u 4 ‘21 . " — “RICIF‘M ! ‘1' 414" v v ~—~ — .4- m {1 “0:?" ’3‘“th 'v’. ~\ W’MSJIZ ., .9» :n( . “a It .‘ ”45“; . ., , . “U.“ ‘1 .. . '3: 13-: 135 ‘1 ‘74 "fit -‘ “trey. M d... 1' 4?: ...'. ....'_« . « a . 9.922.; w < as: at m «it‘d “ . ... saggz feud I» . than. any“? . ' I‘V“ 54 ”*7???” A ‘ @231”.be mk‘ 5:32.: 55v“. '2’" :u Hip-flea“ 1121‘” "II ‘ an": w" "’ 23:35.,“ a“ . :VI .fi. ,.._. J .. . f. r na- Lfluz'e'flu'l Mk"? :n‘l‘ 'f.‘ 91:,“ .. . V, _l I" ‘1' v}? , $5.! ali- >5 ‘4Ihl4 L 1" M.) ' kg 1;: ‘4 : .‘t m... ,.x~. n. u A. 25?? .. ‘\ ‘.\'"‘ a 11“.“ “r ~. 11.1! ‘ '"1 - "I" 1‘ 6-2-3. ' Li.“ H‘ I a; “ an“. «(ii 'I‘ ' '26.“ W . "Y: «5" «$2,325? .3 .¢ «. ‘ "I n. v' 1‘». 1 .V l «P {,4- P 4:35; J" V 4 .g v? J‘Cfi‘: W i‘ ' .~,;‘ r55 3“ .g ‘. fi MJ‘KA-w J'JJJILR ‘ I? \ ~ m. 6-. "0 A “2‘4 . if: v N Mg: EH ‘ . image). Q? ~ > :s , ,. 1"- . #333??? ‘97.“ :4}; ,u A?“ t 1-. 5-3 5 . ‘. 3: fighsfir ~‘ ~ “3“,“? ”1:16, 1 "‘ "$1955.91? m‘ «r a? r ” :W m ‘ “MM“ ' fgrzhr-‘ammfiwim-fi 9’3 21: 1 . ‘ damn-$32K Gut-"‘0 <- £91??? ‘6 3c; o .A c‘» ' a. « 4&3 an" H. dig—qff‘xi "' '3'3Du:n' :; ‘ h I 31,-?“ :3 '1' I Q» ‘19.; “1» § 7: .W $2? éé‘ ="" «'31:. ‘. , .. h - - mfg; w. w... 4.. f max. 2.. h)“ .m'unJmV'n-i‘" _~ J. - P's— “I‘lllliillllllfllll ” L/ This is to certify that the Neila Rutkoskey dissertation entitled The Perceptions Adult Education Teachers and Adult Education Administrators Have of Effective and Ineffective Performance-Based Rewards and the Degree to Which These Rewards are Supported presented by NEILA RUTKO SKEY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PH-D- degree in _Ednc.ar.iona1 Administration 1%Ar Mr professor Date October 22, 1990 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY “hum State Unlverdty 1 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. .p DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ~____— r 5 1995? l x‘ q it ~ “)3! "Q"-’ I b 4‘ i ES ’WD; [—_II ll MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cMMMS-DJ #‘ AA / *7 i . ____—...____, THE PERCEPTIONS ADULT EDUCATION TEACHERS AND ADULT EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS HAVE OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE-BASED REWARDS AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THESE REHARDS ARE SUPPORTED By Neila Rutkoskey A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1990 L 6):; "6‘.. ABSTRACT THE PERCEPTIONS ADULT EDUCATION TEACHERS AND ADULT EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS HAVE OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE-BASED REWARDS AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH THESE REWARDS ARE SUPPORTED By Neila Rutkoskey The purpose of this study was to determine the perceptions full-time contracted adult education teachers and adult education administrators have of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which said adult education teachers and administrators support these rewards. In this descriptive study, a sample of full-time contracted adult education teachers and administrators was chosen from the Grand Rapids Public School District, Adult Education Division. A structured/unstructured information sheet and survey questionnaire were developed specifically for this study and sent to sample members. Data analysis included cross-tabulations, frequency dis- tributions, chi-square test of association, Kendall tau C rank-order correlation, and the Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons. The hypothesis test of significance was based on the .05 level. Whether or not respondents were an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator made a difference in their Neila Rutkoskey perceptions of performance-based rewards. While both teachers and administrators believed the following rewards to be effective, teachers believed more strongly than administrators that personal growth, autonomy, and internal satisfaction were effective. Administrators believed more strongly than teachers that community support for programs and merit pay were effective rewards. Adult education teachers did not support performance-based rewards, whereas adult education administrators did. However, teachers and administrators agreed on the following points regarding the concept of performance-based rewards: (a) Performance-based rewards may cause dissension among teachers; (b) Performance-based rewards should be determined cooperatively between the teacher and his/her supervisor; and (c) Performance-based rewards should be based on teaching instruction, not teacher competency exams, student test scores, or the teacher’s demeanor. Teachers and administrators disagreed on the following points regarding performance-based rewards: (a) Administrators believed performance-based rewards encourage superior effort among most teachers. Teachers did not agree; and (b) Teachers believed that teachers would do only things their rater would like. Administrators did not agree. Copyright by NEILA RUTKOSKEY 1990 To my parents, Neil and Gladys Rutkoskey, who have always provided me with guidance and support. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My thanks and appreciation to Dr. Lois Bader, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. Keith Groty. A very special thank-you to Dr. Louis Romano, who supported and encouraged me during my graduate studies. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... Chapter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .............. Introduction ................... Need for the Study ................ Purpose of the Study ............... Null Hypotheses .................. Basic Hypothesis ................ Specific Hypotheses ............... Limitations of the Study ............. Definition of Terms ................ Organization of the Remainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Introduction ................... $0 mNOSUTU'ICflé—‘d Organizational Perspective ............ Motivational Theory ................ Incentives and Rewards Associated With Teaching . . Performance-Based Evaluation ........... Summary ...................... DESIGN OF THE STUDY ................. Introduction ................... Type of Study ................... Instrumentation .................. Population and Sample ............... Collection of the Data .............. Testable Hypotheses ................ Basic Hypothesis ................ Specific Hypotheses ............... Statistical Procedures and Treatment of Data Treatment of Data .............. : : Statistical Procedures ............. Summary ...................... vi IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA .................. 54 Introduction ................... 54 Analysis of Data ................. 55 Basic Hypothesis ................ 55 Hypothesis 1 .................. 64 Hypothesis 2 .................. 7l Hypothesis 3 .................. 72 Hypothesis 4 .................. 74 Hypothesis 5 .................. 75 Hypothesis 6 .................. Bl Hypothesis 7 .................. 82 Hypothesis 8 .................. 86 Hypothesis 9 .................. 87 Hypothesis lO .................. 90 Hypothesis ll .................. 9l Summary ...................... 96 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... lOl Summary ...................... lOl Need and Purpose of the Study .......... lOl Hypotheses ................... l02 Literature Review ................ 103 Instrumentation ................. l04 Population Sample ................ 105 Collection of the Data ............. l05 Analysis of the Data .............. l05 Findings and Conclusions ............. 106 Discussion and Implications ............ l08 Recommendations and Suggestions for Further Study . ll5 APPENDIX .......................... ll6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 125 vii LIST OF TABLES Results of Survey Returns .............. Perceptions of Personal Growth as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator ...... Perceptions of Autonomy as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator ...... Perceptions of Community Support for Programs as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator ................... Perceptions of Internal Satisfaction as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator ................... Perceptions of Merit Pay as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator ...... Support of Performance-Based Rewards, Based on Position as an Adult Education Teacher or Adult Education Administrator .............. Factors That Influenced Adult Education Teachers and Adult Education Administrators in Their Degree of Support for Performance-Based Rewards ....... Perceptions of In-service Attendance as a Performance— Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position .......... Perceptions of Community Support for Programs as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position viii Page 49 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 65 66 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 Perceptions of Internal Satisfaction as a Performance- Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position .......... Perceptions of Merit Pay as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position ...... Perceptions of Teaching-Load Reductions as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position Perceptions of Status as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Admin- istrative Position ................. Perceptions of Additional Responsibility as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position Support of Performance-Based Rewards Based on Whether Adult Education Administrator Was an Adult Education Teacher Before Assuming Administrative Position ...................... Perceptions of Improved Relationships With Students as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Age Support of Performance-Based Rewards, Based on Age . . Perceptions of Job Security as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender .............. Perceptions of Opportunities for Advancement as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender ..... Perceptions of In-service Attendance as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender ..... Perceptions of Merit Pay as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender .............. Perceptions of Having Students Succeed in Learning as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender ix Page 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 75 76 77 78 79 80 .23 .24 .25 .26 .27 .28 .29 .30 .31 .32 .33 .34 .35 Perceptions of Teaching-Load Reductions as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Gender ..... Support of Performance-Based Rewards, Based on Gender ....................... Perceptions of Team Teaching as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Educational Level ......... Perceptions of Teaching-Load Reductions as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Educational Level ....................... Perceptions of Status as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Educational Level ............. Perceptions of Additional Responsibility as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Educational Level ....................... Support of Performance-Based Rewards, Based on Educational Level ................. Perceptions of Personal Growth as a Performance- Based Reward, Based on Number of Years in the Adult Education Profession ............. Perceptions of Opportunities for Advancement as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Number of Years in the Adult Education Profession ...... Perceptions of Organizational Fringe Benefits as a Performance-Based Reward, Based on Number of Years in the Adult Education Profession ...... Support of Performance-Based Rewards, Based on Number of Years in the Adult Education Profession ..... Adult Education Teachers and Administrators Who Might or Might Not Remain in the Adult Education Profes- sion ........................ Reasons Why Adult Education Teachers and Administra- tors Plan on Leaving the Adult Education Profession Within the Next Five Years ............. Page 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 Page 4.36 Reasons Why Adult Education Teacher and Administra- tors Plan on Remaining in the Adult Education Profession ..................... 95 4.37 Summary and Test Results of Hypotheses ........ 97 xi CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 13mm Educators, as well as business and governmental leaders, continue to debate the issue that the improvement of schools depends, to a great extent, on improved teacher performance ("A Nation Prepared," 1986). These educators and business and governmental leaders also believe teachers need significant motivating factors to inspire them to improve on their professional performance. Researchers who have focused on the problems confronting the teacher work force have alleged that the ability to attract, train, and keep good teachers depends heavily on the incentives and opportunities offered teachers by their respective school systems (”A Nation Prepared,” 1986). W The United States is currently involved in the ”educational excellence” movement, a phrase used to identify a nationwide effort to raise the standards and improve the effectiveness of the nation’s schools (Finn, 1985). In its 1983 landmark publication entitled A Nation_at_gi§k, the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared war on "mediocrity," which, according to the report, was running rampant in American public school systems. Throughout the country, high school graduation requirements were raised, teacher and student competency examinations were implemented in many systems, colleges and universities raised their admission standards, colleges of education stiffened their curricula for the career-bound teacher, states reexamined their teacher certification procedures, and campaigns against illiteracy mushroomed. Yes, despite efforts to improve the nation’s schools, Clemson University’s National Dropout Prevention Center projected a 40% dropout rate by the year 2000 (Horn, 1987). The National Education Association stated that the present cost to provide for dropouts and their families is more than $75 billion a.,year' in lost tax revenues, crime and crime-prevention costs, unemployment, and welfare. American businesses will hire more than one million service and production workers who cannot read, write, or count. Teaching these workers the basic skills of reading, writing, and arithmetic and absorbing the lost productivity while they are learning these skills will cost industry upwards of $25 billion annually for as long as it takes (Horn, 1987). The inability of the United States to hold its own in today’s international marketplace has reformists in all sectors of the nation’s society concerned. Blame regarding the incompetence of the United States to maintain its competitive edge has been leveled, to some extent, against the undereducated or uneducated youths who will become the future of the country. However, as educators, business leaders, and politicians campaign for educational excellence, more and more demands are placed on teachers, with little support and few rewards for their professional efforts. How should teachers be evaluated and rewarded for their professional performance? Do teachers support the concept of receiving rewards based on their teaching performance? What types of rewards do teachers support? Will rewarding teachers for their performance motivate them to continue in the profession? How should performance-based rewards be determined? Controversies surrounding performance as a basis for evaluating and rewarding teachers have been raging for years. Experts believe the issue of performance-based evaluation and rewards is extremely important and complex. At one end of the spectrum are those experts who believe teacher rewards should be based on results of teacher competency exams. At the opposite end of the spectrum, experts argue that the principal purpose of education and of teaching is to bring about changes in the learner. Therefore, teacher rewards should be based on the results of student competency exams (Morrison, l974). Susan Moore Johnson (1984) of Harvard University stated that there is no consensus as to how to reward teachers in order to motivate them to perform at the peak of their professional ability. To gain insight into the matter of evaluating and rewarding teacher performance, it is necessary to examine certain factions of the teaching profession. One of these factions is that of adult education teachers and administrators. Teachers and administrators in adult education systems face a challenge similar to that of their K212 professional colleagues-- that improvement of a learning environment depends largely on teacher performance. Consequently, rewards associated with teacher performance have become significant issues for adult education teachers and administrators, as well as for K-12 teachers and administrators. Previous researchers have examined various aspects of the concept of performance-based rewards, and samples have been drawn for said research from a variety of populations. A group that has not been involved to a great extent in research on performance-based rewards is adult education teachers and administrators. A need exists for a closer examination of how these groups of professionals perceive performance-based rewards. This need is accentuated by the fact that if the statistics regarding the potential dropout rate are correct, and if the national emphasis on lifelong learning continues, an increasing number of students may enroll in adult education centers. The adult educator’s role may become the link between success and failure for a large segment of the population. as d The researcher’s purpose in this study was to determine the perceptions of full-time contracted adult education teachers and adult education administrators employed in the Grand Rapids Public Schools, Adult Education Division, Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, concerning effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which said adult education teachers and administrators support these rewards. W W The basic hypothesis of this study is that there will be no statistically significant differences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which said groups support these rewards. W i l: Therer will be no statistically significant differences between adult education administrators who were and those who were not adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards. si : There» will be no statistically significant differences in the~ degree of support for performance-based rewards between adult education administrators who were adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions and those who were not. . Therer will be no statistically significant differences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators, hereinafter referred to as respondents, in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and age. . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and age. . There' will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are female. . There» will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are fema e. Hypothesis 2: 'There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. WW: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. fixpgthg§j§L_9: 'There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. o s’ 0: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents and the degree of support for performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. H th ' 1: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents as to the reasons why they might or might not remain in the adult education profession. i i t'ons f d The research was limited by the following constraints. l. The study was limited by factors intrinsic in the use of any survey questionnaire, including (a) the problem of nonreturn of the survey, (b) the bias of the respondents, and (c) the possibility of misinterpretation of the statements. 2. Generalizability of the results of the study is limited to the population sampled. W aeg11_eenee11en. An alternative education program that serves adults l6 years of age and older by offering adult basic education, high school completion, and community service courses. AWE. An administrator employed and contracted by a school district to provide supervision for adult education teachers and adult education programs. 8eginning_een1t_edneeiien_een1nietneten. An administrator with fewer than three years of experience as an administrator in an adult education program. Beginning ednlt edgcetien teeehen. A teacher with fewer than three years of teaching experience in an adult education program. Belief. (a) The acceptance of a proposition as true or of a situation or object as actually existent; (b) conviction that cer- tain things are true; (c) trust, confidence; (d) anything believed or accepted as true; (e) an opinion, expectation, or judgment (Anerieen Henitege Dietionery, 1979). e l i d ‘ is r. An administrator with more than three years of experience as an administrator in an adult education program. d d t n h . A teacher with more than three years of teaching experience in an adult education program. En]]-iine enntneeteg ednli edneeiien teeener. A teacher employed and contracted by a school district to provide 30 hours of instruction per week in an adult education program. Bencenijen. To understand, to comprehend, to be aware of through the senses, to take in with the mind, insight, discernment (WW. 1979)- Eerfnnnenee;neeee_nenend. A reward received as a result of a process of cooperative evaluation of the degree of achievement of agreed-upon objectives or job targets (McNally, l977). WWWQI Chapter 11 includes a review of the related literature, which will provide the necessary background for the study. Chapter 111 contains a description of how the research for the study was conducted. Topics include instrument description, the population, data-collection techniques, statistical hypotheses, and techniques used in data analysis. An analysis of the data derived from each of the statistical hypotheses is presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V includes a summary of the research and an explanation of the conclusions that can be drawn from the data. Recommendations for further research are also discussed. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Intredustien The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy reported that the 19803 will be remembered for two developments--the beginning of a sweeping reassessment of the basis of the nation’s economic strength and an outpouring of concern for the quality of American education ("A Nation Prepared," 1986). This task force did not believe the nation’s educational system needed repairing. It believed the system "must be rebuilt to match the drastic change needed in our economy if' we are to prepare our children for productive lives in the let century" ("A Nation Prepared," T986, p. 44). The United States is currently enmeshed in the "educational excellence" movement, a phrase used to identify a nationwide effort to raise the standards and improve the effectiveness of American schools (Finn, 1985). This movement has resulted from two elements. First, a handful of state officials, particularly from the southern states, analyzed the barriers to economic development in their states and found their school systems sorely lacking. At the same time, a number of business leaders looked into the slackening productivity and weakened international competitiveness in the 10 American economy and decided that part of the problem was inadequate development of human capital, due in part to the failure of schools to impart the necessary skills and knowledge (Finn, 1985). Second, a series of national comissions, task forces, and foundation study teams examined the condition of American education, found it unsatisfactory, and said so. Two of the better known of these task groups were the National Comission on Excellence in Education and the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Since the publication of A Netion at Risk in l983 by the National Comission on Excellence in Education, this country has been waging a battle against "a tide of mediocrity” in its public school systems (Williams et al., 1983, p. 51). Throughout the country, high school graduation requirements have been raised, teacher and student competency examinations have been implemented in many systems, colleges and universities have raised their admission standards, colleges of education have stiffened their curricula for the career-bound teacher, states have examined their teacher certification procedures, and campaigns against illiteracy have mushroomed. Despite these well-intentioned efforts to improve on the nation’s schools, the National Dropout Prevention Center at Clemson University projected a 40% dropout rate by the year 2000 (Horn, l987). The National Education Association estimated that the present cost to provide for dropouts and their families is more than $75 billion a year in lost tax revenues, crime and crime-prevention ll costs, unemployment, and welfare. David Kearns, chairman of Xerox Corporation, claimed that: American business will have to hire more than a million new service and production workers a year who can’t read, write or count. Teaching them how and absorbing the lost productivity while they are learning will cost industry $25 billion a year for as long as it takes. (Horn, 1987, p. 67) During the next 14 years, the number of young. people in the American work force will shrink by two-fifths, while industry will be demanding advanced skills from employees. Without a highly skilled work force, experts predict America’s standard of living and capacity to compete in world markets will decline sharply (Horn, 1987). These reports regarding the inability of the United States to compete in today’s world market, due in part to an undereducated or uneducated youth, have once again stirred the ire of educational reformists in all sectors of American society. Not since the mid- 19605 have public schools and their teachers encountered such hostility toward the quality of their learning environments and the quality of their work. During the mid-19605, criticisms of the quality of education led to educational reforms of questionable merit. However, the current wave of complaints against the nation’s educational system threatens a total upheaval (Rosenholtz, 1985). Schools today are asked to do it all--to give disenfranchised populations equal opportunity, to challenge the academically talented, to foster interracial acceptance, to instill democratic ideals, and to encourage individuality and high educational aspirations (Rosenholtz, 1985). Since teacher training has not kept 12 pace with these demands, it is not surprising that critics find teachers unable to handle these numerous undertakings successfully. According to Susan J. Rosenholtz, Associate Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, Urbana, the irony of this matter is that while politicians push for educational reform, never have so many demands been placed on teachers with so little support and so few rewards. At the very time teachers have come under attack, educational researchers have reported problems with the teacher work force. One problem is that young people with academic talent are not choosing teaching as a career. Second, schools are unable to retain their most academically talented teachers. Those most likely to succeed in the classroom are also those most likely to leave it. Third, there is a need to upgrade the skills of a teacher work force that is considerably older than the teaching corps of a generation ago. Researchers who have focused (Hi the problems confronting the teacher work force have contended that the ability to attract, train, and keep good teachers depends heavily on the incentives and opportunities offered by schools and on the organizational conditions under which teachers work (Rosenholtz, 1985). What types of rewards, i.e., incentives, opportunities, and organizational conditions, should school systems offer their teachers in order to attract new talent to the profession, retain good teachers, and improve on the skills of those teachers who are exhibiting mediocre performance? How should such rewards be allocated to teachers? 13 Some experts believe teacher rewards should be based on results of teachers’ competency exams. Other experts argue that the principal purpose of education and of teaching is to bring about changes in the learner. Their question concerning teacher competence is not whether the teacher can demonstrate various skills and characteristics, but whether the teacher is able to bring about desired changes in the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and appreciation of pupils. These experts insist that evidence for teacher competence, and consequently rewards, is to be found in observation of .student behavior, not teacher behavior (Morrison, 1974). The controversy surrounding performance as a basis for evaluating teachers is extremely important and complex. The controversy will not be resolved quickly because the knowledge, theory, and methodology needed to justify any plan for teacher evaluation have only begun to accumulate and because the controversy involves educational value judgments on which immediate consensus is unlikely (Morrison, 1974). According to Susan Moore Johnson (1984) of Harvard University, there is no consensus about what makes for effective teaching or how to measure it. After 75 years and many research efforts, the questions about teacher performance, evaluation, and effectiveness remain largely unanswered. The heart of the problem is that there is little agreement about what the art of teaching is. 14 To gain insight into the dilemma of whether teachers support the concept of performance—based rewards, it is necessary to examine certain elements of the teaching profession. Such elements include educational systems as unique environmental systems, factors that might or might not motivate teachers to perform within these systems, performance-based teacher evaluations, and rewards associated with teaching performance. DEW Organizations can be viewed as living organisms having a composite of’ characteristics much as people have a variety of personality traits. Like individuals, organizations need to identify and pursue goals, react to stress, seek homeostasis, adapt, maintain themselves internally, ensure survival, eliminate uncertainty, and grow in size, power, and experience if they are to function effectively (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). The human activity within organizations is motivated by reaction to the above- mentioned characteristics. As a result of adding this human dimension to an organization, elements of rationality are introduced to the system. Parsons proposed four basic needs that all organizations seek to satisfy in order to survive as effective institutions. Because schools are no exception to general laws that describe organiza- tional phenomena, the Parsonian criteria for schools include the following basic needs. 15 First is adaptation to the organizational environment. Schools need to be receptive to the changing needs of society at the local, national, and international levels. They must exhibit professional innovation in technology and instruction and deal with multiple and often conflicting pressure groups (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Second is achievement of organizational goals. The following variables may contribute to or detract from the success of the school: student achievement, citizenship, student self- actualization, favorable dropout rates, and teacher growth and development (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Third is integration of subunits into the larger organizational system. Ekamples include improving relationships with the school board and other influential agencies, curriculum coordination throughout the school system, and integration of departments and agencies that make up the school system (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Fourth is maintenance of value patterns over time. Described by Parsons as pattern maintenance, these include cultivation and improvement of morale, cohesion, and loyalty; socialization of students and teachers to the educational principles unique to the school in question; and counseling efforts to impose the organizational point of view on schools (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). The challenge for today’s schools to fulfill these four basic needs is a great one. Aflthough vestiges of the little red schoolhouse still exist in America, schools, like most 16 organizations, have experienced incredible growth in terms of size and complexity. Many of today’s school systems are complex because of the sephistication of their technology, diversification of their mission, the varied nature of their task, and their patterns of structure. For school personnel in American schools to conduct themselves in ways that may lead to the fulfillment of Parsons’s four basic needs and consequently increased school effectiveness, they must understand how they interact with the existing organizational social system within which they work. Getzels and Guba (cited in Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971) claimed that the social system for educators consists of two interdependent but interacting dimensions. The first dimension is the institution, which is defined in terms of its roles, which are in turn defined in terms of role expectations, all of which are carefully designed to fulfill the goals of the institution. Some of the characteristics and functions of institutions that form the foundation for educational systems are as follows: 1. Institutions have purposes. They are established to perform certain functions and are legitimized by societal groups on the basis of these functions. Purposes for schools are the educational and custodial functions which win community and societal support (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). 2. Institutions are structural. Institutional goals are achieved through task diversification. Roles are established, and 17 each role is assigned responsibilities and an actor to carry out those responsibilities (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). 3. Institutions are normative. Roles serve as norms for the behavior of those who occupy roles. Each actor is expected to behave in certain predetermined ways if he/she is to retain a legitimate position in the school (Sergiovanni 8 Staratt, 1971). For example, teachers who adopt behavior of a culture other than their own may have difficulty maintaining their legitimate position in the eyes of other teachers, administrators, or students. 4. Institutions are sanction-bearing. Institutions have appropriate positive and negative sanctions for ensuring compliance with established norms (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Teachers who are "rate-busters" in the eyes of other teachers might be alienated from ”the group" or might have to wait longer for school supplies. Behaviors associated with a certain role are arranged on a continuum ranging from required to prohibited. Certain behaviors are considered mandatory (i.e., a teacher should at least show up for school), and other behaviors are considered forbidden (i.e., a teacher becoming romantically involved with a student). Other behavior patterns exist between these extremes--some recommended, some disapproved, but all permissible. Roles are best understood when examined in relation to other roles. The student helps to understand the teacher’s role, the teacher helps to understand the administrator’s role, and so on. The institutional or organizational dimension is analyzed in terms of role and expectation and is, according to Getzels and Guba, 18 the nomothetic aspect of the social system. The second aspect, the ideographic dimension, adds the human element to the social system. The ideographic: dimension is similar to the nomothetic in that individuals, like institutions, have goals, which they express through their personalities and pursue according to their unique need disposition (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Both dimensions of the social system are assumed to be in constant interaction (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Nomothetically, the organization strives to socialize the individual to its own image and ends, while ideographically, the individual strives to socialize the organization to his/her own image and ends (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Therefore, behavior in any social system is a function of the interaction between unique personalities and preestablished roles. Conformity to the institution--its roles and expectations--leads to organizational effectiveness, whereas conformity to the individua1--his/her personality and need disposition-~leads to individual efficiency (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). W The world of work for many professionally oriented occupations has enormous potential for providing individuals with enrichment, challenge, and self-development. Teaching qualifies in this regard because of the work of the teacher and the uniqueness of the school’s mission in society. l9 Theoretically, schools function with the intention of providing students with enrichment, challenge, and self-development on intellectual, social, and psychological dimensions. And theoretically, teachers seek meaningful satisfaction from their work and wish to view themselves as competent, significant, and worthwhile contributors to society. Rewarding teachers and motivating them to continue their practices has long been an area of interest to both practitioners and researchers in school personnel management. Some type of reward or motivational system needs to be present in the structure within which teachers work to ensure that those who are capable of performing essential societal and organizational tasks do indeed perform them. Sergiovanni and Staratt (1971) stated that teachers face two different levels of decisions in the course of their organizational lives in schools. At the first level, a teacher decides to become and remain a member of a school faculty. In exchange for this membership and its rewards, i.e., job security, income, position, and a sense of belonging, the teacher is expected to give satisfactory performance, display a minimal loyalty, abide by the rules, and do in a satisfactory manner what is asked of him/her. If this teacher decides to participate, he/she is regarded as being a good teacher who is conscientious about meeting school commitments and requirements. A decision by teachers at the second level requires an exchange of rewards that are more difficult to achieve, but more rewarding 20 for the teacher and the school. What teachers do beyond that which is required in order to maintain membership as a participant in the school is the nature of the second-level decision. There is a large increase in commitment by the teacher to the institution which is exchanged for rewards such as recognition of competency and autonomy, opportunities for assuming responsibility, and participation in decision making (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Schools that are lax in providing rewards associated with teacher decisions at the first level are characterized by high teacher turnover and high student dropout rates. Schools that are lax in providing rewards associated with teacher decisions at the second level are characterized by gradual decreases in teacher performance. This second occurrence usually goes unnoticed. Many supervisors believe that as long as teachers are doing a decent job and are meeting commitments to the organization, nothing more should be expected from them. This disregards the notion that teachers would like to give more if afforded the opportunity to do so (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). The extent of commitment teachers make is greatly dependent on the manifestation of variables that make up their work environment. Ultimately, the quality of the school largely depends on the decision level teachers choose (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Why do some teachers choose decision level one, whereas others choose decision level two? What is the nature of teacher behavior as it relates to their work? 21 Maslow proposed a theory that integrates the common-sense approach to human needs and motivation. He claimed that a person’s needs are organized in a series of levels or hierarchy of importance. Specific need dimensions that compose each of the five levels are bound together by similarities. The most important need at a given level occupies a person’s attention until it; is satisfied. Then the next important need emerges and occupies the person’s attention until it is satisfied, and so on. Gratified needs, according to Maslow, are not motivators. Sergiovanni and Staratt (1971) viewed Maslow’s hierarchy as a framework for viewing the scope of teacher behavior and visualized teachers’ needs as falling into two categories: those that are described as lower-level needs, such as security, social, and, to an extent, esteem, and those that are described as higher-order needs, i.e., esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization. The lower-order needs are those that are available to teachers as they make first- level decisions in schools. The school exchanges money, benefits, position, friendship, and protection for satisfactory membership by teachers. Teachers view these kinds of rewards as a given, and their supervisors should expect little in return for what teachers automatically expect and demand. The higher-order needs are those whose fulfillment is exchanged for service that teachers give to the school as a result of decisions at the second level. Teachers tend not to be concerned with the pursuit of higher-order needs without consistent fulfillment of the lower-level needs. Because meaningful 22 satisfaction of the esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization needs is ultimately linked to performance, teachers will need to earn rewards of this kind through efforts toward the achievement of school goals. Supervisors who implement reward structures characteristic of the higher-order needs are accessing potent motivational levels of teachers (Sergiovanni 8 Staratt, 1971). In an attempt to measure need levels of educators, teachers and administrators in one school district responded to a need-deficiency questionnaire modeled after the Maslow theory. The results of the survey indicated that esteem, autonomy, and self-actualization accounted for larger' deficiencies than security and social need levels. If one views deficiencies in need as measurement of job satisfaction, teachers’ supervisors. must work. to provide reward systems in schools so they focus more adequately at the levels where the largest deficiencies exist (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). As reported by Sergiovanni and Staratt (1971), Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory supports the findings of the Maslow model. Herzberg proposed a satisfaction (motivation) and dissatisfaction (hygiene) theory, which suggests that factors that lead to job satisfaction and factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction are mutually exclusive. Some factors are satisfiers when present but not dissatisfiers when absent; other factors are dissatisfiers, but when eliminated as dissatisfiers, the result is not positive motivation (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Herzberg further 23 suggested that factors that satisfy are related to the work itself, whereas factors that dissatisfy are related to the environment of work. A test of the Herzberg theory with teachers as respondents revealed that the contributors to job satisfaction were achievement, recognition, and responsibility--factors similar to those higher- 1evel needs of the Maslow model (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). Deci (1976) suggested that the field of' motivation can be divided into two parts: extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. A person is intrinsically motivated if he/she engages in an activity to feel competent and self—determining in relation to the activity. There is no external reward; the reward is internal to the person and takes the form of feelings he/she has about him/herself. Extrinsic motivation involves rewarding a person with material rewards for performing an activity. The reward is external to the person and takes the form of money, vacations, or other incentive systems. Extrinsic motivating factors or hygiene factors are those that focus on the conditions of work and seem essential if teachers are to avoid frustration, unpleasantness, and dissatisfaction. These factors, such as salary, organizational policy and administration, supervision, and working conditions, make work tolerable but are lacking in motivational potential in terms of achieving school goals. Job ‘factors that are satisfiers, such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, and the work itself, are 24 motivators. These are intrinsic factors, which can be earned only through performance on the job (Sergiovanni & Staratt, 1971). For teachers, the motivation to work depends on a reward system that provides for one’s hygienic needs but focuses on one’s motivational needs and therefore can mean the difference between a teacher performing at decision level one or at decision level two. Follow—up studies have not given unequivocal support to Herzberg’s theory. Wernimont (1966) stated that in separate studies 50 accountants and 82 engineers reported that dissatisfiers actually acted as satisfiers, whereas satisfiers sometimes acted in the predicted manner and sometimes caused both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Wernimont stated that either extrinsic or intrinsic factors can cause both satisfied or dissatisfied feelings about a job. People approach their jobs with two different types of expectations. They desire and expect to have responsibility and achievement, and an interest in their work. Lack of attainment or frustration of these objectives causes people to be dissatisfied with their jobs. Satisfaction with a job can be due to high levels of satisfaction with intrinsic factors, and dissatisfaction can be due to low levels of satisfaction with intrinsic factors. Also, Wernimont (1966) concluded that extrinsic factors cause both satisfaction and dissatisfaction less readily than do the intrinsic factors, but individuals are more likely to say they have had bad or dissatisfied feelings about these extrinsic factors. 25 Vroom’s Expectancy Theory suggests that people engage in behaviors because they expect those behaviors to lead to specific outcomes that they desire. This model asserts that people decide what to do on the basis of their perceptions about which of their possible behaviors will lead to the greatest satisfaction (Deci, 1976). However, Deci (1976) believed Vroom’s theory has one major shortcoming. It pays very little attention to the intrinsic awards that accrue to a person when he/she does a job well. What logically follows from Vroom’s theory is that work should be structured in such a way that effective performance leads to a desired extrinsic reward. Although it is true that people will perform in their jobs with hope of obtaining extrinsic rewards, it is also true that intrinsic rewards are powerful motivators. Deci conducted extensive research in which he investigated the question: What happens to a person’s intrinsic motivation for an activity when he/she is rewarded extrinsically for performing the activity? In what he labeled the Puzzle Experiment, Deci observed hundreds of college students working on intrinsically interesting puzzles called Somas in a laboratory setting. Once subjects began to receive contingent monetary payments for doing an interesting activity, their intrinsic motivation to perform the activity decreased. Also, the threat of punishment decreased intrinsic motivation in the experiment. Deci concluded that one thing that decreases intrinsic motivation is to have intrinsically motivated 26 behavior become «dependent on external causes, such as tangible rewards like money or avoidance of punishment. In sharp contrast to Vroom, John Atkinson (cited in Deci, 1976) of the University of Michigan proposed a theory of achievement that focused on intrinsic: motivation and tended to ignore extrinsic rewards. For Atkinson, valence (Vroom’s term to denote the psychological importance of an outcome) depends on the intrinsic value of succeeding at a task. The more difficult the task, the higher the valence. Very difficult tasks have the highest reward value but are not likely to be completed. Moderate tasks combine high reward value with reasonable probability of completion; thus they are preferred. The extrinsic approach to motivation parallels McGregor’s Theory X and Taylor’s scientific management theories, which claim that people» will perform effectively to the extent that their rewards are made contingent on effective performance. Meyer (cited in Deci, 1976) believed that the extrinsic approach to motivating people to perform has serious shortcomings. He concluded that approaches that focus on controlling work behavior through extrinsic rewards generally leave workers feeling unjustly treated because the majority of employees overrate their performance and the number of extrinsic rewards to which they are legitimately entitled. Both intrinsic and extrinsic approaches to motivating people have advantages. The dilemma, according to Deci (1976), is this: To use rewards as an extrinsic motivator of performance, one must 27 make these rewards directly contingent on performance. However, doing so decreases intrinsic motivation. Making rewards noncontingent on performance will not interfere with intrinsic motivation, but neither will it motivate extrinsically. Thus, there is a trade-off between the effects of rewards on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Anyone involved in devising an effective working environment, a la Parsonian and Getzels and Guba organizational survival criteria, will do well to keep this trade- off in mind. Ineentives and Rewards Assecieteg With Teaching Bredeson, Fruth, and Kasten (1983) claimed there are two concerns about public school teaching. One is that it is desirable that intelligent and energetic people who were attracted to teaching as a career and have been successful as teachers remain in the profession. The second, and more important, concern is that teachers who remain in the profession also remain engaged in the primary concerns of teaching, namely, students and curriculum. The possibility that schools will retain disenchanted employees is currently of special concern. Foundations of the analysis of organizations as incentive-distribution systems are found in Barnard’s book, [he Eunetions ef the Exeegtiye (cited in Bredeson et al., 1983). Barnard stated that incentives are fundamental in formal organizations. The organization’s problem is to find positive incentives and to reduce or eliminate disincentives in order to make work more attractive. He hypothesized that at 28 different times different people are motivated by different incentives or combinations of incentives. Clark and Wilson (cited in Bredeson et al., 1983) expanded Barnard’s analysis of incentive systems and noted that, in order to survive, organizations must change as contributors change. Incentives in organizations should be examined to determine whether the rewards that are offered to contributors are such that the requirements of the organization are of primary concern. Katz and Kahn (cited in Bredeson et al., 1983) identified three organizational requirements for members: joining and staying in the system, doing dependable» work, and occasionally performing innovative acts supportive of the organization’s goals. To encourage members to meet these requirements, the organization has three types of incentives: rule enforcement, external rewards, and internalized motivation. As Getzels and Guba professed, Katz and Kahn also believed that members obey rules because they are legitimate and enforced by sanctions. However, this incentive may have no relationship to the activity itself and, by itself, will not keep members in the organization if alternatives exist. External rewards are linked to desired behavior and include four subtypes: system rewards earned through membership and increased through seniority; individual rewards in the forms of pay increases, promotions, and piece rates; approval from the leader; and approval by the peer group. Internalized motivation may come from the work itself, from internalizing the organization’s goals, 29 or through group cohesiveness. These rewards, as suggested by Katz and Kahn, are the most powerful and the most difficult to achieve (Bredeson et al., 1983). In one of the most thorough sociological studies of teaching as a profession, Lortie (cited in Bredeson et al., 1983) suggested that internalized motivators are of primary importance to teachers. Lortie classified three types of rewards that are available in public school teaching: extrinsic, ancillary, and psychic. Extrinsic rewards, such as salary and fringe benefits, are tied to a position in the organization and are independent of the individual in that position. Ancillary rewards, such as hours and working conditions, affect entry into the occupation more than the effort and performance of those already in the occupation. Psychic rewards are internal satisfiers and provide the most powerful incentives for teachers. Bredeson, Fruth, and Kasten (1983) conducted a research study to test Lortie’s analysis and to determine to what degree organizational incentives in secondary teaching result in maintaining teachers in the profession who are committed to teaching. Teachers cited working with students as a key reason for entering teaching. However, when respondents answered a question about whether they would once again choose to become teachers, a dramatic shift became evident in teachers’ responses. Money was described exclusively as a factor that would discourage people from entering teaching. About two-thirds of the respondents stated personal issues such as growth, security, and time as factors that 30 would cause them to reconsider teaching as a career. Teachers talked about lack of recognition, monotony, and lack of direction as negative components of the profession. Why teachers continued in the profession was examined in the Bredeson et al. study. Security was the most frequently cited reason for teachers remaining in the classroom. Also listed as positive reasons for staying in the profession were enjoyment of the job, relationships with students, and that teaching allows for time to do activities outside of the school. Why do teachers leave the profession? According to the study, it is because of their unwillingness to cope with students and the system. Listed were the frustrations of dealing with unsupportive administrators or unhappy colleagues. Others did not like the confrontations with students, parents, and administrators over discipline. The findings of Bredeson et al.’s study indicated that the most powerful motivational forces that attract, maintain, and keep successful teachers in the classroom are a complex of intrinsic rewards, which come together in the ideal occupational combination of working with students, seeing students learn and succeed, believing one’s job in service to others is valuable, and being able to continue growing personally and professionally. According to Rosenholtz (1985), teachers have seldom mentioned salary as the most rewarding aspect of their work. Instead, teachers value the intrinsic psychic rewards that come from 31 students’ academic accomplishments and from confidence about and recognition of their own ability to help students grow and mature. Rosenholtz stated that in one large national study money was found to be a disincentive. Financial incentives are generally not primary motivators for people who are service oriented. Because of the intrinsic nature of their rewards, teachers seem motivated to experiment and change only when they believe that doing so will enhance their effectiveness with students. Higher pay is unlikely to improve the professional performance of teachers, but in a profession in which rewards are uncertain, a reduction in service may sometimes accompany the absence of psychic benefits. When the rewards do not outweigh the frustrations, teachers’ enthusiasm wanes and discouragement sets in. At this point, teachers may leave the profession, transfer to schools that offer greater psychic rewards, or. reduce their professional commitment. Dissatisfied teachers finding no satisfactory alterna- tives may settle for fewer rewards and diminish their effort (Rosenholtz, 1985). Such behavior supports Segiovanni’s assertion that teachers make level-one or level—two decisions in regard to their commitment to their profession based on the manifestation of variables that make up their work environment. Rosenholtz stressed that research on teacher retention has indicated the superiority of intrinsic over extrinsic rewards. Reasons teachers give for leaving are tied directly to those working conditions that negatively affect their performance, including a lack of opportunity for professional growth and development, 32 inadequate» preparation time, conflict and lack of support from principals or colleagues, and the failure to deal effectively with student misbehavior. One of the greatest impediments to the professional growth of teachers, stated Rosenholtz, is the isolated nature of their work. Teachers spend a large proportion of their time deprived of the benefit of seeing or hearing others in the act of teaching. In such isolated settings, teachers begin to believe they alone are responsible for running their classrooms and that seeking advice from a colleague or superior is an admission of incompetence. Therefore, teachers in isolated settings rarely talk about professional matters. Instead, social conversation is the norm, along with stories about uncooperative students and parents. A negative consequence of teacher isolation is that teachers must depend on their own ability to detect problems and implement their solutions. Another negative consequence is that teachers have few models of teaching excellence to imitate. Consequently, they tend to fall back on models they recall from their own student days (Rosenholtz, 1985). This explains, in part, why teachers’ years of experience are unrelated to their effectiveness with students. 'Teachers tend to reach their peak effectiveness after four or five years; thereafter, their effectiveness with students actually begins to decline (Rosenholtz, 1985). Driscoll (1983) stated that when the subject of the professional life of teachers is raised, a common area of 33 dissatisfaction is the lack of collegiality in public schools for the classroom teacher. Bevan (1981) believed that not knowing how to perform well as a teacher prevents career satisfaction. There is a continual need to improve courses, to understand new approaches and techniques, to assimilate and teach new knowledge, and to grow personally. To succeed at these undertakings, teachers need to be interdependent and to use mentors to sustain morale. Nottingham (1975) and Sergiovanni believed that it is important to develop teaching teams, especially at the college level, as potential motivators of teacher performance. According to Nottingham, a team arrangement is designed to encourage the exchange of information and professional growth of its members. It is a motivator because a professional group accepts the responsibility for producing results within a given set of conditions. The motivation of' a team relies on the highest levels of“ Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and links them to improved learning gains for students in a professional team setting. Performance-Essen Evelgetien One of the most important yet most neglected administrative responsibilities, stated McNally (1977), is the evaluation of teachers. The concept that holds the most promise for evaluating teaching and administrative performance, and for contributing to the improvement of students’ learning experiences, is performance-based evaluation. Teachers are evaluated for administrative reasons and 34 to facilitate instructional improvement. Such evaluations can help the administrator determine salary levels, promotions, teacher transfers, and dismissals. McNally believed that evaluating teachers without reference to other influences is an injustice to the teacher. Factors that need to be taken into consideration when evaluating a teacher are the physical surroundings of the classroom, the availability of equipment and supplies, and the socioeconomic, ethnic, and experiential background of the pupils and the teacher. Performance evaluation, according to McNally, is a process of cooperative evaluation of the degree of achievement of agreed-upon objectives or job targets. First, there should be an agreement between evaluator and evaluatee on the objectives, which are stated specifically in demonstrable, observable, or measurable terms. Second, there should be an agreement on the means and conditions used to reach the objectives. Last, after a period of time, there should be common evaluation of the degree to which the objectives were achieved, including an analysis of reasons for disappointing results. The following are the advantages of a performance-based teacher-evaluation system, as proposed by McNally: 1. It is cooperative. The teacher, with the help of a supervisor, is responsible for identifying the objectives to be achieved, aspects of his/her performance that are in need of attention, and conditions that are needed to make improvement possible. 35 2. The criteria are clearly understood. Conferring together to decide on the objectives to be achieved and the means of evaluating their achievement results in a clear understanding by teacher and evaluator of those objectives, procedures, and responsibilities. 3. It is individualized. Instead of attempting to apply the same criteria to all teachers at all levels, performance evaluations target individual needs and objectives. 4. It is comprehensive. It includes not only the teacher’s characteristics and performance, but also the variety of conditions that affect the quality and outcomes of teacher-learning experiences. 5. It is valid. Validity is the degree to which an evaluation procedure or instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. The cooperative planning and implementation of performance evaluation tends to assure a high degree of validity. Roy (1979) stated that if accurate statistics were available, they would probably indicate that fewer than 5% of the nation’s public school teachers are incompetent. Although it is important that unsatisfactory teachers be identified and removed from the classroom, it makes no sense, according to Roy, to rdevelop an evaluation system for the 5% of teachers who are incompetent and then use the same system for the 95% who are competent. Teacher evaluation must be based on the belief that teachers want to improve their teaching and that it is the administrator’s 36 role to help them improve. Successful evaluation plans of the future will incorporate a format to encourage and facilitate the growth of individual classroom teachers. There is hope that the performance-objective approach to teacher evaluation may help competent teachers experience individual growth and development (Roy, 1979). Roy advised that the performance-objective approach to teacher evaluation is individualized. The process has components similar to those McNally proposed; i.e., the teacher works with one evaluator to diagnose areas of weaknesses, he/she develops strategies for overcoming weaknesses, and he/she evaluates the degree to which objectives have been accomplished. Emphasis is on cooperative early diagnosis of teacher strengths and weaknesses, timely and sufficient help by the evaluator, and objective appraisal of the degree to which objectives have been achieved. Performance evaluation, as defined by Olds (1974), is an organizational approach requiring maximum involvement by the individual who is chiefly responsible for the work in setting the objectives, planning, and analyzing the results of that work. The basic purpose of teacher performance evaluation is to use the teacher’s own goals to improve his/her job performance in specific ways. At the conclusion of the evaluation period, the teacher and the evaluator analyze the teacher’s progress toward the goals. Performance evaluation stresses the relatedness of organizational jobs, individual involvement in planning, feedback 37 and sharing of performance data, as well as analysis of the results of work (Olds, 1974). This is contrary to the belief that today’s complex educational programs can be carried out by professionals who work in semi-isolation and are somewhat oblivious to the organization’s purposes and how to achieve them. The term “accountability" is being equated with "evaluation.” Albert Shanker of American Federation of Teachers fame said, "Let’s face the facts. Teachers are frightened of accountability because it means, ’Let’s go out and find which teacher is not good’" (cited in Olds, 1974, p. 14). Olds (1974) claimed that teachers have good reasons for being concerned about evaluation when it resembles the same kind of rating process that teachers have subjected students to for generations. However, Helen Wise of the National Education Association said, 'Teachers want very much to be a part of the evaluation process. We want good teachers in the classroom. When we have poor teachers, it is demeaning to us all" (cited in Olds, 1974, p. 15). In his article "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisal, McGregor (cited in Olds, 1974) concluded that judgmental rating schemes should be condemned as ineffective and undesirable. A better approach would be to place the major responsibility on the subordinate for establishing performance goals and appraising his/her progress toward them. Such an approach would benefit the organization by stimulating the» development of ‘the subordinate. Olds pointed out that performance evaluation is designed to raise 38 the performance level of everyone in the organization, not of just a few. A major element of reform efforts to improve performance appraisal systems is that of tying key motivational elements to performance reviews. Whether it be incentive pay, training opportunities, promotion, transfer or retention, or a combination of these, the question of making performance appraisals important has been approached by linking the performance appraisal to other motivational elements (Lovrich, Shaffer, Hopkins, & Yale, 1980). Teachers have always been evaluated. Students, parents, and principals evaluate them formally and informally. It seems, stated Ovard (1975), that everyone in a community knows how well teachers are doing except the teachers themselves. Current researchers have attempted to link teacher accountability and effectiveness with performance-based objectives. In an intensive three-year analysis of 39 research studies, Barr (cited in Ovard, 1975) reported the following conclusions: 1. No one appears to have developed a satisfactory working plan or system that can be used by personnel officers who must make judgments about teacher effectiveness. 2. Little has been done in evaluating the nonclassroom responsibilities of the teacher, such as his/her activities as a friend and a counselor of pupils, activities as a member of the school community, and his/her activities as a member of the profession. 39 3. Very little has been done in differential measurement and prediction. Concern seems to have been chiefly with the general merit of teachers. Administrators often need teachers with special abilities. 4. Teaching effectiveness generally has been treated as something apart from the situation giving rise to it. More needs to be known about the situational determiners of effective teaching. Few attempts have been made to evaluate teaching effectiveness in direct relationship to learning. Generally, evaluation programs have attempted to evaluate teachers not only on their general classroom effectiveness, but also (H1 personal qualities and attributes, work done in community and professional groups, educational travel, training experience, professional attitude, and contributions to professional literature. Many professionals in the field of education believe the sole basis of judging teacher competence should be the growth of the pupils (Ovard, 1975). It seems obvious and reasonable, according to Morrison (1974), that a principal basis for evaluating teachers should be their actual performance as teachers. Performance observation as a basis for evaluating teaching and teachers is a controversial matter. At one extreme are those who believe that a teacher’s classroom performance, evaluated objectively against prespecified criteria, is at least an essential part of any reasonable basis for decisions about teachers. At the other extreme are those who disagree with the judgment about the importance of classroom performance, or about the proposed evaluation methods or criteria, and argue that 40 evaluation of teachers on this basis would have disastrous effects on the educational process. The controversy, claimed Morrison, can benefit education by clarifying and emphasizing research and development needs, by stimulating and sharpening debate about important educational values, and by fostering more widespread understanding of significant issues and problems. Performance-based teacher education and evaluation is a movement encouraged by public concern about traditional educational processes and apparent educational failures" by' public and legislative attention to accountability in 'the face of economic stress, and by federal emphasis on assessment of the effectiveness of educational programs (Morrison, 1974). All teacher evaluation is handicapped by unresolved conceptual and methodological problems and by a lack of agreement on educational values. The performance-observation approach to teacher evaluation needs effective means for identifying and making essential value judgments in such a way as to ensure that those judgments reflect the proper interest, influence, and contributions of all who are affected (Morrison, 1974). Morrison stated that three major problems must be resolved in evaluating teacher performance. First, there is the question of realism. Teachers may be observed and evaluated at work in their own classrooms under normal conditions. However, there is no assurance that the kinds of events needed for evaluation would occur 41 during any reasonable period of observation. A second problem derives from the need to base evaluations on only some of the many tasks and outcomes that are the responsibility of 'the teacher. Things chosen to be observed should be representative of the things that could have been chosen if the conclusions from the evaluation are to be general statements about the teacher’s performance capability. Finally, it is important that an evaluation measure provide the same report within reasonable limits if repeated. If it continues to stimulate inquiry, reexamination of values, and experimentation, the performance-observation approach to teacher evaluation can make an invaluable contribution to education and teaching (Morrison, 1974). umma At the time this study was conducted, studies that focused specifically on performance-based evaluations and rewards for adult educators were not available for review. However, numerous researchers have suggested that there is no consensus about what makes for effective teaching or how to measure and reward it. Researchers have indicated there is I“) one panacea for motivating all teachers to perform at their greatest potential. Application of the Maslow, Herzberg, and Vroom motivational theories (to name just a few) to teachers’ satisfaction and reward levels suggests that most teachers feel a deficiency in higher-level need satisfaction. Although teachers may be motivated by higher-level needs and the intrinsic rewards that may follow, i.e., enjoyment of 42 the job, relationships with students, seeing students learn, recognition of work, and personal and professional growth, researchers have shown that many of today’s teachers, if given the opportunity again, would not choose teaching as a profession. Reasons given for not choosing teaching as a career are money, lack of opportunity for professional growth and development, lack of administrative support, and isolation from peers. Tied closely to factors that might or might not motivate teachers is the element of performance-based evaluations. Controversies exist as to whether teacher evaluations should attempt to evaluate teachers in their general classroom effectiveness, on their personal qualities and attributes, or on the growth of their pupils. The performance-based approach to teacher evaluation needs effective means for identifying and making essential value judgments in such a way as to ensure that those judgments reflect the influence, contributions, and rewards of all who are affected. Teachers should attempt to understand the needs of their organizations and how they interact with the organizational social system within which they work. Such understanding of this interaction may lead school personnel toward higher motivation levels and consequently greater rewards for their work. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY Intredusijon It should be recalled that the researcher’s major purpose in this study was to investigate the perceptions adult education teachers and adult education administrators have of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which these rewards are supported. Additional investigation focused on whether the following factors may have an influence on respondents’ perceptions and support of performance-based rewards: whether adult education administrators had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position, gender and age of respondents, educational level, number of ,years of professional experience in adult education, and reasons for leaving or continuing in the adult education profession. Chapter I provided an introduction to the study, whereas Chapter II furnished a review of the literature relevant to the principal concerns of the study. The purpose of Chapter III is to explain the methods and procedures that were used in collecting and analyzing the data for this study. 43 44 We! The method of research used in this study was descriptive. Descriptive research . . describes and interprets what is. It is concerned with conditions or relationships that exist; practices that prevail; beliefs, points of view, or attitudes that are held; processes that are going on; effects that are being felt; or trends that are developing. (Best, 1970, p. 116) The major purpose of descriptive research is to tell "what is" (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavich, 1972, p. 26). Descriptive research encompasses a number of different techniques, including case studies, surveys, developmental studies, follow-up studies, documentary analysis, trend studies, and correlational studies. Instrgmentetign To determine the perceptions and degree of support adult education teachers and adult education administrators have of performance-based rewards, a survey was conducted using a structured/unstructured questionnaire. Sax (1968) explained the advantages of a structured questionnaire as follows: 1. The major advantage of the questionnaire is one of economics: the time and expense involved in questionnaires sent through the mail has practical ramifications over other types of surveys, such as the interview. 2. Each respondent receives the same set of questions phrased in exactly the same way. 45 3. The use of mail in sending out the questionnaires means a larger variety of persons can be contacted. The demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire were developed specifically for this study. Statements and questions contained 'hi the demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire were constructed based on the research conducted in accordance with the subject of this study. Said research was reviewed in Chapter II. The first-draft demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire were critiqued by Donna Kragt, Supervisor of Research and Development, Research and Development Center of Grand Rapids Public Schools, and by Pat Oldt, Assistant Superintendent, Grand Rapids Community Education and Secondary Schools. Based on Ms. Kragt’s and Dr. Oldt’s critiques, revisions were made in the demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire. After the initial revisions were completed, Ms. Kragt and Dr. Oldt again reviewed the survey instruments. Following the second review of the survey instruments, the demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire were given to one adult education administrator and two adult education teachers, with instructions to respond to the statements contained in the survey instruments and to comment on anything they found confusing or unclear. Upon completion of this trial distribution, the instruments were revised for the final time, based on the three respondents’ responses to the survey statements and their cements regarding its clarity. Ms. Kragt and Dr. Oldt 46 served as advisors during the final revision of the survey instruments. The survey questionnaire consisted of 14 statements and questions. For Item 1, the respondent was requested to indicate by use of a five-point rating scale whether he/she perceived the rewards that were listed to be ineffective or effective motivators. The rating scale code ranged from 1 - Ineffective to 5 - Very Effective. Regarding Items 2 through 12, the respondent was requested to indicate his/her degree of support for performance- based rewards by responding to the questionnaire statements using the following code: SD - Strongly Disagree, D - Disagree, A - Agree, SA - Strongly Agree, and N0 = No Opinion. The respondent was requested to respond "Yes" or "No" to Part I of Item 13. Part II of that item was open ended, based on the respondent’s response to Part 1. Question 14 was also partially open ended. Using a rating scale code that ranged from 1 - Absolutely No Support to 5 - Strongly Support, the respondent was requested to indicate to what degree he/she supported performance—based rewards and then to explain the reason for the response. ti n m The population for this study consisted of all adult education teachers and adult education administrators employed by the Grand Rapids Public School District, Adult Education Division, Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan. A sample consisting of full-time 47 contracted adult education teachers and adult education administrators was drawn from this population. A computer listing of every adult education teacher and adult education administrator employed by the Grand Rapids Public Schools, Adult Education Division, Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, was obtained from the Northeast Regional Community School Director who was in charge of all adult education personnel. From this computer listing, the full-time contracted adult education teachers and adult education administrators were delineated. The remaining adult education personnel, those who were not full-time contracted employees, were deleted from the sample. Dr. Oldt suggested that only full-time contracted adult education teachers be surveyed for this study because the number of adult education professionals who are not contracted with the Grand Rapids Adult Education Division but who were employed at an hourly rate was quite large. Many of these hourly employees also had several job descriptions; i.e. one teacher might teach auto body repair one evening and auto mechanics on another afternoon. Therefore, given the number of hourly employees who would be involved in the study’s survey, along with their diversified job descriptions, the study had the potential of becoming too cumbersome while losing its significance. Adult education hourly employees could be a focus for further research regarding performance-based rewards. Information regarding this matter is addressed in Chapter V. 48 The sample for this study' consisted of 154 full-time contracted adult education teachers and 18 adult education administrators. There were no limitations based on race, gender, or marital status. Sample members ranged in age from 18 to over 55 years. Educational levels of sample members ranged from Bachelor’s degree to Ph.D. Wis A total of 172 demographic information sheets and survey questionnaires were mailed to sample members at their work locations. A letter of introduction and explanation of the study and a self-addressed stamped envelope were contained in the packet to each respondent. Preceding the initial mailing, the survey instruments were reviewed and approved by Juan Olaveras, Director of Research and Development for Grand Rapids Public Schools; Ron Kalsbeek, Director of Labor Relations for Grand Rapids Public Schools; and Larry Donston, G.R.E.A. Union Representative for Grand Rapids Adult Education. Before the first mailing, a code number was assigned to each respondent, beginning with the numerical order of 001 to 172. This code number was placed on the demographic information sheet that accompanied the survey questionnaire to each respondent. As completed questionnaires were returned, the respondent’s number was deleted from the computer listing, which contained the names and assigned numbers of each member of the sample. 49 After a period of two weeks, a second mailing of survey instruments was sent to those sample members who failed to respond to the initial mailing. A reminder letter and a self-addressed stamped envelope were included in the packet. After two weeks, the data were collected, and the computer listing containing the names and assigned numbers of the sample members was destroyed. Copies of the letter of introduction and explanation, reminder letter, demographic information sheet, and survey questionnaire appear in Appendix A. Table 3.1 shows the number of demographic information sheets and survey questionnaires mailed and returned by the sample for this study. Table 3.l.--Results of survey returns. Questionnaires Completed Total Mailed Returns Returns N N % % Adult education teachers 154 93 6O 54 Adult education administrators 18 14 78 13 Total 172 137 E W To determine whether significant differences existed between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their 50 perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which these rewards are supported, it was necessary to test the following null hypotheses: WW There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance- baseddrewards and the degree to which said groups support these rewar s. W 1: There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education administrators who were and those who were not adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards. . There will be no statistically significant differences in the degree of support for performance-based rewards between adult education administrators who were adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions and those who were not. Hyngthesis 3: There will be no statistically significant differences between adult. education teachers and adult education administrators, hereinafter referred to as respondents, in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and age. . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and age. There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are female. . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are fema e. 51 . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective (and ineffective performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. Hynetnesis 19: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents and the degree of support for performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. Hypothesis Ii: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents as to the reasons why they might or might not remain in the adult education profession. Stetistieel Preeedgres end Ineetment ef Qeta Joe Kearney, Instructor, Davenport College of Business, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Donna Kragt, Supervisor, Research and Develop- ment Center, Grand Rapids Public Schools, assisted in recommending appropriate statistical techniques for data analysis. A research assistant to Ms. Kragt helped in writing all computer programs for data analysis. The computer programs and facilities of the Research and Development Center, Grand Rapids Public Schools, were used for this study. new Item 1 of the survey questionnaire consisted of 28 parts. For the purpose of this study, a score of 1 and 2 for each part of Item 52 l was interpreted as negative, i.e., ineffective. A score of 4 and 5 for each part of Item 1 was interpreted as positive, i.e., effective and very effective. A score of 3 for any part of Item 1 was interpreted as neutral. For Item 14 of the survey questionnaire, a score of l and 2 was interpreted as negative, i.e., absolutely no, or little support, whereas a score of 4 and 5 for the same item was interpreted as positive, i.e., support or strongly support. A score of 3 for Item 14 was interpreted as neutral. For Items 2 through 12 of the survey questionnaire, Strongly Disagree and Disagree were scored with a l and 2, respectively, and interpreted as a negative response. Agree and Strongly Agree were scored with a 3 and 4 and interpreted as a positive response. No Opinion was scored with a 5 and interpreted as a neutral response. Item 13 required a ”Yes" or "No" response. Stetistieel Ereeedures The statistical procedures used in the analysis of data were cross-tabulations, frequency distributions, chi-square test of association, Kendall tau (3 rank-order correlation, Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons, and the hypothesis test of significance based on the .05 level. 52mm In this chapter a description of the planning and implementation of the study was presented. Attention was focused on describing the type of study and on the development of the survey instruments. Population and sampling methods and the process used 53 to collect the data were discussed. The testable hypotheses were reviewed. The statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data and how the data were treated were the final topics of the chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Motion The researcher’s purpose in this study was to investigate the perceptions adult education teachers and adult education administrators have of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which these rewards are supported. Further investigation focused on whether the following factors had an influence on respondents’ perceptions and support of performance- based rewards: whether adult education administrators had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position, respondents’ gender, age, educational level, number of years of professional experience in adult education, and reasons for leaving or continuing in the adult education profession. The analysis of data is presented in the following manner: (a) statement of hypothesis, (b) brief explanation of findings and statement of retention or rejection of the null hypothesis, and (c) presentation of table summarizing the data. 54 55 BMW 8351;812:8111st There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance- baseddrewards and the degree to which said groups support these rewar 5. Bart I: There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their perceptions of effective and ineffec- tive performance-based rewards. The following 28 rewards are linked to teacher performance. Five rewards--personal growth, autonomy, community support for programs, internal satisfaction, and merit pay--were found to be significant at the .05 level. Rewards: Working conditions Improved relationships with students Salary Personal growth Job security Recognition of a job well done Support of teacher by administrator Support of teacher by peers Opportunities for advancement Vacation time (summer, spring, Christmas, etc.) Organizational fringe benefits In-service attendance Prep time Autonomy Community support for programs Educational grants Varied curriculum Participation in decision making Internal satisfaction Team teaching Merit pay Opportunities to pursue other jobs while still teaching Attending conferences Having students succeed in learning Teaching-load reductions Status Additional responsibility 56 As shown in Table 4.1, 4% of the adult education teachers and 20% of the adult education administrators indicated that, as a reward, personal growth was ineffective. However, 64%. of the teachers and 47% of the administrators believed personal growth was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of Hypothesis 1 was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 10.21 with 4 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.1.--Perceptions of personal growth as a performance-based reward, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education administrator. Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Effectiveness N % N % Ineffective l - - 1 7 2 4 4 2 l3 3 29 32 5 33 4 33 36 6 40 Very effective 5 25 28 l 7 Total 91 86 15 14 As shown in Table 4.2, 11% of the adult education teachers and 33% of the adult education administrators believed autonomy was ineffective as a performance-based reward. However, 64% of the teachers and 47%. of the administrators indicated autonomy was effective or very effective as a reward. 57 This part of the basic hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .14 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.2.--Perceptions of autonomy as a performance-based reward, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education administrator. Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Effectiveness N % N % Ineffective l l l 2 13 2 9 10 3 20 3 22 25 3 20 4 41 46 6 40 Very effective 5 16 18 1 7 Total 89 86 l5 l4 As shown in Table 4.3, 10% of the adult education teachers and 26% of the adult education administrators believed community support for programs was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Fifty- two percent of the teachers and 60% of the administrators indicated that community support for programs was effective or very effective as a reward. This part of the basic hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 12.01 with 4 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 58 Table 4.3.--Perceptions of community support for programs as a performance-based reward, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education administrator. Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Effectiveness N % N % Ineffective 1 1 l 2 l3 2 8 9 2 13 3 35 39 2 l3 4 30 33 8 53 Very effective 5 17 19 1 7 Total 91 86 15 14 One percent of the adult education teachers and 13% of the adult education administrators believed internal satisfaction was ineffective as a performance-based reward (see Table 4.4). However, 83% of the teachers and 73% of the administrators indicated that, as a reward, internal satisfaction was effective or very effective. This part of the basic hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 12.51 with 4 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 59 Table 4.4.--Perceptions of internal satisfaction as a performance- based reward, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education administrator. Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Effectiveness N % N % Ineffective l - - 2 13 2 l l - - 3 14 15 2 l3 4 33 36 5 33 Very effective 5 43 47 6 40 Total 91 86 15 14 As shown in Table 4.5, 20% of the adult education teachers and 7% of the adult education administrators indicated they believed merit pay was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Fifty-one percent of the teachers and 80% of the administrators indicated that, as a reward, merit pay was effective or very effective. This part of the basic hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of -.16 and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 4.53; it was found to be significant at the .05 level. 60 Table 4.5.--Perceptions of merit pay as a performance-based reward, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education administrator. Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Effectiveness N % N % Ineffective l 7 8 - - 2 11 12 1 7 3 27 30 2 13 4 26 29 6 40 Very effective 5 20 22 6 40 Total 91 86 15 14 For Part I of the basic hypothesis, five performance-based rewards--personal growth, autonomy, community support for programs, internal satisfaction, and merit pay--were found to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected. Bent 11: There will be no statistically significant differ- ences between adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their degree of support for performance-based rewards. As shown in Table 4.6, 33% of the adult education teachers and 7% of the adult education administrators indicated no or little support for performance-based rewards. Thirty-percent of the teachers and 60% of the administrators showed support or strong support for performance-based rewards. Part II of the basis hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 11.91 with 4 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C 61 value of -.24, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of .67; it was found to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected. Table 4.6.—-Support of performance-based rewards, based on position as an adult education teacher or adult education admin- istrator. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? Adult Education Adult Education Teacher Administrator Support N % N % Absolutely no support 1 12 13 - - 2 27 30 1 7 3 25 26 5 33 4 17 19 3 20 Strongly support 5 10 ll 6 40 Total 91 86 15 14 Bert 111: There will be no statistically significant differences between adult. education teachers and adult education administrators as to the reasons why they do or do not support performance-based rewards. Factors that influenced adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their degree of support for performance- based rewards are listed in Table 4.7. Part III of the basic hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi— square value of 38.49 with 21 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .21, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 5.92; it was found to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected. 62 Table 4.7.--Factors that influenced adult education teachers and adult education administrators in their degree of support for performance-based rewards. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? What one thing most influenced your response to the previous item? N % Reason for Response Adult Education Teachers 14 19 Administrator’s ability to judge questionable; impos- sible to be objective 9 12 Rewards are motivators to improve quality of teachers 7 9 Evaluator shows favoritism 7 9 Reward system only works in industry 7 9 Support merit pay 5 7 Who and what is basis for reward? 5 7 Shouldn’t be rewarded for doing what we should be doing anyway 3 4 Too competitive and cause disharmony 3 4 Lay-off and recall should not be based on seniority, but success of teacher 2 3 Depends on how rewards are used 2 3 Verbal recognition most effective 2 3 Too many lazy teachers 2 3 Performance-based rewards are not a relevant issue 2 3 Cause lackluster performances l 1 Already a quality teacher 1 1 Teacher only tries to please rater 63 Table 4.7.--Continued. N % Reason for Response Adult Education Teachers (Cont’d) l 1 A11 teachers should be recognized l 1 Hate merit pay 1 1 Involve teacher in process 75 85 Total Adult Education Administrators 2 15 Seniority shouldn’t be only determinant of success 2 15 Teachers become complacent and need to be motivated l 8 Good for removing teacher apathy l 8 Evaluators show favoritism l 8 Need to improve quality of teachers 1 8 Support merit pay 1 8 Already have quality teachers 1 8 Lay-off and recall should not be based on seniority but success of teacher 1 8 Should not be rewarded for doing a job they’re supposed to do 1 8 What is basis for reward? l 8 Depends on how rewards are used 13 15 Total 64 31mm There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education administrators who were and those who were not adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards. 0f the 28 rewards listed under Part I of the basic hypothesis, seven--in-service attendance, community support for programs, inter- nal satisfaction, merit pay, teaching-load reductions, status, and additional responsibility-~were found to be significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.8, 30% of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their administrative position indicated that in-service attendance was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Twenty percent of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present position and 67% of those who had not, believed that, as a reward, in-service attendance was effective. This part of Hypothesis 1 was tested by obtaining a Kruskal- Wallis value of 3.93 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 65 Table 4.8.--Perceptions of in-service attendance as a performance- based reward, based on whether adult education adminis- trator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l 1 10 - - 2 2 20 - - 3 5 50 2 33 4 2 20 4 67 Very effective . 5 - - - - Total 10 62 6 38 As shown in Table 4.9, 20% of the administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present position indicated that, as a reward, community support for programs was ineffective. Seventeen percent of the administrators who were not adult education teachers before assuming their positions believed the same. However, 60% of the administrators who had been adult education teachers before their present position and 67% of the administrators who had not, indicated that conInunity support for programs was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 18.34 with 8 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 66 Table 4.9.--Perceptions of community support for programs as a performance-based reward, based on whether adult education administrator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator-~Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l 2 20 - - 2 - - l 17 3 2 20 1 17 4 6 60 3 50 Very effective 5 - - 1 17 Total 10 63 6 37 As shown in Table 4.10, 20% of the administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present position indicated that internal satisfaction was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Seventy percent of the administrators who had been adult education teachers before their present position and 83%. of the administrators who had not, believed that internal satisfaction was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 19.99 with 8 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 67 Table 4.10.--Perceptions of internal satisfaction as a performance- based reward, based on whether adult education adminis- trator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l 2 20 - - 2 - - - - 3 l 10 1 l7 4 3 30 2 33 Very effective 5 4 40 3 50 Total 10 63 6 37 As indicated in Table 4.11, 10% of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position believed merit pay was ineffective as a performance-based reward. However, 70% of those administrators who had been adult. education 'teachers before assuming their present position and 83% of those who had not, indicated that, as a reward, merit pay was effective or very effective. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .11 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 68 Table 4.11.--Perceptions of merit pay as a performance-based reward, based on whether adult education adminis- trator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l - - - - 2 l 10 - - 3 2 20 l 17 4 4 40 2 33 Very effective 5 3 30 3 50 Total 10 62 6 38 Thirty percent of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their administrative position indicated that teaching-load reductions was ineffective as a performance-based reward (see Table 4.12). Sixty percent of those adult education administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present position and 84% of those who had not, believed that teaching-load reductions was effective or very effective as a reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kruskal- Wallis value of 4.16 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 69 Table 4.12.--Perceptions of teaching-load reductions as a performance-based reward, based on whether adult education administrator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l 1 10 - - 2 2 20 - - 3 l 10 1 17 4 5 50 l 17 Very effective 5 l 10 4 67 Total 10 62 6 38 As indicated in Table 4.13, 20% of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position and 17% of those who had not, believed that, as a reward, status was ineffective. Sixty percent of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position and 67% of those who had not, indicated that status was effective or very effective as a reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .11 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 70 Table 4.13.--Perceptions of status as a performance-based reward, based on whether adult education administrator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective 1 - - - - 2 2 20 1 l7 3 2 20 1 l7 4 4 40 3 50 Very effective 5 2 20 l 17 Total 10 62 6 38 As shown in Table 4.14, 20% of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position and 17% of those who had not, believed additional responsibility was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Thirty percent of those administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position and 50% of those who had not, indicated that additional responsibility was effective as a reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .15 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 71 Table 4.14.--Perceptions of additional responsibility as a performance-based reward, based on whether adult education administrator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Effectiveness Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Ineffective l l 10 - - 2 l 10 1 l7 3 5 50 2 33 4 3 30 3 50 Very effective 5 - - - - Total 10 62 6 38 Because seven performance-based rewards-~in-service attendance, comnunity support for programs, internal satisfaction, merit pay, teaching-load reductions, status, and additional responsibility-- were significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. Hypethesis 2 There will be no statistically significant differences in the degree of support for performance-based rewards between adult education administrators who were adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions and those who were not. As shown in Table 4.15, 10% of the administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position indicated no or little support for performance-based rewards. Fifty percent of the administrators who had been adult education teachers and 50% of those who had not been 72 adult education teachers before their present position indicated support or strong support for performance-based rewards. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 13.19 with 8 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .18, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of .74; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.15.--Support of performance-based rewards based on whether adult education administrator was an adult education teacher before assuming administrative position. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? Adult Education Administrator--Not Teacher Before Adult Education Support Adminis. Position Teacher N % N % Absolutely no support 1 - - - - 2 l 10 - - 3 4 40 2 33 4 2 20 1 l7 Strongly support 5 3 30 3 33 Total 10 63 6 37 amnesia; si : There will be no statistically significant differences between adult. education teachers and adult education administrators, hereinafter referred to as respondents, in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and age. 73 0f the 28 rewards listed under Part I of the basic hypothesis, one--improved relationships with students--was found to be significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.16, 50% of those in the 18-34 age group, 5% of those in the 35-54 age group, and 14% of those in the 55 and older age group believed improved relationships with students was ineffective as a performance-based reward. However, 50% of those in the 18-34 age group, 63% of those in the 35-54 age group, and 71% of those in the 55 and older age group indicated that, as a reward, improved relationships with students was effective or very effective. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 27.6 with 10 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.16.--Perceptions of improved relationships with students as a performance-based reward, based on age. l8-34 Years 35-54 Years 55+ Years Effectiveness -———————— N % N % N % Ineffective l - - l l l 14 2 l 50 4 4 - - 3 - - 32 33 1 l4 4 - - 32 33 4 57 Very effective 5 l 50 29 30 l 14 Total 2 2 98 92 7 6 74 Because one performance-based reward-—improved relationships with students--was found to be significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. 81291135134 There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the rdegree of’ support for performance-based rewards and age. As shown in Table 4.17, 37% of the respondents in the 35-54 age group and 57% of those in the 55 and older age group indicated no or little support for performance-based rewards. Fifty percent of the respondents in the 18-34 age group, 33% of those in the 35-54 age group, and 43% of those in the 55 and older age group indicated support or strong support for performance-based rewards. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 5.57 with 8 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of -.05, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of .59; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was retained. 75 Table 4.17.--Support of performance-based rewards, based on age. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? 18-34 Years 35-54 Years 55+ Years Support — N % N % N % Absolutely no support 1 - - ll 11 1 l4 2 - - 25 26 3 43 3 l 50 29 30 - - 4 l 50 18 18 2 29 Strongly support 5 - - 15 15 l 14 Total 2 2 98 92 7 6 momma There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are female. 0f the 28 rewards listed under Part I of the basic hypothesis, six--job security, opportunities for advancement, in-service attendance» merit, pay, having students succeed in learning, and teaching-load reductions--were found to be significant at the .05 level. Eight percent of the males and 2% of the females indicated that job security was ineffective as a performance-based reward (see Table 4.18). However, 72% of the males and 82% of the females believed job security was effective or very effective as a reward. 76 This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .13 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.18.--Perceptions of job security as a performance-based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness ———————— N % N % Ineffective 1 2 4 - - 2 2 4 l 2 3 9 20 9 l6 4 18 39 19 33 Very effective 5 15 33 28 49 Total 46 45 57 55 Eight percent of the males and 9% of the females believed that, as a reward, opportunities for advancement was ineffective (see Table 4.19). However, 74% of the males and 61% of the females indicated that opportunities for advancement was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of -.18 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 77 Table 4.19.--Perceptions of opportunities for advancement as a performance-based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness ———————— N % N % Ineffective l 2 4 l 2 2 2 4 4 7 3 8 17 17 30 4 17 37 23 40 Very effective 5 17 37 12 21 Total 46 45 57 55 As shown in Table 4.20, 43% of the males and 30% of the females indicated that in-service attendance was ineffective as a reward. Thirty percent of the males and 21% of the females believed that in- service attendance was effective or very effective as a performance- based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 10.81 with 4 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 78 Table 4.20.--Perceptions of in-service attendance as a performance- based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness — N % N % Ineffective l 8 17 4 7 2 12 26 13 23 3 12 26 28 49 4 14 30 9 16 Very effective 5 - - 3 5 Total 46 45 57 55 TWenty-two percent of the males and 16% of the females believed that merit pay was ineffective as a performance-based reward (see Table 4.21). Forty-seven percent of the males and 62% of the females indicated that merit pay was effective or very effective as a reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .18 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 79 Table 4.21.--Perceptions of merit pay as a performance-based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness __ N % N % Ineffective 1 4 9 3 5 2 6 l3 6 ll 3 14 30 13 23 4 14 30 17 30 Very effective 5 8 17 18 32 Total 46 45 57 55 As shown in Table 4.22, no respondents indicated that having students succeed in learning was ineffective as a reward. Eighty- two percent of the males and 98% of the females indicated that having students succeed in learning was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 8.03 with 2 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 80 Table 4.22.--Perceptions of having students succeed in learning as a performance-based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness —— N % N % Ineffective l - - - - 2 - - .. - 3 8 18 l 2 4 15 33 23 40 Very effective 5 22 49 33 58 Total 46 44 57 56 As shown in Table 4.23, 16% of the males and 9% of the females indicated that, as a reward, teaching-load reductions was ineffective. Fifty-two percent of the males and 70% of the females indicated that teaching-load reductions was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 9.59 with 4 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of -.01, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 6.21; it was found to be significant at the .05 level. 81 Table 4.23.--Perceptions of teaching-load reductions as a performance-based reward, based on gender. Male Female Effectiveness ———————— N % N % Ineffective l 3 7 - - 2 4 9 5 9 3 15 33 12 21 4 17 37 19 33 Very effective 5 7 15 21 37 Total 46 45 57 55 Because six performance-based rewards--job security, opportuni- ties for advancement, in-service attendance, merit pay, having students succeed in 'learning, and teaching-load reductions--were significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. amnesia There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are female. Thirty-seven percent of the males and 27% of the females showed no or little support for performance-based rewards (see Table 4.24). Forty-four percent of the males showed support or strong support for performance-based rewards, whereas 27% of the females indicated the same. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 6.47 with 4 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of -.09, and a 82 Kruskal-Wallis value of .73; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.24.--Support of performance-based rewards, based on gender. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? Male Female Support — N % N % Absolutely no support 1 7 15 5 9 2 10 22 16 18 3 9 20 21 37 4 10 22 9 l6 Strongly support 5 10 22 6 11 Total 46 45 57 55 Hypgtnesis 7 There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. Of the 28 rewards listed under Part I of the basic hypothesis, four--team teaching, teaching-load reductions, status, and additional responsibility--were found to be significant at the .05 level. As shown in Table 4.25, 25% of those with Bachelor’s degrees and 27% of those with Master’s degrees indicated that, as a reward, team teaching was ineffective. Twenty-nine percent of those who had earned a Bachelor’s degree, 35% of those holding a Master’s degree, 83 and 100% of those who had earned a Specialist’s or an Ed.0. degree indicated that team teaching was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 26.01 with 16 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.25.--Perceptions of team teaching as a performance-based reward, based on educational level. Bachelor Master Specialist Ed.D. Ph.D. Effectiveness Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree N % N % N % N % M % Ineffective l 2 8 3 4 - - - - - - 2 4 17 18 23 - - - - - - 3 ll 46 30 38 - - - - 1 100 4 5 21 20 25 2 100 l 100 - - Very effective 5 2 8 8 10 - - - - - - Total 24 22 79 74 2 2 l 1 l l Seventeen percent of those with Bachelor’s degrees, 9% of those with Master’s degrees, and 100% of those with an Ed.D. degree indicated that, as a reward, teaching-load reductions was ineffective (see Table 4.26). However, 63% of those with a Bachelor’s degree, 64% of those with a Master’s degree, and 50% of those with a Specialist’s degree believed that teaching-load reductions was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. 84 This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 42.17 with 16 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.26.--Perceptions of teaching-load reductions as a performance-based reward, based on educational level. Bachelor Master Specialist Ed.D. Ph.D. Effectiveness Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree N % N % N % N %> N % Ineffective l - - 2 3 — - l 100 - - 2 4 l7 5 6 - - - - - - 3 5 21 22 28 1 50 — - l 100 4 8 33 29 37 l 50 - - - - Very effective 5 7 30 21 27 - - - - - - Total 24 22 79 74 2 2 l l 1 l As shown in Table 4.27, 38% of those with a Bachelor’s degree and 21% of those with a Master’s degree indicated that status was ineffective as a performance—based reward. Twenty-five percent of those with a Bachelor’s degree, 39% of those with a Master’s degree, and 100% of those with a Specialist’s or an Ed.D. degree believed that, as a reward, status was effective or very effective. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .13 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 85 Table 4.27.--Perceptions of status as a performance-based reward, based on educational level. Bachelor Master Specialist Ed.D. Ph.D. Effectiveness Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree N % N % N % N % N % Ineffective l - - 3 4 - - - - - - 2 9 38 13 17 - - - - - - 3 9 38 31 40 - - - - l 100 4 5 21 20 26 2 100 l 100 - - Very effective 5 l 4 10 13 - - - - - - Total 24 23 77 73 2 2 l 1 l l Sixty-three percent of those holding a Bachelor’s degree, 41% of those holding a Master’s degree, 50% of those with a Specialist’s degree, and 100% of those with an Ed.D. degree indicated that additional responsibility' was ineffective as a performance-based reward (see Table 4.28). Twenty-two percent of those with a Master’s degree and 50% of those with a Specialist’s degree believed that additional responsibility was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .13 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. 86 Table 4.28.--Perceptions of additional responsibility as a performance-based reward, based on educational level. Bachelor Master Specialist Ed.D. Ph.D. Effectiveness Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree N % N %. N % N % N % Ineffective l 4 17 6 8 - - l 100 - - 2 ll 46 25 33 1 50 - - - - 3 9 38 29 38 - - - - l 100 4 — - 14 18 l 50 .. - - - Very effective 5 - - 3 4 - - - - - - Total 24 23 77 73 2 2 1 1 1 1 Because four performance-based rewards--team teaching, teaching-load reductions, status, and additional responsibility-- were found to be significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. 81291113113 There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. As shown in Table 4.29, 33% of those with a Bachelor’s degree and 41% of those with a Master’s degree showed no or little support for performance-based rewards. Twenty-five percent of those who had earned a Bachelor’s degree, 36% of those holding a Master’s degree, 50% of those with a Specialist’s degree, and 100% of those who had earned an Ed.D. or a Ph.D. degree indicated support or strong support for performance-based rewards. 87 This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 18.26 with 16 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .05, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 3.65; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.29.--Support of performance-based rewards, based on educa- tional level. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? Bachelor Master Specialist Ed.D. Ph.D. Support Degree Degree Degree Degree Degree N % N % N % N % N % Absolutely no support 1 l 4 11 14 - - - - - - 2 7 29 21 27 - - - - - - 3 10 42 19 24 l 50 - - - - 4 5 21 14 18 l 50 - - 1 100 Strongly 5 l 4 14 18 - - 1 100 - - support Total 24 22 79 74 2 2 l l 1 1 mm There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. 0f the 28 rewards listed under Part I of the basic hypothesis, three--personal growth, opportunities for advancement, and organiza- tional fringe benefits--were found to be significant at the .05 level. 88 As shown in Table 4.30, 5% of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 7% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators indicated that personal growth was ineffective as a performance-based reward. Sixty-eight percent of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 60% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators believed that, as a reward, personal growth was effective or very effective. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi- square value of 12.13 with 4 degrees of freedom and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.30.--Perceptions of personal growth as a performance-based reward, based on number of years in the adult education profession. Beginning Adult Experienced Adult Education Teacher Education Teacher Effectiveness and Administrator and Administrator N % N % Ineffective l l 5 - - 2 - - 6 7 3 5 26 29 40 4 4 21 35 40 Very effective 5 9 47 18 20 Total 19 18 88 82 Five percent of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 9% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators believed that, as a reward, opportunities for 89 advancement was ineffective (see Table 4.31). Eighty-four percent of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 65% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators indicated that opportunities for advancement was effective or very effective as a performance-based reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of -.14 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.3l.--Perceptions of opportunities for advancement as a performance-based reward, based on number of years in the adult education profession. Beginning Adult Experienced Adult Education Teacher Education Teacher Effectiveness and Administrator and Administrator N % N % Ineffective l - - 3 3 2 l 5 5 6 3 2 ll 23 26 4 8 42 34 39 Very effective 5 8 42 23 26 Total 19 18 88 82 As shown in Table 4.32, 22% of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 9% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators indicated that they believed organizational fringe benefits was ineffective as a performance- based reward. Forty-eight percent of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 65% of the experienced adult 90 education teachers and administrators believed organizational fringe benefits was effective or very effective as a reward. This part of the hypothesis was tested by obtaining a Kendall tau C value of .15 and was found to be significant at the .05 level. Table 4.32.--Perceptions of organizational fringe benefits as a performance-based reward, based on number of years in the adult education profession. Beginning Adult Education Teacher Experienced Adult Education Teacher Effectiveness and Administrator and Administrator N % N % Ineffective l 2 ll 1 l 2 2 ll 7 8 3 6 32 23 26 4 7 37 36 41 Very effective 5 2 ll 21 24 Total 19 18 88 82 Because three performance-based rewards--personal growth, opportunities for advancement, and organizational fringe benefits-- were found to be significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. 111mm There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents and the degree of support for performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. As shown in Table 4.33, 48% of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators showed no or little support for 91 performance-based rewards, whereas 35%. of ‘the experienced adult education teachers and administrators showed no or little support for the same. Forty-two percent of the beginning adult education teachers and administrators and 33% of the experienced adult education teachers and administrators indicated support or strong support for performance-based rewards. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 4.08 with 4 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .01, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of .01; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.33.--Support of performance-based rewards, based on number of years in the adult education profession. To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? Beginning Adult Experienced Adult Education Teacher Education Teacher Support and Administrator and Administrator N % N % Absolutely no support 1 2 11 10 ll 2 7 37 21 24 3 2 ll 28 32 4 5 26 l6 l8 Strongly support 5 3 l6 13 15 Total 19 18 88 82 W There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents as to the reasons why they might or might not remain in the adult education profession. 92 £ent_1. Twenty-eight percent of the adult education teachers and 17% of the adult education administrators indicated that they planned on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years (see Table 4.34). Seventy-two percent of the adult education teachers and 83% of the adult education administrators indicated that they did not plan to leave the profession within the next five years. Reasons as to why respondents might or might not remain in the adult education profession are analyzed under Parts 11 and III of Hypothesis 11. Part I of Hypothesis 11 was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of .24 with 1 degree of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of -.05, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 1.36; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.34.--Adult education teachers and administrators who might or might not remain in the adult education profession. Do you plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years? Yes No N % N % Adult education teachers 25 28 64 72 Adult education administrators 2 17 10 83 Total 27 27 74 73 93 Eert_11. Table 4.35 contains the reasons why adult education teachers and adult education administrators plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years. This part of Hypothesis 11 was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 10.33 with 7 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .17, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 1.66; it was found not to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was retained. Table 4.35.--Reasons why adult education teachers and administrators plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years. Do you plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years? If "Yes," for what reasons are you planning to leave? N % Reason for Leaving Adult Education Teachers 6 24 Retirement 5 20 Lack of personal growth 4 l6 Desire to return to elementary classroom 3 12 Desire to return to high school classroom 3 12 Dislike method of program funding 3 12 Lack of security 1 4 Burnout 25 89 Total 94 Table 4.35.--Continued. N %' Reason for Leaving Adult Education Administrators 1 33 Pursue other opportunities 1 33 Retirement 1 33 Lack of personal growth 3 11 Total Eert 111. Table 4.36 shows the reasons why adult education teachers and adult education administrators plan on remaining in the adult education profession. This part of Hypothesis 11 was tested by obtaining a chi-square value of 20.93 with 10 degrees of freedom, a Kendall tau C value of .27, and a Kruskal-Wallis value of 8.49; it was found to be significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis was rejected. 95 Table 4.36.--Reasons why adult education teachers and administrators plan on remaining in the adult education profession. Do you plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five years? If ''No," what attracts you to adult education? N % Reason for Remaining Adult Education Teachers 20 33 Enjoy teaching adults 9 15 Students willing to work 8 l3 Fewer discipline problems 7 12 Opportunity to implement creativity 5 8 Meeting needs of adult students 4 7 Variety and flexibility of adult education 4 7 Helping people 2 3 Work schedule 1 7 Utilize ESL skills 1 7 Smaller class size 61 87 Total Adult Education Administrators 3 33 Helping people 2 22 Meeting needs of staff and students 2 22 Variety and flexibility of adult education 1 11 Opportunities to implement creativity 1 11 Job security 9 13 Total 96 Summit In Table 4.37, a summary of the hypotheses tested in this study is presented. A summary of the study, discussion and implications of findings, and recommendations for future research are presented in Chapter V. 97 uauumfiam eabuanam vmuumnma umuumfimm .mugazmg woman -mucmsgomgoa m>puumemm:_ van m>_uummmm ea m:o_uaoogwq tween =_ «copuwmon o>_u~Eum_=Feca L_ogu mcmsamma acumen «coguamu cowaaoaco upaca you use: on: omega new use: as: mgouagum_=_sua copuaoacm “pawn cmozamn mougosummvv acauwuvcm.m ap—ao.um.uaam a: on p._3 «gosh .mugmzoe umman-mocmegoucmq ugoqum no: on so on aogu as: mcommoe mg» on ma msouagumpcpsua cowuauzcm upaua use «sesame» =o.u~u=um apzua cmmzamn moucogmm$Fu acauvwvcmwm appaowumwuaum c: on pp_3 «swap .moeazog woman-wucaegomgma com agoaasm mo oosmmu g_m;a =_ mgouagumwcwevm =o_a~u=uo upsua use memgomou copamuanm apnea comzuma moucmgmuepv penumecmpm xppaupum_u~am cc on ppvz wedge .mugazoc woman-ou=~scomeoa o>puuowwo:_ new m>.aommmm mo mcomaaoucmg swag“ a? mccuagummcpsva coruauaco “Faun new msmsummu co_u~u=vm “Faun coozuon mwucoeowmpv “caumecmpm appaovumpuaum c: on FPF: memzh up memmguoaaz ”am” “can "Hm new; ”N use; "mwmmguoaaz owmmm m_mm;uoa»: mo amok ma u—amom mvmmsuoqaz .mommguog»; mo mupamms and» can xgaessm--.hm.e opnmp 98 emcmaumm emcuafiag vocpmumm eauumfiam Uwcmmamm .mpasmm men as: omega van opus age as: once» sow mugazos vomma-mucascomeoa so» ugoqaam mo daemon mg» cw mucmuconmog cmmzuaa mmucoeomepv acaupmvcmpm xp—~o_umpamum c: on pppz usage .mpasmw men as: omega ucm apes men as: omega com unease; woman-mocassomgoa m>_uoommm=w can m>wauomwm mo meowuamugma smog» cw mucocccammg cowsuon moucmsmmu_u acmuvm_=mwm appaomumvumum a: on ppvz wedge .oma can «ceases comma-mu:~ssowemq so» acongm mo mmemmc mg» cp mucmccoamog zwozuma mmucogomupu acmopmpcmpm appauwumwuaum c: on FF“: wedge .mma can magazmg oucaeeomgma o>.uooemmcw van o>wuummmm mo mcopaqmoemn space cw .mpco -ccoamog we a» awesome; cmuwmcpmemg .mgouagumwcpsva :o_u~u=um apaua can memgommu ccwuausum upaca cmozuon moocogmmwpu acauvm_:m*m appaupum_uaam on on FF“: osmgh .98: use: cg: omega new meopawmoq o>wu -aeumpcvsva Lvmga newssmma weaken mudguamu copuauauo “Fave mew: on: mgouagum_=_svm copaaoaum apzua cwmzamn accuses woman-oo=aesowsma so; acoaqzm mo mocmwv mg» cw mmucmsmmmpv a:~o_m_=mpm xppaowumwumum a: on ppvz wedge "m mmmmguoa»: ”m mwmmzpoaaz "e mwmwcpcaz: ”m mwmmguoq»: ”N mpmmsuoa»: upmmspoa»: mo Ham» mo u_=mam mpmmzuon»: .em==_3=ou--.am.e a.n~h 99 vmcwmumm eabuaham omcvmaoa umuumnmm .Loaagumwcpsum copy -mosum upaca am so Legend“ copaaoauw “Faun an we muco -Pgoaxo mo memo» swag» can mcsazmc woman-oocmegoeemg Lam agonaam ea mmcmmc mg» can mucmucogmos comrade «monocomm.v p=~o_uvcm*m xppaupampuapm c: on Pp_3 meme» .goumgum_cweu~ co_umo=cm apaca am so Legumou copuaosvo “Faun ca mm mocmpewaxo we need» L_o;u can accuse; woman-aucaegoegma m>_uooemmcw uca o>wuoowmm ma meowaaooeoa smog» =_ macoucoamoc comrade mmucmgoumpu acaowmvcmwm appaupamwuaum c: on FPP: msogh .uwcpmaam xmga po>op pmcopumoaum ummzmA; as“ uca unease; woman-mocascomemn new agenda» mo omsmmv mga cw macovcoamms cmmzumn moucogommvv acaovmvcmfim appaovamwuaam a: an FP.2 mgmgp .uocpauua ace“ po>mP p~=o_p~o:cm umogmw; as» ecu unease; woman-oo=asecmgmq o>_uom$mmcp can m>vuoomma ea mcovuamuson gwmga c, nanosecond; cmmxuon neocosom$Ac u:ao.m,=m_m appaowamvuaum a: on FF?) msmgp "op «Pmmcaoqxz "m mpmmguoaa: "m mpmmguoa»: as mmmmguca»: mpmmcuoazz mo “mop mo upsmma «Pmmguoaaz .em==.u=ou--.hm.¢ speak 100 umaomnmm om=_aumz umcwmumm m_mmgucna: mo amok mo «Fame: .copmmmmocn =o_aao=uo apsua as» cw acmcvasmg co cape act» as: mcommmg mg» on ma mucmucoammg cmmzumn mmucmgowmwn u=~u_m_=a_m appmuwumvuaum c: on pr3 wedge .cowmmmwoga cowpmuaum “pace mgu mcw>~mp co cape awe» Ag: mcommmg on» on ma macmucoqmmc cmozumn moocmsomva unmove¢cmvm appmowumvuaum a: on pr3 meme» .co.mmomoca cowamoscm “Faun ogu cw awesoc ac: u;a_s so agm_s mega xgz acomaog mg» cu ma macmucoammc amorous mwocmemuu.c acmu.m.cmwm appauFumvuaum a: on pp_z atone H-H new; ”Hm wean u — aban— “PP mvmmsuoa»: mwmmgucaaz .cascpbeau--.km.e «Peep CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter includes a review of the purpose of the study, a summary of the procedures employed to collect the data, a summary and discussion of the research findings, and recommendations for further research. Sumner! Heed end Egrnose ef the Study Current. economic and political issues and concern for competency-based education have brought the issue of teacher performance to the forefront. Educators, as well as business and governmental leaders, continue to debate the issue that the improvement of schools depends, to a great extent, on improved teacher performance. Researchers who have focused on the problems confronting the teacher work force have alleged that the ability to attract, train, and keep good teachers depends heavily on the incentives and opportunities offered teachers by their school systems. Teachers and administrators in adult education face a challenge similar to that of their K-12 professional colleagues--that improvement of a learning environment depends largely on teacher lOl 102 performance. Consequently, rewards associated with teacher performance have become significant issues for adult education teachers and administrators, as well as for K-12 teachers and administrators. Thus, this study was conducted to determine the perceptions full-time contracted adult education teachers and adult education administrators employed in the Grand Rapids Public Schools, Adult Education Division, Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan, have of effective and ineffective performance—based rewards and the degree to which said teachers and administrators support these rewards. flatness; The following hypotheses, stated in null form, were tested: Basie Hyppthesis: There will be no statistically significant differences between adult. education teachers and adult education administrators in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree to which said groups support these rewards. Specific Hypotheses: Hyppthesis 1: ‘There will be no statistically significant differences between adult education administrators who were and those who were not adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards. . There will be no statistically significant differences in the degree of support for performance- -based rewards between adult education administrators who were adult education teachers before assuming their administrative positions and those who were not. . There will be no statistically significant differences between adult. education teachers and adult education administrators, hereinafter referred to as respondents, in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and age. 103 . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and age. i : There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards far those who are male and those who are female. . There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for perfgrmance-based rewards for those who are male and those who are ema e. There» will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. Hyppthesigj: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in the degree of support for performance-based rewards and the highest educational level they attained. Hyppthesis 2: ‘There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents in their perceptions of effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. i 10: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents and the degree of support for performance-based rewards and their years of experience as an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator. Hyppthesis 1!: There will be no statistically significant differences between respondents as to the reasons why they might or might not remain in the adult education profession. 1.1mm The literature was reviewed in four major areas: organiza- tional perspective, motivational theory, incentives and rewards associated with teaching, and performance-based evaluation. According to the results of numerous studies, there is no consensus about what makes for effective teaching or how to measure 104 it. At a time in our nation’s history when the private and public sectors of society are demanding educational excellence, the burden of proving the competence and effectiveness of the American educational system lies with teachers. Research has shown there is no one panacea for motivating all teachers to perform at their greatest potential. Application of the Maslow, Herzberg, and Vroom motivational theories to teachers’ satisfaction and reward levels suggests that most teachers feel a deficiency in higher-level need satisfaction. Many teachers are motivated by higher-level needs and the intrinsic rewards that may follow, i.e., enjoyment of the job, relationships with students, seeing students learn, recognition of work, and personal and professional growth. However, research has also indicated that many teachers, if given the opportunity again, would not choose teaching as a profession because many of those higher-level needs would not be satisfied. Tied closely to factors that may or may not motivate teachers to perform at their potential is the element of performance-based evaluations. The performance-based approach to teacher evaluation needs effective means for identifying and making essential value judgments in such a way as to ensure that those judgments reflect the influence, contributions, and rewards of all who are affected. Inflammation A demographic information sheet and survey questionnaire were developed specifically for this study. The survey instruments were 105 reviewed and critiqued by Donna Kragt, Supervisor of Research and Development, Research and Development Center of Grand Rapids Public Schools, and by Pat Oldt, Assistant Superintendent, Grand Rapids Community Education and Secondary Schools. W The population for this study consisted of all adult education teachers and adult education administrators employed by the Grand Rapids Public School District, Adult Education Division, Grand Rapids, Kent County, Michigan. A sample was drawn from this population which included 154 full-time contracted adult education teachers and 18 adult education administrators. C i n h ata A total of 172 demographic information sheets and survey questionnaires were mailed to sample members at their work locations. A letter of introduction and explanation of the study and a self-addressed stamped envelope were contained in the packet sent to each respondent. After a period of two weeks, a second mailing of survey instruments was sent to those sample members who failed to respond to the initial mailing. 0f the 172 survey instruments mailed, 107 usable instruments were returned. Anelysis pf the Qete The statistical procedures used in the analysis of data were cross-tabulations, frequency distributions, chi-square test of association, Kendall tau C rank-order correlation, Kruskal-Wallis 106 test for comparisons, and the hypothesis test of significance based on the .05 level. We The results of the data analysis seem to point to the following factors: 1. Whether: or not adult education administrators had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position made a difference in their perceptions of performance-based rewards. Administrators who had not been adult education teachers believed more strongly than those who had that in-service attendance, community support for programs, internal satisfaction, merit pay, teaching-load reductions, status, and additional responsibility were effective rewards. 2. Adult education administrators who had been adult education teachers before assuming their present administrative position and those who had not, supported performance-based rewards. 3. Respondents’ age, gender, educational level, and years of experience in the adult education profession did not make a difference in their degree of support for performance-based rewards. 4. The age of respondents made a difference in their perceptions of performance-based rewards with regard to only one reward--improved relationships with students. Older respondents believed this reward was more effective than did younger respondents. 107 5. The gender of respondents made a difference in their perceptions of performance-based rewards. Female respondents believed more strongly than male respondents that job security, merit pay, students’ success in learning, and teaching-load reductions were effective rewards. However, male respondents believed more strongly than female respondents that opportunities for advancement was an effective reward, whereas in-service attendance was ineffective as a reward. 6. The educational level of respondents made a difference in their perceptions of performance-based rewards. The higher the educational level, the more strongly the respondents believed in the effectiveness of team teaching and status as rewards. Most respondents at the Bachelor’s and Master’s levels believed teaching- load reductions was an effective reward and that additional responsibility was ineffective. 7. Years of experience in the adult education profession made a difference in respondents’ perceptions of performance-based rewards. Beginning adult education teachers and administrators felt more strongly than experienced adult education teachers and administrators that personal growth and opportunities for advancement were effective rewards. Experienced adult education teachers and administrators believed more strongly than beginning adult education teachers and administrators that organizational fringe benefits was an effective reward. 8. Most adult education teachers and adult education administrators were not planning to leave the adult education 108 profession within the next five years. However, adult education teachers and adult education administrators did not agree as to the reasons why they would be remaining in the profession. 9. Whether or not respondents were an adult education teacher or an adult education administrator made a difference in their perceptions of performance-based rewards. Although both teachers and administrators believed the following rewards to be effective, teachers believed more strongly than administrators that personal growth, autonomy, and internal satisfaction were effective. Administrators believed more strongly than teachers that community support for programs and merit pay were effective rewards. 10. Adult education teachers did not support performance-based rewards. 11. Adult education administrators supported performance-based rewards. 1 an In ' ti n Of the 28 rewards listed in this study that were linked to teacher performance, 15. (54%) of them generated significant differences in respondents’ perceptions of performance-based rewards. Researchers have suggested that rewards such as enjoyment of the job, relationships with students, seeing students learn, recognition of work, and professional and personal growth could be associated with higher-level need satisfaction. Rewards such as job security, working conditions, company policies and administration, 109 and interaction with supervisors and co-workers could be associated with lower-level need satisfaction. The presence of these reward factors does not necessarily motivate people to achieve, but their absence from the work environment will dissatisfy and not build strong motivation. Findings of this study support the elements of motivational theories that suggest that people, in this case teachers and administrators, are motivated by higher-level needs and the intrinsic rewards that may follow. The findings indicated that rewards such as personal growth, opportunities for advancement, autonomy, internal satisfaction, having students succeed in learning, improved relationships with students, status, and additional responsibility were believed to be effective or very effective. Also regarded by some respondents to be effective rewards were job security and organizational fringe benefits, which are rewards usually associated with lower-level need satisfaction. Females in particular believed job security to be an effective reward. In today’s society, many women work. Some are single parents and are the sole providers for their families. For others, role reversal has become a part of their life-style. Perhaps the male in the family is assuming responsibility for running the home and caring for the children while the female earns the salary. Or the male might be attending school, beginning a new business, and so on, and the female is providing the income while they pursue their goals. 110 A form of job security, conmunity support for programs, was believed to be an effective reward by administrators who participated in this study. Part of their responsibility as an adult education administrator is to generate support for adult education programs in order to meet the needs of the comnunity, which, in turn, maintains the need for an administrator’s position. For experienced adult education personnel, organizational fringe benefits was an effective reward. Many school systems have excellent benefits--medical, dental, vision, vacation time, and so on. The longer one remains in a system where these rewards exist, the more difficult it becomes to do without them. With today’s high cost of health insurance, an employee might think twice before relinquishing such benefits, particularly if that person is near retirement, the sole provider, or if he/she or a family member has a health problem. Findings of this study also support previous research conducted by Wernimont, who found that satisfiers sometimes acted in the predicted manner and sometimes caused both satisfaction and dissatisfaction. While respondents in this study believed that rewards such as additional responsibility, status, and improved relationships with students were effective rewards, some respondents indicated these same rewards were ineffective. Satisfaction, or the lack thereof, of higher-level needs has adult education teachers and administrators both remaining in or leaving their positions. Some of the most frequently stated reasons why adult education teachers are leaving the profession, aside from 111 retirement, are lack of personal growth and a desire to return to either the elementary or secondary environment. Adult education administrators are leaving the profession for similar reasons. Retirement aside, pursuit. of’ other opportunities and a lack of personal growth are factors causing administrators to depart from their careers. Teachers are remaining in adult education because they enjoy teaching adults, adult students are more willing to work at their studies, and there are fewer discipline problems. Administrators are staying because of the variety and flexibility of adult education, they enjoy helping people, and they want to meet the needs of staff and students. Considering the factors discussed above, a performance-based reward that one individual might view as effective, such as status, might be considered ineffective by another. What is apparent from the results of this study is that respondents’ perceptions of what constitutes. an effective or ineffective performance-based reward vary. Respondents in this study differed in their support for performance-based rewards. Adult education teachers did not support performance-based rewards, whereas adult education administrators did. However, teachers and administrators agreed on the following points regarding the concept of performance-based rewards: 1. Performance-based rewards may cause dissension among teachers. 2. Performance-based rewards should be determined coopera- tively between the teacher and his/her supervisor. 112 3. Performance-based rewards should be based on teaching instruction, not on teacher competency exams, student test scores, or the teacher’s demeanor. Teachers and administrators disagreed on the following points regarding performance-based rewards: l. Administrators believed performance-based rewards encourage superior effort among most teachers. Teachers did not agree. 2. Teachers believed that teachers would do only things their rater would like. Administrators did not agree. Basically, adult education teachers did not trust their supervisors’ ability to be objective in their evaluations of teachers. Administrators believed performance-based rewards should be supported because teachers become too apathetic in their jobs and need to be motivated out of their complacency. Performance observation as a basis for evaluating and rewarding teachers is a controversial matter. At one extreme are those who believe that a teacher’s classroom performance, evaluated against prespecified criteria, is at least an essential part of any reasonable basis for decisions about teachers. At the other extreme are those who disagree with the judgment about the importance of classroom performance or about the proposed evaluation methods or criteria and argue that evaluation of teachers on this basis would have disastrous effects on the educational process. Results of this study indicate that the following recommenda- tions be made regarding teacher evaluation and rewards in the adult education field: 113 1. Teacher evaluation should be a cooperative process between the teacher and his/her evaluator. 2. The teacher should identify the objectives that he/she hopes to achieve. These objectives should be agreed upon by the evaluator and teacher and then specifically stated in demonstrable, observable, and measurable terms. 3. Agreement should be reached between the teacher and the evaluator as to how the objectives are going to be reached and evaluated. 4. Feedback regarding the teacher’s successes and/or failures in the achievement of established performance objectives should be provided by the evaluator at regular, agreed-upon intervals. 5. The teacher-evaluation process should be individualized. Rather than applying the same criteria to all teachers in all situations, teachers’ individual needs and objectives should be the area of concentration. 6. Teachers should receive rewards that are important to them. Tying key rewards to a teacher’s performance could be a significant motivating factor for that teacher, i.e., opportunities for advancement, autonomy, teaching-load reductions, and so on. 7. The evaluator should observe the teacher in a variety of teaching situations. The teacher should be evaluated with reference to his/her surroundings, i.e., physical setting, equipment availa- bility, and students’ background and abilities. 114 8. Both evaluators and teachers should approach the evaluation process with the understanding that the purpose of performance evaluation is to concentrate on early diagnosis of problems and improvement of teaching abilities and/or reinforcement and further motivation of favorable performance. 9. Evaluators should approach the teacher-evaluation process with the conviction that they want to help the individual teacher’s growth and development. They should convey that conviction to the teacher. 10. Evaluators need to establish a high level of trust between themselves and those teachers involved in the evaluation process. Relationships of mutual respect need to be cultivated in which communication channels are always open. Establishment of such relationships should eliminate to a great extent the atmosphere of politics, favoritism, and competition that is so often associated with evaluation and rewards. ll. Evaluators need to be trained in the evaluation process. 12. Evaluators need to be familiar with adult education. A fifth-grade teacher who is suddenly promoted to an adult education administrative position will not have an accurate understanding of the unique type of programming that adult education encompasses. If that administrator must evaluate an adult education teacher, he/she will not do so effectively. Teacher evaluation is restricted by unresolved conceptual and methodological problems and by a lack of agreement on educational values. However, if it continues to stimulate inquiry, 115 reexamination of values, and experimentation, the performance- observation approach to teacher evaluation and subsequent rewards can make a valuable contribution to education. mm d ' 0 he 1. Replicate this study on a county or state basis because the issue of performance-based rewards is not limited to the Grand Rapids Adult Education Division. 2. Replicate this study to determine effective and ineffective performance-based rewards and the degree of their support among hourly adult education employees. 3. Examine methods and criteria that would be acceptable to adult education teachers and adult education administrators and adequate for the rewarding of teacher performance. 4. Examine who should be involved in the evaluations of adult education teachers and to what extent they are competent and reliable as evaluators of teacher performance. Replication of this study does not need to be confined to the field of education. Private industry, the health-care profession, and government agencies could benefit from the following: 1. Determination of methods and criteria for evaluating employee performance. 2. Determination of rewards based on performance that are acceptable to the evaluator and the person being evaluated. 3. Determination of the competence and reliability of the evaluator. APPENDIX 116 April 25, 1990 Dear Respondent: As a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University, I am involved in a research project to assess the perceptions and degree of support Grand Rapids adult education administrators and adult education teachers have for performance-based rewards. Please take a few minutes and complete the brief information sheet and survey questionnaire which are enclosed. Please be advised of the following: - Your participation in this research project is VOLUNTARY. - This study is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. - Iwillbetheonlypersontoviewandusethedata. - Upon completion of this study, the list of respondents will be destroyed. After you complete the information sheet and survey questionnaire, please place them in the enclosed stamped envelope and drop it in the mail no later than Wednesday, May 2, 1990. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the telephone number listed below. Thank you! Sincerely, Neila R. Bird (616) 874-9353 117 May 9, 1990 Dear Respondent: Recently, you received an information sheet and survey questionnaire from me regarding performance-based rewards. As yet, I have not received your response. As a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University, your response is a vital part of my research project. I have enclosed another copy of the information sheet and survey questionnaire for your convenience. Please complete and return them no later than Wednesday, May 16, 1990. Please be advised of the following: Your participation in this research project is VOLUNTARY. This study is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. I will be the only person to view and use the data. Upon completion of this study, the list of respondents will be destroyed. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the telephone number listed below. Thank you! Sincerely, Neila R. Bird (616) 874-9353 118 INFORMATION SHEET Please complete the following questions and statements: 1. Age: 18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 + 2. Sex: Male () Female () AAAAA VVVVV 3. Highest Educational Level Attained: Bachelor Degree ( ) Master Degree ( ) Specialist ( ) Ed.D. ( ) Ph.D. ( ) Other (please specify) 4. Present Position: Adult Education Administrator ( ) Adult Education Teacher ( ) 5. Including this year, please state the number of years of professional experience in the adult education position you checked in item #4. 6. FQR ADULT EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS ONLY A. Before assuming an administrative position in adult education, were you an adult education teacher? Yes ( ) No ( ) B. If "Yes" to Section A, for how long? 119 (——_————r——————————_——=—_———_—_fl i SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE W Below are listed 14 statements and questions concerning performance-based rewards. For the purpose of this study, performance-based reward 18 defined as W W Example: A teacher receives “release time” to attend a state reading conference as a reward for his/her performance in implementing creative reading-assisted skills into the existing curriculum. To the right of item numbers 2 - 12 you will find five (5) possible responses. After reading each statement. please look to the right and choose one of the five (5) responses that most nearly matches your beliefs concerning the statement. SD - Strongly Disagree D - Disagree - Agree SA - Strongly Agree NO - No Opinion Please mark only one response for each statement. If you are not sure about the statement, or if you have no opinion about the statement. mark the response, “No Opinion.” For item numbers 1, 13 and 14, please follow the instructions associated with each item. L————————————————-’_—————_—JM 1. The following rewards are linked to teacher performance. Please indicate whether you feel each reward would be an efi‘ective motivator or an ineffective motivator. a. Working Conditions 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Efi‘ecta've b. Improved Relationships with Students 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective c. Salary 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective 120 Personal Growth 1 2 3 5 Inefl‘ective Very Effective Professional Growth 1 2 3 4__ 5 Ineffective Very Effective Job Security 1 3 5 Ineffective Very Effective Recognition of a Job Well Done 1 2 3 5 Ineffective Very Effective Support of Teacher by Administrator 1 2 3 5 Inefl’ective Very Effective Support of Teacher by Peers 1 2 5 Ineffective Very Effective Opportunities for Advancement 1 2 5 Ineffective Very Efi‘ecfive Vacation Time (summer. spring, Christmas, etc.) 5 1 2 3 Ineffective Very Effective Organizational Fringe Benefits 5 1 2 Inefi‘ective Very Efi‘ective In-Service Attendance 1 2 3 5 Ineffective Very Effective Prep Time If 2 3 5 Ineffective Very Effective Autonomy 1 2 3 5 Inefi‘ective Very Efi‘ective 12] Community Support for Programs 1 2 3 #4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Educational Grants 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Varied Curriculum 1 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Participation in Decision-Making 1 2 3 4 5 Inefi‘ective Very Efi‘ective Internal Satisfaction 1 2 3 4 5 Inefi'ective . Very Effective Team Teaching 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Efi'ective Merit Pay 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Opportunities to pursue other jobs and/or activities while still teaclging 1 2 3 4 Ineffective Very Effective Attending Conferences 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Having students succeed in learning 1 2 3 4 5 Ineffective Very Effective Teaching Load Reductions 1 2 3 4 5 Inefi‘ective Very Efi'ective 88. bb. 3° ggfirdfé 122 Status 1 2 4 5 Inefi'ective Very Effective Additional Responsibility 1 2 4 5 Inefi‘ective Very Effective - Strongly Disagree - Disagree - Agree - Strongly Agree - No Opinion SD D A SA NO Rewards based upon performance will encourage superior efi‘ort among most teachers. Rewards based upon performance could cause dissention among the teaching staff. A danger in giving teachers rewards for their performance is that it may result in teachers doing only things they know their rater will like. Objectives and subsequent rewards to be achieved in a performance-based evaluation process should be determined only by the teacher’s administrator. Objectives and subsequent rewards to be achieved in a performance-based evaluation process should be determined only by the teacher. Objectives and subsequent rewards to be achieved in a performance-based evaluation process should be jointly determined by the teacher and his/her administrator. () () () () () () (l () () () () () () () () () () (l () () () () () () () () () () () 10. 11. 12. 13. Performance-based rewards should be based upon the results of teacher competency exams. Performance-based rewards should be based upon improved test scores of the learner. Performancebased rewards should be based upon a teacher’s command of the subject matter, lesson preparations, relationships with students, management of the learning environment and individualized instruction. Performance-based rewards should be based upon a teacher’s appearance. demeanor and manner of speech. Rewarding teachers for their performance will not result in teachers conforming to the likes and dislikes of their rater. SD () () () () () 123 () () () () () () (l () () () SA () () () () () NO () () () () () Do you plan on leaving the adult education profession within the next five (5) years? Yes () No () If "Yes", for what reasons are you planning to leave? If "No”, what attracts you to adult education? I4. 124 To what extent do you support performance-based rewards? 1 2 3 __4 5 Absolutely No Strongly Support Support What Qfl thing most influenced your response to the previous item? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Andrews, Hans A. flerjt_1n_£ggee11en. Stillwater, Oklahoma: New Forums Press, 1987. Ary, Donald; Jacobs, Lucy Chester; and Razavich, Asghar. tie__te_3eeeereh_1n_£dgeetien New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972. Bache, John F. ”Merit Increase Programs--Do We Really Pay for Performance?" Sgperyieiefl 48 (May 1986): 14-17. Best, John N. Reeeereh_1n_£ggee11en. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Bevan, John M. ”It Pays to Reward Good Teachers.” A§fi_3eeegt§ 23 (1981): 8-14. Bowen, Ezra. "Putting Teachers Up on Top." lime, May 26, 1986, p. 58. Bredeson, Paul V, Fruth, Marvin J. : and Kasten, Katherine L. "Organizational Incentives and Secondary School Teaching. Jeurnel ef Reseereh and Qevelepmegt jn Eggeet jgn 16 (1983): 52— 58. Breslin, Richard D., and Klagholz, Leo F. ”Paying Faculty Members What They Are North.” £dgee11ene1_geeend 6 (Winter 1980): 43-44. Bushong, James N. "The Story Behind Grosse Pointe’s Professional Growth Program.” JggLne1_ef_1eeener_£ggeetien (1957): 170-75. Cammann, Cortlandt, and Lawler, Edward E. III. ”Employee Reactions to a Pay Incentive Plan." J9urnal_9£_Annllsd_£sxshslssx 58 (1973): 153-172. Coffman, Charlie 0., and Manarino-Leffett, Priscilla. ”What Do Teachers Think of Merit Pay? Study Lists Important Variables." NA§§£_Bg11e11n (November 1984): 54-59. Connell, Christopher. ”Shanker Urges Total Overhaul in Educational Thinkin9-' Ins_§:and_flanids_£rsss. July 17. 1988. 9. E3- 125 126 Cross, K. Patricia. ”The Adventures of Education in Wonderland: Implementing Education Reform." £n1_Qelte_Kennen (March 1987): 496-502. Dawe, Harry A. ”Teaching: A Performing Art." En1_pelne_§ennen (April 1984): 548-552. Deci, Edward L. ”The Hidden Costs of Rewards.” Qngenizetinnel Qyneniee 4 (1976): 61-72. Doyle, Halter. "Effective Teaching and the Concept of Master Teacher.” ElenenLeny_§ennnl_Jnnnne1 86 (1985): 27-32. Driscoll, Amy. "The Socialization of Teachers: Career Rewards and Levels of Professional Concern.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, October 1983. Ounwell, Robert.R. "Merit, Motivation and Mythology.” Paper pre- sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, February 1986. Feuer, Dale, and Geber, Beverly. "Uh-Oh . . . Second Thoughts About Adult Learning Theory." Innining (December 1988): 31-39. Finn, Chester E., Jr. "Teacher Unions and School Quality: Poten- tial Allies or Inevitable Foes?“ Ehj Delte Kennen (January 1985): 331-38. Frase, Larry E.; Hetzel, Robert N.; and Grant, Robert T. "Promoting Instructional Excellence Through a Teacher Reward System: Herzberg’s Theory Applied." Elennlng eng Changing 13 (1982): 67-76. Gores, Harold 8. ”Awards for Notable Service." 0 f h r fiflugglign (June 1957): 165-69. Greene, Charles N. "Causal Connections Among Managers’ Merit Pay, Job Satisfaction, and Performance." Eeyennlngy 58 (1973): 95-100. Greene, Maxine. ”A Philosophic Look at Merit and Mastery in Teaching.” Elementary Sennnl Jennnel 86 (1985): 17-25. Herzberg, Frederick. Ine_uetiyntinn_1n_flnnk. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Horn, Miriam. I'The Burgeoning Educational Underclass." ”,5, New: é Esrld_8sncrt. May 18. 1987. pp. 66-67. 127 Johnson, Susan Moore. “Merit Pay for Teachers: A Poor Prescription for Reform." flenyend_£dneetinnel_3ey1en 54 (May 1984): 175-85. Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Guba, Egon G. "Reward Systems and Emergent Missions: Higher Education’s Dilemma." £n1_fle1te_Kennen 59 (March 1978): 464-67. Lord, Lewis J. "The Brain Battle." 9,5, New: t Wenld Regent, January 19, 1987, pp. 58-65. Lovrich, Nicholas P., Jr.; Shaffer, Paul L.; Hopkins, Ronald H.; and Yale, Donald A. ”Do Public Servants Welcome or Fear Merit Evaluation of Their Performance?” 1 r R 40 (1980): 214-22. Mahoney, Thomas A. “Compensation Preferences of Managers.” Indus- 1r131_B£lA112n§ 3 (1954): 135-44- Malkofsky, Morton. ”Teachers Deserve More Credit, More Money, More Precise Guidelines." Leerning (December 1983): 57-58. McGrath, Ellie. ”The Bold Quest for Quality." Neweweek, October 19, 1983, pp. 58-66. McNally, Harold J. ”Performance-Based Teacher Evaluation." NASSE Bulletin 61 (1977): 104-105. "Merit Pay--A Method for Rewarding Performance." Snell_fin§1neee Regent (August 1985): 71. Meyer, Herbert H. "The Pay-for-Performance Dilemma." Qngenize; tinnal Qynenlee 3 (1975): 39-50. Michaels, Marguerite. "A Report Card From Our Teachers." Bennde negeztne, December 1, 1985, pp. 4-5. Morgan, Mark. "Reward-Induced Decrements and Increments in Intrin- sic Motivation.” Bsx1cu_c£_£dusaticnal_flcssarch 54 (Spring 1984): 5-30. Morrison, Edward J. "Performance Observation as an Approach to Teacher Evaluation." £dneet1nn_flnniznn§ 52 (Summer 1974): 167-72. Murray, Stuart, and Kuffel, Tom. "M80 and Performance Linked Com- pensation in the Public Sector." Enn11e_£en§nnnel_flenegenent 7 (1978): 163-72. "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the let Century." Cnnnn1e1e_nf flishsr_£dusatlcn. May 21. 1986. pp- 43-54- 128 Nottingham, Marvin. ”Response to Sergiovanni.“ Edneetinnel Admin- 11 (Spring 1975): 112-15. Olds, Robert. "Performance Evaluation Rates a Close Look.” Cnnneet 8 (May/June 1974): 13-16. Ovard, Glen F. ”Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability." NA§§£ Bulletin 59 (January 1975): 87-94. Pearce, Jane L.; Stevenson, William 8.; and James, L. ”Managerial Compensation Based on Organizational Performance: A Time Series Analysis of the Effects of Merit Pay." Aeegeny_nt W31 28 (1985): 261-78. Quirk, Thomas J. ”Some Measurement Issues in Competency-Based Teacher Education." £h1_Delte_§ennen 55 (January 1974): 316-19. Rasmussen, Frederick A., and Holobinko, Paul. "Teachers Rate Them- selves." Ihe_§1een1ng_flen§e 46 (December 1971): 207-11. Rosenholtz, Susan J. ”Political Myths About Education Reform: Lessons From Research on Teaching." Ehj Delte Kennen (January 1985): 349-54. Roy, Joseph J. ”Teacher Evaluation in an Era of Educational Change.” [he Cleening hnnee 52 (February 1979): 275-76. Sax, Gilbert. ‘r' 1 ti nal ar h. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Scherer, Marge. ”Merit Pay: The Great Debate." lfléLLUELQE 93 (October 1983): 22-26. Schneider, Benjamin, and Olson, Lorenk. ”Effort as a Correlate of Organizational Reward System and Individual Values." Eerennnel ngghglggy 23 (1970): 313-26. Sergiovanni, Thomas. "Factors Which Affect Satisfaction and Dissat- isfaction of Teachers.” inumLsLEdusaflmLAdmmmncn 5 (May 1967): 66-81. . ”Financial Incentives and Teachers Accountability: Are He Paying for the Wrong Thing?" MW Qnerterly 11 (Spring 1975): 112-15. , and Staratt, Robert J. flnnen_£en§neet11e§. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Shanker, Albert. ”The Revolution That’s Overdue.” £h1_De1te_Kennen (January 1985): 311-15. 129 VanLoozen, Lu. ”Some Points to Consider When You Discuss Merit Pay." Arlington, Va.: American Association of School Administrators, 1983. Waldman, Steven, and Roberts, Betsy. “Grading Merit Pay." hene; geek, November 14, 1988, pp. 45-46. Wernimont, Paul F. "Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors in Job Satisfaction.” Qnnrnnl_nf_Annljeg_£§yehnlngy 50 (1966): 41-50. Williams, Dennis A.; Howard, Lucy; Joseph, Nadine; Shirley, Don; Burgower, Barbara; Young, Jacob; and McDonald, Dianne H. ”Can the Schools Be Saved?” Neneneeh, May 9, 1983, pp. 50-58. Wisniewski, Richard, and Kleine, Paul. "Teacher Moonlighting: An Unstudied Phenomenon." Eh1_De1te_Kennen (April 1984): 553-55. "innitlnln