Principals' Bulletin, April, 1956, p. 570. 27 of technology and paraprofessionals to assist the class- room teacher. The wide distribution of materials such as the books, Focus on Change--Guide to Better Schools,13 three complete issues of the National Association of 14 and the film, Secondary School Principals' Bulletin, "And No Bells Ring,"15 exposed many to some of the con- cepts behind the differentiated staffing movement. Also in this period, Myron Leiberman, in his book Education as a Profession, approached the concept of differentiated staffing from the avenue of pro- fessionalism. He theorized, "It might be a mbre effective utilization of sub-professional assistants and would pave the way for a profession of teachers at all grade levels fully comparable to the leading profession; an elementary school with 25 teachers with master's degrees might be better served by five PhD teachers with 20 professional assistants with bachelor's degrees."16 13J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Focus on Change-~Guide to Better Schools (Chicago: Rand McNaIly and Company, 1962). l4NationgVLAssociation of Secondapy School Princi- pals' Bulletin, January, 1958, January, 1959, and January, 1962. 15Produced by the National Education Association, Department of Secondary School Principals, Washington, DOC. 6Myron Leiberman, Education as a Profession (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1956), p. 87. 28 Differentiated staffing is an outgrowth and refinement of team teaching and the idea of the "teacher and his staff," both of which recognize a diversity of teaching tasks and propose use of auxiliary personnel in the schools to relieve teachers of nonteaching duties. The team teaching concept is a product of the thinking and experimentation in the 50's and early 60's, while the term "teacher and his staff" began to appear in the professional literature during the late 60's. Much of the impetus for creating the present interest in differentiated staffing can be attributed to the National Education Association, and its affiliate, the Association of Classroom Teachers. The Classroom Teacher Hpeaks on His Supportive Staff, a report result- ing from the 1966-67 study conference on one phase of differentiated staffing--the use of auxiliary personnel-- was of particular significance.17 This report suggested that because of man's mobility and the ease with which he may earn a living, he now has time to give consid- eration to the development of human resources. It further indicated that education is the link between the individual and his role in society; furthermore, that schools must provide some degree of success for everyone. Together, these factors call for a new concept of school 17The Classroom Teacher Speaks on His Sppportive Staff (Washington, D.C.: The Association of Classroom Teachers, National Education Association, 1966). 29 organization. There must be a team of people working together in which the teacher is the nucleus of a group of professionals and nonprofessionals who are dedicated to the notion of coordinating the talents and contri- butions of a supportive staff. In considering the role of the supportive staff, attention was given to: (a) What jobs can be done by others? (b) What jobs should be done by the classroom teacher? (c) Who are the classroom teacher's supportive staff: and (d) What are the blocks to such school organi- zation? The 1968-69 annual Classroom Teachers National Study Conference, studied differentiated teaching assign— ments for classroom teachers. The stage was set for this study and the subsequent publication of its report, THE Classroom Teacher Speaks on Differentiated Teaching Assignments,18 by resolutions adopted by both the Association of Classroom Teachers and the National Education Association Representative Assemblies in July, 1968, in Dallas, Texas. The Association of Classroom Teachers of National Education Association Resolution 68-25--Specialization and Differentiation in Teaching Assignments--which supports examination of the concept of differentiated staffing, is as follows: 18Classroom Teachers Speak on Differentiated Teaching Assignments (Washington, D.C.: The Association of CIassroom Teaéhers, National Education Association, 1969). 30 Association of Classroom Teachers recognizes the new role and the growing diversity in teacher assignments and responsibilities created by the innovative developments in education. It therefore urges class- room teachers (a) to initiate a study to explore the differentiation in roles and responsibilities, (b) to identify the issues and problems involved, including salaries, as they relate to classroom teachers, and (c) to seek solutions that will continue to meet the needs of teachers and the children they serve.19 A National Education Association Resolution 68-10-- The Improvement of Instruction--is similar with both stressing the involvement of teachers in any differentiated staffing plans that are to be developed. The National Education Association recognizes that a prime responsibility of professional associations is to stimulate significant improvements in the quality of instruction. The Association further believes that motivation for improvement is effective when it comes from one's peers. The Association, recognizing that much of the responsibility to make educational changes should lie with the teachers through their influences and involvement in democratic decision making in and out of the school, invites its state affiliates to join in a cooperative endeavor to provide services to local associations to improve instruction.20 Also in 1968, in place of the annual meeting, the Regional Conference of the National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, accumulated infor- mation and encouraged involvement in differentiated staff- ing. During this eighteen-month period, 220 demonstration centers looked at the matter of the teacher and his staff. At these conferences papers were presented on the topic and ten were selected for publication in The Teacher and l91bid., p. 10. 2orbid. 31 His Staff.21 Generally, these represented scholarly and theoretical models, as well as insight into some of the more perplexing problems in the whole rubric which surrounds the topic of differentiated staffing. Team instruction imposes a novel set of preparation require- ments on the teaching-training instructions in order that the elementary or secondary teacher may be apprOpriately prepared. This raised the interesting question of redesigning student teaching along the lines of team function. The matter of relevance is alluded to as that which will facilitate the development of any capacity of a potential learner. It is argued that the individuali- zation process, a function of differentiated staffing, will enhance learning for a greater number of students than traditional processes. In his booklet, The Teacher and His Staff-~Man, Media and Machines, Bruce R. Joyce describes Harvey Thompson, a hypothetical master teacher in a differen- tiated staffing organization. Harvey is a very good teacher of children, but also a master at coordinating the work of many other people and in developing curricular patterns that are tailored to the kinds of students he has, the kind of place where they live, the requirements of many subject matters, and the capabilities of a large variety of instructional materials. His immediate staff includes the seven other members 21The Teacher and His Staff: Differentiating Teaching R61es,Report of the71968 Regional TEPS Con- ference (Washington, D.C.: National Education Associ- ation, 1968). 32 of his direct-instruction team, and his extended staff, the people who work in the six support centers. Because his staff can not only interact effectively with children but create and provide instructional resources, Harvey is able to individualize his teaching and utilize effectively the talents of subject specialists and technologists . . . 22 Still another important factor in the development of differentiated staffing experiments and models, is the increased interest of the Federal Government in education's organization and manpower problems. With the passing of the Education Profession Development Act in 1967 and with the staffing of a new Bureau of Educational Personnel Development in the U.S. Office of Education, there is concrete evidence of the concern about educational man- power.23 Don Davies, a former NCTEPS director and dif- ferentiated staffing advocate, in one of his first acts after becoming Associate United States Commissioner of Education, inaugurated a program expressly aimed at developing and testing differentiated staffing programs across the country.24 It was funded with an appropriation of a little less than three million dollars under the 22Bruce R. Joyce, The Teacher and His Staff--Man, Media and Machines (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1967), p. 20. 23James L. Olivero and Edward G. Buffie, Edu- cational Manpower (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970), p. 21. 24"Differentiated Staffing in Schools," Education U.S.A.--Specia1 Report (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relation Association, 1970), p. 2. 33 Education Profession Development Act. Twelve proposals out of the original 270 proposals submitted were funded. Definitions Although its origins can be traced back to the 50's, the concept of differentiated staffing is in its infancy and the literature is still to a very great extent, based on what it could do--the theoretical prospects. The National Education Association, Division of Field Services, conducted a diligent search for the literature and in the field for the available information about differentiated staffing in action. In the Washing- ton Memo, dated April, 1970, they published the following statement: A review of the literature, however, failed to satisfy seeming responsible expectations. With minor exceptions, recently published materials continue to be almost as completely devoted to theory and devoid of data as was true several years ago. As for these minor exceptions-~which amounted to a few brief unexplained "factual" references-- most of them fell apart under close scrutiny.25 Also because of its newness and lack of concrete data, the various theories surrounding the concept of differentiated staffing are not bound together in a nice, tight definition. This vagueness is also due to the emphasis on having local professional involvement at the teacher level in the development of differentiated 25"About Differentiated Staffing and Trojan Horses," The Washington Memo (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association Division of Field Services, April, 1970). P. l. 34 staffing proposals for a school or a district. The pro- ponents of differentiated staffing, as well as the teacher associations and the unions, have contributed to this emphasis on local development. The main thrust behind differentiated staffing is to upgrade the quality of instruction and to provide more individualized learning programs for students. Differentiated staffing advocates say these goals cannot be met in the traditional system built around the self-contained classroom, and self- contained school.26 The knowledge explosion and changes in the schools since the 1950's, such as team teaching, nongraded programs, the use of teacher aides, and open- space planning, seem to the advocates of differentiated staffing that the next logical step as the result of these events would be differentiated staffing. Peter Coleman and Herman A. Wallin of the Uni— versity of British Columbia, offer the most analytical and inclusive definition of differentiated staffing to date. Differentiated staffing is a staff utilization pattern which offers: 1. a career pattern in teaching which does not inevitably lead out of the classroom into counseling or administration; 2. a more manageable teaching assignment, with improved matching of qualifications and interests to responsibilities; 26"Differentiated Staffing in Schools," Education H,S.A.--Special Report (Washington, D.C.: NationaIFSEhool Public Relation Association, 1970), p. 2. 35 3. a structure for decision-making, goal setting, and evaluation in which teachers play a leading part (a collegial structure); 4. a flexible instructional pattern open to innovation at the level of each of the school's working units, a pattern which readily accommodates consultants and paraprofessionals. A variety of student/ 27 teacher groupings, and a wider range of curricula. Bernard H. McKenna, Associate Secretary of the bkrtional Commission on Teacher and Professional Standards, dexfines differentiated staffing as follows: "A plan for reuzruitment, induction and continuous education and re- edhacation of staff personnel for the school that would hating a much broader range of manpower to education than is now available."28 Don Barbee, a San Francisco State educator, drefined differentiated staffing in a TEPS write-in Paper as: . . . a concept of organization that seeks to make better use of educational personnel. Teachers and other educators assume different responsibilities based on carefully prepared definitions of the many teaching functions. The differentiated assignment of educational personnel goes beyond traditional staff allocations based on common subject matter 27Peter Coleman and Herman A. Wallin, "A Rational for Bufferentiated Staffing," Centre of the Study of Ikhninistration in Education, The University of British Columbia, 1970, p. 2. (Mimeographed.) 28Bernard McKenna, "Differentiated Staffing: A PrOposal for Re-Designing the Education Profession," luggearch Bulletin, New Jersey School Development Center Winter, 1970). p. 4. 36 distinctions and grade level arrangements and seeks new ways of analyzing essential tasks and creative means of implementing new educational roles.29 Basic Concepts of Differentiated Staffing Analyzing these and other definitions of dif- ferentiated staffing, common elements can be found and clxassified into concepts that form the critical basis fkor differentiated staffing models. One of these con- cepts is a career ladder. The case for a career ladder in a differentiated stLaffing model is, in considerable part, a case against the present system of staffing and teacher recompense. The puresent system treats teachers--good ones and mediocre cuies--as interchangeable parts. The superior teacher rxeaches his salary ceiling in a relatively few years. the can make a financial breakthrough after that only by cIuitting the teaching profession or going into adminis- ‘tration. This means abandoning the very thing he set out Originally to do. Clark has pointed out that teaching is a relatively ati:ractive career for women, and a relatively unattractive one for men. He states: 29Don Barbee, "Differentiated Staffing: Expec- ‘bations and Pitfalls," TEPS Write-in Papers on Flexible St§_ffing Patterns No. 1 (WaEhington, D.C.: National Com- iKISSion on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, lmational Education Association, March, 1969), p. 7. HHV ‘ FD 37 . . . women perceive and use teaching as an in-and-out career. Two out of three beginning women teachers, for reasons extrinsic to work itself, expect to leave teaching within five years. . . . For men, they go into teaching hoping to advance up the school ladder into administration or permanently leave education to take employment in another field . . . men persist in their teaching careers better than do the women, but they persist with the intent of getting away from the women's work of teaching to the men's work of admin- istration.30 The consequences of this attitude to the pro- fkession by teachers are extremely serious for the edu- cuational system. The in-and-out and up-or-out career puitterns help to keep the field a place for amateurs.31 Tfime turnover of teachers restricts identification, com- nuitment, and expertness, necessary ingredients of advanced professionalism. Irvin Nikelai, of the Southwestern Cooperative Imiucational Laboratory, reports statistics that tend to snapport the thesis of teacher fall out. Each year 30 per cent of the students graduating from the nation's teacher-training institutions do not enter teaching. Of the remaining 70 per cent who do enter the teaching profession, one-third leave by the end of the first year. About half are gone by the end of two years. Eighty per cent are gone by the end of 10 years.32 3oBurton R. Clark, "Sociology of Education," The Endbook of Modern Sociology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964, p. 754. 3lIbid., p. 756. 32"Differentiated Staffing in Schools," Education IJ.S.An--Specia1 Repgrt (Washington, D.C.: National School Public Relation Association, 1970) , P. 3. 38 Another factor in retaining the best teachers in true teaching profession is the psychological satisfactions dearived from teaching. According to the Herzberg's33 arui Sergiovanni's34 studies, it was found that five factors tend to be job satisfiers—-achievement, recog- rnLtion, work itself, responsibility, and achievement. Athhony F. Gregore, Principal of the University High School and assistant professor of Educational Adminis- tzration and Supervision at the University of Illinois, it: an article based on the Herzberg and Sergiovanni's sstudies, contends that differentiated staffing holds glreat potential meeting job satisfier needs. He writes as follows: This plan (differentiated staffing) is founded upon the belief that man is an agent and should not be subject to a monolithic determinism which restricts his talent. It further takes into account the realization that teachers are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, that adult needs, interests, and commitments vary; that teachers specialization, in addition to common competences, can afford all the idiosyncrasies we attempt to fester in pupils but fail to acknowledge in adults; and that teachers who are continually learning serve as good examples to children who are learning. 33Frederick Herzberg, Bernard Mausner, and Barbara Snyderman, The Motivation To Work (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959). 34Thomas J. Sergiovanni, "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers," The Journal Eg:gEducational Administration, V (1967), 66-82. 35Anthony F. Gregore, "Satisfactions From Teach- ing," Education Forum, March, 1971, p. 301. 39 Differentiated staffing, which provides for pxnomotion as a teacher, not as an administrator or coun- sefilor, may significantly improve teaching as a career arui help to retain dedicated professionals in teaching. Corwin provides a full statement of the possibilities. . . . Differentiated work roles can be arranged in such a way as to provide meaningful career ladders for teachers, which should result in more equitable rewards for the most committed to their work. Career ladders may increase internal competition among teachers within a particular school, but they would circumvent the "dead end" quality of teaching as it is presently constituted, which seems to have permitted many teachers to leave the classroom. In addition to increasing commitment to teaching in general, career ladders could be used to increase commitment to specific fields within teaching. It soon will be possible to use promotion as a reward for teachers who have been effective in dealing with certain types of problems--working with disadvantaged children, for example--without requir- ing them to forsake their area of specialization. It is this characteristic, more than any other, that could transform teaching from a job into a career.36 Closely related to the concept of a career ladder .is the concept of differentiated salary scales emphasizing (nontribution rather than seniority. The overall purpose Of a coherent system of incentives would be to ensure tflmat teachers are rewarded better for teaching well than :fiDr teaching badly. The most important criticism of the Present single salary scale is that it does not do this. Benson, writing in 1968, states that: " . . . the most Jumportant school variable, in terms of its effect on A —— 36Ronald Corwin, "Enhancing Teaching as a Career," Today‘s Education, March, 1969. '5 I). 3.6 h- V; Si 1") L!) r / 40 performance on students, is quality of teaching. Yet the professional pay structure in education fails to establish strong incentive for teachers to work hard in the class- 37 The primary impact of the present scale is to room." reward longevity. A new and different concept of the educational decision-making process is usually included or implied in most models of differentiated staffing. Teachers become formal professional partners with administrators in the decision-making process. It requires the estab- 1ishment of decision-making structure in which the instructional teams would be the principal members. The collegial arrangement would have two main purposes: first, it would provide a setting for on-site decision- making about curricula, methods, and students, carried on by the people who must implement the decisions; second it may substantially promote increased teacher effectiveness by increasing the visibility of the teacher. In addition to diffused decision-making, differential staffing structure seems to run counter to other tra- ditional concepts of organizational management-~authority equals responsibility, "group" accountability vs. single accountability, line/staff separations. 37Charles S. Benson, The Economics of Public Edu- cation (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1968), p. 305. 38Coleman and Wallin, pp. cit., p. 13. 38 41 NON drawn: SALARY RANGE caching Research pecialist $17,500-19,000 Doctorate degree NON-TENURE Tfiaching urriculum $15,000-lC,500 Specialist Master's degree NON-TENURE nIbr 030118! $12. 500-1“. 000 , MA. or .86. TENURE Staff Teacher $10,000-11,500 , BS, or .Ed 0 TIIURE Associate Teacher $7.500-9.000 BA, 38, or Om. NON-TENU Assistant Teacher Associate $5.500'60500 degree (2 yrs.) NON-TENURE Educational “500-5600 Technician NONJTENUHE Teacher $3.500-“O500 Aide Figure l.-—Florida Model of Differentiated Staffing. 42 NON -TENURE Salary Range Master Teacher Doctorate or $15,500-25,000 Equivalent NON-TENURE ”SEniorTTpacher $1L,5oo-17,5oo n.s. or’equivalent TENURE B.A. Degree and $7,500-11,000 Calif. Credential TENURE Associate Teacher $6,500-9,000 A.B. or Intern E '10035 Teaching 1005: Teaching 3/5'3 Staff Z/S's Staff Responsibilities Teaching Teaching Responsibilities Responsibilities 'ACAIEHIC ASSISTANTS A.A. 1mm OR EQUIVALENT ENCATIONAL TECHNICIANS CLERKS Figure 2.--Temple City Model of Differentiated Staffing. 43 English conceptualizes the changes in the organizational structure when teachers' roles are dif- 39 The tra- ferentiated by the illustration in Figure 3. ditional organizational pyramid is shown at the left with the typical roles prevalent in most school systems today. Because it can operate without it, the structure on the left mitigates against real teacher involvement in the decision-making process. The pyramid at the right represents what happens in the old structure when teacher roles are substantially differentiated with job responsi- bilities beyond the four walls of the classroom or the individual school. The effect of such differentiation is to elevate the teacher from a base of classroom teaching to a position of status and influence within the authority structure, while at the same time changing the structure itself.40 This change in the structure and the involvement of the teacher in the decision-making process can capitalize upon the desire and competence of teachers for greater autonomy and influence in the organization, and advance the cause of professionalization. The construction of new decision-making systems with the collegial group as the locus of decision-making 39Fenwick English, "Field Testing a Differentiated Teaching Staff," Educational Manpower, ed. by James L. Olivere and EdWard G. Buffie (Bloomington: Indiana Uni- versity Press, 1970), p. 197. 4oIbid. 44 moaom .muonomoa one ousuosuum newsman Hoosom up muspoausm spanonaa< one mewqdzo sacs Mosques asaaaasopnm HmcowumNHcomnonl.m ousmflm madameam eaveaaepuoeean papaya: pacemam Hooeom mo ousaosnam awaken99< Hashes A/r masseuse soonmmsno .MN //I wdflfiBfifirm \\ //mfloesqzflooo //R:E&k§xafi {aneq aorzfefa Iooqes I 45 directly affects the work of the group. The effects of this are of two types: first, some increased probability of informed and appropriate decision; second, some gains in effectiveness of the decisions based on the "partici- pation hypothesis."41 The latter point suggests one very important characteristic of differentiated staffing theory. Dif- ferentiated staffs are likely to prove more hospitable to suggestions for future innovations since the various collegial groups will have had practice in making critical decisions, and will, through this, have developed rather more openness to suggestions from colleagues than is characteristic of the independent classroom teacher at present. The demand for a more flexible instructional pattern has been on the rise during the last twenty years. Differentiated staffing with its genesis in team teaching evolved to accommodate this demand. Although many of the cure-all "gimmicks" of only a few years ago have taken a more subordinate place and are now recognized as just a part of the total instruc— tional package, the expansion of technology in education has had many permanent effects. Television, the computer, expanded instructional material centers with rich audio- visual material and retrieval systems, program materials, modular scheduling, behavioral objectives are just some 41Coleman and Wallin, pp. cit., p. 14. 46 of the many new ideas and innovations that remain in the schools to stay. The traditional school structure--one teacher in one classroom-—does not seem to be the best organizational pattern for utilizing the new technology and other innovations. In addition to the need for a different organi- zational pattern many of these new ideas demand specially trained personnel with highly develOped skills. Some of these specially trained personnel now being introduced include: the multi-media technicians, the school artist for preparing transparencies, the persons preparing lessons for closed circuit television, teaching aides, the coordinator of independent study, large group instructor, the specialist in diagnostic testing in content areas, the writers of locally needed materials for computer-assisted instruction, the expert in the field of educational testing and measurement, and the reading diagnostician. Coupling this fact with the knowledge explosion and the conclusion can be drawn that the present modest degree of specialization is not viable. The knowledge explosion alone has made it virtually impossible for the teacher to be highly conversant with several fields. The teaching fields have become pro- liferated and highly complex and for performing the teaching act, it becomes important that teachers have the opportunity to develop their greatest interests and 47 knighest talents in a fewer rather than a greater number (of? areas.42 McDonald claims that a high degree of flinctional specialization is becoming essential to teacher effectiveness . The ideal of the omnicapable teacher is now a piece of outworn ideological baggage which has to be left behind if schools are to exemplify that efficiency, the demand for which, although uncertain fluctuating, and easily distracted, is the authentic voice of contemporary society. Educational efficiency requires that teachers be functional specialists, not generalists. . . . What it means in practice is that teachers are employed solely in the capacities for which they appear to be fitted by preparation, endowment, and personal preferences. Thus they may work with individual children, with small tutorial groups, with large groups, with seminar classes, with large classes, or in mass—presentation settings. They may diagnose, counsel, carry out formal instruc- tion, specialize in remedial teaching, or engage in any of the other tasks now left to the historical teacher.43 As education increasingly becomes concerned with tflne efficiency and economy of its operation, the already <2cmplex role of teacher is changing and seems to be Syrowing more complex. Adams in his research on analyzing tine teachers' role, states: 42National Commission on Teacher Education and Ifirofessional Standards, A Position Statement on the Con- Egpt of Differentiated Staffing (Washington, D.C.: ILatibnal EducatiOn Associatibn, May, 1969), p. 7. 43John McDonald, "Teacher Education: Analysis and Recommendations," The Teacher and His Staff: Differen- lggating Teachipg Roles (Washington, D.C.: National Edu- cation Association,7I969), P. 7. 48 The striking difference between the expansive classifactory approach and the intensive enumera- tive approach of Biddle et al., shows the difficulty of catching the tiger of teacher by the tail. Probably the teacher's tasks and actions arising from these tasks are legion.44 The need for highly specialized personnel is here and is being recognized in many schools. And it becomes clear that to permit teachers to develop and apply expertise, some reorganization of schools will be necessary. The question then is: How do the schools organize? How do the schools relate the specialized personnel to each other for the goal of improving the educational environment of each youngster? The proponents of differentiated staffing argue that under a differen- tiated staffing arrangement, school staffs might prepare for and assume responsibility for (at least major responsibility) a less overwhelming range of tasks, a range of tasks more accommodating to their most important interests and highest talents.45 The last concept of differentiated staffing to be examined is: the need for more opportunity in teacher education to combine theory and practice and to program for a gradual induction into the profession. The typical education of the teacher is one role: four years a 44Raymond S. Adams, "Analyzing the Teacher's Role," Educational Research, February, 1970, p. 123. 45McKenna, pp, cit., p. 5. 49 student, and suddenly a teacher. There are few spots across the nation where teachers are being prepared along differentiated roles, such as programs where students serve as aides, assistant teachers, interns, and other paraprofessional roles. According to demonstration projects in connection with New Mexico State University, a number of factors suggest some change in the design of teacher education programs: a. The teaching profession should drop the idea of preservice and inservice and concentrate on integrated education which will continue until retirement. b. Local schools and universities should cooperate on continuing educational programs. c. Plans for teacher promotion should be based on teacher growth potential, as evidenced by a leadership role, such as team leader, master teacher. d. The process of educating teachers may not necessarily relate directly to licensing or degrees.46 Under this type of teacher education program, the prospec- tive teacher would get experience in the schools (fresh- man or sophomore level in college or earlier), under the close supervision of senior teachers with special training for inducting the novices. Each teacher trainee would combine experience in the schools with formal course work in the university, moving back and forth comfortably 46Philip R. Wendel, "Teaching and Learning: The Basic Function," Whose Goals for American Higher Edu- cation? (Washington, D.C.: AmeriCan Council on Higher Education, October, 1967), p. 22. 50 from school to college, beginning with limited responsi- bilities in the schools and gradually increasing their responsibilities as his experience, expertise, and internalization of theory accumulate.47 In addition this type of program should result in developing more coopera- tive arrangements between schools of education and school systems in both novice teacher education and inservice teacher education. Problems of Implementation Although the advocates of differentiated staffing have spotlighted many advantages of a program, implemen- tation of differentiated staffing has many troublesome facets, most of which will necessitate a great deal of problem solving before a successful model or program can be achieved. Most of these issues are related to the teachers' associations and unions. Both the AFT and NBA have endorsed the concept of a differentiated staffing program in a limited or experimental fashion. The association insists that any design for differentiating staffing to be success— ful, (a) must meaningfully involve classroom teachers and the local association from the initial stage of development through implementation and evaluation, (b) must clearly define roles and responsibilities of 47McKenna, pp. cit., p. 6. 51 certificated and noncertificated staff so that the actual process of teaching rests in hands of individuals having sound educational preparation, and (c) must keep the community informed and seek its cooperation in order to prevent misunderstanding of the educational value to be gained from differentiated staffing.48 The AFT's position can be summarized by the following statement: "Within the context of collective bargaining, we support legitimate experimentation and comprehensive research in staff utilization; such research must take into consideration the effect of the models upon educational productivity."49 The major issue or at least the most emotional issue involved in the discussion or disputes raised by the unions and associations on differentiated staffing is the old "merit pay issue." The merit pay debate thought to be dead--primari1y because of high morality rate and long list of failures--seems to have acquired new life with differentiated staffing. The position of the union on this phase of the issue seems to be very clear, but it is not so easy to ascertain the exact position of the National Education Association. The NBA 48"Classroom Teachers Speak on Differentiated Teaching Assignments," pp. cit., p. 10. 49Robert Baherman, "American Federation of Teachers Perspective of Differentiated Staffing," Research Bulletin: New Jersey School Development Center, Winter, 1970, p. 23. - 52 speaking through the TEPS Commission seems to support the possibility of differentiated pay for differentiated responsibility. "Status and financial reward would be based on the complexity and intensity of the task the teacher chose to prepare for the traditional merit pay issue would be avoided in that teachers would be paid differently for assuming different responsibilities, as compared to being paid differently because they were judged to be performing similar tasks at different levels 50 of quality." While the Field Service Division of the NEA, reports their reasoning on the subject: 'Eliminate the pay factor and hierarchy of teachers," suggests NEA Field Service Director Watts. “Dif- ferent horizontal career tracks can be set up for the teachers and they can advance on these. Staff differentiation has been criticized as a way to pay some excellent salaries by keeping three-fourths of the staff below $10,000. All teachers should be paid more so that they can afford to stay in teaching rather than creating a hierarchy of teachers at dif- ferent pay levels. Today, even the worst teacher is not overpaid. The hierarchy is still backwards. The most outstanding teacher, rather than teaching less should spend more time in the classroom."51 The AFT's position, as stated by Robert Baherman, Director of Research for the American Federation of Teachers, is as follows: 50National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, pp. cit., p. 6. Sl"Differentiated Staffing in Schools," Education U.S.A.--Specia1 Repprt (Washington, D.C.: National Schools Public ReIation Association, 1970), p. 7. 53 It is imperative to distinguish between the con- cept of differentiated staffing (differentiated roles and responsibilities) and the concept of verticalism (the creation of a vertical hierarchy of authority, salary, and status). While we support the former, we reject the divisiveness of the latter. We hold that teaching must be non-competitive, that it must be viewed as a cooperation and communal effort and so it should remain. The concept of verticalism is negative strategy in that it seeks to abandon the single salary schedule and, while it is not synonymous with merit pay (which attempts to base salary on observable differences in "degrees of competency"), it injects a substitute which is equally abhorrent to classroom teachers, namely, that "levels of responsibility" can be dis- tinguished in terms of salary differentials.52 A second issue and one that is not easily separated from many of the others is "unilateral imposition." The CTA and NEA's position, that has been previously stated, is very clear on the need for involvement in the process from the "initial stages through implementation and evaluation." The AFT's position is: "Any plan which deals with staff utilization must involve the teachers' union, through the process of negotiation, in all phases of decision-making in matters of policy and process."53 Even where this is attempted, the situation does not always turn out to be successful. In Montgomery County, Maryland, a teacher strike took place in 1968. Salaries were the principal grievance, but a secondary issue was differentiated staffing. In 1970 another strike 52Baherman, pp. cit., p. 22. 53Ibid. 54 was possible and this time differentiated staffing was the main issue. Differentiated staffing has been proposed initially by a citizens' committee appointed by the school board. Teachers, remembering a short—lived merit pay plan of the early 1960's, resisted the implementation. The post-strike settlement provided for a committee of ten--five representing the superintendent and five repre- senting the association--to study differentiated staffing. The committee brought a plan to the school board for approval and the committee received it. The teachers' association opposed it bitterly, claiming that it was an attempt to slip in the back door. The school board and the administration contended that the plan had been widely discussed at a "teachers talk-in," a summer work- shop, and faculty meetings. They said each of the 180 schools would have "local autonomy" to shape its own differentiated staffing program to meet the needs of its own students and community. The plan was not imple- mented and the issue was an impasse item in 1971. Another fear of teachers is that a staffing pattern of differentiated assignments will be used as a means of cutting school budgets by paying higher salaries to the few teachers who reach the top brackets and lower salaries to the vast majority of teachers. The misuse of the teacher-aide idea in Bay City, Michigan, 55 back in 1951, was recalled by many.54 Accompanied by a good deal of publicity, Bay City used aides as a budget- cutting device. The strategy amounted to changing a thirty-pupil class with one teacher into a forty-five pupil class with a teacher plus an aide. A fourth aspect of the program, that is viewed as a threat, especially by the union, is the possible division of the teaching ranks. President David Selden of the AFT responded to this point at the 1969 convention: The idea of differentiated staffing--separating faculty members into specialized functional and status categories--originated outside the governing bodies of the teaching profession--either NEA or AFT and it was thrust upon us without discussion or vote. Now we have to deal with it. . . . We have avoided an outright negative response but, at the same time, we have made it clear that we will not support the introduction of ranks into elementary and secondary school teaching.55 Fenwick W. English, the director of differentiated staff- ing project in Temple City, California, had the following comments after his first-hand observation in Florida: Probably the most disturbing phenomena is the uneasy feeling one gets after talking with some Floridians about the concept. Some lay citizens and educators alike see it frankly as kind of back door approach to merit pay. Some administrators perceive it as a strategy to divide and conquer the teachers' associations, and others as a threat to their cherished authority.56 54Washington Memo., pp. cit., p. 5. 55"Differentiated Staffing in Schools," Education U.S.A.--Specia1 Report, pp. cit., p. 8. * 56Fenwick W. English, "Differentiated Staffing from Theory to Practice," Florida Education Association Journal, February, 1969, p. 10. 56 The last argument against differentiated staffing to be mentioned, is the development of a hierarchy, which will prevent the teacher from being involved in the decision-making process. This issue was raised by the Montgomery County Education Association in connection with a re-evaluation of the role of the resource teacher, a form of differentiated staffing. "It limits the total involvement of the teacher in the decision-making process of the school. It blocks the one-to-one relationship 57 Also the 1969 between the teacher and principal." National Study Conference on Differentiated Teaching Assignment had the following unresolved issues related to this point: Can differentiated staffing be accomplished only by establishing a new hierarchy within the school sys- tem? Might there not be horizontal movement for the teacher rather than vertical movement or a plan of rotating assignments that could be equally effec- tive?58 The "merit pay" issue and the threat of a possible split in the teaching ranks strikes close to the heart of the union philosophy. The AF of L, composed of craft unions, since their inception sought to protect 57Pete V. Treibly, John R. Sage, and James Coyle, Report on Resource Teacher, Report to the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County Education Association by the Committee to discuss the report of the Role of the Resource Teacher (Rockville, Maryland: Montgomery County Education Association, May, 1971), p. 1. 58"Classroom Teachers Speak on Differentiated Teaching Assignments," pp. cit., p. 23. 57 their membership by controlling the labor supply of their trade, and by presenting wage competition among their members by prescribing a uniform hourly wage for each craft. While an industrial union found it also necessary to bargain for a uniform wage in order to keep its groups together. Walter Reuther's statement at a convention of the UAW best emphasizes this point: " . . . the most important economic objective of our union is the establishment of an industry-wide agreement based on the principle of equal pay for equal work."59 Any efforts to establish differentiated staffing will have to counteract this feeling of necessity for a single salary schedule of the unions and teacher associ— ations, as well as the bad taste left in many associations over the evaluation aspect of "merit pay." The issue of splitting the ranks also has a historical background that must be examined and resolved before differentiated staffing will be acceptable to unions and associations. The AFT's position on limiting bargaining units to nonsupervisory personnel, dates way back and presents problems to the staff teacher being promoted to a master teacher. Will the master teacher be acceptable in the AFT or the teachers' association, once he assumes a role‘involving differentiated responsibility? 59John R. Abessold, Problems of Hour Rate Uni- formity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), p. 5. 58 The issue of using differentiated staffing as a means to cut school budgets needs further examination. It seems more than a coincidence, that the two states that have enacted differentiated staffing legislation in 1969--Florida and Utah--also were two out of the three states in the country which the NEA applied sanctions to in that year. State-wide sanctions are usually applied to those states where financial support to education is very poor. If differentiated staffing is to be implemented in schools, the concept will first have to go through long and difficult sessions of collective bargaining. Differentiated staffing will not be implemented without it, because it requires the resolution of many issues that are very close to the union and teachers' associ- ations' hearts. This will, at least, satisfy the criteria of teacher involvement, as one of the items necessary for a successful program. The Resource Teacher Program The resource teacher program, which is a form of differentiated staffing, was instituted in Montgomery County, Maryland, in September of 1953. At that time one elementary resource teacher was employed to work with sixth-grade teachers. Without significant modifi- cation in purpose, the program grew to eighteen elementary and secondary teachers in 1963-64. During the period of 59 1964 to 1966 the resource teacher program was revised and enlarged to include resource teachers in all secondary schools and on a twelve-month employment basis. The Evaluative Criteria for Secondagy School Pro- gpppp, published in 1967 by the Montgomery County Public Schools, contained a job description for the general role of the secondary school resource teacher along with the material for subject matter appraisal. The position calls for involvement in staff development, in coordination of an academic discipline in a school, involvement in admin— istration, and involvement in planning-research-evaluation- reporting. The resource teacher is not in a position of direct-line authority but instead provides developmental, consultative, and advisory services. His assignment to direct instruction and contact with students is less than full-time and is dependent upon his Special job responsibilities. Dr. Elizabeth Wilson, Director of the Supervision and Curriculum Department in Montgomery County, Maryland, expressed a widely held view in a memorandum to the Executive Staff on January 16, 1970, when she stated that "interpretations of what these individuals (resource teachers) are to do are probably as diverse as the number of resource teachers, teacher specialists, principals, 60 60 This felt need for role clarifi- and area directors." cation, along with the proposed reorganization of the county's administrative and supervisory services into a more decentralized system to be effective on July 1, 1971, resulted in the formation of the Secondary Resource Teachers' Role Committee. The Committee, composed of secondary resource teachers, developed a role statement, which was sequentially modified to reflect deliberation and dis- cussion at four succeeding stages--principals, area directors, executive staff, and the Board of Education. This role statement was then discussed by a special com- mittee of the Montgomery County Education Association. This special committee recommended to its Board of Directors that the association should oppose this role, delineation.61 On May 5, 1971, the Delegate Assembly of the Montgomery County Education Association over- whelmingly defeated a motion to endorse the school sys- tem's proposed statement on the role of the secondary 62 resource teachers. 60Elizabeth C. Wilson, "Memorandum to the Execu- tive Staff of the Montgomery County Schools," Rockville, Maryland, January 16, 1970. (Mimeographed.) 61Treibly, Sage, and Coyle, pp. cit., p. 1. 62Thomas Shuggarts, "MCEA's Position on MCPS Role of Secondary Resource Teachers," Memorandum to Montgomery County Education Association Secondary Members and Ele- mentary Delegates, Rockville, Maryland, May 27, 1971. (Mimeographed.) 61 Tom Shuggarts, President of the teachers' associ- ation, in a memo to the delegates, enumerated some of the reasons for the defeat of the proposal. 1. Lack of any involvement of department members in choosing the resource teacher for that department. 2. The fear that the resource teacher because of his new role in assisting the principal in the evalu- ation of staff will really become another super- visor. There were many comments that the present c00perative relationships between the resource teacher and the staff members in a particular department would be jeopardized if the resource teacher were given power of evaluation of the other staff members. 3. The role statement moves the system another step farther away from local autonomy. Many feel that it should be the decision of the local principal and staff as to whether there should be resource teachers, and if so, what their function should be. In other words allow the school to develop a system which best compliments that school's program.53 63Ibid., p. 2. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE 15 Introduction ' ‘This chapter presents general considerations in the overall design of this research. It covers the development of the instrument, testing the instrument, L' data-gathering procedure, a description of the samples used in this study, and the analytic techniques used in examining the data. Development of the Instrument Since no suitable instrument was available to collect the kind of data sought in this study, it was necessary to develop such an instrument. The initial step in formulating the questionnaire, once the objec- tives for the study were established, was to review the related literature to locate and identify the various activities associated with the role of the resource teacher. The role of the resource teacher was examined from its initial inception in 1953 to the present. Available documents on changes in the role and per- ceptions of the role by teachers, administrators, and 62 63 board of education members were examined. A more detailed report of the review of the literature is pre- sented in Chapter II of this study. Role activities were gleaned from this accumu— lation of perceptions and writings, as well as from dis- cussions with resource teachers, to form the basis of the questionnaire. This listing of role activities was given to a teacher Specialist in the curriculum depart— ment, two resource teachers, two classroom teachers, and a principal. Each was asked to examine the list and to add to it any activities of the resource teacher that were not included. The assembling of resource teacher activities into a composite list set the groundwork for the next step, which was to locate these activities into areas which would give a degree of commonality to the various activities. The current literature on differentiated staffing was used to determine these areas of commonality; The System Model of Differentiated Staffing,l Evaluative Criteria for the Secondary School Program,2 and The Role 1Gene M. Pillot, "System Model for Differentiated Staffing," Sarasota County Public Schools, Sarasota, Florida, September, 1969. (Mimeographed.) 2Evaluative Criteria for the Secondary School Program (Rockville, Maryland: Montgomery County Public Schools, 1967). Pp. 37-47. 64 of the Secondary Resource Teachers3 provided background for this decision. The tasks identified as essential to the operation of the resource program were classified into five broad categories: (1) instruction, (2) admin— istration, (3) staff development, (4) curriculum, and (5) planning-research-evaluation—reporting. r5 Assistance in determining the categories for each I of the listed role activities was received from a jury of experts on differentiated staffing and on the role of the resource teacher (see Appendix A for the list of E experts). These experts were asked to classify each of the role activity statements into one of the five cate- gories. (See Table l for the results of this classifi- cation.) The role norm inventory, in its completed form, consists of fifty-one activity statements concerning the secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County. Ten of these statements were classified under the section labeled instruction in the role norm inventory. Nine statements were classified under staff development and nine in the research-p1anning-evaluation-reporting section. The section classified as administration con- tained ten statements and the curriculum section had a total of thirteen statements. 3"The Role of Secondary Resource Teachers," Montgomery County Public Schools WOrking Paper, Rockville, Maryland, September, 1970. (Mimeographed.) 65 ma .NH .OH uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu m m mo use N Ha .m .v oa .m .m .m .m oa .m .m .n .m .H m .w .n .m oa .m .n .o .m m mo #50 m m .w .m .H n .e .m o .m m .m .m .H e m m0 uso v m .N m .H m .m .q e m .N .H m m0 uno m Hmnasz EmuH nonesz EmuH umnEsz EouH nonasz EmuH HmnEdz EmuH ucmaomumd ca muummxm Esasoauuso .cHEpm mIMImnm .>oo mmmum coauosuumcH mo Mogadz Naomoumu munwmxo mo Honfisc on» on muommumo why so moamoumm msflpuooom mucofiwpmum huouco>ca mo sowumoflmwmmmaoll.a mqmda 66 Each inventory statement consisted of three parts. The first part is the introductory phrase, "I think that a resource teacher. . . . " In the second part the respondents were asked to select one of the following phrases: (l) definitely should r} (2) preferably should (3) may or may not (4) preferably should not (5) definitely should not -1 The last part contains the incomplete role activity state- ment (see Appendix B for the complete inventory). Testing the Instrument In order to obtain information about the ability of the respondents to understand and complete the instrument correctly a pilot study was undertaken. For this pilot study a draft of the questionnaire, which was thought to be complete as possible, was used, and comments of the teachers and resource teachers concerning the mechanics of responding, as well as the selection of questions, were tabulated and reviewed. In addition, the pilot study was used to check the percentage of replies and to determine if the methods used in analyzing and qualifying the data were appropriate. 67 The population of the pilot study consisted of sixty secondary teachers selected at random from the secondary math, English, science, and social studies teachers of Montgomery County, Maryland, with at least one year of teaching experience in the County. Twenty resource teachers were also selected randomly from the pool of resource teachers in the secondary academic fields of math, science, English, and social studies. Both the pilot study and the actual study were limited to teachers and resource teachers from these four academic fields. These are the only disciplines where there are resource teachers in all the secondary schools. There are some resource teachers in other fields, but they depend on the size of the department and the discretion of the principal. Of the twenty resource teachers selected to par- ticipate in the pilot study, nineteen returned their com- pleted inventory for a 95 per cent response. Forty teachers responded of the sixty contacted for a 67 per cent return. The one factor analysis of variance revealed that there were no significant differences between the scores on the inventory for teachers and the resource teachers on any of the five sections of the inventory. Procedure The investigator presented a proposal of the study to the Department of Research, Montgomery County, 68 Maryland, along with a request to conduct the research study among their professional personnel. The proposal was reviewed by the Department of Research and permission was granted to conduct the study in the Montgomery County Public School system. A cover letter which asked the cooperation of the randomly selected participants was prepared. The cover letter was approved and came out under the signature of Dr. Joseph J. Tarallo, Associate Superintendent for Administration (see Appendix C for a copy of the cover letter and Appendix B for a c0py of the inventory). A copy of the instrument, the coVer letter and a self— addressed return envelope were sent out to each person selected to participate in the study. Two weeks after the initial mailing a follow-up was conducted by phone. The investigator talked with or left a message for those persons who had not returned the instrument. Usable returns were received from 85.1 per cent of the par- ticipants contacted after the follow-up. Sample Description Data The respondents to this study consisted of four groups of educationists--principals, supervisors, resource teachers, teachers--who were in positions of influence on the role of the resource teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery County has fifty-two secondary school principals (senior high, junior high, and middle 69 school) of which thirty-four were randomly selected to participate in the study. Thirty usable responses were returned or 88.2 per cent of those principals contacted. The thirty responses represent 57.7 per cent of the secondary principals in Montgomery County. The group classified as supervisors consisted of twenty-three central office-based subject supervisors, six area-based supervisors of instruction (general supervisor), and six area-based directors of instruction. Thirty-four members of this group were selected to par- ticipate in the study of which thirty responded. Those returning completed inventories represented 88.2 per cent of the randomly selected participants and 85.7 per cent of the total population of supervisors. Secondary resource teachers were limited to the resource teachers in the subject areas of math, science, English, and social studies. Montgomery County has approximately 240 professionals classified as secondary resource teachers. Of these, 208 of them are resource teachers in the previously mentioned academic disciplines. Thirty-three resource teachers of the 208 were randomly selected to participate and thirty of these responded. The thirty responses represented 90.0 per cent of those contacted and 14.4 per cent of the total population of math, science, English, and social studies resource teachers. 70 The last group consists of secondary teachers in the academic disciplines of math, science, English, and social studies. For the school year 1971-72, Montgomery County had 1,567 teachers in the secondary schools in the four disciplines. Forty of these teachers were randomly selected to participate in the study and usable ‘ responses were received from thirty of them. The thirty ‘1 responses represented 75 per cent of those selected and i 1.9 per cent of the total population of secondary teachers in math, science, English, and social studies. Table 2 gives a summary of the four groups ran- domly selected to participate in the study and their per- centage of response. It also includes the percentage of responses to the total population of interest. The sex of the participants in the study, the school organization pattern, the length of time in the position, and the educational level of the participants were considered, evaluated, and classified as irrelevant variables. These variables have been taken into account by the randomization process. Table 3 indicates the sex of the professionals randomly selected to participate in the study. Table 4 presents data on the academic disciplines of the teachers and the resource teachers, and Table 5 gives information on the grade level organization of the school, of the principals, resource teachers, and teachers. 71 m.m H.mm ONH Hva Nwm.a HMHOB a.a o.ma om oa spm.a mumaopma a.aa a.om om mm mom phenomme monfiomwm s.mm m.mm on em mm mp0ma>ppdsw s.am ~.mm on an mm mammaocaum ummumucH mo momsommmm unconsommom soflumasmom o mmmcommmm ousmwoauumm manammom unopcommmm Hmuoe on» Mo was awoum mo Hmnadz on pmuooHom Hmwoa mo cowuwmom mommusmoumm u m memcommmn mo manna mHmEEsmII.N names 72 H.om mm m.p~ ma m.a~ . pa m.H~ pa ma Hepoa o.mm «A m.pm Ha m.sa p o.o~ m ow mumcopme ~.¢N m ~.em m m.p~ m ~.am m mm mnmcoeme mousOmmm w z m z w z m z pmuomamm mmapsum smaamcm mocmaom cues Hmuoe bemusedmmm mo coHuHmOE Hafioom . . mnmcommu mousommu pas mumsommu pouooamm may mo moswamwomflp OHEmpmo¢II.v Manda m.mm ov H.55 Hoa flea Hmuos o.mv ma o.mm mm ov mumnomma m.nm m >.mn em mm mumnomma moHSOmom m.mm NH n.vm mm .vm muomw>nomom a.~ H H.am mm am mamaaoaaum w z w z manpoa unaccommmm mo coauwmom mamfimm mam: mpsum on» he mummHOHpumm ou pouomHOm mademmmomoum mo xomrr.m mgmda 73 TABLE 5.--Grade level organization of the schools, of the principals, teachers, resource teachers Type of Total Senior Junior M1ddle Respondent Selected N % N % N % Principals 34 15 44.1 17 50.0 2 5.9 Resource 33 17 51.5 14 42.4 2 6.1 Teachers Teachers 40 17 42.5 21 52.5 2 5.0 Total 107 49 45.8 52 48.6 6 5.6 Data Analysis Two of the measures used in this study pertain specifically to the role norm inventory and can be described at this point. The first measure was designed to indicate differences in the perceived role of the resource teacher by the four different groups--teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. The inventory data necessary to ascertain these differences was transferred into statistical form by assigning a numerical value from one to five to each of the responses 'used in the inventory. The pattern for the assignment (of this numerical value was as follows: Definitely should 5 Probably should 4 May or may not 3 Preferably should 2 Definitely should not 1 74 The total response score and the mean response score were then calculated for each of the four groups--teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors--for each of the five sections of the inventory--instruction, staff development, research-planning~eva1uation-reporting, administration, and curriculum. The one-factor analysis of variance was used to determine if there was a significant difference between the mean response scores on the role norm inventory by the four groups on each of the five sections of the inventory. This method of inferential statistics was used because it is a powerful and robust analysis designed for use in research dealing with a single independent variable. The one-factor analysis of variance is based on assumptions which are, also, in accord with the design of this research project. These assumptions are as follows: The groups were: . sampled at random . from normal populations . had equal variances . were independent4 bLOhJH Certain violations of these assumptions have little effect on the results of the statistical analysis.5 4Gene V. Glass and Julian C. Stanley, Statistical {Hpthods in Education and Ps cholo (Englewood Cliffs, IV.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 197 , p. 340. 5Ibid. 75 If a significant difference was detected between the mean response scores on the inventory by the four groups, Tukey's post-hoc procedure was used to determine between which groups this significant difference existed. Tukey's method was used, rather than Scheffe's method, because it produces a greater number of significant differences between means when used with simple contrasts. The T-method gives a shorter confidence interval around differences between means than the S-method.6 The second measure used in this study was designed to indicate the extent of agreement or consensus among the members of a given population. Because no assumptions could be made regarding equal intervals between each of the five response categories, it was necessary to find some type of ordinal measure. The instrument adopted and to be referred to as the agreement score, is a simple measure of cumulative, relative frequency distribution developed by Professor Robert Leik of the University of Washington. Leik, in describing this measure, states: This measure is free of sample size, number of choice Options, central tendency, and assumptions about intervals between choice options; yet it accurately reflects the degree to which choices are spread 61bid., p. 395. 76 over the set of options available. Furthermore, because the measure is a sum divided by its maximum possible value, D is a percentage, hence a ratio scale variable.7 This measure has also been used in Dr. John Foskett's studies on the elementary school principal8 and elementary school teachers.9 The data analysis procedures used in this study will determine if the differences between the four groups were significant and the extent of agreement among the members of a given group. 7Robert K. Leik, "A Measure of Ordinal Consensus," Pacific Sociological Review, IX (Fall, 1966), 86. 8John M. Foskett, The Normative World of the Ele- mentary School Teacher (Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1967). 9John M. Foskett, The Normative World of the Ele- :mentary School Principal (Eugene, Oregon: Center for the .Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1967). CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Introduction This chapter consists of two parts. The first part is concerned with data related to the three general hypotheses and the fifteen operational or subhypotheses. The validity of the hypotheses will be evaluated by analyzing the data from the five separate areas of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. The areas of the inventory include the following cate- gories: instruction, staff development, research- evaluation~planning~reporting, administration, and curriculum. The second part of the chapter is devoted to establishing the role of the secondary resource teacher by analyzing the data in terms of the perceptions of each of the relevant school populations-—teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. General Hypotheses The three general hypotheses upon which this study is based are: 77 78 Hypothesis I: There will be no difference between the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the Hormative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Hypothesis II: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Hypothesis III: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teacher and the scores of the super- visors on the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Each general hypothesis has five operational or subhypotheses related to the five subdivisions of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Significant agreement between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher, as indi- cated by scores on the Normative Role Inventory, and the perceived role of the resource teacher as seen by the principal, teacher, or supervisor was determined by per- forming an analysis of variance on the mean scores of the four groups for each section of the inventory. If a significant difference was detected by the one factor analysis of variance technique then Tukey's multiple comparisons procedures were used to determine between 79 which groups the significant difference existed. The .05 level was used for both the analysis of variance and Tukey's post-hoc procedures. Table 6 lists the mean response scores for the four groups on each of the five sections of the inventory. TABLE 6.--The mean response score for the four groups on each of the five sections of the inventory Resource . . . Teachers Teachers SuperV1sors Pr1nc1pals Mean Mean Mean Mean Instruction 38.67 38.77 40.17 41.90 Staff Develop- ment 36.63 39.13 38.73 40.07 R-P-E-R 33.70 35.07 35.03 37.23 Administration 40.17 41.23 39.40 40.77 Curriculum 53.37 54.97 55.37 57.80 Instruction The operational or subhypotheses related to the section of the inventory classified as Instruction are: Operational Hypothesis HIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the princi- pals on the section classified as Instruction of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers 80 on the section classified as Instruction of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIa: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the section classified as Instruction of the Normative Role Inventoronf the Secondapy Resource Teachers. The mean response scores for the Instruction section of the inventory were found by the analysis of variance technique to be significantly different. The computed 5.70 F value exceeds the tabled F value at the 5 per cent level of 2.68. This information is displayed in more complete form in Table 7. TABLE 7.--ANOVA table--instruction section Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 206.23 3 69.74 5.70 Within Groups 1,398.90 116 12.06 Total 1,605.03 119 Using Tukey's multiple comparison procedure the difference between the mean response scores of the resource teachers and the teachers was found not to be significant. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the supervisors was also found not to be significant. The difference between 81 the resource teachers and the principals was found to be significant at the .05 level. Also the difference between the teachers and the principals was significant. Table 8 illustrates these points. TABLE 8.--Cell summary and post hoc comparisons for the section on instruction Group Number Mean Teachers 30 38.67 Resource Teachers 30 38.77 Supervisors 30 40.17 Principals 30 41.90 Post Hoc Comparisons Teachers 3:22:25: Supervisors Principals Teachers -.10 -l.50 -3.23a Resource Teachers -l.40 -3.133 Supervisors -1.73 Principals aSignificant difference-confidence interval does not include zero. Operational Hypothesis HIa. The significant difference revealed by the one factor analysis of variance for the section of the inventory classified as Instruction was between the perception of the resource teacher and the perception of the principal. Table 8 indicates that there is a significant difference between the mean response score of the resource teacher and the mean response score of the principal. 82 Since the difference between the scores of the resource teachers and principals were significant, then Operational Hypothesis HIa was rejected. pperational Hypothesis HIIa. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teacher and the mean response score of the teachers on the Instruction section of the inventory was not found to be significant. This information is displayed in Table 8. The difference was not significant; therefore, Operational Hypothesis HIIa was retained. Operational Hypothesis HIIIa. The difference between the mean reSponse score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the supervisors for the section on Instruction was found not to be significant (see Table 8). Since the difference between the mean response score of the resource teacher and the supervisors was not significant, Operational Hypothesis HIIIa was retained. Summary For the section of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher identified as Instruction, there was a significant difference found between the scores of the resource teachers and scores of the principals as called for in Operational Hypothesis Ia. Operational Hypothesis Ia was rejected. There was 83 no significant difference found between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers or the supervisors as called for in Operational Hypotheses 11a and IIIa. Hypotheses IIa and IIIa were retained. A significant difference was also found to exist between the scores of the principals and the scores of the teachers on the Instruction section of the inventory. Staff Development The Operational hypotheses related to the section of the inventory classified as Staff Development are: Operational Hypothesis HIb: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teacher and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Staff DevelOpment of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIb: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Staff Development of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIb: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the section classified as Staff Development of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Analysis of the data revealed that the section of the inventory on staff development also had a significant 84 difference in perception. The computed F value for the one factor analysis of variance was 3.80 as compared to the tabled F of 2.68 at the .05 level. This information is contained in Table 9. TABLE 9.--ANOVA table-~staff development section Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 189.42 3 63.14 3.80 Within Groups 1,922.17 116 16.57 Totals 2,181.59 119 Tukey's multiple comparison procedures indicated that the only significant difference that existed in the staff development section was between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by the principal. See Table 10. Operational Hypothesis HIb. Table 10 illustrates that the difference between the mean score of the resource teacher and the mean score of the principal for section on Staff Development is not significant. The difference not being significant Hypothesis HIb was retained. Operational Hypothesis HIIb. The difference between the mean score of the resource teachers and the mean score of the teachers for the section on Staff Development was found not to be significant at the 85 .05 level. Table 10 contains this information. The dif- ference not being significant, Operational Hypothesis HIIb was retained. TABLE 10.--Cell summary and post hoc comparisons for the section on staff develOpment Group Number Mean Teachers 30 36.63 Resource Teachers 30 39.13 Supervisors 30 38.73 Principals 30 40.07 Post Hoc Comparisons Teachers $222h2§§ Supervisors Principals Teachers -2.50 -2.10 -3.44a Resource Teachers .40 -1.34 Supervisors - .94 Principals aSignificant difference--confidence interval does not include zero. Operational Hypothesis HIIIb. The difference between the mean score of the resource teacher and the mean score of the supervisors for the Staff Development section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 10. Since the difference between mean response score of the resource teacher and the supervisors was not significant, Operational Hypothesis HIIIb was retained. 86 Summar 2 For the section of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher identified as Staff Development no significant differences were found to exist between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the role of the resource teacher as it is perceived by principals, teachers, or supervisors. Operational Hypotheses Ib, HIIb, and HIIIb were retained. A significant difference was detected between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by the principal. Research-Planninngvaluation-Repprting The operational or subhypotheses related to the section of the inventory classified as Instruction are: Operational Hypothesis HIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Research—Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Qperational Hyppthesis HIIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. 87 Operational Hypothesis HIIIc: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the section classified as Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. The section on Research-Planning-Evaluation— Reporting did not reveal any significant differences in the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the four groups when analyzed by the one factor analysis of variance. The computed F of 2.37 was less than the tabled F of 2.68 at the .05 level. These calculations are illustrated in Table 11. TABLE ll.—-ANOVA table—-research-planning-evaluation- reporting section Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 190.50 3 63.50 2.37 Within Groups 3,047.82 116 26.74 Totals 3,238.32 119 Operational Hypothesis HIc. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the principals on the Research- Planning-Evaluation-Reporting section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 11. The dif- ference between the mean response scores not being sig- nificant, Operational Hypothesis HIc was retained. 88 Qperational Hypothesis HIIc. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the teachers on the Research-Planning-Evaluation-Reporting section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 11. Operational Hypothesis HIIc was retained because no sig- nificant difference was detected. Operational Hypothesis HIIIc. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the supervisors was not significant for the Research-Planning-Evaluation- Reporting section of the inventory. Again this is illustrated in Table 11. Operational Hypothesis HIIIc was also retained because the difference was not sig- nificant. Summary For the section of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher identified as Research- Planning-Evaluation-Reporting no significant differences were found to exist between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the role of the resource teacher as it is perceived by principals, teachers, or supervisors. Operational Hypotheses HIc, HIIc, and HIIIc were retained. Also, there was no sig- nificant difference detected between the perceived role 89 of the resource teachers by the teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by the principals. Administration The operational or subhypotheses related to the section of the inventory classified as Administration are as follows: Operational Hypothesis HId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Qperational Hypothesis HIIId: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Administration of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. The section of the inventory on Administration did not contain any differences that were significant in the perception of the role of the resource teacher as perceived by the four groups—~resource teachers, teachers, principals, and supervisors. The tabled F 90 at the .05 level of 2.68 was larger than the computed F of 2.37. Table 12 gives the results of the analysis of variance. TABLE 12.--ANOVA table--administration Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 190.50 3 63.50 2.37 Within Groups 4,336.10 116 26.74 Totals 4,391.59 119 Operational Hypothesis HId. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the principals on the Adminis- tration section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 12. The difference between the mean response scores not being significant, Hypothesis HId was retained. pperational Hypothesis HIId. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the teachers on the Administration section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 12. Operational Hypothesis HIId was retained because no significant difference was detected. Operational Hypothesis HIIId. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers 91 and the mean response score of the supervisors was not significant for the Administration section of the inventory. Again this is illustrated in Table 12. Operational Hypothesis HIIId was also retained because the difference was not significant. Summary For the section of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher identified as Adminis- tration no significant differences were found to exist between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teachers and the role of the resource teacher as it is perceived by principals, teachers, or super- visors. Operational Hypotheses HId, HIId, and HIIId were retained. Also, there was no significant difference detected between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by the principal. Curriculum The operational or subhypotheses related to the Curriculum section of the inventory are: Operational Hypothesis HIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and scores of the principals on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. 92 Operational Hypothesis HIIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Operational Hypothesis HIIIe: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the section classified as Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. The last section of the inventory was found to contain a significant difference in the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the four groups. The com- puted F for the one factor analysis of variance was 2.76 and the Tabled F at the .05 level was smaller at 2.68. Table 13 gives the results of the analysis of variance for the Curriculum section. TABLE l3.--ANOVA table-~curriculum Source of Variation SS df MS F Between Groups 303.15 3 101.05 2.76 Within Groups 4,248.10 116 36.62 Totals 4,551.25 119 Tukey's multiple comparisons procedures revealed that the differences between the teachers and the princi- pals were significant. The difference in the mean 93 response scores between the resource teachers and the principals, resource teachers_and teachers, and resource teachers and supervisors were not significant. See Table 14. TABLE l4.--Cell summary and post hoc comparisons for the section on curriculum Group Number Mean Teachers 30 53.37 Resource Teachers 30 54.97 Supervisors 30 55.57 Principals 30 57.80 Post Hoc Comparisons Teachers T:::h::: Supervisors Principals Teachers -1.60 —2.20 ~4.433 Resource Teachers - .60 -2.83 Supervisors -2.23 Principals aSignificant difference--confidence interval does not include zero. Operational Hypothesis HIe. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the principals on the section of the inventory identified as Curriculum was found not to be significant. See Table 14. The difference between the mean response scores was not significant; therefore, Operational Hypothesis HIe was retained. 94 Qperational Hypothesis HIIe. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the teachers on the Cur- riculum section of the inventory was found not to be significant. See Table 14. Operational Hypothesis HIIe was retained because no significant difference was detected. Operational Hypothesis HIIIe. The difference between the mean response score of the resource teachers and the mean response score of the supervisors was not significant for the Curriculum section of the inventory. This is illustrated in Table 14. Operational Hypothesis HIIIe was also retained because the difference between the means of response scores was not significant. Summary For the Curriculum section of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondarnyesource Teacher no signifi- cant differences were found to exist between the per- ceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teachers and the role of the resource teacher as it is perceived by the principals, teachers, or supervisors. Operational Hypotheses HIe, HIIe, and HIIIe were retained. The difference between the perceived role of the resource teacher by the teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by the principal was found to be significant. 95 Summary of Test of the General Hypotheses Summary Table 15 indicates that, out of the fif- teen possible differences between the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the resource teachers and the other three groups for the five sections of the inventory, only one of these was significant. These fif- teen differences are stated in the fifteen operational hypotheses. This significant difference was in the area of instruction where the perception of the principals differs with the perception of the resource teachers. TABLE lS.--Summary of the differences between the mean response scores of the four groups for the five sections of the Normative Role Inventory Resource Resource 32:22::3 .......- .......- T::::::f Teachers Super- Pr1nc1- pals V1sor pals Instruction .10 -l.40 -3.13a --3.23a Staff Development 2.40 - .40 - .94 -3.44a Research-Planning- Evaluation- Reporting 1.37 .04 2.16 3.53 Administration .06 -1.83 .46 .60 Curriculum 1.60 - .60 -2.83 -4.43a aSignificant differences General Hypothesis I: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the principals on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. 96 This hypothesis was tested by examining Operational Hypotheses HIa, HIb, HIc, HId, and HIe. Although Hypothe- sis HIa was rejected, because a significant difference was found between the mean scores of resource teachers and principals, Hypotheses HIb, HIc, HId, and HIe were retained. On the basis of this, General Hypothesis I was retained. General Hypothesis II: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the teachers on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. This hypothesis was tested by evaluating Hypotheses HIIa, HIIb, HIIc, HIId, and HIIe. On the basis of the statistical data gathered, all of the operational hypotheses were retained, thus, calling for retention of General Hypothesis II. General Hyppthesis III: There will be no difference between the scores of the resource teachers and the scores of the supervisors on the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondapy Resource Teacher. This hypothesis was tested by analyzing Oper- ational Hypotheses HIIIa, HIIIb, HIIIc, HIIId, and HIIIe. On the basis of the statistical data gathered, all of these hypotheses were retained, thus, calling for the retention of General Hypothesis III. 97 The other significant differences that were detected were between the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the principal and the perception of that role by the teacher. These significant dif- ferences existed in the areas of instruction, staff development, and curriculum. See column four of Table 15. Role of the Resource Teacher The second part of the chapter on Data Analysis is devoted to establishing the role of the resource teacher as perceived by each of the four groups and by the groups combined. An agreement score was computed for each item in the inventory. These scores along with the number and the percentage of responses for each category of possible responses were used as the basis for clarifying the role. Appendix E consists of the computed agreement score for each item in the inventory for each of the four groups--teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. Appendix D contains the number and the percentage of responses for each category-~definitely should, preferably should, may or may not, definitely should not, preferably should not--for all items of the inventory. In discussions of the normative structure as found in the literature, there is a tendency to define 98 norms in terms of the universally held rules of behavior. The actual state of the normative world relating to a complex role, such as the resource teacher, does not usually correspond to the model of complete agreement. Examination of the items of the inventory in terms of each of the four groups reveals the extent of agreement there is within the four groups on the position of resource teacher. The Range of Agreement Among Resource Teachers Table 16 shows the range of agreement on the role of the resource teacher as perceived by the resource teachers themselves. The table illustrates the highest and lowest agreement scores for an inventory item and the mean agreement score for all four groups for that item. Resource teachers reporting as they think resource teachers should act, have agreement scores ranging from a low .517 for item 2 in the Research—Planning- Evaluation-Reporting section (" . . . serve as part of the evaluation team to assess the strengths of staff members") to a high of .916 for item 9 under the Instruction section (" . . . promote the exchange of ideas among teachers"). This represents a range from near 50 per cent agreement to almost complete agreement. 99 TABLE 16.--Lowest and highest agreement scores for indi- vidual inventory items by resource teachers view of their own position and the mean agree- ment score of all four groups Lowest Mean Highest Mean A ree- Num- . A ree- A ree- Num- . A ree- gent ber Sect1on gent gent ber Sect1on gent Score Score Score Score .517 2 RPER .542 .916 9 Inst. .920 .533 7 Inst. .614 .812 8 Inst. .747 .533 l Inst. .446 .800 9 S.D. .754 .534 2 Adm. .571 .783 ll Curr. .862 .550 3 RPER .571 .783 2 S.D. .805 .550 10 RPER .600 .550 4 Adm. .596 The Range of Agreement Among Teachers The range of agreement on the role of the resource teacher as perceived by the teacher is illustrated in Table 17. Teachers reporting how they think resource teachers should act, have agreement scores ranging from a low of .393 for item 2 in the Instruction section (" . . . teach more than three of his own classes") to a high of .849 for item 9 of the Instruction section (" . . . promote the exchange of ideas among teachers"). The range among the teachers is greater than among the resource teachers. The Range of Agreement Among PrinCipals The range of agreement on the role of the resource teacher as perceived by the principals is 100 TABLE l7.-—Lowest and highest agreement scores for inven- tory items by teachers' view of the position and the mean agreement score of all four groups Lowest Mean Highest Mean Agree- Num- . Agree- Agree- Num- . Agree- ment ber Sect1on ment ment ber Section ment Score Score Score Score .393 2 Inst. .552 .849 9 Inst. .920 .500 1 Inst. .446 .817 11 Curr. .862 .500 2 RPER .542 .800 5 S.D. .808 .512 1 S.D. .690 .800 4 Curr. .738 .518 1 Inst. .614 .784 5 Adm. .717 .520 2 S.D. .850 indicated in Table 18. The principals' agreement scores range from a low of .351 for item 1 under Instruction (" . . . consider his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes") to .967 for item 2 in Staff Develop- ment (" . . . assist inexperienced teachers in the development of new teaching techniques and strategies"). The range of agreement is greatest within the principals group than among any of the other groups. The Range of Agreement Among Supervisors Table 19 illustrates the range of agreement among supervisors on their perception of the role of the resource teacher. The scores range from .400 on item 1 under the Instruction section (" . . . consider his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes") to .950 for item 9 of Instruction (" . . . promote the exchange of ideas among teachers"). 101 TABLE 18.--Lowest and highest agreement score for inventory items by principals' view of the position and the mean score of all four groups Lowest Mean Highest Mean A ree- Num- . A ree- A ree- Num- . A ree- gent ber Sect1on gent gent ber Sect1on gent Score Score Score Score .351 l Inst. .446 .967 2 S.D. .805 .533 3 S.D. .634 .966 9 Inst. .920 .534 2 RPER .542 .900 ll Curr. .862 .549 9 Adm. .597 .867 9 Curr. .778 .583 2 Inst. .552 .866 8 Inst. .747 .583 6 S.D. .612 .583 8 S.D. .654 TABLE l9.--Lowest and highest agreement scores for inven- tory items by supervisors' view of the resource teachers position and the mean score of all four groups Lowest Mean Highest Mean Agree- Num- . Agree- Agree- Num- . Agree— ment ber Sect1on ment ment ber Sect1on ment Score Score Score Score .400 l Inst. .446 .950 9 Inst. .920 .500 3 RPER .571 .950 2 S.D. .850 .516 1 Curr. .633 .949 ll Curr. .892 .517 6 Adm. .621 .883 5 Inst. .808 .583 l Adm. .571 .850 9 S.D. .684 102 HigHest Agreement Scores of the Four Groups When Combined Analysis of the data and the evaluation of the three original hypotheses indicates there is no signifi- cant difference in the perception of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the other three groups. The rejection of the three general hypotheses has encouraged this researcher to examine the data gathered from the inventory as a whole, as well as by the four groups. The assumption being that if there is no significant difference in the perception of the role between the groups then, at least, these items with a high mean agreement score would represent the perception of the role by the combined groups. These four groups—- resource teachers, teachers, principals, and supervisors-- are the professionals that are vitally concerned with resource teacher positions. Table 20 lists the twelve inventory items with the highest mean agreement score and the choice of response indicated by the largest number of these com— pleting the inventory. Appendix F lists all the mean agreement scores in rank order. Lowes§_Agreepent Score of Four Gropps When Combined The inventory items that had the lowest mean scores when the four groups were combined are listed in TABLE 20.--Rank order of the twelve highest mean agreement 103 scores and the response category selected most often Mean Item Response Rank Agreement Section Score Number Selected 1. .920 9 Inst. Definitely should 2. .862 11 Curr. Definitely should 3. .808 5 S.D. Definitely should 4. .808 5 Inst. Definitely should 5. .805 2 S.D. Definitely should 6. .792 13 Curr. Definitely should 7. .778 9 Curr. Definitely should 8. .759 1 RPER Definitely should 9. .758 8 Curr. Definitely should 10. .754 7 S.D. Definitely should 11. .750 3 Inst. Definitely should 12. .747 8 Inst. Definitely should Table 21. These are the scores that had the greatest amount of disagreement on the choice of a response. The items listed were limited to those mean agreement scores under .600. Scores above .600 are starting to reach a high degree of consensus or agreement. Seven inventory items fall into this category. Inventory Items With a Great Dif— ference in Agreement Score Between Any Two Groups Any effort to clarify the role of the resource teacher would not be complete without considering inven- tory items which the agreement scores for any two groups differ greatly. This analysis would reveal those items upon which two groups differ greatly, but not necessarily cause those items to appear in the listing of inventory 104 TABLE 21.-—Rank order of the inventory items with the lowest mean agreement scores Rank Score Number Section Inventory Statement 1. .446 l Inst. Consider his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes. 2. .542 2 RPER Serve as part of the evalu- ation team to assess the strengths of the staff members. 3. .552 2 Inst. Teach more than three of his own classes. 4. .571 4 RPER Keep file of teacher-made diagnostic materials for the use of the department or school. 5. .571 l Adm. Compile the data necessary for scheduling of classes (size, levels). 6. .596 4 Adm. Be involved in actual scheduling of students. 7. .597 9 Adm. Be a permanent member of the school's Faculty Advisor Council. 105 statements with the lowest mean agreement scores. Wide difference in perception of a role item between two groups could cause a resource teacher to operate less effectively in that area and in related areas. Table 22 lists those items which have large differences in agree- ment scores between two groups. A large difference was arbitrarily considered by this researcher as being over .200. TABLE 22.--Inventory items with the greatest difference in agreement scores between any two groups Prin- Resource Super- Num- Sec- . Teacher . Dif- Rank . c1 a1 Teacher V1sor ber t1on Segre Score Score Score ference 1 2 S.D. .967 .520 .447 2 4 Adm. .533 .583 .350 3 7 Inst. .778 .518 .260 4 1 S.D. .750 .512 .238 5 2 Curr. .567 .783 .216 6 3 Adm. .552 .767 .215 7 4 Curr. .601 .816 .215 8 2 Inst. .393 .801 .208 Item 2 of the Staff Development section (" . . . assists inexperienced teachers in the development of new teaching techniques and strategies") needs to be further emphasized because it appears among those items having a very high mean agreement score, .805. See Table 20. Table 22 also indicates there is a substantial difference in the perception of the role of the resource teacher 106 between the teacher and the principal on this point. This difference indicates a possible problem in a role item with a high degree of consensus. Summary_of Efforts to Establish the Role of the Resource Teacher In an effort to clarify and to firmly establish the role of the resource teacher the data were first analyzed in terms of the range of agreement within the four groups—-teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. Tables 16, 17, 18, and 19 identify those inventory items with the highest and the lowest agreement scores for the four groups. Internal agree- ment and disagreement on various inventory items were thus identified for each group. Tables 20 and 21 list those inventory items with high and low mean agreement scores thus identifying these areas of agreement and disagreement when consider- ing all four groups as one whole. With the exception of item 2 under the Staff Development section, the inventory items listed in Table 20 can be considered areas upon which the role of the resource teacher is fairly well established among all of the pertinent groups. Table 21 lists those items where the degree of agreement is low within and among the four groups. These are areas which will require further efforts directed toward clarifi- cation. 107 Table 22 lists those items which have the greatest amount of difference between agreement scores of any two groups. This table points out those areas of the inventory where two groups may disagree enough on the perception of the role to cause a resource teacher difficulties operating in that area. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Background of the Study In recent years the role of the public school secondary teacher has expanded and become more demanding. Many creative and competent teachers have found them- selves bogged down in technical and clerical duties or overwhelmed by the many complex and important things to do that, few if any, tasks are well done enough to leave them with any sense Of accomplishment. Because of this growth and change the traditional concept of the role of the teacher as an independent entity, Operating alone and self-sufficient, is probably obsolete. The expanded role the school has been asked to play in society, the knowledge explosion, new techniques and strategies to be used in instruction, and the rapid, sometimes disruptive, changes in the values system have placed additional responsibilities on teachers already burdened with the difficult task of teaching children. School systems, in their efforts to Operate more efficiently and effectively, have responded to the 108 109 pressure of the times by exploring various organizational changes in order to cope with the new demands and problems. Differentiated staffing is one of the most interesting and elaborate Of the new organizational patterns being tried. Differentiated staffing consists of a career pattern in teaching not necessarily leading into counseling or administration; a more manageable teaching assignment with improved matching of qualifi- cations and interests to responsibilities; a structure for decision making, goal setting, and evaluation in which teachers play a leading part; and a flexible instructional pattern which readily accommodates con- sultants, paraprofessionals, a variety of student- teacher groups, and a wider range of curricula. The Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools', a very large suburban school district adjacent to Washington, D.C., main effort in the area of dif- ferentiated staffing consisted Of its secondary resource teacher program. The resource teacher program was initiated in Montgomery County in 1953. From 1953 to 1967 the program had a few slight modifications and a rather limited expansion in terms Of numbers. In 1967 the program was modified and enlarged to the extent of having resource teachers in all of the secondary schools. In addition to these changes the resource teacher 110 became a twelve-month employee. This enlarged role of the resource teacher along with the possibility of dif- ferentiated pay for differentiated responsibility was a prominent factor in heated debates within the Mont- gomery County Education Association, of negotiation breakdowns between the Montgomery County Education Association and the Board of Education and ultimately, as one of the issues in a week-long teachers' strike. In 1972 the role again underwent revision resulting in more responsibility and a differentiated pay scale. The Purpose Of This Study The major purpose of this study was to map out that portion of the normative structure that pertains to the role of the resource teachers. The normative structure was composed of the view of the resource teachers, principals, and supervisors. These are the professionals of the Montgomery County Public School system that have the greatest influence on the role of the resource teacher. The following views were considered: (1) the ways the resource teachers view their own position, (2) the perceptions of the other relevant populations of the school system. Design of the Study The sources of the data for this study were groups of randomly selected Montgomery County Public 111 School teachers, resource teachers, principals, and supervisors, who occupied their position the school year (1970-71) prior to the study. The instrument, the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher, was developed by the researcher and refined by a pilot study. The inventory consisted of fifty-one statements categorized into five areas for the purpose of analysis. The five areas were Instruction, Staff Development, Research- Planning-Evaluation-Reporting, Administration, and Curriculum. The respondents to the inventory categorized each role statement as it pertained to their perception of the role of the resource teacher. The one-factor analysis of variance was used to determine if there was any difference in the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the perceived role of the resource teacher by each of the other groups--teachers, principals, and super- visors--for each of the five sections of the Normative Role Inventory Of the Secondary Resource Teacher. If a difference was detected in the perceived role of the resource teacher then Tukey's post-hoc procedure was used to determine between which groups the difference existed. The agreement score developed by Professor Robert Leak of the University of Washington was used 112 to indicate the extent of agreement or consensus within numbers of a given group--teachers, resource teachers, principals, supervisors--and to determine the extent of consensus on the role of the resource teacher considering those tested as one group. Major Findings and Discussions The three general hypotheses and fifteen operational or subhypotheses were designed to determine if the four groups of educators were in agreement on the role of the resource teacher. The mapping of the role of the resource teacher consisted not only of determining if there was a difference in perception of the role by the four groups, but in also identifying those inventory items with a high degree of consensus or agreement on the role of the resource teachers. The extent of consensus or agree- ment within each of the four groups was also determined and evaluated. The major findings concerned with these areas and the discussion related to them are recorded in this section. Finding No significant difference was found to exist between the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the resource teachers and the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the principals in 113 the areas of Staff Development, Research-Planning- Evaluation-Reporting, and Administration of the Normative Role Inventopy of the Secondary Resource Teacher (see Table 15). Discussion The position in the school system of special concern of this inquiry, the focal position, is the secondary resource teacher. An individual who serves in this capacity must deal with, can influence, and be influenced by the related role network positions such as teachers, principals, and supervisors. The resource teacher's behavior is typically directed to members of one or more of these role network positions, and their performance is of concern to him and sometimes directed toward him. The role of the resource teacher, that is, the expectations or standards applied to the behavior of incumbents of a position, is the composite of expec- tations of these counter positions. The role then is defined by those in the orbit of his role, that is, his role network. These are individuals who are the source of the rewards and sanctions to which the resource teacher is exposed and who, in consequence, may influence his behavior. The position in the role network of the resource teacher with probably the most influence on the role was 114 the secondary principal. The principal, in his position as manager of the school, was completely responsible for the evaluation of the resource teacher. The evaluation procedure was the same for resource teachers as for all other teachers, but it was supposed to take into con- sideration the resource teacher's ability to perform his specific and special functions. There was no formal and specialized evaluation procedure for the position of resource teacher prior to July 1, 1972. A new evaluation procedure adopted for use after July 1, 1972, requires that a representative of the area office staff participate in the yearly evaluation of resource teachers. This could be the area assistant superintendent, the area director Of instruction, or the supervisor of instruction. Also the members of the resource teacher's department must be consulted and may participate in the evaluation on request of the resource teacher. The principal may also invite the subject supervisor to participate. Because Of the arrangement of awards and sanctions for the role of resource teacher prior to July 1, 1972, agreement on the role of the resource teacher between the resource teacher and the principal could be antici- pated. The principal, because of his central role in evaluation, influenced or controlled most of the awards and sanctions associated with the role of the resource ‘1 Livy-q i It ,‘f' 115 teacher. The new evaluation procedure will probably decrease the influence of the principal and will increase the influence of the teacher and area assistant superin- tendent. Finding A significant difference in perception of the role of the resource teacher was detected between the resource teacher's perception of the role and the principal's perception of the role in the area of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher classified as Instruction (see Table 15). Discussion An analysis of the items classified under the Instruction section provides the rationale for the dif- ference in perception of the role of the resource teacher by the principals and resource teachers. The two items within the Instruction section which showed the greatest amount of disagreement are as follows: Item Number l--considers his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes. Item Number 7--visits classes for the purpose of appraising program quality and con- fers with teachers about observation. 116 These two inventory items are closely related and the opinions of the resource teachers and the principals are virtually the same for both items (see Appendix E). The principal perceives the resource teacher as being more actively involved in the instruc- tional program for the department than the resource teacher does. The resource teacher's responses to the inventory indicate a reluctance to become involved in the evaluation procedure for the department especially as it pertains to the evaluation of his fellow teachers. Evaluation of fellow teachers was a major concern of the resource teacher when the program underwent a major reorganization and expansion in 1967. At that time it was clearly stated that the resource teacher would not be involved in the evaluation of other teachers. The Secondary Resource Teachers Role Committee, composed of secondary resource teachers, in its role statement develOped in the Spring Of 1971 revised this position and includes program and teacher evaluation as functions of the secondary resource teachers. The inventory of the teachers, principals, and resource teachers, which provided the data for this study, was conducted in December of 1971 and the revised role statement developed by the Secondary Resource Teachers Role Committee went into effect in February of 1972. 117 This time difference points out a need for an update in the role perception at least as it pertains to this particular area. The previously mentioned time difference and the results of the inventory for this particular area strongly suggests that there will be more than the usual amount of problems, misunderstand- ings, and reluctance in this area than on any of the other areas of the inventory. Finding No significant difference was found to exist in the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the supervisor for any of the five areas of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Discussion The role of the central office subject supervisor in Montgomery County has been undergoing a series of changes over the past twenty years. Those changes stem generally from changes in education and its increased importance in our rapidly shifting world order; but, are also due to period of rapid growth for the Montgomery County school system and recent efforts to decentralize the school system, which are particular to Montgomery County. Dr. Richard wagner's recent study seems to 118 support this shift in the concept of the supervisor being a teacher, improving instruction through programs of inservice education to one of curriculum revision, building, and coordination. Teachers contacted in Dr. Wagner's study noted a decline in the perception that the school system organizational pattern was encouraging realistic com- munication between supervisors and teachers for the period 1964-1970.1 This is also the same period of rapid growth and modification of the resource teacher program. During this era, some of the traditional roles of the supervisor in Montgomery County were being trans- ferred to the secondary resource teacher. This is especially in the area that requires classroom activi- ties to be monitored. The fact that there is no significant difference in the role of the resource teacher as it is perceived by the supervisor and the resource teacher indicate that the efforts to develop the resource teacher program to supplement and carry on some of the functions tra- ditionally identified with central office supervision is successful in terms of both groups understanding the role the resource teacher is to play. 1Richard E. Wagner, "The Secondary Instructional Supervisor" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1972), p. 231. 119 Finding NO significant difference was found to exist between the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the resource teachers and the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the teachers for any of the five areas of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Discussion To the concept of differentiated staffing and the concept of the resource teacher program, the working relationship between the teachers and the resource teachers is of the greatest importance. If the resource teacher program is to succeed and if differentiated staffing as an organizational pattern is to be of a benefit to the Montgomery County Public School system, it must be acceptable to the teaching ranks. The power of the local teacher's association and/or union to alter or reject any educational innovation is certainly well documented in our present society. Agreement on the role by the teachers and the resource teachers seem to indicate a successful trial of this particular program. The fact that the role of the resource teacher has a high degree of consensus on the perception of the role by the teachers and resource teachers seems to support the position of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers on the 120 develOpment of a differentiated staffing concept. Their position is one of teacher involvement in the decision- making process from the initial inception of the dif- ferentiated staffing concepts and all along the process until its review and evaluation. Extra pay for extra responsibilities, differentiated staffing, and the resource teacher program are closely related and tied together due to the unique and historical development of these concepts in Montgomery County. These ideas have been the subject Of debate and negotiations between the Montgomery County Education Association and the Montgomery County Board of Education since the early 1960's. Finding A significant difference was found to exist between the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the teachers and the perception of the role of the resource teacher by the principals for the areas of Instruction, Staff Development, and Curriculum of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. Discussion This particular aspect of the study was not covered in the formulation of the original general hypothesis and the fifteen sub or operational hypotheses 121 but the analysis of the data revealed these significant differences. A discussion of these differences are included in this study because they provide an additional input to the understanding of the role of the resource teacher and some of the problems connected with its implementation and modification. With the exception of the section classified as Instruction Of the Normative Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher, there is agreement on the perceived role of the resource teacher by the resource teacher and the role as it is perceived by the supervisors, teachers, and principals. But the mathematical principle of x being equal to y and Of x being equal to 2, then y is equal to 2, does not necessarily hold true in the field of role perception. Teachers and principals do not have any significant differences with the resource teachers in their perception Of the role of the resource teacher in the areas of Curriculum and Staff Development, but there is a significant difference in the perception of the role of the resource teacher in these two areas between the teachers and the principals. The difference of perception of these two counter positions and their effect on the focal position of resource teacher is an example of one type of role con- flict. Gross in his writings on role perception defined role conflict as: "Any situation in which the incumbent 122 of a focal position perceived that he is confronted with incompatible expectations."2 The existence of role con- flict sometimes places the person occupying the focal position in a very uncomfortable if not unworkable position. Examination of the data (Table 22 and Appendix E) reveals that inventory items related to the role of the resource teacher in assisting the teacher in improving his teaching techniques or in the evaluation of the teaching process presents the greatest range of per- ception. The greatest difference in perception between the principals and the teachers exists in the area of evaluation. The principal perceives the resource teacher as being a part of the program for the evalu- ation of the instructional program and evaluation of teachers to a much greater degree than the teachers do. The principal also perceived the resource teacher as being more actively involved in the assistance of the inexperienced and the experienced teacher than do the teachers. The following inventory items are examples of the areas on which the principals' perception differs greatly from the teachers: 2Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 248. 123 Staff Development Number 2-—assists inexperienced teachers in the development of new teaching techniques and strategies. Instruction Number 7-—visits classes for the purpose of appraising program quality and confers with teachers about observations. Instruction Number l--considers his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes. Curriculum Number 9—- spend time each year with mem- bers of his department review- ing and updating the objectives of his department. This difference in perception on these important but extremely sensitive areas place the resource teacher in a rather difficult, uncomfortable role conflict position. Finding The range of agreement within a group was the lowest for the resource teachers than for any Of the other groups. 124 Discussion It was anticipated at the outset of this study, on the basis of common sense, that there would be more agreement among the resource teachers on the reporting of their perceptions on the role of the resource teachers than with any of the other groups. It was assumed that a common professional orientation would produce a rela- tively high level of agreement. Despite the common orientation and the fact that the latest revision of the role was initiated by resource teachers and formalized by a process that allowed for considerable involvement by the resource teachers, there is a portion of the role that has a low level of agree- ment among the resource teachers. The following inventory items have the lowest agreement scores for the resource teachers: Item . ———— Sect1on Inventory Statement Number ——————— 2 R-P-E-R serves as part of the evaluation team to assess the strengths of the staff mem- bers. 7 Instr. visits classes for the purpose of apprais- ing program quality and confer with teachers about observations. 1 Instr. considers his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes. 2 Admin. be involved in selection of new teachers in his department or school. 3 R-P-E-R be a permanent member of appropriate re- view and evaluation committees. 10 R-P-E—R be the initial person involved in working with parents and students interested in appraising the curriculum of a department or school. 125 The common threat that connects these items is the evaluation of program and the evaluation of teachers. The lack of agreement or consensus among the resource teachers on the subject of evaluation of teachers' per- formances or evaluation of the program supports the con— clusion drawn in the discussion of the significant dif- ference detected in the perception of the role Of the resource teacher by the principals and the resource teachers for the section on Instruction of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher (see page 82 ). It was suggested in that section that more than the usual amount of reluctance, problems, and mis- understandings will occur on the concept of evaluation than on any of the other role expectations of the resource teacher. The implication is also clear that this will be one of the key items on which the ultimate success of the resource teacher program will hinge. Finding The range of agreement within a group was the greatest for the principals than for any of the other groups. Discussion The principal occupies the key counter position in the role network program. The resource teacher depends 126 upon the principal's support in his efforts to accomplish many of his expectations. The fact that principals have a wider area of disagreement on the perceived role of the resource teacher than either the focal position or the other counter positions, would at first glance seem to present many problems to the proper functioning of the role. A partial explanation of this outcome might be due to some or all of the factors related in the follow- ing paragraphs. Montgomery County is currently the nineteenth largest school district in the country. There are two middle schools, twenty-eight junior high schools, and twenty-two senior high schools. Each secondary school is encouraged to develop its own organizational structure and educational objectives to best service the edu— cational needs of its particular student population rather than conforming to a centralized or standard pattern. Efforts to decentralize this large school system has resulted in increased influence on the organizational patterns of individual schools by the area assistant superintendent and the area director of instruction. The increase in influence by the members of the area office is accompanied by a decrease in influence by the central office supervisor staff and curriculum department. 127 This decentralization plan, if successful, will also result in more diversification among the principals about the role expectations of the resource teacher than would a highly organized central Office administration. A third and final point comes as the result of the deliberation of the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee. This committee, which is charged with the responsibility of information dissemi- nation, staff training, and support of schools interested in differentiated staffing projects, has repeatedly stated: " . . . that staff differentiation can become a reality only if school staffs are granted school autonomy to make professional decisions."3 Thus it would seem that the wide range of agreement scores on the role of the resource teachers might be due to size of the school system, efforts to decentralize the system and individual school efforts to organize to reach specific local school objectives. Finding Considering the four groups as one whole the mean agreement score of forty-four items of the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher were found to be .600 or higher. These items were considered 3Montgomery County Public Schools, Annual Report of the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee, Rockville, Maryland, February 8, 1972, p. l. 128 to have a high degree of consensus or agreement. Seven items were found to have scores below .600 and these items were considered as having a low degree of con— sensus or agreement. See Appendix F. Discussion Whether explicitly or implicitly stated, role norms have been traditionally viewed as commonly held rules of behavior, shared expectations, or specifically defined patterns of behavior. Agreement on the expec- tations or the content of these roles has been for the most part assumed. As the result of more recent attempts to carry out empirical studies of roles, the alternate view that agreement or consensus on a role is itself a variable is emerging. It is becoming increasingly clear that full agreement or consensus on a role as complicated as the resource teacher would be atypical. The range of mean agreement scores is from .920 for item number nine of the Instruction section (promote the exchange of ideas among teachers) to .446 for item number one Of the same section (consider his primary role as one of instruction of his own classes) seem to support this alternate position; that complete consensus is atypical. It is also a common assumption that agreement between the position holders in the role network on role of the focal position is a fundamental condition for 129 social order. And it is also usually assumed that higher the agreement or the greater the consensus the greater the orderliness in social relations. In view of these popular assumptions, the fact that forty-four out of the fifty-one items have a high mean agreement score, it would seem that the position of resource teacher would be relatively free of a marked degree of stress and conflict. Due to the recent (July 1, 1972) change and modification in the role of resource teacher, data are not available to evaluate this assump- tion. At the end of the first year of operation of the revised resource teacher program some data should be available to either lend support to this assumption or to help reject it. There were only seven items, which have scores below the .600 figure and were considered as having a low degree of consensus. These inventory items have no apparent common denominator. Three of these inventory statements were in the section on Administration and there were two each in the areas of Instruction and Research-Planning-Evaluation-Reporting. The small number of items that were considered as having a low degree of consensus and the lack of a common link between these items also lends support to the conclusion that role of the resource teacher is 130 relatively well defined and that this position is accepted by those professionals in the role network. An additional and rather new assumption in role theory is also reinforced by the seven items with relatively low agreement scores. This alternate and somewhat opposing view is that high agreement among and between all relevant populations would make for rigidity in the normative structure. This would generate severe stress and strain whenever given individuals held diver- gent views. Blau's research on social work agencies, which stressed that professionals who work in organizations are subject to both professional and bureaucratic standards that may be conflicting and so give rise to personal and organizational tension,4 and with Gross' work in Staff Leadership in Public Schools5 offers a possible explanation for this assumption. The question raised by Blau and Scott in their research is concerned with the professional working in a bureaucratic structure. Following this line of thinking, the possibility of a collision between the 4Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 66-74. 5Neal Gross and Robert E. Herriott, Staff Leader- ship in Public Schools (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), pp. 93¥94. 131 authority structure of the school and the autonomy of the teachers needs to be considered when analyzing the role of the resource teacher. In addition to creating dilemmas for the professional teacher who works under the jurisdiction of the resource teacher and the admin- istration, the issue Of authority and autonomy also creates difficulties for the resource teacher if he is to be held accountable for the effectiveness of his department, supervising teachers entitled to a con- siderable degree of autonomy in their teaching. Being a formal leader of a group of unskilled workers is one thing and of a professional staff is another; the latter group, for instance, can offer greater resistance to their formal superiors because of their superior academic training and technical competence. According to this alternate view there would be an optimum level of agreement and a degree of freedom and flexibility for individuals to anticipate and feel comfortable about the behavior of others. To the extent that there is an Optimum level of agreement, administrators may not feel it is necessary to develop procedures to raise the level of agreement. The question of what is the optimum level of agreement is an empirical one that could be answered with further research. 132 Reflections and Implications For more than a year the researcher was deeply immersed in the study of the role of the secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. This was partly due to activities related to the research project and partly due to personal involvement in formu- lating the role of resource teachers as principal of a Montgomery County junior high school. Interest in the role of the resource teacher developed out of the notion that differentiated staffing would offer some possible solution to organizational and staffing problems common to many junior high schools. At that time, 1970, the Montgomery County Board of Education was in favor of implementing various differentiated staffing proposals and the Montgomery County Education Association was opposing most of them. The resource teacher program, which at that time had been in operation a number of years, was not considered by either the Board of Edu- cation or the Montgomery County Education Association as a form of differentiated staffing. At least it was not publicly recognized by either group as such. The researcher experienced a desire to determine if the resource teacher program was in fact a bonafide differentiated staffing program, and if so, why other differentiated staffing programs were experiencing great difficulty in gaining acceptance. This investi- gation in turn revealed the need for further role 133 clarification and definition on the resource teacher position and resulted in this study. Reflection on these experiences, some observations with implications for the study stand out. Implications for Montgomery County Public Schools Although its origin can be traced back to the 50's, the concept of differentiated staffing is in its infancy and the literature is still based on the theoretical prospects. Also, because of its newness, the various theories surrounding the concept of dif- ferentiated staffing are not bound together in a nice, tight definition. Still, examination of these definitions and the resource teacher program revealed that the resource teacher program fulfills most if not all of the tenets of the definitions. Recognizing that the resource teacher program is, in fact, a differentiated staffing program, might assist the negotiating parties—- Montgomery County Board of Education and the Montgomery County Education Association-~in their evaluation of future differentiated staffing proposals. Although the resource teacher program was for the most part initiated by the central office adminis- tration and to a great extent imposed from the top down, the years of negotiations on the subject and the work of the resource teacher committee provided for 134 considerable input by teachers and resource teachers. Meaningful input and involvement is considered by the teachers' associations and the unions as a vital part of the successful implementation of any new program. The historical review of the program and the high degree of consensus on the role of the resource teacher by the four major groups involved in the program implies that future innovative programs of any magnitude, to be assured of a successful trial, should consider teacher involvement as a basic part of the innovative program implementation. The fact that the four principal groups are for the most part in agreement on the role of the resource teacher does not assure the program of success. The study revealed areas of the role of the resource teacher that have a low degree of consensus or agreement and clarification and assistance is needed. The reluctance of the resource teachers, for example, to be as involved in the evaluation process as the principals would wish, might be due to a lack of knowledge and confidence on the part of the resource teacher on how to achieve this objective. Opportunities need to be made available for the resource teacher to become familiar with the skills necessary to accomplish the role expectations in the area of program and teacher evaluation. It would seem appropriate to design special programs to serve 135 resource teachers in their continuing education, to pro- vide training for classroom teachers and others who wish to enter the resource teacher and supervisory positions. Implication for College of Education The need for school administrators to understand major organizational changes such as differentiated staffing and the implementation process of these changes suggest that in their program of preparation attention should be given to these subjects. There is a need not only to draw on the concepts and research data on organi- zational structure and change, which have been systemati- cally analyzed, but to extend these concepts from the campus to the real world as well. In addition to the typical college-based courses and seminars, opportunities must be provided future administrators to observe first- hand or on an intern basis the factual development of these organizational changes within a school system. Although it may not be possible for all administrators to have firsthand experience in this area, alternative experiences designed to give them an understanding and a feel for organizational change should be planned. Recognizing the growth of the resource teacher program in Montgomery County and the many other dif- ferentiated staffing projects around the country, institutions responsible for training teachers should 136 be evaluating their present programs and developing plans for training teachers for working in differentiated staffing organizations. Teacher training programs for preparing students for working in differentiated staffing schools need to have experiences which prepare them for participation in educational decision making, goal setting, teacher and program evaluation. In addition, future teachers need to be trained to participate in a flexible instructional pattern which readily accommodates consultants, paraprofessionals, a variety of student- teacher groups, and a wide range of curricula. Implications for Further Study Since this study was initiated and the data gathered from the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher in November and December of 1971, the role of the resource teacher has been revised. The latest revision which went into effect in February of 1972 did not substantially change the role from the job description developed by the Secondary Resource Teachers' Role Committee, which was used extensively to develop the Normative Role Inventory of the Secondary Resource Teacher. One factor, which is embodied in this latest revision of the role of the secondary resource teacher, that could have an effect on the perception of the four professional groups involved with the resource teacher program is the new evaluation procedure. This 137 evaluation of incumbent of a resource teacher position now involves teachers of the department and representa- tives for the area assistant superintendent office. Another added factor that could effect the perception of role by the four groups is the stipend of $1,000 that is now attached to the position. Prior to July 1, 1972, the resource teachers were not paid any additional money for resource responsibilities. They were paid on the same scale as other twelve-month teachers with the same experience and educational background. The negotiated agreement for 1972-73 school year between the Board of Education and the Montgomery County Education Association calls for a stipend in addition to twelve-month employ- ment. These two factors suggest that a limited study be conducted at the end of the first year of the new program's operation to evaluate the effect of these factors on perception of the role of the resource teacher by the teachers, principals, resource teachers, and supervisors. In view of the popular assumption that social order is related to agreement, what is the relationship between the level of agreement detected in this study and the teachers' morale, attitudes toward the school system and its program, teacher turnover and other indicators of social order in the school system? Is there an optimum level of agreement where the need for 138 consensus necessary for social order is balanced with divergent views to prevent rigidity in the normative structure? And finally, one important area for future study is apparent in both the examination of the role of secondary resource teacher and in the search of the literature on differentiated staffing. This area is concerned with the relationship of the new differentiated staffing position to the total school organizational pattern. It is not clear in many of the new hierarchical positions being established, if the incumbent of the position is to serve in a line-staff relationship or in a consultant capacity. It seems that many of these hierarchical positions are being initiated as a consultant to the principal or instructional leader. With the increased emphasis on accountability in the public schools the trend might be to have these positions established as or evolve into line positions. Both the line status and the consultant status have advantages and disadvantages and these vary accord- ing to different organizational structure in schools. In order to help make better decisions involving these new hierarchical positions more empirical data will need to become available. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abessold, John R. Problems of Hour Rate Uniformity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949. Anderson, Lester W., and Van Dyke, Larren A. Secondary School Administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1963. ' Beggs, David W., III. Decatur-Lakeview High School: A Practical Application of the TrumpfiPlan. Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Benson, Charles S. The Economics of Public Education. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Brickell, H. M. Organizing New York State for Educational Change. Albany: New York State Department of Education, 1962. Brookover, Wilbur, and Gottlech, David. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1964. Bush, Robert N., and Allen, Dwight W. A New Design for High School Education. New York: McGraw-HIlI Book Co., 1964. Callahan, Sterling G. Successful Teaching In Secondary Schools. Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1966. Chamberlin, Leslie J. Team Teaching Organization and Administration. Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill, 1969. Clark, Benton R. "Sociology of Education." The Handbook of Modern Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally,'l964. 139 140 Eckman, Bruce P. Classroom Teachers Speak on Differen- tiated Teaching Assignments. washington, D.C.: National Education Association, Association of Classroom Teachers, 1969. English, Fenwick W. "Field Testing a Differentiated Teaching Staff.“ Educational Manpower. Edited by James L. Olivero and Edward G. Buffie. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. Etzioni, Amitai. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press of Glenco, Inc., 1961. Foskett, John M. The Normative World of the Elementary School Principal. Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1967. . The Normative WOrld of the Elementary School Teacher. Eugene, Oregon: The University of Oregon Press, 1967. Franklin, Marian Page. School Organization Theory and Practice. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967. Getzels, Jacob W. "Administration as Social Process." Administrative Theory in Education. Edited by Andrew W. Halpin. Chicago: Midwest Adminis- tration Center, 1958. Glass, Gene 0., and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods in Education and Psycholggy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1970. Good, H. G. A History of Western Education. New York: The MacMillian Company, 1945. Gross, Neal; Mason, ward S.; and McEachern, Alexander W. Explorations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Gross, Neal, and Herriott, Robert E. Staff Leadership in Public Schools--A Sociological Inquiry. New York: John WiIey and Sons, Inc., 1965. Herzberg, Frederick; Mausner, Bernard; and Snyderman, Barbara. The Motivatiog to Work. New York: John Wiley and Sons,iI959. 141 Janowitz, Morris. "Institutional Building in Urban Education." Innovation in Mass Education. Edited by David Street. New York: JOHn Wiley and Sons, 1969. Joyce, Bruce R. The Teacher and His Staff-~Man, Media and Machines. Washington, D.C.: NatiOnal Edu- cation Association, 1967. Leiberman, Myron. Education as a Profession. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1956. Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man. New York: Appleton- Century Company, 1963. . The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: D. Appleton Century Co., 1945. McKenna, Bernard H. Staffing the Schools. New York: Bureau of PublicatiOns, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1965. Meyer, Adolph E. Development of Education in the Twen- tieth Century. New York: Prentice Hall, 1939. Morton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1957. Olivero, James L., and Buffie, Edward G. Educational Manpower. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1970. Peterson, Carl H. Effective Team Teaching--The Easton Area High Schooi Program. West Nyack, N.Y.: Packer Publishing Company, Inc., 1966. Sexton, Patricia Coye. The American School. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967. Shaplin, Jansen T., and Olds, H. F. Team Teaching. New York: Harper and Row .1964. Toffler, Alvin. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Trump, J. Lloyd, and Baynham, Dorsey. Focus on Change-- A Guide to Better Schools. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1962. 142 Periodicals Adams, Raymond S. l"Analyzing the Teacher's Role." Educational Research, February, 1970, pp. 123-25. Baherman, Robert. "American Federation of Teachers Per- spective of Differentiated Staffing." Research Bulletin: New Jersey School Development Center, Winter, 1971, pp. 23-24. Bazili, Frank. "The Organization and Training of Para- professionals." The Clearing House, December, 1969, p. 36. Borg, Walter R. "Teacher Effectiveness in Team Teaching." Journal of Experimental Education (Spring, 1967), 65-70. Corwin, Ronald. "Enhancing Teaching as a Career." Today's Education, March, 1969, pp. 37-39. Cottrell, Leonard S. "The Adjustment of the Individual to His Age and Sex Roles." American Sociological Review, VIII (1942), 165-68. English, Fenwick. "Differentiated Staffing from Theory to Practice." Florida Education Association Journal (February, 1969), 10-12. , and Rand, John M. "Towards a Differentiated Teaching Staff." Phi Delta Kappan, January, 1968, pp. 335—36. English, Fenwick W. "Teacher May I? Take Three Giant Steps: The Differentiated Staff." Phi Delta Kappan, December, 1969, pp. 211-14. Firester, Lee, and Firester, Joan. ”Differentiated Staffing: Some Reflections." New York State Education, March, 1970, p. 28. Frinks, Marshall L. "Toward More Effective School Personnel Utilization." Educational Technology, February, 1970, pp. 73-74. Gaffney, Mathew. "Higher Education's Relationship to Staff Utilization Studies." National Association of Secondary School PrincipalsT Bulletin, January, 1958, pp. 188-89. Gregore, Anthony F. "Satisfactions from Teaching." Edu- cation Forum, March, 1971, pp. 301-06. 143 Joyce, Bruce R. "Staff Utilization." Review of Edu- cational Research, XXXVIII, No. 3, 323-35. Leek, Robert K. "A Measure of Ordinal Consensus." Pacific Sociological Review, 9, Fall, 1966, pp. 86-90. Lewis, Arthur J. "Staff Utilization to Improve Learning." Educational Leadership, XVII (April, 1960), 410-11. McKenna, Bernard. "Differentiated Staffing: A Proposal for Re-Designing the Education Profession." Research Bulletin, New Jersey School Development Center, Winter, 1970, pp. 4-5. Michael, Lloyd S. "Commission on Staff Utilizations." National Association of Secondary School Princi- pals' Bulletin, January, 1959, p. 296. National Associatiogof Secondary School Principals' Bulletin. "Annual Business Meeting Report," April, 1956, p. 570. Olivero, James L. "The Meaning and Application of Dif- ferentiated Staffing in Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan, September, 1970, pp. 36-40. Sergiovanni, Thomas J. "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers." The Journal of Educational Administration, V (1967), 66-82. Silberman, Charles E. "Technology Is Knocking at the Schoolhouse Door." Fortune, August, 1966, pp. 78-84. Soles, Stanley. "Teacher Role Expectations and the Internal Organization of Secondary Schools." The Journal of Educational Research, XLVII (January, I964), 234-36. Other Sources Allen, Dwight W. "A Differentiated Staff: Putting Teaching Talent to Work." The Teacher and His Staff, Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1969. 144 Barbee, Don. "Differentiated Staffing: Expectations and Pitfalls." TEPS write-in Papers on Flexible Staffing Patterns No. 1. Washington, D.C.: National Commission oniTeacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, March, 1969. Coleman, Peter, and Wallin, Herman A. "A Rational for Differentiated Staffing." Center of the Study of Administration in Education, The University of British Columbia, 1970, p. 2. (Mimeographed.) Edelfelt, Roy A. Redesigning the Education Profession. F washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, January, 1969. Education USA--Special Report. "Differentiated Staffing in Schools." washington, D.C.: National School Public Relation Association, 1970. ! English, Fenwick W. "A Handbook of the Temple City Dif- ferentiated Staffing Projects 1965-1970." Temple City, Calif.: Temple City Unified School District, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Lambert, Roger Henry. "Teachers' Perceptions and Princi- pals' Expectations for the Teacher's Role in Individualized Instruction." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. McDonald, John. "Teacher Education: Analyses and Recom- mendations." The Teacher and His Staff: Dif- ferentiating Teacher Roles. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969. Meyer, James Alan. "A Study of Administrative Practices Associated with the Introduction and Implemen- tation of Team Teaching in Selected Senior High Schools." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968. Montgomery County Public Schools. Annual Rgport of the Professional Responsibility and Staff r ani- zation Committee. Rockville, Maryland, Fe ruary 8, 1972. . "Annual Report of the Professional Responsi- bility and Staff Organization Committee," Rockville, Maryland, February 8, 1972. 145 Montgomery County Public Schools Working Paper. "The Role of Secondary Resource Teachers." Rockville, Maryland, September, 1970. (Mimeographed.) National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. A Position Statement on the Concgpt of Differentiated Staffing. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, May, 1969, p. 7. The Classroom Teacher Speaks on His Supportive Staff. Washington, D.C.: The Association of Classroom Teachers, National Education Association, 1966. H The Teacher and His Staff: Differentiatigg_Teaching 3 Roles. A report of 1968 regional TEPS conference. i Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, H 1968. I.’l. I Walsh, Frederick John. "A Study of Expectations of Secondary School Principals, Significant Others, .r and School-Liaison Officers for the Role of School-Liaison Officer." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. The Washington Memo. "About Differentiated Staffing and Trojan Horses." Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, Division of Field Services, April, 1970, p. l. Treibly, Pete V., Sage, John R., and Coyle, James. Report on Resource Teachers. Report to the Board of Directors of the Montgomery County Education Association by the committee to discuss the report of the role of the resource teacher. Rockville, Maryland: Montgomery County Edu- cation Association, May, 1971, p. 1. Pillot, Gene M. "System Model for Differentiated Staff- ing." Sarasota County Public Schools, Sarasota, Florida, September, 1969. (Mimeographed.) Shuggarts, Thomas. "MCEA's Position on MCPS Role of Secondary Resource Teachers." Memorandum to Montgomery County Education Association Secondary Members and Elementary Delegates. Rockville, Maryland, May 27, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Wendel, Philip R. "Teaching and Learning: The Basic Funetron." Whose Goals for American Higher Education? Washington, D.C.: AmeriCan Council on Higher Education, October, 1967, p. 2. Wilson, 146 Elizabeth C. "Memorandum to the Executive Staff of the Montgomery County Schools," Rockville, Maryland, January 16, 1970. (Mimeographed.) Wyeth, Irving Rudolph. "Status-Role Perception in Taiwan Wagner, Extension Organization." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Richard E. "The Secondary Instructional Super- visor in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools, 1945-1970." Unpublished Ph.D. disser— tation, University of Maryland, 1972. APPENDICES fim—_ APPENDIX A JURY OF EXPERTS IN DIFFERENTIATED STAFFING AND/OR THE ROLE OF THE SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND APPENDIX A Jury of experts in differentiated staffing and/or the role of the secondary resource teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland Dr. Howard Hickey Director of the Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University The Mott Institute for'Community Improvement is directly involved in differentiated staffing projects in the Lansing School District. Dr. Pasquale Emma Principal, Blair High School Montgomery County, Maryland Dr. Emma is the former principal of J. F. Kennedy High School, which was Montgomery County's foremost effort in the area of differentiated staffing and flexible scheduling. Dre Harry Pitt Area Associate Superintendent Montgomery County, Maryland Dr. Pitt is also the chairman on the committee for 12-month teacher employment, which was influential in the development of the role of the resource teacher. 147 148 Dr. Marie DeCarlo Area Director of Instruction Montgomery County, Maryland Dr. DeCarlo is chairwoman of the Montgomery County Committee on Differentiated Staffing. Mr. William Hoffman Coordinator, Differentiated Staffing Project Mott Institute for Community Improvement Michigan State University Mr. Hoffman is currently writing his PhD dissertation on differentiated staffing. APPENDIX B NORMATIVE ROLE INVENTORY OF THE SECONDARY RESOURCE TEACHER .m4<_¢u»uo.o3< to >»_4.o<4.«>< 02¢ zo.»¢uo; .zo.»uuaun or» z. pa.»n< .: A A A A A A A A A . oflJ¢AIUh43 J(8°.h insurer. use: cuxuuo or» z. u>.»¢u5 an .m A a A 9 A v A v A . .nuooc<8.ca o.: cuo.nz¢u .. A w A . A A A o A . pox eases» we: manage so: >4up.r.uuo >Jo<¢ueuca ca >Jo49p.2.euo . . .zuraflp uumaomum < ks...— ZZAIA. _ zozgmhmzA .UnZOtnUI OUCAnuo (30> 0Uh(u.02. P4u».2.auo ~02 04:02» ranecuauca we: >4n¢¢uau¢a ciaoru rsup.z_uuo . . .muruauh. uumaomuz < #5.; v2.1... _ "unease ex» re cuudeuca n. rzuxupebn rueu .u. a» an»: e. »<:) so no 44.) ». h4.¢zuaan .m zurucur nuances: .m .. curu nu.L.quO. >Jhuu¢¢OU h(xh UJh.h UIh Z. Uh.¢) ¢O UJUC.U Un(UJ& .>JZ° ZO.P.nO£ >0 n. 20.h(U.k.hZUO_ oOHh(AUU¢lt‘ >4k OZ< hUU?O¢& ZUl4unu¢ “Alb Z. Uh(t.u.h¢(t OP OUHUUJUO >J!OOZ(¢ ZUUD U>(I 30> .20.h03¢hn2. to ”(chunk—O (u¢< 02¢ n;¢utDm .nzuxu(Ub uUCDOmux .maulo(u# b0 20.htuuuut nth ZODOCIh KUZU(UP UUCDOnUC to 20.».w0t HIP 01.2.24XU >0 OUIW.JQ_h(I¢OZ uZh o>bZDOU >Ru200h201 :- ¢u201u>¢3n n.2h ~3:u~._Cuo 0p :00) unseen 0004400 ¢O\€:¢ 08.z.¢¢h uu.>¢uaua. 00a: .3 A A A A A A A A A A .nucaouuoea aooxun 02¢ a¢pluxrc¢a00 use or n4¢:0.nouuoaa 102 to :0.»¢»zu.¢0 0:» 00a >p.;.0.azoanuc >¢¢x.xa u>¢x .m A A A A A A A A A A .nu.0uh¢¢>n 08¢ nuao.z:uuh 0:.xo¢u» )0: no kz01003u>uo or» z. neuzu¢ur ouuzu.cuaxuz. n»n.nn< .N A A A A A A A A A A .pzuxuo¢z¢x roacna¢au rs.) ou.pdau_au.0 oz.>¢r 00¢ or) nauxu¢0» cuuzu.¢uaxu ago: 0» u;0¢4.¢>¢ 00 .A A A A A A A A A A A hzuza04u>uo uk¢Un.O h300¢ QCUZUCUF 2b.) 0805200 01¢ >».J¢ao z¢¢00¢a cz.u.¢¢aa¢ to ancient at» :05 nunn¢40 n~.n_> .~ A A A A A A A A A.A .nauru¢u» up:».»aonn 0» because 02¢ 0.¢ u>.0 .w A A A A A A A A A A .nuchOmuc >».23z300 or» u~.4.~a acuru¢ub ado: 02¢ xh.) ¢¢.4.r¢u 00 .n A A A A A A A A A A p02 0430:» ho: 0430:» so: >¢x oaaorn 0530:» >30..z.sao >40¢¢uuu¢a co >¢1 >40¢zuuu¢a >Juu.z.suo . . .IA:U0¢ax. 0» 02.unu» so «panama 02.>.ia¢ 200 nuaaouuoca to ~201¢040>00 02» 2. pzurpc¢auo 02» 0¢ua .w A A A A A A A A A A , .bzux»2¢auo at» 20; AmpnupA 0.00» hzuzmnunn¢ 02» A0 20.»0040n 0x» 200 040.020anuc 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .400200 20 pzuxuc¢auo 02» to an: 02» 200 n4¢.2u»¢x u_»nozo¢.0 00¢: 2020¢u~ so 04.; ¢ auux .: A A A A A A A A A A .»00»»_2200 20.»¢3J¢>0 02¢ )0.>0¢ u»¢.¢a0¢aa¢ .0 «00202 ~202¢2¢ua ¢ 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .mcuoxux aa¢p0 02» a0 nxpozuarn 02» n000n¢ 0» 2¢0p 20.»¢34¢>u 02» to p2¢g n¢ u>¢un .m A A A A A A A A A A .:¢¢00¢a so 20.»¢:4¢>u 02¢ 02.22¢Jn 20 20.»03¢»n2. no 20»00¢.0 ¢u¢¢ or» 2*.) >44¢u.00.¢ua nhuux ._ A A A A A A A A A A ozAh¢0tu¢czoAh(34<>UlazAzz so 20.~¢»20.¢o urn 2. 0402 «01¢: ¢ u>¢2 .m A A A A A A A A A A .ZOAPUDCPnZA 5° COFUUCAO lo h2u02u»2.8u136 blcut3n HIb IPA) 20.h0 zo.pa.¢onuo 001 02» no 0220» 2. >42¢ur cup¢34¢>u 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .JOOZUG utk to anuOCI 02.!(IIZOA0AUUO are 2. 00>Jo>z_ 00 o» Azuzpc¢0uo 0.: z. nmuzu¢2 04302» 04302» >40».2.suo >40¢¢uuu¢0 co >¢x >40¢¢0uuca >Jup.2.uuo .:H_u200.>0¢ C430: 0.400200 02» no 200202 020253.00 ¢ 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .00002 4<.0000 200 00200300 02.030200¢.2o 0201»2(000 002¢o.30 0:» 2h.) >400040 220) .0 A A A A A A A A A A .04¢ ¢0>¢2 02¢ 02020.300 00.4aa30 4¢020202¢000 00 02.20020 02» 00 .N A A A A A A A A A A .0202»2¢000 0.2 200 02020.300 02¢ 00.40030 .04¢.¢0»¢2 no zo.»30.2»0.0 0:» 200 200¢2.0¢oou 02» 00 .w A A A A A A A A A A .0r»020¢»0 c020¢0h to 20.»¢~.4.»3 no 0220» 2. 020x02¢000 0.2 :00 22000¢a 4¢zo_»¢~.2¢020 0000 02» o» 0¢ 20.»¢¢»0.2.:0¢ 02» 00.>0¢ .n A A A A A A A A A A .0»2003»0 to 02.4300200 4¢3hu¢ 2. 00>40>2. 00 .: A A A A A A A A A A .h202»¢¢auo 0.x 02.»0000¢ 020.0.000 44¢ 20 20.~¢2»0.2.t0¢ 02» >0 000430200 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .400200 20 020:»2¢000 0.: 2. 02020¢0» 302 to 20.000400 0:» 2. 00340>2. 00 .m A A A A A AA A A A A .A040>04 .00.0A 0000¢40 to 02.4300200 200 >¢¢000002 ¢»¢0 02» 04.0200 ._ A A A A A A A A A A zo_h¢¢hm_z_zo< .400200 «0 020200¢a00 ¢ 00 23430.0230 02» 02.0_¢¢ae¢ 2. 0000000»2. 00200300 02¢ 0020¢¢a :0.) 02,220) 2. 00>4o>2. zomaua 4¢.».2. 0:» 00 .o. A A A A A A A A A A 002 043020 002 043020 ho: >¢2 043020 043020 33.27.00 >40<¢000¢a co ><2 >40<¢uuu¢¢ >4u._..z.auo . . .muru xz2u Oummumoou>m3m Ur» zmnhum mm0222. 0» 020220 2( 2. 000.»0¢22 02¢ 00>.»00300 0202230 0»¢34¢>0 0» 0200202 020202¢200 44¢ 00¢230020 .m. A A A A A A A A A A .02.42.00.0 02» 20 0230¢2 02» 02¢ 2022¢04 02» 00 0230¢z 02» 20 000¢0 .02.42.00.0 0.2 2. 2¢20022 400200 02.000220 2¢ 00.2022 0» 0200200 02¢ 044.20 20 00203000 ¢ 202 02¢42 .m. A A A A A A A A A A .>».4.0.0202002 0.2 20 040.2 02» 2. 02¢20022 02¢ 00202» 302 20 0022022. 2002 .__ A A A A A A A A A A .400100 024 hZUIhK.hUU1OO at» 02(hn -20023 >».232100 02» 0>¢2 0» 0020220 0.400200 02» 2. 0402 02.0¢04 ¢ 02¢» .o_ A A A A A A A A A A .00202»2¢200 0.2 20 00>.»00400 02» 02.»¢023 02¢ 02.30.>02 020202¢200 0.2 20 020010: 20.3 2¢0> 20¢0 02.» 02020 .m A A A A A A A A A A .2¢20022 2.02» 00300.0 or 02020¢0> 20.3 >42¢43002 +002 .m A A A A A A A A A A .00001030 2o\02¢ p20202¢200 0.2 202 23430.2230 02» 02_0.>02 202 00202203 20 0020.1200 00.3I>hz300 02» 20 200101 2 00 .~ A A A A A A A A A A .yhz3ou >202000202 20 00.0030 0002¢20 23430.2230 02¢ 00202» 0202230 0300¢ 02020¢00 202»o 202 000043022 20 002300 ¢ 00 .w A A A A A A A A A A .400200 02» 20 00>.»00100 0.0¢0 02.2040>00 00000.2200 >».232200 02¢ 400200 20 0»¢2.0.»2¢2 .m A A A A A A A A A A .0200.>20230 0004030 020 20.3 >42¢43002 000: .z A A A A A A A A A A .Fz0z»2¢200 02» 20.3 02¢20022 23430.2230 302 44¢»02. 0» 0020220 44¢ 20 2o»¢z.02000 02¢ 0023000022 20 202040400 02» 00 .m A A A A A A A A A A .n4<.¢Uh(X XDJDUACKDU k0 02.2.23 02» 2. 00:.» 0»¢.220222¢ 20200 0¢ 02¢ 202230 02» 2. h0.00¢ .N A A A A A A A A A A .400200 02» 02¢ >20202¢200 23430.2230 02» 2003000 200.¢.4 20.20 02» 00 ._ A A A A A A A A A A 002 043020 202 043020 ~02 >¢2 043020 043020 >40».2.2uo >40¢20202a 2o >¢x >40¢20202a >40».2.200 . . .mDIUQUh uu¢30mu¢ < h<1h IZAIF _ 13430-1130 APPENDIX C LETTER REQUESTING PARTICIPATION IN THE SURVEY CONCERNING THE ROLE OF THE RESOURCE TEACHER Office of the Associate Superintendent for Adminimoflon MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Rockville, Maryland 20850 November 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM To: From: Joseph J. Taralld,iAssz:](e Sup021ntendent for Administration Refer Questions: Phil H. Sheridan, 942- 3532 Subject: Participation in a Research Study of the Normative Role of the Secondary.Resource Teacher in Montgomery County Mr. Phil H. Sheridan, former principal of Julius West Junior High School now on academic leave, has asked for our cooperation in his doctoral research. His study is designed to ascertain the normative role of the secondary school resource teacher in the Montgomery County Public Schools, as perceived by various categories of school personnel. The following will be considered: (1) the way the resource teachers view their own position, and (2) the per- ceptions of each of the other populations of the school structure, principals, teachers, supervisors, and area directors of instruction. The issue raised by Mr. Sheridan is one of interest to all of us and his study may be helpful in our continuing attempt to achieve the maximum potential of the position of resource teacher in our secondary schools. You have been selected by a random method to participate in either the pilot study or in the actual survey. Identification of the respondent is by position only. Your questionnaire is enclosed and instructions for completing it are found on the questionnaire itself. It will require no more than 20 minutes of your time. Please return the completed questionnaire to the Department of Research by A pre-addressed envelope is enclosed for this purpose. If for any reason you prefer not to take part in this study, please return the questionnaire nonetheless so that an accurate account can be kept of the responses. It is hoped that you will agree with us that this research problem is worthy of your cooperation. JJszjs Attachment C0py to: Executive Staff Area Assistant Superintendents Dr . Goodman 154 APPENDIX D A SUMMARY OF ALL OF THE RESPONSES TO THE INVENTORY BY CATEGORY OF RESPONSE APPENDIX D A summary of all of the responses to the inventory by category of response. INSTRUCTION; RESPONSES: Definitely Preferably May Ur Probably Definitely Should Should Nay Not Should Not Should Not INVENTORY ITEM N 2' N 3% N g N N N 5 1 41 34.17 20 16.67 28 23.33 19 15.83 12 1o.cc 2 12 10.00 7 5.83 32 26.67 32 26.67 37 30.83 3 62 51.67 38 31.67 18 15.00 1 .83 1 .83 4 64 53.33 40 33.33 15 12.50 1 .83 o o.co 5 76 63.33 37 30.83 7 5.83 o 0.00 o o.co 6 72 60.00 29 24.16 15 12.50 2 1.67 2 1.67 7 60 50.00 25 20.83 23 19.17 6 5.00 6 5.00 8 73 60.83 32 26.67 11 9.16 4 3.33 o 0.00 9 103 85.83 15 12.50 2 1.67 o 0.00 o 0.00 10 4o g33.33 45 37.50 27 22.50 6 15.00 2 1.6” STAFF DEVELOPMENT 1 70 58.33 29 24.17 17 14.17 3 2.50 1 .83 2 90 75.00 21 17.50 8 6.67 o 0.00 1 .83 3 63 52.50 34 28.33 16 13.33 5 4.17 2 1.6? 4 40 33.33 32 26.67 41 34.16 5 4.17 2 1.5? 5 77 64.16 36 30.00 7 5.83 o 0.00 o 0.03 6 “6 38.33 30 25.00 40 33.33 2 1.6? 2 1.67 7 78 65.00 26 21.67 15 12.50 1 .83 o 0.00 8 53 44.16 30 25.00 31 25.83 3 2.50 3 .59 .9 70 8.33 31 £5.83 15 12.50 4 33.33 0 0.00 1555 1556 RESEARCH-PLANN INC -EVALUATION-REPORTING RESPONSES: Definitely Preferably Hay 0r Probably Definitely Should Should May Not Should Not Should hot INVENTORY ITEM N z N z N N 76 N )3 1 51 42.50 50 41.67 19 15.83 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 35 29.17 32 26.67 35 29.17 14 11.67 4 3.33 3 35 29.17 32 26.67 43 35.83 5 4.17 5 4.17 4 “7 39.17 40 33.33 30 25.00 2 1.67 1 .53 5 22 18.33 33 27.50 50 “1.67 10 8.33 5 4.17 6 60 50.00 39 32.50 19 15.83 0 0.00 2 1.67 7 60 50.00 32 26.67 24 20.00 2 1.67 2 1.67 8 56 46.67 39 32.50 20 16.67 3 2.50 2 1.67 10 24 20.00 32 26.67 43 35.83 12 10.00 9 .50 ADMINISTRATION 1 26 21.67 37 30.83 3? 30.83 15 12.50 5 4.17 2 53 “4.17 “6 38.33 16 13.33 3 2.50 2 1.67 3 55 “5.83 35 29.17 19 15.83 6 5.00 5 “.17 4 18 15.00 26 21.67 49 40.83 16 13.33 11 9.17 5 68 56.67 42 35.00 9 7.50 1 .83 0 0.00 6 58 48.33 34 28.33 21 17.50 3 2.50 4 3.33 7 55 “5.83 31 25.83 28 23.33 3 2.50 3 2.50 8 .57 47.50 42 35.00 21 17.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 42 35.00 22 18.33 52 43.33 2 1.67 2 1.67 10 55 45.83 _36 30.00 26 21.67 2;: 1.6 1 .83 157 0040 0 0.0 0 00.0, 0 00.0w H0, 0.00 mm 0H 00. H w0.0 0 00.0H 0H 00.00 N0 00.00 00 «H 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0m 0N 00.00 H0 HH 8. H $.H m 3.3 8 00.3 00 2.00 5 0H 00.0 0 00. H 00.0 0 00.00 00 00.H0 on 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 00.0H 0H 00.0w N0 00.00 00 m 00.0 0 r0.0 0 00.0m H0 0H.0a 00 00.00 00. 0 00.0 0 00. H 00.0H Hm 00.00 00 «H.00 .00 0 00.0 0 00.0 0 0H.00 H0 00.00 N0 00.- am 0 00.0 0 00. H 00.0H 0H 00.H0 00 00.H0 N0 0 00.H m 00. H 00.0w 00 00.00 N0 00.00 «0 0 00.H N 00. H 00.H~ 0m 0H.00 00 00.00 00 N $.H .N 03 0 00.3 00 00.0... 00 00.00 00 H m z a z m z a z m z 2EH 20.02% “muommmmm omwpmmmmm ““20”“: .HHmemME .Hmemmma .mmmzommmm :DADUHmmDO APPENDIX E AGREEMENT SCORES FOR EACH INVENTORY ITEM APPENDIX E AGREEMENT SCORES FOR EACH INVENTORY ITEM Instruction Inventory Item Principal Teachers Resource Teachers Supervisors l .351 .500 .533 .400 2 .583 .393 .633 .601 3 .733 .783 .716 .766 4 .783 .666 .667 .733 5 .883 .766 .750 .883 6 .750 .614 .701 .715 7 .778 .518 .533 .617 8 .866 .549 .812 .761 9 .966 . .849 .916 .949 10 .683 .632 .699 .683 Total 7.376 6.270 6.960 7.108 Staff Development 1 .750 .512 .717 .783 2 .967 .520 .783 .950 3 .533 .601 .717 .684 4 .600 .550 .617 .667 5 .800 .800 .733 .899 6 .583 .600 .616 .650 7 .783 .717 .800 .717 8 .583 .601 .634 .617 9 .650 .600 .634 .850 Total 6.249 5.501 6.251 6.817 Research-Planning-Evaluation-Reporting 1 .834 .717 .734 .750 2 .534 .500 .517 .617 3 .650 .584 .550 .500 4 .701 .716 .61? .633 5 .717 .650 .616 .600 6 .817 .633 .651 .666 7 0767 .667 .651 .733 8 .767 .633 .633 .714 9 .617 .583 .550 .650 Total 6.404 5.501 6.251 6.817 158 159 qwm.w omw. moo. mmb. mmp. 00>. mmu. mms. can. 000. mwo. 500. “we. 000.0 mmo. wmm. cmo. mmu. qmw. 00>. 000. N00. mmb. 4mm. mnmnomma monsommm Nmm.w mmb. mmu. uflm. do . was. Oub. me. 09>. cum. woo. mmu. woo. fisnsoquSO Nwm.o Nwm. 000. 4mm. aw. mmw. amt. MMO. sob. wow. mmm. mpogoowh 00H00000000000 Hansomhlcov .0 .9500... mwm.w 000. 000. now. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 0H0. mmo. omm.o mmo. 04m. mmo. dwo. 00.st . mmw. 0H0. ewe. can. qmc. ngwoC0gu 0,: r! (‘1 P1 FlNMs‘fmwwu‘ H0000 r1 HNMJWOmeQ anH huouco>CH APPENDIX F RANK ORDER OF THE MEAN AGREEMENT SCORE FOR EACH ITEM OF THE INVENTORY A}TTNDIX F Hui-T. 011.9312 (5" TNT 311M? [101373217 I"? kaC‘Ell FOR JACH ITTX CF TE} TVYINTOHY Rank Kean Apreement ltexn Ho. Section fcore l .926 9 Instruction 2 .862 ll Curriculum 3 .8(8 5 Staff Development 6 .8(8 5 Instruction 5 .805 2 Staff Development 6 .792 13 Curriculum 7 .778 9 Curriculum 8 .759 l R—P—F-R 9 .758 8 Curriculum 1C .756 7 Staff Pevelopment 11 .750 3 Instruction 12 .747 8 Instruction 13 .738 A Curriculum 14 .720 7 Curriculum 25 .717 5 Administration 16 .716 5 Curriculum 7 .732 A Instruction 3? .7C8 12 Curriculum 1% .7(8 6 Curriculum 2c. .7cz. 7 mar-.9. . 21 .706 10 Curriculum 22 .6€5 6 Instruction 23 .692 h E-P-F-R 24 .692 6 F-P-F-P 25 .ESC 2 Administration 26 .690 1 Staff Development 27 .\88 8 F-F-I-R . 28 .684 9 Staff Uevelepment 29 .686 3 fidministration 30 .677 2 Curriculum 31 .67A 10 Instruction 32 .663 7 Administration 33 .656 3 Curriculum 34 .656 8 Administration 35 .646 5 R-P-F-E 36 .641 10 Administration 37 .634 3 Staff Development 3? .633 1 curriculum" BC .623 6 Administratior 4( .614 7 Instruction 61 .672 6 Staff Development L2 .6C€ 8 Staff Development 43 .6(8 L Ftaff Pavelopment 111. .6CC 16 17.-1‘4 -."‘ 160 161 API’E'I‘DIX F (001377111311) Yank Kean figreement Item No. Sectifn Score 45 .597 9 Administration 66, .596 A fidministration L7 .571 3 R-P—F-R 48 .571 1 Administration 49 .552 2 Instruction 50 .542 l E—P—I-R 51 .466 1 Instruction APPENDIX G ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND STAFF ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE APPENDIX G ANNUAL REPORT OF THE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND STAFF ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE Preface Over the past four years, the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee has repeatedly stated that staff differentiation can become reality only if school staffs are granted school autonomy to make pro- fessional decisions. This requires that teachers accept the responsibility of and be accountable for decision- making in their local schools. It also requires that administrative and supervisory personnel provide guidance and support for teachers and school programs. The result of this approach is an educational system based on instructional decision-making by those people most directly involved at the crucial point of learning in the schools. The committee is firmly convinced that before any of the above can occur, a sense of mutual trust and understanding between all parties must be developed. With this in mind, the committee continues to address itself to problems of information dissemination, staff training ,and support of interested schools. 162 163 Progress The members of the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee have been the most dispersed in their activities this year of any in our four-year history. Nevertheless, our activities have included continued study, information dissemination, catalization, and commitment by action. Study Our study of differentiated staffing has continued and our committee library grows although it is with increasing infrequency that we encounter ideas or models we did not already know or did not, in fact, help generate. In addition to our continued study of programs at the national level, we conducted a survey of schools in Montgomery County to find out what support and transfer of information could be effected. Dissemination of Information We continue to disperse information through the kits pre- pared two years ago and still circulating, the availability of committee members as speakers or discussion leaders for school staffs, cooperation with graduate studies at the University of Maryland, and limited circulation of our federal project proposal. We have been aided by a telecast on differentiated staffing in February and by articles in The Educator and the Superintendent's Bulletin. 164 Catalization Four years ago this committee departed from the then cur- rent concept of differentiated staffing that proposed system-wide job descriptions based on various levels of responsibility/pay. This concept, we maintained, was no less rigid than what preceded it; but worse, while it rearranged the surface dust, it did not solve any of the problems of education. Our departure from pro— grams like that of Temple City, California hinged on local autonomy. We felt that some of the problems would be solved if each school community could define its par- ticular needs and design a staff structure to meet those needs. Many levels of decision-making previously hierarchal would be moved into the schools. Pro- fessional and paraprofessional staff could be used to meet real needs in accord with their talents and interests. We took no interest then or now in rewarding one talent over another. In the four years, our philosophy has taken root in Montgomery County and elsewhere. While we do not claim direct influence on all these developments, we can claim direct or indirect influence in the changing attitude toward differentiated staffing and the growing acceptance of our philosophy into decision-making and design throughout the country. Local needs assessment, unique design, and increased value of the uniqueness of each 165 individual's contribution are by-words now in school change from department designs to that of whole schools. Our concept, articulated in the federal project proposal has been read, studied, and used as a model for model projects throughout the nation. Commitment to Action The committee, with patient awareness of how long real change takes, has continued to seek support for and implementation of its concepts. The committee's accomplishments are: Seven Montgomery County schools, implementing our philosophy, have formed the Differentiated Staffing Operational Committee. This cluster of schools-- Strathmore, Saddlebrook, Forest Knolls, Bushey Drive, and Cresthaven Elementary Schools; Argyle Junior High; and John F. Kennedy Senior High is involved in designing and piloting programs appro- priate to their individual schools. Although we are not always totally necessary to schools who wish to design a program, they have used our concept. We have obtained the support of the Secondary Princi- pals Association and the Elementary Principals Association for our philosophy. We have sought to better communicate with our parent organizations. Not content with and indeed frustrated by the limited concrete functions possible for the committee, our various members have individually sought to be where differentiated staffing is happening. Two members of the committee are principals of schools involved in the seven-school cluster. Two members have changed schools to get involved in the kind of innovation they advocate. One has developed a * A description of each local school operating plan is attached in the Appendix. 166 unique teaching role in a department not committed to differentiated staffing. Some seek involvement outside the county by participation and publication. In short, the committee while continuing its original charge has differentiated and sought involvement in a concept the members believe in. Problems Some teachers remain uninformed, indifferent, or suspicious. Our urgent cry for two years has been that any school seeking to assess needs and design a program to meet those needs does so at great peril and minimum effect unless the whole staff is given a real voice in the decision making. Without help in interpersonal com- munications any school trying to design a program con- fronts vast unnecessary inefficienCy, quarrels, hurt feelings, and ultimate devaluing of staff members who do not cooperate. We have begged that this training be given any staff so involved so that decisions can be made with children in mind and in-house fighting and innovation for its own sake can be prevented. Without this foundation in interpersonal communications, differentiated staffing will solve no real problems. If funding were provided for staff develOpment and in- service training for those local schools proposing dif- ferentiated staffing projects, progress would be accel- erated because we have reached a high point in dissemi- nation of information and support of local programs. 167 Projections Based on the activities that have been on-going or have been recently initiated, the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee has listed functions which will receive its continued efforts. In addition, new activities are included which will open new pathways that will facilitate the solving of some problems as well as giving support to local staff organization plans and. increasing teacher professional advancement. During 1971-72 the committee plans to: 1. Maintain a support function to the operational committee and the cluster of schools which are represented on this committee. 2. Catalyze and assist other schools interested in moving through the processes toward an operational phase of their own unique plan for differentiated staffing. 3. Plan with the Department of Career Development programs and mini-courses to assist teachers in qualifying for needed differentiated roles as they are defined in their local schools. 4. Coordinate consultant services when needed to assist schools in becoming operational. 5. Conduct in-service seminars for administrators interested in understanding the concepts, analyzing needs and problems, and developing differentiated staffing programs. 6. Examine with the staffs of Library Services, Counseling and Guidance, Curriculum and Instruction, Pupil Services, and Special Edu- cation; with teacher specialists; and with resource teachers their relationship to dif- ferentiated staffing in local schools. 7. Maintain a network of communications among schools within the county and also with inter- ested school systems out of the county. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 168 Develop and disseminate a brochure and a pamphlet to clarify the differentiated staffing concept and operation in Montgomery County. Engage in extended national involvement through alignment with NBA and USOE in their efforts to inform educational personnel nationally regarding trends in this movement. Plan and direct a work-study conference to facilitate communication between Operating schools and those schools interested in learning about or developing differentiated staffing. This conference would be open to personnel from school systems in other parts of the United States and provide an opportunity for further exchange of ideas. Plan and coordinate a seven-day in-service workshop for groups of teachers and adminis- trators from five (more or less) schools developing plans to initiate a DRS program. Devise suggested guidelines regarding staffing needs to be allocated to schools using dif- ferentiated staffing positions. Design plans for on-the-job training for aides, interns, and career development positions. Involve PTSA groups in understanding and partici- pating in the development of plans and programs fostering differentiated staffing positions. Recommendations The following recommendations are submitted for consid- eration for budget and for negotiations wherever appro- priate: l. 2. Continuance of the Professional Responsibility and Staff Organization Committee. Funding for publications and dissemination of information. 169 Monetary support for study-conference with invi- tations to participants nationwide. Requirements will include consultant fees, and travel expenses, and substitute time for attending county teachers. In-service workshop funding for schools planning to initiate differentiated staffing programs. Requirements would include per diem for pre- school attendance of ten-month participants. Support for supplementary staffing allocations that make it possible for teachers to carry out their differentiated responsibilities which are based on self—assessed needs and to work toward the improvement of education in their particular schools and community. This will in no way affect the allocations for other schools. APPENDIX H ROLE OF THE RESOURCE TEACHER“- EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1972 Department of Professional Personnel MMGGERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Rockville, Maryland ~-... ROLE 021111: RESOURCE TEACHER This document is a job description for resource teachers. AS such, it provides necessary clarification of the role for purposes of recruitment. In addition, it is a checklist of accountability both for the resource teacher in performing his duties and for the administrator in providing supports so that the resource teacher can function as an instructional leader. Finally, it constitutes the substantive basis for the yearly evaluation of persons serving in this leader- ship role. With two minor clarifications (note underlining) in sections IV. A. and V., it is the statement which was discussed with the Board of Education on October 13, 1970, and which, in turn, was a clarification of the job description appearing in Evaluative Criteria--Secondary (1967). I. Duties and Responsibilities 9’ A. Liaison Function 1. Serves as liaison between department members and the school adminis- tration and between department members and apprOpriate supervisors (area and county) in matters pertaining to curriculum and instruction 2. lMeets regularly with the subject supervisor 3. meets with principal and area director of instruttion for evaluation a and planning of program \\;14. Keeps principal informed in matters pertaining to the program and the department . l/ B. Instructional leadership 1. works with the department, the administration, and the counselors in the development of the schedule and in the placement of students in apprOpriate classes 2. Assists classroom teachers a. in classroom organization and management b. in selecting,.1ocating, and securing instructional materials and other aids c. in developing skills and techniques of instruction d. in the interpretation of test results to identify abilities of each student ' . e. in seeking ways to involve students meaningfully in their educational program 170 /c. 7. 171 f. .in adapting the county program to the needs n{ the local school community g. in helping to plan the best program for each instructional group by adapting the curriculum to the needs of individuals h. in planning for the most productive use of aides and volunteers 1. in the use and care of equipment 1. in developing plans for daily work as well as in long-range planning k. in self-evaluation, self-improvement, and evaluation of program Assumes leadership role in selection, location and purchase of 'instructional materials Holds departmental meetings on matters that are the appropriate instructional concern of the department and the total school Helps footer a cohesive and cooperative pattern of interpersonal relationships within the department Meets periodically with his principal and the area assistant superintendent or area director of instruction to confer on matters of program and instruction - Gives aid and support to substitute teachers (checks emergency plans, etc.) Program and Teacher Growth and Dave lopment l. S 2. Participates in interviewing and selecting prospective teachers for his department Assists the principal in the latter's evaluation of teachers and may, at the teachers' option, participate in the teachers' evaluation conferences Visits classes for the purpose of appraising program quality and confers with teachers about observations Confers frequently with the members of the department on an informal basis Participates in the planning of school staff development activities and assumes a leadership role in planning those of the department Provides leadership in developing department goals which are consistent with area and county goals Assists teachers in the development of long-range plans 10. 172 Provides leadership. in the ut'lllzatlnn ul student rm-nrds. .mcl test results Stimulates an awareness of research and curricular drvvlupmvnt in the subject fields Plans with teachers for the most effective ways of using courSeh n1 study and instructional materials DJ’ Curriculum Deve10pment 1. 2. 3. 4. Keeps informed of new trends and programs in the fields of his reaponsibility Participates in in-service activities related to his duties Is a permanent member of appropriate review and evaluation committees Assists in the summer and at other appropriate times in the writing of curriculum materials E. Departmental Administration 1. 2. Assists the principal in providing overall leadership in the instructional program of the school Supervises the use of clerical aide(s) assigned to the department Requisites for Implementation A. Teaches a maximum of three periods, or 55 per cent of the modular schedule, if the department has from four to nine other members B. Teaches a maximum of two periods, or 30 per cent of a modular schedule. if the department has ten or more other members C. Shall perform only those duties listed in this job description during resource periods Qualifications A. Education 1. Holds, from an accredited institution, a Master's degree or its equivalent in semester hours of’credit or is within one year of lul- filling this requirement 173 2. Has successfully completed appropriate Imam. ml work In Isa .«ui. -. M areas in which he will hear responslhiIlly 3. Demonstrates evidence of continuing professional study 1nd qruwi. related to his work Experience 1. Has had a minimum of three years of outstanding teaching vavrirHLr >2. Has had appropriate teaching experience within the subject fields of his department .Human Relations 1. Demonstrates sk111 in working effectively with people 2. Shows deep concern for individual students Status of Employment‘ Is willing to accept lZ-month employment IV. Selection and Continuance of Service A. 3“. Shall be selected by the principal and the area assistant superintendent or area director for instruction in consultation with the subject Supervisor and the members of the department or members chosengby the department to represent them Shall not have guaranteed tenure in the position V. Evaluation Shall be evaluated yearly in terms of this job description by the principal in consultatibn with the department, the subject supervisor,gand the area assistant superintendent or area director of instruction. The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with.Artic1e 16 of the 1972 - 1974 Negotiated contract. 2/2/72 APPENDIX I GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR RESOURCE TEACHER SELECTION APPENDIX I GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR RESOURCE TEACHER SELECTION The personnel department will, each year, seek out those teachers who are qualified for and interested in being considered for resource teacher position vacancies through advertising resource teacher position vacancies and by having school principals and subject supervisors recommend candidates qualified for resource teacher positions, and will refer candidates to schools for consideration. When a resource teacher position becomes vacant a committee of five will review the qualifications of the candidates for the resource teacher position. The committee of five shall consist of a teacher from the department having the vacancy and selected by the departmental personnel, a teacher outside the department selected by the faculty at large, the area instructional supervisor, the subject super- visor, and the principal. A teacher from the department shall not be a member of the review com- mittee if he or she is a candidate for the resource position. This review committee will consider qualified candi- dates (in accordance with established criteria) both those presently assigned to the school and those presently teaching in other schools in the county. The review committee will interview three (minimum) to five candidates with at least three of the candi— dates being from outside the school where the position is available. Each member of the review committee will individually assess the qualifications of each candidate in writing and submit this material to the principal. The review committee shall interview all candidates from the school where the position is available even though it may be necessary to interview more than the five candi- dates indicated above. 174 175 The principal will review the materials submitted with the members of the review committee. The principal, after consultation with the area director for instruction at which time the materials shall be jointly reviewed, will then make a recommendation for appointment to the area assistant superintendent. If the principal and area director for instruction are not satisfied with the qualifications of any of the candidates, the review committee will be recon- stituted with either the same or other members and the process implemented again. All confidential interview forms used by the review committee shall be kept in a confidential file in the principal's office for a period of one year from the date of appointment of a resource teacher. APPENDIX J EVALUATION OF RESOURCE TEACHER SERVICES Department oi Professional Personnel MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Rockville, Maryland EVALUATION OF RESOURCE TEACHER SERVICES Instructions: Complete tor the teacher named above. Parr: 2 (MCPS form 430 bla. Continuation) must also 01' comntvml. Sci.- rewin- strln' at more 2 Car criteria on which to base evaluation. Forum! 0090"“ “tunnel to the Department at Pratt-mortal Personnel. copy 2 lcanaryl to tracIn-r I'm-mint retain com 3 IDtfllI. NAME: LAST FIRST MIDDLE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBE II GRADE STEP LONG POSITION LOCATION CERT. TYPE CERT. CLASS ISSUE DATE EXPIRATION DATE I. CURRENT ASSIGNMENT Subrcct Field No. Other Teachers in No. Teachers in Department No. Periods Assigned Department New to School For Work With Teachers ll. EVALUATION A. Liaison Function 8. Instructional Loadersm [J 1. Outstanding D 1 Ettactivc C] 1. Outstanding CI 3. Ellectivc E] 2. Highly Effective C) 4. Ineffective D 2. Hifirly Eflcctivo C) 4. Ineffective STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: c Prowarn and Teacher Growth and Development 0. Curriculum Development C] 1. Outstanding C] 3. Emctiva D 1. Outstanding E] 3. Elfectiva D 2. Hifi‘ily Ellcctivc C] 4. Ineliactivc D 2. Hiyily Eitcctivc [j 4. Incilcctivs STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: M: MCPS Form d30-5I (Page I oi 2i, February 1972 176 Curttnlclo! Page 2 177 Department at PrnIu-ssranal Pcrsmmnl EVALUATION OF RCSOIIIICF TEACIII’II SERVICES MONTC ERY COUNTY I’UIILI CII O 5 ’0M c s o L Icom INIIATIONI Rockville, Maryland NAME: (Last, First, Middle) II. EVALUATION (Continucdl E. Departmental Administration F. Human Relations 0 1. Outstanding C] 3. EIIcctive D 1. Outstanding C] 3. EIIcctivc D 2. Highly Etiectivc D 4. IncIIective D 2. Highly EIIcctivc C] 4. IncIIcctive STRENGTHS: STRENGTHS: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT: III. COMMENTS OF TEACHER BEING EVALUATED IV. REOOMMENDATION A. Criteria: I. II teacher is rated "Ineliectivc" in moi thesis areas of (1 evaluation. recommendation must be to "reassign as ’ A . _j regular classroom teacher." ; I"? ’ . II teacher is rated ”Ellectivc“ in thm or more areas oI evaluation. recommendation must he to "reassign as rcgular classroom teacher." 8. Recommendation (duck one): 0 Continue assignment as rcsourcs teacher. [3 Reasslgn as regular classroom teacher. Signature oI Teacher Evaluated Date Signature oI Evaluator Date Signature oI Evaluator Date J MCPS Form 430-5“ (Page 2ol 2i. February l972 - 1') - 178 DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF RESOURCE TEACHER A Liaison Function I. Serves as liaison between department members and the school administration and between department members and appropriate supervisors (area and county) in matters pertaining to curriculum and instruction 2. Meets regularly with the subject supervisor 3. Meets with principal and area director oI instruction for evaluation and planning of program 4. Keeps principal inIormcd in matters pertaining to the program and the department 8. Instructional Leadership I. Works with the department. the administration, and the counselors in the development ol the schedule and in the placement ol students in appropriate classes 2. Assists classroom teachers a. in classroom organization and management in selecting, locating, and securing instructional materials and other aids in developing skills and techniques of instruction in the interpretation at test results to identify abilities of each student in seeking ways to involve students meaninglully in their educational program in adapting the county program to the needs of the local school community in helping to plan the best program for each instructional group by adapting the curriculum to the needs of individuals in planning for the most productive use at aides and volunteers . In the use and care of equipment in developing plans lor daily work as well as in long range planning It. in sell-evaluation sell- improvement. and evaluation ol program 3. Assumes leadership role' in selection location and purchase oi instructional materials 4. Holds departmental meetings on matters that are the appropriate instructional concern of the department and the total school 6. Helps foster a cohesive and cooperative pattern oi interpersonal relationships within the department 6. Meets periodically with his principal and the area assistant superintendent or area director oI instruction to conier on matters oI program and instruction 7. Gives aid and support to substitute teachers Icheclts emergency plans. etc.I 99-9? . ‘ . I .’ C. Program and Teacher Growth and Development I. Participates in interviewing and selecting prospective teachers tor his department 2. Assists the principal in the latter's evaluation of teachers and may, at the teachers' option, participate in the teachers' evaluation conlerences 3. Visits classes tor the purpose at appraising program quality and conlers with teachers about observations 4. Conlers frequently with the members ol the department on an inlormal basis 5. Participates in the planning ol school stall development activities and assumes a leadership role in planning those of the department 6. Provides leadership in developing department goals which are consistent with area and county goals 7. Assists teachers in the development of long-range plans 8. Provides leadership in the utilization of student records and test results 9. Stimulates an awareness oi research and curricular development in the subiect fields I0. Plans with teachers lor the most eilective ways of using courses at study and instructional materials 0. Curriculum Development 1. Keeps inlormed at new trends and programs in the fields of his responsibility 2. Participates in inservice activities related to his duties 3. Is a permanent member of appropriate review and evaluation committees 4. Assists in the summer and at other appropriate times in the writing of curriculum materials E. Departmental Administration I. Assists the principal in providing overall leadership in the instructional program oi the school 2. Supervises the use ol clerical aide(sl assigned to the department F. Human Relations I. Demonstrates skill in working eiiectively with people 2. Has had appropriate teaching expmience within the subject lields 0! his department ERSI "'“Iin'iiiiiiiiMimmiiflillli“