A DESEGN FOR A GRGUP ENCENTIVE REWARD PLAN
IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Thesis for the Degree of PM). 7 . ‘
MECHIGAN STATE UNWERSWY
JAMES LEE HQNCHELL
1971 . i

 

W

'W
’ W

J WWW/WW W

3219

WWW WWWWWW

01067 9896

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A DESIGN FOR A GROUP INCENTIVE REWARD PLAN
IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

presented by

James Lee Honchell

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Educatipn

   

Major professor

Datew

0-7639

 

 

ABSTRACT

A DESIGN FOR A GROUP INCENTIVE REWARD PLAN
IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BY

James Lee Honchell

This study was undertaken for the purpose of
generating a group incentive model appropriate for adapta-
tion at the elementary school level. Rationale for the
structural characteristics of the model is based upon
research and authoritative opinion cited in the text of this
thesis. Three basic areas of investigation were designated
by the writer as relevant to the development of such a
model. The areas so designated include: (1) teacher merit
rating-~its historical development, applications in public.
education, and present status; (2) the evaluation of
teacher effectiveness--its historical development, applica-
tion in public education, and present status; and (3) the
examination of selected aspects of group dynamics. Included
in this analysis are the reported effects of group rewards
on group behavior, comparisons of the behaviors displayed by
group members in instances of intragroup cooperation and
competition, and the relationships between group rewards and
group productivity or effectiveness.

The descriptive presentation of each characteristic

of the incentive model is accomplished within the context of

James Lee Honchell

the cited rationale for the given characteristic. A possible
application of the plan is provided in the form of a data
sheet pertaining to a hypothetical elementary school at

which the incentive plan has been implemented.

The incentive model is partially dependent upon a
specific cultural assumption. The assumption being, that in
our society money is meaningful--money possesses cultural
significance. Financial rewards may thus be viewed as pro-
viding the means by which man's materialistic needs and, to
varying degrees, certain of his psychological needs may be
met.

The literature has suggested that merit rating plans
attempted in the educational sphere have been structured to
provide for the allocation of rewards on the basis of indi-
vidual teacher performance. This method of reward allocation
has tended to result in conflict due to the induced competi—
tion among teachers for the rewards. Subjective methods of
teacher evaluation for reward purposes have been the reci-
pients of much criticism. Teacher merit rating plans
have, in general, met with limited success. When applied
in public school settings, merit plans have suffered a high
rate of abandonment.

The allocation of merit incentives is dependent upon
a process of teacher evaluation. The evaluation of teacher
effectiveness has been restricted by a lack of the develop-

ment of sophisticated and accurate evaluative methodology.

James Lee Honchell

This arrested development is partially due to the failure of
a generally accepted definition of teaching to emerge.
Lacking an acceptable definition of teaching, criteria for
teaching effectiveness have not evolved. The vast majority
of the evaluative procedures have been, and continue to be,
directed toward subjective evaluator judgements pertaining
to teacher behavior and teacher characteristics. This pro-
cess is accomplished with only limited evidence as to which
characteristics or behaviors result in realization of the
school's goals.

Approaches to the evaluation of teacher effectiveness
which are viewed by several authorities as desirable, and yet
difficult to accurately accomplish, are those of evaluation
in terms of measured pupil-growth and evaluation based on
pupil-achievement level. The influences of other teachers,
parents, environment, and peers on student performance have
been identified as obstacles in the accurate determination
of individual teacher contributions. Objective evaluation
of teacher effectiveness in terms of pupil outcomes is fur-
ther hindered by the questionable validity and reliability
of available instruments of measurement. The instruments
generally viewed as most valid and reliable are those
designed to measure student achievement in certain basic
skill areas, such as reading and mathematics.

Selected sociological and social psychological

research has provided evidence which tends to support reward

James Lee Honchell

allocation on a criterion of group performance. It has been
shown that group incentives may influence various aspects of
intragroup interaction, and that these interaction factors
affect group effectiveness. The allocation of rewards to
individual group members in equal amounts on a criterion of
total—group performance has been found to result in
increased c00peration among group members. C00peration has
been shown to possess a direct relationship with, and be a
determinant of, the degree of cohesiveness within a group.
The degree of cohesiveness within a given group has been
found to correlate positively with the level of effectiveness
or amount of productivity displayed by the group.

Groups functioning in situations of intragroup
c00peration among members have been found to generally per-
form at higher levels of effectiveness than groups function-
ing in situations of intragroup competitiOn among members.

The writer has attempted to incorporate those aspects
of teacher merit rating, teacher evaluation, and group
dynamics which appear most appropriate, in the development
of a theoretically functional group incentive model. The
salient characteristics of the resultant model include the
following:

1. The elementary school is the unit which is evalu-
ated and the unit to which incentive rewards are allocated.

2. All professional,and designated non-professional,
staff members of a given school are eligible for incentive

rewards.

James Lee Honchell

3. Qualification for reward is dependent upon a
school's evaluated level of effectiveness.

4. The level of a school's effectiveness is deter—
mined by placement on district-wide rankings on designated
pupil—achievement and pupil-perception variables.

5. The reading and mathematics sections of a

standardized test battery such as the sequential Tests 0f

 

Educational Progress are designated as the instruments for

 

measurement of pupil achievement. These tests are adminis-
tered to all third and sixth-grade students within the
given school district.

Tests such as the teacher and principal sections

of the Student Questionnaire are designated for measure-

 

ment of student perceptions of teacher and principal expec-
tations. These instruments are to be administered to all
students, grades three through six. A locally developed
non-verbal adaptation of such a test is to be administered

to all students grades kindergarten through two.

6. Equalization factors, based on comparative levels
of prior pupil achievement in reading and mathematics are
computed for each elementary school within a district. These
factors are dependent upon pupil-achievement comparisons
between the local elementary school characterized by the
greatest proportion of high socio-economic pupil composition
and the remaining schools within the district.

7. The annual, measured pupil-performance mean,

added to the computed equalization factor, determines a

James Lee Honchell

school's total mean achievement score on a given achievement
variable. Student perceptions scores are reported in terms
of a computed mean score for a given school.

8. All elementary schools within a given district
are ranked by mean score on each of the designated variables.
Incentive rewards are allocated to personnel of those schools
placing in the fourth quartile on district-wide rankings on
a given variable. The staff of each elementary school may
thus be eligible to receive a maximum of three incentive
rewards annually.

9. Incentive reward dollar amounts for professional
personnel are designated as a stipulated percentage of the
average annual teachers salary in the given district. All
professional personnel in a school which qualifies for incen-
tive reward on a given variable or variables receive equal
dollar amounts.

Non-professional personnel in qualifying schools
receive some portion of the average annual salary for their

specific job classification.

A DESIGN FOR A GROUP INCENTIVE REWARD PLAN

IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BY

James Lee Honchell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1971

© Copyright by
. JAMES LEE HONCHELL

1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Any attempt to designate the numerous individuals
who have been instrumental in the completion of this study
is a formidable task. Many have contributed. In retro-
spect, several people emerge as significantly influential
in the realization of this goal. Special recognition and
gratitude are accorded:

To Dr. David C. Smith who was a prime factor in
both the initial involvement and completion of the doctoral
program. As chairman of the doctoral committee, his
guidance, faith, and consideration are greatly appreciated.

To Dr. Richard L. Featherstone for his willing
assistance in all aspects of the doctoral program. His
efforts on my behalf are recognized and valued.

To Dr. Dale Alam and Dr. James B. McKee for serv-
ing as members of the doctoral committee.

To my wife, Joyce, and my daughters, Elizabeth
and Stacy, for their constant faith and their willingness

to sacrifice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

'.—|

I C THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O C 0

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 5
Procedure and Methodology . . . . . . 6
Background Information . . . . . . . 6
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . 16
Description of Terms . . . . . . . . 17
Overview of the Study . . . . . . . 19

II. TEACHER MERIT SALARIES . . . . . . . . 21

Historical DevelOpment . . . . . . . 21
Types of Teacher Merit Pay Plans . . . . 26
Opposing Views on Teacher Merit Salaries . 28
Positions of Teacher Organizations

Regarding Merit Salaries . . . . . . 4O
Proposals and Suggestions for Teacher

Merit Salary Programs . . . . . 42
Characteristics of Teacher Merit Plans . . 49
Reasons for Abandonment of Teacher

Merit Plans . . . . . . . 50

A Representative Teacher Merit Salary
Plan 0 I O O O O O C O O O O 51
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

III. EVALUATION OF TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS . . . 59

Introduction . . . . 59
Perspectives of Teacher Effectiveness . . 66
Methods of Evaluation . . . . . . . 75
Research on Teacher Effectiveness . . . 86
Proposals for Teacher Evaluation . . . . 91
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

iV

Chapter

IV. GROUP DYNAMICS . . . . . . .

V. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UNIT INCENTIVE MODEL

Introductory Statement . .

Comparisons of Individual and Group

Performance in Situations of
Competition and Cooperation .

Comparisons of Individual and Group

Performance . . . . . . .
Group Cohesiveness, Group Norms,

and Group Productivity . . .
Reward Structures . . . . . .
The Scanlon Plan . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

Overview of Chapter V . . . .
Financial Incentives . . . . .
Reward Structure . . . . . .
Incentive Reward Amounts . . .
Distribution of Incentive Rewards
Evaluation of School Effectiveness
Achievement Testing . . . . .
The Standard School . . . . .
Equalization Factors . . . .
Student Perceptions of Teacher and
Principal Expectations . . .
Measurement Procedures . . . .
Reward Allocation . . . . . .
Student and Teacher Turnover . .
Procedural Details .
Procedural Flow-Chart
Financial Data . . .
Cost Data . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .
Observations . . . . . . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES

Page
96

96

97
104

110
114
118
125

127

127
128
129
132
133
135
137
138
140

141
143
144
145
147
150
151
152
153
156

166

175

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

 

The application of the single salary schedule by
school districts in the United States is currently a per—
vasive practice. The National Educational Association has
reported that by 1957, ninety-seven percent of the city
school districts surveyed, functioned under single salary
schedules.

The typical, basic single salary schedule differen-
tiates teacher salaries on the basis of formal preparation,
in terms of college credit hours,and experience, in terms of
the number of years teaching.

This type of reward structure contains no provision
for allocation of salary on the basis of effectiveness.
Thus, any possible motivation which may result from reward
for effectiveness is restricted.

Attempts to reward teachers through use of various
merit plans have produced a great deal of contro~ersy. While

many favor the principle of reward for superior results, they

 

1National Education Association, Research Division,
Salaries and Salary Schedules of Urban School‘Employees,
1956-57, Research Bulletin BSCTWashington, D. C.: The
Association, 1957), p. 68.

 

also feel this concept cannot be equitably put into practice.
The divisive aspects of competition among teachers for
rewards and the controversial means for determining superior
teachers have emerged as major criticisms of teacher merit
plans.

A review of the literature on teacher merit rating
failed to produce any documented attempt to reward teachers
on the basis of their effectiveness as a building unit or
any other kind of group structure.

The National Education Association reported in 1969
that of 1199 teacher salary schedules analyzed in their sur-
vey, only 11.1 percent mentioned compensation for superior
service. The report made no reference to any type of teacher
group incentive.2

The general public continues to express a concern
that teachers and administrators be held accountable for the
achievement of students. Evidence of this concern is found
in the results of a recent study, designed to measure the
attitudes of the American public toward public schools, con—
ducted by Gallup.3

Included in the survey were items pertaining to

 

2National Education Association, Research Division,
Merit Provisions in Teachers' Salary Schedules, 1968-69,
Research Report 1969-12 (Washington, D. C.: The Association,
1969), p. 1.

3George Gallup, "Second Annual Survey of the Public's
Attitude Toward the Public Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, 52
(October, 1970), 97-112.

accountability: "Would you favor or Oppose a system that
would hold teachers and administrators more accountable for
the progress of students?" A total of 67 percent of the
respondents expressed favor, 21 percent were opposed, and

4
the remaining 12 percent expressed no opinion.

Gallup posed an additional item which was more
directly related to teacher effectiveness: "Should each
teacher be paid on the basis of the quality of his work or
should all teachers be paid on a standard scale basis?" In
his analysis of the response to this item, Gallup noted
that:

The principle of paying anyone on a standard basis—-
and overlooking his individual effort and success--
runs counter to the prevailing ethos of the nation,
especially in occupations that are regarded as pro-
fessional. The results of this question indicate that
adults regard teachers as they do other professional
groups--58% believe teachers should be paid on "quality
of work" and 36% believg teachers should be paid on a
"standard scale basis."

The Gallup study was replicated on a local basis in
a small region of Missouri. The findings were generally con-
sistent with those of the Gallup study. In responding to
the question of accountability, 80 percent of the respondents

indicated that school personnel should be held accountable

for student progress.6

 

4Ibid., p. 101.

51bid., p. 102.

6James V. Sandrin and Robert F. Steere, "Gallup Poll
Replicated," NeWS, NoteSLiand‘Quotes, Newsletter of the Phi
Delta Kappa, 15 (January, 1971), 3.

 

 

A comparatively recent trend in the American educa—
tional sphere which has tended to retard the develOpment of
a cohesive school staff has been the collective bargaining
process. This process has often been influential in the
formation of separate organizational affiliations on the
part of teachers and administrators.7 Stipulating a lack of
bargaining eXperience as a major cause of the conflict which
has resulted between teachers and administrators is somewhat
irrelevant to this thesis. What is more pertinent is that
perhaps steps may now be initiated, through use of rewards,
to promote a unified staff approach to the task of educating
children.

While a host of factors may be instrumental in deter-
mining the level of educational effectiveness at which a
school staff functions, it is conceivable that the aspect of
financial reward has potential as yet unrealized for posi—
tively influencing staff effectiveness.

Although not the specified primary concern of this
thesis, but certainly of importance to any proposal for edu-
cational change, is identification of the stimuli which have
influenced the proposal.

Callahan has described the position of vulnerability

in which public school administrators have found themselves

 

7C. R. Young, "The Superintendent of Schools in a
Collective Bargaining Milieu," in The Collective Dilemma:
Negotiations in Education, ed., P. W. Carlton and H. I.
Goodwin TWOrthington: Charles A. Jones Publishing Co.,
1962). pp. 104-106.

 

 

functioning for the greater part of this century:

. . . I was not really surprised to find business ideas
and practices being used in education.

What was uneXpected was the extent, not only of the
power of the business-industrial groups, but of the
strength of the business ideology in the American cul-
ture on the one hand and the extreme vulnerability of
schoolmen, especially school administrators on the
other. I had expected more professional autonomy and
I was completely unprepared for the extent and degree
of capitulation by administrators to whatever demands
were made upon them. I was surprised and then dis-
mayed to learn how many decisions they made or were
forced to make, not on educational grounds, but as a
:means of appeasing their critigs in order to maintain
their positions in the school.

The problem to which this thesis is addressed is
that of conceptualizing a means for recognizing the effect-
iveness of a given school staff through the application of
group rewards. The focus,then, is one of educational
improvement, based on sound management practice and relevant

sociological and social psychological data.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to generate a descrip-
tive construct for a school unit incentive plan appropriate
for implementation at the elementary school level.

Importance is placed upon the development of a school
incentive model which retains a nature of flexibility. No
attempt shall be made to determine what the educational

goals of elementary education should be, what constitutes a

 

8Raymond E. Callahan, EduCation'and the Cult of
Efficiency (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962),
preface, pp. 1-2.

 

good teacher, or what specific instruments best determine
teacher or school effectiveness.

The proposals generated in this study shall be
intended to legitimize the concept of merit rewards applied
to group situations, promote a group approach to educational
endeavors, and suggest those directions which seem appro—

priate in the area of school effectiveness.

Procedure and Methodology

 

A review of the literature pertaining to the rele—
vant aspects of teacher merit salaries, group dynamics, and
evaluation of teacher effectiveness will be conducted. From
an analysis of this literature and the application of induc-
tive logic on the part of the investigator, a rationale for
the proposed model will be developed. The model to be
generated will be focused toward implementation at the ele-
mentary school level.

The allocation of school unit rewards shall be
dependent upon the level of effectiveness at which the school
staff performs. Criteria for the determination of school
effectiveness will be stipulated. ApprOpriate instruments
for the measurement of the school's performance on the stipu—

lated criteria will also be included.

Background Information

 

Likert has cautioned against the apparently pervasive
tendency of individuals to resist alteration of long-standing

procedures:

Many persons approach all social science research with
a healthy skepticism. This is excellent and to be
encouraged. It is, however, at least as important to
examine traditional principles and practices with
skepticism. Long acceptance does not make a matter
right. Common practice does not make it the best
practice.

These observations appear especially pertinent when
examined in relationship to the salary practices which are
presently common in most public school systems.

In the twenties, the single salary schedule appeared
and began its pattern of growth until it has become the most
pOpular form of salary determination in the public schools.
Fawcett has presented what he discerns as the inapprOpriate
motivational aspects of the single salary structure:

The policy most common today of having eleven steps in
the scale serves small purposes of motivation. Many
school districts have completely nullified retention
motivation by giving unlimited credit for prior eXperi-
ence to teachers from other school systems. The large
number of steps in the salary scale has, in today's
market, proved to be ineffective in meeting today's
problems.

In public school districts most attention is being
paid not to motivational aspects of salary policy, but
to the beginning salary for inexperienced teachers and
to the maximum salary for eXperienced teachers. A
highly technical problem involving one of the most dif-
ficult aspects of professional administration is being
tested as a public debate question. This problem is
further complicated by the tendency of teacher organi-
zations to utilize the debate over salary levels as a
device to procure and retain members for their organiza—
tions. They use raised salary levels as proof of
their services to their members. These actions ten
to obfuscate the real problems of salary incentive.

 

9Rensis Likert, The Human Organization:' Its Manage—
ment and Value (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967),
preface.

 

 

10Claude W. Fawcett, School Personnel Administration-
(New York: Macmillan Company, 1964).

 

Tye, in his examination of strategy formulation for
planned educational change, suggested that involved schools
ask the question, "do our reward systems foster a sensitivity
toward identifying a needed change, or do they foster a
maintenance of the status quo?"11 The variance in the qual-
ity of the competence, performance, and subsequent effective—
ness of teachers is not rewarded under a single salary
structure. The dominant practice in public schools of dis-
tributing financial rewards on the basis of seniority and
level of formal preparation, tends to negate any stimulus
which salaries might possess for motivating teachers to
strive for increased effectiveness. Research by McCall and
Krause has indicated that the prevalent criteria for finan—
cial reward distribution showed little correlation with merit
and effectiveness.

It is important to note that the benefits to be
derived from the motivational characteristics of financial
rewards are not directed solely toward the satisfaction of
materialistic needs in man. Simon has observed that:

. . . in certain spheres of action, the behavior of

men is generally oriented around the "economic motive."
Yet, for most men, the economic gain is not usually an

 

11Kenneth A. Tye, The Principal and'the Challenge
of Change (Melbourne: The Institute for Development of
Educational Activities, Inc., 1968), p. 20.

12William McCall and G. Krause, "Measurement of
Teacher Merit for Salary Purposes," Journal of Educational
Research, 53 (October, 1959), 73-75.

 

 

 

end in itself, but a means for afgaining more final ends;
security, comfort, and prestige.

In a discussion of incentives, Barnard has noted:

As to some individuals, material is required for satis—
faction; as to others, social benefits are required.

As to most individuals, both material and spgial bene—
fits are required in different proportions.

Following a line of thought similar to that of Simon,
Barnard further states:

There is unlimited eXperience to show that among many
men, and especially among women, the real value of dif—
ferences of money rewards lies in the recognition or
distinction assumedlgo be conferred thereby, or to be
procured therewith. -

Leavitt has also examined the influence of financial
rewards from a psychological perspective. He has argued that
money incentives have been awarded a place of significance
because money is "a common means for satisfying all sorts of
diverse needs in our society and because money may be handled
and measured. Money is 'real'; it is communicable." He
further noted that "money incentives fit with our culture's
conception of what work means."16

In responding to survey results which indicate that

employees place financial rewards fourth or fifth among the

rewards obtainable from their work, Leavitt contended that:

 

13Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York:
The Free Press, 1957), P. 5.

. l4Chester I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 57.

lsIbid., p. 145.

 

 

16Harold J. Leavitt, Managerial Psychology (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1958), p. 171.

 

10

. . . these are misleading findings. Where management
onCe may have overrated the significance of money (some—
times feeling that this was the only reward due a man
for his labors), these rank—ordering surveys directly
suggest that money is somehow less important than some
other things. The difficulties with this reasoning are
two: the presumption that man's motives can be broken
down into a static order representing his permanent and
unchanging attitudes and the fact that we live in a
society which approves the eXpression of interest in
working conditions and supervision and disapproves the
the expression of interest in money.

Crystal has also assumed a position in support of
the ability of financial rewards to motivate employees to
perform more effectively. He contended that if some psycho—
logists assume that money is no longer a motivating force
for employees, it is not because money now lacks importance.
Crystal argued that:

Perhaps the psychologists are right. But if they are,
it is for the wrong reasons. If money no longer moti-
vates, it is because of the inept way in which some
companies handle their compensation programs. It is
quite possible that the psychologists' studies were con-
ducted at such companies.

As previously noted, the numerous attempts at appli-
cation of the teacher merit rating concept to the salary
schedules in public schools have resulted in a divergence of
opinion regarding the feasibility of the merit principle.

An additional fact of importance, which has also been men-

tioned earlier, is that the available literature on teacher

merit rating pertains to the awarding of incentives on an

 

l7Ibid., p. 172.

18Graef Crystal, Financial Motivation for Executives

 

New York: American Management Association, 1970), pp. 14-15.

11

individual teacher basis.

The NBA Research Division has gathered from a large
number of sources the major arguments, pro and con, regarding
teacher merit rating. While either of the positions may be
expanded upon, the following lists serve to provide an
adequate overview of the Opposing vieWpoints most commonly
expressed:

Pro Merit Rating

1. The principle of merit rating is sound and logical.
Teachers should be paid what they are worth.

2. The good teacher welcomes a merit pay system. Many
poorer teachers hide behind tenure.

3. Merit pay is an incentive for all teachers to work
harder.

4. The public is interested in receiving dividends for
money spent. Merit pay programs will make the pub-
lic more willing to support higher salaries.

5. Merit pay programs will tend to draw and retain
superior teachers who can look forward to financial
rewards on the basis of achievement.

6. Merit rating is used in industry and business: henaw
its application in education is consistent with
general practice.

7. The more adequate financing of public education
requires an examination of salary policies; merit
rating should be considered as a principle.

8. Teachers are already rated daily by pupils, super-
visors, parents and fellow teachers. There is no
reason why they cannot be rated for salary purposes.

9. Competent administration can rate with few inequitiwn.
This should be a regular part of administrative
assignment.

10.

ll.

12.

12

Anti-Merit Rating

Objective and valid measures of teaching efficiency
are not available.

Rating of the "human element" (personality, atti-
tudes, consideration, leadership, judgement) cannot
be accurately accomplished.

The effect of one teacher cannot be judged apart
from the effects of other teachers, parents, or
environment.

Judgement of the immediate results of teaching overw
looks the effects that are shown years later.

Merit rating for salary purposes is usually pro—
posed as an administrative technique for controlling
educational costs of instruction rather than as a
means of encouraging better teaching.

Merit pay plans actually increase educational costs
because of the large staff necessary for adequate
administration of the system.

Salaries based on rating tend to lower morale. They
provide an unwholesome sort of competition that
divides a professional group. They tend to reduce
c00peration between teacher and teacher and between
teacher and administrator.

C00perative discussion between teacher groups and
boards of education are often inhibited when merit
rating for salary is involved.

Rating for salary purposes takes a lot more time
than the benefits derived warrant-—time that could
otherwise be used for assisting teachers.

Rater bias is inevitable. No two raters would weigh
or rate the same.

Teachers would tend to conform to the emphasis of
the rater in hope of financial reward and not for
the purpose of improving instruction.

Parents would pressure to know which teachers were
rated "superior" and insist on having them teach
their children.

13

13. It is more important that the general level of
teaching IS elevated rather than a few teachers
rewarded.

The principle of merit incentive continues to be a
current consideration in the State of Michigan. As a segment
of his educational reform package, Governor William Milliken
has included a recommendation providing for the development
of experimental incentive pay programs.

Section 1 of Senate Bill 1083 reads:

A teacher incentive pay demonstration program for
increasing and rewarding excellence in teaching and for
increasing teacher productivity is established in the
department of education in order to develop recommenda-
tions for a statewide teacher incentive pay program.
The demonstration program shall includfioprojects in not
less than four local school districts.

The demonstration programs which have been proposed
are scheduled to begin in the fall of 1971.

A recent editorial in the Detroit Free Press eXpressed
severe criticism of the reluctance displayed by teacher organi«
zations to become involved in teacher merit rating programs:

The teachers have made it clear, through their unioniza~
tion efforts and their demand for greater public support
of schools, that they expect more of society than in the
past. It seems only fair that society should ask of

them in turn that they accept a modest syfitem of incen-
tives to reward merit and penalize sloth.

 

19National Education Association, Research Division,
The Arguments on Merit Rating, Research Report 1959—30
(WashIngton, D. C.: The Association, 1959).

20Senate Bill 1083, Teachers' Incentive Pay: Estab—

lish Demonstration Plan, duplicated by Michigan Association
of School Boards and Michigan Association of School Adminis—
trators (1969).

21Editorial, The Detroit Free Press, March 3, 1971,

 

 

p. 6A.

 

 

 

14

The editorial also equated merit rating with accounta—
bility, and indicated that the single salary schedule has a
negative influence on teaching:

The schools have too little accountability now, and the
administrators-~who ought to be held accountable for
results within a building--have too little discretion.
The system of flat—rate pay increases tend§7to reduce
teaching to its lowest common denominator. “

The 1969-70 school year witnessed, in Michigan, the
implementation on a state-wide basis of a testing program
designed for the purpose of assessing the educational
progress of students in selected grade-levels. The public'e
continuing insistence for the procurement of evidence of the
effectiveness of the teaching process has been cited as an
instrumental factor in the realization of such an assessment
program. In September, 1969, the Bureau of Research of the
Michigan Department of Education noted in its initial school
assessment report:

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident

to both professional educators and the general citizenry
that reliable information concerning progress in educa-
tion is scarce. As the costs of education climb and

the prOperty taxes become more burdensome, the demand
for performance indicators in the field of education
increases. Under present conditions, schoolmen are

hard pressed to respond to their communities' questions

regarding the effects that added dollars will Egve upon
the educational performance of their children.

 

zzlbid.

 

23Bureau of Research, Michigan Department of Educa—
tion, Purposes and Procedures of the Michigan Assessment of
Education (Lansing: The Bureau of Research, September, 1969),

p. 1.

 

15

The passage of the Michigan negotiations statute in
1965 served to produce an organizational schism between
teachers and administrators. Where prior to this legislation,
many teachers and administrators had been committed members
of a single professional organization, the subsequent months
found a polarization of attitudes between the two groups.
Young noted a result of the conflict:
The formal withdrawal of Michigan's principals and super-
intendents from the MEA was not an impulsive act. It
grew out of two years of frustration and abuse. I per~
sonally felt reconciliation would in time be possible,
but the superintendents' vote was overwhelming. The
mood remains angry and irrational. The wounds will be
long in healing.2
It is possible when analyzing the advent and subse—
quent implementation of the negotiation process in Michigan
schools, to, in retrospect, determine factors which were
inappropriately handled. Young has observed:
We now know that laws which fail to give teachers enough
freedom to act will eventually lead to extra-legal
action. But lack of latitude alone cannot account for
the ugliness. In Michigan it was ignorance! The law
was implemented before teachers, boards, and adminis-
trators could grasp the meaning, ritual, and tactics
of collective bargaining. As a consequence the state
is still attempting to recover from thgsunnecessary ill
will our original ignorance generated.
The background information which has been presented
pertains to areas which may be affected by a school unit

reward plan. Those factors discussed are not viewed as an

all-inclusive listing. Other aspects of the educational

 

24Young, loc. cit.

251bid., pp. 104—105.

16

milieu may conceivably be potentially more responsive to such
a reward plan than those cited.

A significant aspect of this thesis lies in the
unique approach employed for the allocation of financial
incentives in educational settings. This study will attempt
to provide substantial indication that the previously cited
problem areas may be positively influenced through adaptation

of the school unit reward model, herein developed.

Limitations of the Study

 

The model to be developed as a result of this research
effort will be designed for implementation at the elementary
school level. While it is anticipated that the school unit
incentive concept will be applicable at all levels of public
education, for purposes of presentation and justification,
the plan may be presented in a more clear and concise manner
if described in terms of a specific organizational level.

It is recognized that the merit concept has been
applied in various forms in business and industrial areas.

The literature reviewed in this thesis will be limited to th:
merit rating concept as applied to teachers in public schuo‘;

Reference shall be made to group reward structures
and group processes in industrial settings. The purposes of
such information are to examine the manner in which a group
may function under certain conditions and to describe cer—
tain effects rewards may have upon the group. It is not pro~

posed that industry be equated with education or are data

17

relative to industrial incentive plans presented.

An additional limitation of this study is the sub—
jective nature of the generated prOposals. Although the pro—
posed plan will be based upon the research and authoritative
Opinion presented in prior chapters, the selection and inter-“
pretation Of the evidence will be arbitrarily designated and

analyzed by this investigator.

Description of Terms

 

l. Merit pay, merit reward, merit incentive, merit
rating, teacher merit rating, incentive reward, incentive
pay, incentive rating, teacher incentive, individual teacher
merit, and individual teacher merit rating shall be used
synonymously when applied in the text of this thesis.

The NBA has developed a definition of merit reward
which reads:

A plan by which promotion, increase in salary, and
general adVancement within a school system are deter—
mined by the degree of efficiency with which teachers
perform their duties. It may be combined with other
plans using experience, training, 3Ec., in arriving
at salary increases or promotion.
For purposes of reference to the model to be developed in
this thesis, the degree of efficiency with which teachers
perform their duties is not a prime concern. Merit reward
when applied to the model shall be concerned with the degree

Of effectiveness with which the teachers of an elementary

school perform their duties.

 

2 . . . . .
6National Education Assoc1at10n, Op. c1t., p. l.

18

2. School unit and elementary building unit will
refer to the total staff of an elementary school.

3. School unit incentive, school unit reward, ele—
mentary building unit incentive, elementary school unit
reward, and teacher incentive model will refer to the merit
rewards as applied to the total staff of an elementary school

4. A group shall be considered an aggregate of two
or more peOple interacting, in which the existence of all is
utilized for the satisfaction Of some needs of each.

5. Group productivity shall be viewed as a direct
outcome of task performance. It shall refer to the degree
to which a group succeeds in the realization of group
goals.

6. Group effectiveness shall be viewed as a direct
outcome of group productivity. The degree of group produc-
tivity shall determine the degree of effectiveness. A pro-
ductive group shall be assumed to be an effective group.

Group effectiveness shall be determined by student
testing results in the following areas: (a) Reading and
mathematics achievement. The reading and mathematics sec-
tions Of a standardized battery such as the Sgggepiiel

_—-

Tests of Educational Progress shall be used for mea-

 

surement of achievement in these basic skill areas;

(b) Student perceptions Of teacher and principle

 

27C. Gratton Kemp, Group Process (Boston: Houghtcn
Mifflin Company, 1964), p. 27.

 

28Ralph M. Stogdill, Individpa} TEEFRE£13§§-QIOUQ
Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959),
p. 202.

 

l9

eXpectations. Teacher and principle expectations shall refer
to the expectations and norms of school learning for students
held by teachers and principals. These expectations shall
be measured in terms Of student perceptions. The measurement
instrument to be employed shall be a perceptions test such

as the Student Questionnaire

 

7. Group morale is defined as a direct outcome Of
freedom of action granted its individual members in the per—
29
formance Of their group defined roles.

8. Group motivation is defined as any impulse or

desire that moves the group to action.

Overview Of the Study

 

Chapter I will consist of an attempt to establish
the importance of and need for the study, describe the pur—
puse Of the study, detail the procedure to be followed, pro—
vide background information, delimit the study, and define
the terminology to be used.

Chapter II will contain a review Of the literature
pertaining to teacher merit rating.

Chapter III will contain a review of the literature
in the area of evaluation of teacher effectiveness. Atten—
tion will be directed to the methods and instruments which
appear most applicable for adaptation to the measurement of
the effectiveness Of a total elementary school staff.

Chapter IV will contain a review of the pertinent

 

291bid., p. 212.

20

literature in the area Of group dynamics. Comparisons of
group and individual performance on various tasks; the
effects cooperative and competitive situations have upon
group effectiveness and productivity; the influences which
group rewards have upon various aspects of the group process;
and practical application of a group reward system will
receive attention.

Chapter V will consist Of three sections. In section
one a rationale for a group incentive structure applicable
for public school implementation at the elementary level will
be presented. The rationale will be developed from informa—
tion cited in Chapters II, III, and IV of this thesis.

Also included in section one will be criteria for
determination of school effectiveness, dollar amounts of
rewards, measurement procedures, bases for reward allocation,
and procedural considerations.

Section two will be intended to provide an illustra-
tion Of the financial considerations pertinent to the model
incentive plan. The mode of presentation will be an
itemized financial tabulation as applied to a hypothetical
elementary school.

Section three will be the presentation of a summary
Of the study and writer Observations pertaining to selected

aspects Of the study.

CHAPTER II

TEACHER MERIT SALARIES

Historical Development

 

The existence of individual teacher merit salary
provisions is not a recent phenomenon in American public
education. Early teacher salaries were determined through a
process of individual bargaining between the teacher and
the board of education.

The relative worth Of a given teacher's performance
was established by a principal, supervisor, or superinten-
dent through a process of direct Observations. These
Observations provided a basis for the establishment of the
amount of the annual salary Offer by the board of education.
Theoretically, those teachers who displayed a higher quality
of service were recipients of comparatively higher wages.

Teachers discovered that this method of salary
determination resulted in numerous inequities. Eastmond has
described the concerns expressed by teachers as a result of

the individual negotiation procedure:

 

1New England School DevelOpment Council, Merit-
Salary Committee, Teacher COmpetence and Its Relation to
Salar (Cambridge, Mass.: The Council, Spaulding House,
July, 1956), p. l.

 

2Ibid.

 

21

22

This practice amounted to a type Of bargaining in which
the fluctuations of the economy and of supply and demand
Of teachers frequently reacted against the best interests
of the teacher. Salaries were regulated in such a way
that the most aggressive, nervy, or "apple polishing"
teachers frequently profised while the more modest and
retiring fared less well.

The subsequent adoption Of salary schedules by boards
Of education was aimed at correction of the disadvantages
produced by individual bargaining. The salary schedule
method of teacher wage regulation was viewed as advantageous
by both teachers and school boards. Rationale for the con-
version to teacher salary schedules has been noted by
Eastmond:

Salary schedules were develOped to help solve some of
the injustices which tend to accompany individual bar-
gaining, such as favoritism for relatives, overemphasis
on personality, sex, religion, etc. Schedules were
favored by teachers because they eliminated these
injustices and the insecurities and frustrations that
so Often accompanied irregular and haphazard conditions.
Boards Of education likewise favored them because they
simplified the estimates of budget needs and anticipated
expenditures, and thus made4possible the long-term
planning Of school finance.

Initial salary schedules were so designed as to dif-
ferentiate between the level of the salaries paid to elemen—
tary teachers as compared with wages received by secondary
teachers. It was generally assumed that the teachers Of
elementary grades were faced with a much less demanding

educational task than were those teachers Of secondary stu—

dents. The comparatively highly salaries paid to secondary

 

3Jefferson N. Eastmond, The Teacher and the School
Administration (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1959), p. 360.

 

 

4Ibid.

23

teachers also served to discriminate against women, since
most teachers Of elementary grades were female. Increased
acceptance of the concept that teaching young children is

as demanding and difficult as instructing children of
secondary school age, coupled with pressure from teacher
organizations, assisted in influencing rapid adoption of the
single salary schedule. Single salary schedules are

designed to differentiate the annual wages Of teachers on

the basis of formal preparation and years of teaching eXperi-
ence.

The application of teacher merit rating programs for
salary purposes has declined since the advent of the single
salary schedule in the 1920's. The National Education Asso-
ciation reported in 1923 that data provided by 941 cities
indicated that teachers were rated in 57 per cent Of the
responding school districts.6 Merit rating was used for
salary purposes in 36 per cent Of the districts.7 A survey
for similar purposes conducted in 1969, again by the National
Education Association, determined that of 1199 teacher salary

schedules analyzed, 11.1 per cent stipulated provisions for

 

51bid., p. 361.

6National Education Association, Report of the Salary

 

CommitteeL Teachers Salaries in 1923, p. 52, cited by Lloyd
P1 Young, The Administpgtion of‘Merit-Type Teachers"Salary
Schedules (New York:' Teachers College, Columbia University,
1933), p. 5.

 

71bid.

 

24

added compensation based on superior teacher performance.8

Barr, writing in 1926, attributed the decline of
merit systems to inSufficient professional develOpment on
the part of the teacher:

Merit ratings as bases for salary and promotion appeared
in the field long ago and have been tried in many places.
There are isolated instances of considerable degree Of
success, but on the whole the scheme has met with indif-
ferent success.

The fact must be faced that many teachers are Opposed
to merit rating because they lack sufficient professional
vision and are afraid to trust their colleagues. This is
not to be wondered at, nor is it as severe and harsh an
indictment Of the teaching body as it sounds. It really
points to the fact that the teaching body is still largely
made up of immature and untrained people who are not
capable of entertaining the requisite professional stand—
ards. It must be emphasized, Of course, that there are
many splendid examples of high professiongl idealism to
be found among teachers the country over. ‘

Barr concluded that reticence on the part of adminis-
trators to become involved in merit plans was an additional
limiting factor in the growth of merit rating:

Many administrators also lack the courage to try this
system out. This tOO is not to be wondered at when it

is considered, on the one hand, that all sorts of poli-
tical manipulation is likely to result, unfair pressure
brought to bear, and a general state of discord engen-
dered. Again, on the other hand, it is to be noted that
many courageous leaders have been abls to Obtain the con—
fidence Of teachers in such schemes. ,

 

8National Education Association, Merit ProVisions in
Teachers' SalgrySchedules, 1968-69 (Research Memo 1969-12)
(Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1969), p. l.

9A. S. Barr and William H. Burton, The Supervision
of Instruction (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1926), p. 452.

 

 

 

 

25

While teacher merit rating has been under considera-
tion by educators and the public for some time, the litera—
ture does not appear to reveal a systematic investigation of
the concept. There is, in fact, a divergence Of Opinion
regarding the content of the literature dealing with teacher
merit rating. Karam found merit writings to be deficient in
a pragmatic sense:

A careful review of the literature on merit-rating pay
plans revealed that a major portion of the writings

were merely Opinions either for or against the princi—
ple of merit rating for salary purposes. A surprisingly
limited amount Of material was available concerning the
mechanics of the plans and suggested teghniques for
develOping and administering the plans.

Mitchell, in contrast, found a sufficient quantity Of
information dealing with various merit programs but felt that
the aspect of research had been virtually ignored:

Few generalizations can be safely made about the subject,
but one of the safest is this: There has been a great
deal of trial and error eXperimentationlgut very little
of what could be called basic research.

The trend toward widespread adoption of salary
schedules in lieu Of individual teacher bargaining did not
serve to eliminate consideration of the "merit principle."
Early in the growth period Of the salary schedule, Cubberly

voiced concern over the increasing failure to reward teachers

in terms of exceptional performance:

 

11Irvin A. Karam, "Merit-Rating Salary Plans in Pub-
lic School Systems of the United States, 1955-57," Journal
of Educational Research, 53 (December, 1959), 144-148.

 

12Jerry B. Mitchell, "Merit Rating: Past, Present,
and Perhaps,"'Phi'Delta‘Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 139-142.

 

26

A uniform salary schedule assumes that all of equal
rank and eXperience are approximately of equal worth-—
a condition that is never found to exist.1

Types of Teacher Merit Pay Plans

 

A hindrance in attempting to examine available litera-
ture pertaining to teacher merit rating is the lack Of
general agreement on the use of merit terminology.

In an attempt to clarify this issue, Davis has cate—
gorized merit plans from a functional perspective. She has
argued that factors such as professional growth requirements,
salary penalties, and extra pay for extra service are not
merit provisions.l4

According to Davis, only two devices, with varying
details, may be added to a salary schedule in order to incor—
porate merit provisions. These devices are described as:

(l) acceleration through the salary schedule, which refers
to the practice of alloting either double increments or a
larger-than-normal increment as the teacher advances from the
minimum to the maximum salary; and (2) superior-service maxi-
mums, which provide for promotional steps above the normal
maximum salary. Either of these methods are to be applied

only as a reward for superior service.

 

13E. P. Cubberly, Public School Administration
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1929), p. 377.

14Hazel Davis, "Facts and Issues in Merit Salary
Schedules," The Journal of Teacher Eduation, 8 (June, 1957),
126-135.

15

 

 

Ibid., p. 128.

27

The National Education Association has attempted to
classify merit provisions in terms Of common methods of
implementation. The salary survey published by the NBA in
1969 defined the three major categories of merit plans which

were determined:

The first, and most frequent type, is the reservation
Of authority by the board Of education to exceed the
schedule for "outstanding" or "meritorious" service by
teachers and sometimes by other members of the instru-
mental staff. This is usually a blanket statement pro-
viding no detailed information as to the methods of
implementation.

A less frequent reference to merit is in the form of
a statement granting the board of education power to
accelerate the progress Of outstanding teachers on the
regular schedule by granting double increments, or the
like, but usually not to exceed the regularly scheduled
maximums Of the salary classes contained in the basic
schedule.

The third major type of merit provision . . . deals
with provisions for exceeding the teacher salary schedule
by definite dollar amounts. Generally, these merit sup-
plements are granted either before or after the regu-
larly scheduled maximum has been reached. Requirements
for eligibility vary from system to system, but most
merit provisions providing definite dollar amounts are
applicable only after several years of service in the
system; many apply only after the regularly scheduled
maximum has bign reached through normal progression on
the schedule.

Closely associated with the misconceptions generated
by varied definitions Of merit terminology is the confusion
as to whether or not a school district actually has merit
provisiOns within the salary structure. Karam found in a
sample of 224 school districts, fifty-six of the superinten-

dents stated that they "did not have and never did have a

 

l6NEA,'Mer'it'Provisions in Teacher's Salary'Schedules,
'1968a69,'op.‘cit., p.7I}

28

merit pay plan, even though it had been claimed that they did
have." Superintendents in sixty-five of the districts
reported that their salary schedules contained merit provi-

. . l7
Sions which were seldom or never used.

’Opposing;VieWs on Teacher Merit Salaries

 

Evidence of the durability of the conflict Often pro-
duced when teacher merit rating is under consideration may
be demonstrated by a comparison of Opposing positions. Con—
temporary arguments regarding merit rating have been detailed
earlier in this thesis (see pp. 11-13). Opposing views,
expressed earlier in this century, reveal a great deal of
similarity to current arguments. In a study conducted by
Young in 1933, the following points were presented as repre—
sentative of the opposing schools of thought on merit salaries
for teachers:

Pro Individual Merit

l. The public demands that the money which it has given
be used to secure and retain the most efficient
teaching service.

2. Merit schedules are in harmony with principles under-
lying efficiency in public service; namely, salary
dependent upon a service rendered.

3. A merit salary schedule is based upon a fundamental
principle Of a salary schedule; it should be such as
to stimulate and encourage individual improvement

and to reward exceptional merit.

4. Merit salary schedules are flexible so that they may
be applied to the exceptional teachers.

................

 

l7Karam,‘o‘p‘.‘cit., p. 145.

29

5. They stimulate teachers to be critical of their own
work.

i

6. Merit schedules provide the stimulus and recognition
necessary to advance teachers beyond the usual point
or plateau of maximum efficiency.

Anti Individual Merit

1. There is no agreement as to just what constitutes
merit, or efficient teaching.

2. NO reliable, scientific instrument has been developed
to measure the varying degrees of teacher efficiency.

3. Merit rating destroys the esprit de corps and morale
of the teaching force.

4. It hinders the proper relationship between supervisor
.and teacher.

5. A teacher's work is hampered by merit rating, and
- she is prevented from expressing her own individuality.

6. Merit rating tends to unionize the teachers, anta—
gonize the administration, and gatracize teachers who
meet the promotional standards.

Stirling examined the Opposing positions on merit
rating from the perspective of their relationship to the
improvement of teacher effectiveness. He concluded that the
only justification'for the institution of merit salary pro-
grams is to reward evident improvement of teacher effective-
ness.19

Justman, Brighton and Hannan, Eastmond, Chandler and

Petty, and Nygaard and Roelfs have treated their presentations

 

18Young, Op. cit., pp. 3-4.

19Thomas Stirling, "What is the Case For and Against
Merit Rating for Teachers?" 'Bulletin of the National Asso-
"ciatio 'Of Secondary Schoo ‘PrincipaIs, 44 (April 1960),
92-95.

 

30

of teacher merit salaries in similar fashion. They have
examined the divergent Opinions regarding merit rating and
have derived generalizations descriptive of existing pro-
grams. The more specific threads of commonality apparent in
these writings are the attempts to focus on the difficulties
inherent in the determination of effective teaching and
accurate, objective, teacher evaluation.20
In the Opinion of Castetter, the controversy over
teacher merit salary programs will probably never be com-
pletely resolved:
That professional performance as a factor in teachers'
salaries will neither be universally accepted nor
‘rejected appears to be a reasonable assumption. It is
to be anticipated that experimentation in relating com—
pensation to performance will continue. The continuing
controversy over "merit rating" points to the need for
increasing research and experimentation to test, to
refine, anglto improve procedures which have been
developed.
Lieberman argued that a major factor involved in

attempted teacher merit programs is the interpersonal con-

flict which Often results:

 

20Joseph Justman, Merit Ratin : A Survey of the
Recent Literature, Publication NO. 13 P.N.R. 109 (New York:
Board OfIEducatIOn, 1958); Stayner Brighton and Cecil
Hannan, Merit Pay Programs for Teachers (San Francisco:
Fearon PubliSHers, 1962); Eastmond, Op. cit., pp. 389-401;
B. J. Chandler and Paul V. Petty, Personnel Management in
School Administration (New York: World Book Co., 1955), pp.
248-253; Joseph Nygaard and R. M. Roelfs, "Personnel Poli-
cies and Public School Finance" in The Theory and Practice
of School Ripance, by Warren Gauerke and Jack Childfess
Tchicago: Rand McNally, 1967), pp. 337-341.

21William B. Castetter, AdminiStering'the'School
Personnel Program (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1962), pp.
296-297: ’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

Teacher organizations and probably most school admin-
istrators are opposed to salary differentials among
(teachers on the basis Of merit or alleged merit. Merit
rating is usually a divisive factor among teachers them-
selves, because there appears tO be no commonly accepted
precedent to implement it. If school administrators
decide who gets the merit raises, teachers become unduly
subservient to the administrators and there is always

the possibility if not the fact of favoritism in awarding
merit increases. Many school administrators do not
relish the task Of singling out the "better" teachers for
salary purposes, especially if they have to work with
those who are turned down for merit increases. If
teachers decide who get thezgerit raises they end up
wrangling among themselves.

Prior to any attempt to reward teachers on a merit
basis, Campbell, Corbally and Ramseyer proposed that a
preparation process is necessary:

In recent years, lay citizens and school board mem-
bers in many school districts have demanded that teaching
performance be evaluated for salary purposes. This issue
has been debated more than it has been studied. We are
convinced that if merit performance is to become a factor
in salary determination, most school districts have
long process of "getting ready" for such a program.

Filbin detailed the rationale for the teacher merit

salary plan in Lincoln, Massachusetts. The program was

based on the "merit principle"--reward for superior perform-
ance. Filbin elected to support merit rating from a defensive
stance. He argued that the chief antagonists in merit con-

troversies were usually teachers. In choosing to denounce

evaluation and rating by their peers, Filben felt that

 

22Myron Lieberman, "A Foundation Approach to Merit
Pay," Phi Delta Kappan, 16 (December, 1959), 118—122.

 

23Roald F. Campbell, John E. Corbally and John A
Ramseyer, Introduction to Educational Administration (New
'York: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1958), p. 106.

32

teachers thus refuted a major factor represented in their
teaching--the recognition of individual differences in chil-
dren and the manner in which teachers acknowledged these
differences.24

Smith focused upon one Of the common arguments
against merit rating in his refusal to accept the concept
when applied to teaching. He perceived teaching as a situa-
tion which is dependent upon cooperation. The necessary
cooperation is not viewed as possible due to the competitive
nature of merit systems in which a "minority" of the teachers
are rewarded while a majority are not. Merit rating is, in
addition, perceived by Smith as being politically oppressive
since the individuals whom it directly affects are not those
individuals who originate, put into Operation, and administer
the plan.25

In contrast, Lieberman asserted that merit rating
encompasses a cluster of problems. He contended that a work~
able plan for such rating must resolvetfluaissues of who shall
do the rating, what shall be the criteria for rating, at what
intervals the rating should occur, who shall be rated, what

portion of the salary budget shall be used for rating, and

how large shall the differentials paid for merit be in terms

 

24
Robert L. Filbin, "Merit Salary--A Realistic
Approach to Upgrading the Teaching Profession," School Board
Journal, 150 (April, 1965) , 11-12.

 

25Currien C. Smith, "Why Teachers Dislike Merit
Rating,"'0verview, 1 (February, 1960), 41-44.

 

33

of performance level.

In responding to the contentions raised by many
critics that merit rating is a device to reduce school
budgets,Lieberman observed that:

It is a historic fact that the economic position Of
teachers has been declining for several decades and that
this decline has taken place during a trend away om
merit rating and towards single salary schedules.

As a conclusion to his analysis of the status Of
teacher merit rating, Lieberman noted that the variance both
in the types of merit programs attempted and the degree of
success realized by these programs does not provide justifi—
cation for blanket condemnations of merit rating:

. . . even those who criticize current prOposals for
merit rating should be exerting every effort to develOp
a feasible way of implementing it. Certainly we should
not waste any time on those who believe that go g
teachers are immuneto economic considerations.

The confidence expressed by those who support
teacher merit pay systems was viewed by Vander Werf as being
based upon four assumptions, all of which he felt to be par-
tially or completely false. He cited the assumptions, which
propose:

1. That teaching can be accurately measured.

2. That administrators can be Objective in their judge—
ments.

3. That individual competitive situations encourage com-
petence and high morale.

 

.

26Lieberman,‘Op‘."c‘it., p. 118.
27 1
'Ibid., p. 119,

281bid., p. 120.

34
4. That teachigg staffs lie on the curve of normal dis-
tribution.

Partial support for Vander Werf's contentions may be
found in an Opinion survey reported by Doyle. The Arizona
Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards
polled teachers employed in Arizona school districts which
had functioning merit salary programs. The purpose of the
survey was to determine teacher attitude regarding the merit
plans. The findings indicated that the teachers were
basically dissatisfied with the merit programs by a ratio of
five-to-one. The prime source Of concern was found to be a
perceived failure to identify and measure true teacher pro-
fessional merit.

Kleinman contended that the promotion of creative
teaching cannot be accomplished through the use of financial
incentives. As an alternative to the use of merit salaries
as a means of improving education, Kleinman promoted the
raising Of standards for admission to the profession. The
application of positive methods of teacher evaluation was
viewed as an essential additional factor in improving the

teaching profession.

 

29Lester Vander Werf, "Trouble With Merit Systems,"
School Board Journal, 12 (August, 1952), 17-18.

30Roy P. Doyle, "Upgrading Professional Competence—-
Is Merit Rating the Answer?" Arizona Teacher, 49 (November,

31Jack H. Kleinman, "Merit Pay--The Big Question,"
NEA Journal, 52 (May, 1963), 42-44.

 

 

 

35

The Committee on Merit Payments of the New York
State Teachers Association concurred with the stand taken by
Kleinman regarding the use Of merit salaries for improvement
of instruction. The Committee concluded that salary poli-
cies should reflect attempts to attract the most competent
individuals available into the teaching profession.32

Engleman analyzed the rating of teachers for salary
purposes in terms Of the obstacles and difficulties commonly
met in attempts to develop and implement such programs.

The implementation of teacher merit programs is
hindered by three major factors according to Engleman. The
first factor is the complex character of the professional
task of the teacher; the second is the large range of
specialization found in a modern day school system; and the
third factor is the difficulty present in locating merit
raters who possess the ability to rate with validity and
fairness. Due to these factors, Engleman felt that a rating
system that allows broad, generalized comparisons of one
teacher with another was extremely difficult to develop.

In 1958, the Citizens Advisory Committee on Teacher

Salaries in Winnetka, Illinois reported on their extensive

 

32New York State Teachers Association, Committee on
Merit Payments, Teacher Merit and Teacher Salary (Albany:
The Association, I957T.

 

3Finis E. Engleman, "Difficulties and Obstacles -
Inherent in Merit Ratings for Teachers," Journal of Teacher
Education, 8 (June, 1957), 136-139.

34Ibid., p. 136.

 

 

36

investigation to determine the feasibility of a teacher merit
rating program. The Committee Observed that:
Superficially, the idea of merit rating is appealing.
We are inclined to assume that since human beings differ
in their competencies, they should be rewarded according
to their worth. This would call for some device which
objectively measures teaching competency, even thongh
this goal hag been vigorously pursued by educators for
many years.

The Winnetka Committee included among its member—
ship, executives from the business and industrial spheres of
the community. Merit plans in industry and business were
examined as a part of the investigation. The Committee con-
cluded that even in business situations, where individual
performance is more easily measured in an objective manner,
merit rating can find only limited application. The salary
differentials between individuals in similar job categories
were seen as more a reflection of relative length of service
than Of objectively determined difference in performance.
While not viewed as being as easily observed, the practices
in business and industry were seen as similar to the general
practices in education.

In declining to recommend individual teacher merit

rating for the Winnetka faculties, the Committee cited

several points which had influenced their decision:

 

35Report of the Citizens Advisory Committee on
Teachers Salaries, Winnetka, Illinois, cited in The Phi
Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 161-163.

 

36Ibid.

37

1. We do not feel that good teachers now giving all
the energy they can Offer to Children, will some-
how discover more energy under a merit system.

Nor do we feel that teacher with less devotion and
concern will necessarily struggle to do better for
reasons Of such limited financial differential as
can be incorporated in a merit salary device.

2. We do not feel that the competitive implications of
merit awards are consistent with the cooperation
and mutually helpful practices which now characterize
our faculty.

3. We do not think the role of the superintendent as a
leader and stimulator and object of faith and good
will would be enhanced if he were also the rater,
the distributor Of financial awards, the judge and
jury, as well as counsel.

4. If it is our purpose . . . to design compensation
policies that will produce a better product, a
better program, a better educational design for
Winnetka, ye do not believe this would be achieved
by merit.3
Katz voiced opposition to what he has described as

"selective merit pay." He contended that a completely fair
and honest merit pay system "is inherently impossible," due
to the perceived inability of anyone to accurately determine
degrees of merit. Katz also argued that teacher merit pay
has produced "discontent, discord and friction within a
school staff."38
Behavior displayed by certain administrative per—

sonnel involved in merit programs has, in the Opinion of

Katz, proved detrimental to those teaching staffs. A merit

 

37Ibid.

38Irving Katz, "Why I Oppose Selective Merit Pay,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 161-163.

 

38~

program administered by a "strong" principal, superintendent,
or board president has often resulted in unquestioning
teacher Obedience. Katz viewed such reactions on the part
of teachers as evidence of a weakening of critical attitudes
and the spirit Ofinquiry.39
Katz succinctly expressed his position on teacher
merit rating when he noted that merit pay "is a cheap scheme
to make teachers' salaries seem to be higher than they are

in actuality."40

The alleged purpose of merit rating as viewed by

Rozzell "to identify superior teachers and pay them accord-

ingly"41

»has not, in his Opinion, occurred in practice. In
his comparison Of merit purpose and merit practice, Rozzell
Observed:

I know of no school district in America where conditions
are such that merit rating actually realizes that pur-
pose. The grand strategy of the moment for merit rating
is to develop a technique by which certain groups seek
to avoid the inigitability Of increasing tax support for
education . . .

On a conceptual basis, Burke found basic agreement
with merit salaries for teachers. He has, however, Observed

that serious drawbacks are inherent in attempts to develOp

 

39Ibid., p. 161.

40Ibid., p. 162.

41Forrest Rozzell and others, "Satisfactory Pay
Should Precede Merit Rating,"'The'Nation'S'SchOOls, 2
(February, 1961), 114-117.

4ZIbid.

 

39

43
and implement satisfactory merit schedules.

A central difficulty as determined by Burke has been
the extent to which salaries may accurately be determined
through merit rating. Accomplishment of accuratedetermina-
tion was not felt to be within the realm of possibility due
to the number Of contributions made by a teacher which must
be categorized as social in nature. The contributions made
by an individual teacher were not seen by Burke as being
separable from the contributions of other teachers. Even in
those instances where a teacher contributed to the general
level of literacy or productive skills, which Burke desig-
nated as belonging to the economic domain, it was viewed as
an impossible task to determine a given teacher's contribu-
tion.44

In Burke's analysis of merit rating, he noted that
the only justification for any personnel policy is contingent
upon its degree of influence in increasing the total effect—
iveness of the entire staff. In specific reference to merit
salaries, he asserted that "the extent to which merit should
be a factor in salary policies will depend upon how it
affects morale and Operational achievements.

According to Burke, the determination of merit

 

43Arvid J. Burke, "Some Dangers of Merit Measure-
ment," The Nation's Schools, 1 (January, 1948), 27—28.

44

 

Ibid., p. 27.

451bid.

4O

rewards is usually based upon secondary considerations. Such
considerations include personality traits, carrying on of
specific activities, and observable attitudes. These
criteria for awarding of merit salaries are assumed to rest
upon the validity of the assumption that such endeavors are
indicative of superior results. Burke raised the possibility
that certain factors which often tend to be ignored by evalu—
ators may have more effect on end results than do those

46
factors determined as desirable.

Positions of Teacher Organizations Regarding Merit Salaries

 

The concept of merit salary rating has been the reci-
pient of little in the way of support from the various
teacher organizations. The AFL-CIO position, as documented
by Megel, contended that proponents of merit plans include
". . . ineXperienced but school minded businessmen, a few
university professors, school boards, and school superinten-

47
dents." In eXpanding upon the Federation's opposition to
teacher merit salaries, Megal observed that:
The American Federation Of Teachers, representing class-
room teachers, has vigorously opposed this specious
practice for more than thirty years. Our organization
has seen merit rating fail in city after city. We have
seen school board after school board abandon it as

unworkablgaand not conducive to improved educational
practice.

 

461bid., p. 28.

47Carl J. Megal, "Merit Rating is Unsound," Phi Delta
Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 154-156.

48

 

Ibid., p. 154.

41

The National Education Association also assumed a
stand in Opposition to merit salary provisions for teachers.
A specific area of contention with the NEA is the degree of
subjectivity involved in evaluation procedures for the pur-
pose of merit determination. In 1968 the Representative
Assembly of the NEA went on record with a resolution per-
taining to teacher evaluation and merit rating. The resolu-
tion reads in part:

The Association further believes that the use of sub-
jective methods Of evaluating professional performance
for the purpose of setting salaries has a deletorious
effect on the educational process. Plans which require
such subjective judgements (commonly known as merit
ratings) should be avoided. American education can
better be served by continued progresi in developing
better means of objective evaluation. 9

An affiliate of the NEA, the Association of Class-
room Teachers, likewise has officially expressed strong Oppo-
sition to merit rating for teachers. A resolution adopted
by the ACT stipulated in precise terms the stand assumed by
the Association:

ACT recognizes the need for classroom teachers, adminis-
trators, and school boards to develOp a common under-
standing of the critical issues of evaluation and merit
rating. It directs its officers to work for the adoption
by the national organizations representing these three
groups of a joint statement in line with basic ACT philo—
sophy as hereinafter stated, expressing g8mmon agreement
and acceptance by all parties concerned.

Section 2 of the ACT resolution pertains specifically

to the concept of merit rating and its role in the

 

49NEA, Merit Provisions in Teachers"Sa1ar ‘Schedules,
1968-69,‘op.'cit., p.73.
SOIbid.

42

determination of teacher salaries:
ACT vigorously opposes merit rating for determining
salaries. It maintains that experience shows that the
evaluation of individuals for merit rating destroys pro-
fessional relationships and morale; creates strife and
discord; impedes the cooperative improvement of educa-
tion by classroom teachers, supervisors, and adminis-
trators; and leads to thesdeterioration in the quality
of education of children.

Opposition to individual teacher merit rating has
also been voiced by the leadership of teacher organizations
at the State level. Douglas Ward, then president of the
Michigan Education Association, responded in August of 1969
to a merit salary prOposal by the Governor of Michigan.
Governor William Milliken, as a section of his educational
reform package, requested that an appropriation be considered
for the purpose of financing pilot projects in teacher merit
rating.52

Ward reacted to the Governor's prOposal by noting
that although the MEA was not Opposed to merit pay, many

problems were seen as hindering successful implementation of

such plans in Michigan.53 (See Appendix B p. 181)

Proposals and Suggestions for Teacher Merit Salary Programs
Numerous educators and educator groups have attempted

to develOp prOposals for individual teacher merit salary

 

51
Ibido ' pp. 3-40

52Based on official correspondence between Douglas
Ward, President of the Michigan Education Association, and
Governor William Milliken.

5'B‘Ib’ixl.

43

programs. Attempts have also been made by the various

authors to stipulate, often in the form of guidelines or
necessary conditions, those factors they have deemed as impor-
tant to the ultimate success of merit programs.

The New England School DevelOpment Council conducted
an in-depth study of the feasibility of merit salaries for
teachers. The results of the eight—year investigation were
published in the form of a proposed merit salary plan.54

The Council hypothesized that a teacher's maturation
and ability level develOps in a definite, sequential pattern.
Teachers are perceived as initially maturing in their
teaching role, secondly in their school role, and finally,
in their professional role. The proposed plan suggested
that teachers be evaluated for merit salaries in terms of
the specific role which they occupy at a given time. This
basis for evaluation was proposed as a more accurate method
of assessing teachers' performance, since they were judged
only on the variables which pertained to their present
develOpmental level.

A salary schedule model was develOped by the Council
which attempted to relate salary differentials to role

development. The model schedule took the following form:56

 

54New England School DevelOpment Council, loc. cit.

551bid., pp. 93-104.

55Ibid., p. 104.

44

Illustration A

 

 

 

Division Role-Satisfied» - Step- -- Annual Salary
I. Probationary l X
Teacher 2 X+Y
3 X+ZY
II. Teacher 4 X+3Y
5 X+3Y+Z
6 X+3Y+ZZ
7 X+3Y+3Z
8 X+3Y+4Z
III. School 9 X+4Y+4Z
10 X+4Y+5Z
11 X+4Y+6Z
12 X+4Y+7Z
13 X+4Y+8Z
IV. Professional 14 X+5Y+8Z
15 X+5Y+9Z
16 X+5Y+10Z
l7 X+5Y+11Z
18 x+5y+12z
Z = Service Increment Y = Merit Increment

The progression from a lower to a higher Division in
this plan is contingent upon years of service and successful
realization of the competencies which are characteristic of
the preceding Role. A probationary teacher is thus ineligible
for Division II salary until three years of successful ser-
vice have been completed. Eight years of teaching experience
are required prior to consideration for Division III. A
teacher could conceivably reach the maximum salary level
during the eighteenth year of teaching. The Council did not
anticipate, however, that all teachers would display a rate

of development which would allow progression through the

45

salary schedule in the minimum time possible. Although a
teacher may spend the maximum number of years in a given
Division, this tenure does not insure the successful comple—
tion of that role.57

Criteria were develOped for each Role Division which
provided the variables upon which teachers are to be evalu-
ated. A unique aspect of the evaluation structure is that
upon realization of the competencies in a given Division, a
teacher would not again be evaluated on those factors. It
was assumed by the Council, that when a teacher developed
sufficient abilities in a given Role, evaluation on those
abilities would be unnecessary in the future.

In all instances but that of the Probationary Divi-
sion, the evaluation of a teacher's qualification for advance—
ment to the next Division is to be made by an ad hoc committee
of teachers and administrators. Determination of a teacher's
advancement within a given Division and from Probationary
status to Division I is the responsibility of the administra—
tion.

Lieberman has detailed what he believes may be a
partial solution to the conflict often produced by merit
rating. The crux of Lieberman's prOposal lay in the forma-

tion of national specialty boards, similar to those found in

 

57Ibid., pp. 103-104.

SBIbid.

 

sgIbid.

46

the medical profession.60

Conceptually, a national organization of teachers
would be responsible for providing special recognition to
those members who had achieved outstanding levels of com-
petence in their respective field. Special recognition
would take the form Of an official diplomate. Qualification
for a diplomate would be determined on the basis of indi-
vidual scores on a series of comprehensive examinations.
These examinations would be so designed as to measure the
applicant's knowledge in his Specialty area and his ability
to diagnose and prescribe for various types of learning prob-
lems. An added facet of the examination process would be
evaluation based on direct observation of the applicant in
teaching situations.

According to Lieberman, certification by a national
board would serve to eliminate "favoritism, bootlicking,
horse-trading, and all other evils inherent in merit rating
procedures whereby teachers are rated by other personnel in
their own school system."62 Board certification is also
viewed by Lieberman as a method of eliminating the Opposition
to merit rating by teacher organizations. Since the local
school administrators would not be active participants in

the determination of which teachers receive merit rewards,

 

 

60Lieberman,op.' cit., p. 120.
GlIbid.
62

Ibid.

47

the controversy over the granting or withholding of merit

would have no basis in fact.63

In concluding his proposal for a national specialty
board, Lieberman cited anticipated outcomes he viewed as
dependent upon a national approach:

It would be easier to introduce board certification as
a basis for merit pay on a national basis than on an
isolated local basis. It is always easier to get a
school board to approve a change when many other school
boards have also approved it. Teachers are not likely
to undertake the intensive study needed to pass their
board examinations before they know how much more
school systems will pay teachers who pass these examina-
tions. School systems are not likely to pay an ade-
quate differential to board certified teachers unless
~the boards are launched with unimpeachable professional
and public support. Ali'of this requires national
planning and publicity. 4

For ten years prior to 1962, the Ithaca, New York
School District functioned under a merit rating plan for
teachers. The plan was so organized as to provide merit
rewards based on evaluation of teacher performance by the
district's administrators. The plan called for merit incre-
ments for two years beyond the maximum salary stipulated in
the single salary schedule. Provisions for additional years
beyond the maximum had been abandoned as the basic salary
schedule had increased.65

A situation was found to have evolved in which nearly

every teacher above the mandated scale was receiving,

 

63Ibid.
64Ibid., p. 122.

- 65James I. Mason, "A Second Look at Merit," School
Board Journal, 148 (April, 1964), l7-18.

 

48

annually, a tOp merit ranking. The evaluators were faced
with the alternative of either giving a tOp rating to a
teacher or withholding a salary increment. The board of
education questioned the validity of a procedure in which
each teacher on the merit program received a top—rating.

A joint committee of board members and school per—
sonnel was formed in Ithaca for the purpose of developing a
plan which would retain the merit factor and simultaneously
correct the perceived weaknesses in the distribution proce-

dure. The committee generated criteria for the awarding of

. . . . . . 67
merit incentives. The criteria were categorized as follows:
Training and experience 20 percent
Evaluation 40 percent
Professional Growth 40 percent

A significant aspect of this plan is that although
the evaluation procedure had caused previous difficulties,
it was retained and alloted high-priority.

A doctoral study conducted by Gibson attempted to
determine if there existed certain practices in the planning
stages of teacher merit salary programs which directly influ-
enced the ultimate success of the plan.68

Supervisory and administrative personnel, experienced

in the execution of merit rating programs, were surveyed by

Gibson in thirty-three eastern school districts Operating

 

6W6Ibid ‘0 ' p o 17 0

67Ibid., p. 18.

68 Robert C. Gibson, "Paying for Pedagogical Power,"
Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 148-151.

 

49

under merit provisions. The respondents were asked to:

(1) identify what was done in planning for merit salary; and
(2) evaluate the influence of each planning step upon the
eventual success of the merit salary system. Gibson sum-
marized his conclusions, based on the findings of the study,
in the form of four sequential phases.69 (See Appendix C
pp. 183-185)

According to Gibson, two generalizations may be
generated on the basis of his research. The first conclu-
sion is that individual teacher merit salary plans can
function in an effective manner if favorable conditions are
present. The second factor he determined is, that for a
successful merit plan to be realized, adherence to a logical

sequential procedure of implementation is necessary.

Characteristics of Teacher Merit Plans

Karam studied merit salary programs in public schools
on the national level. He attempted to determine some indi-
cation Of the motivation behind initial involvement with
teacher merit pay. A secondary aspect of Karam's work was
to attempt to establish the general characteristics of the
teacher merit plans which were then in Operation.71

Several of Karam's findings are beneficial in the

development of an understanding of merit practices from a

 

691bid., pp. 149-150.
7°ibid., p. 151.

71Karam,"loc. cit.

 

50
. . . 72 .
nation-Wide perspective. (See Appendix D pp. 190-192)

‘Reasons for Abandonment of Teacher Merit Plans

 

The Journal of Teacher Education elicited responses

 

from representatives of several school districts where merit
salary plans had been attempted and then abandoned. Selected
responses, as quoted in the Journal, serve to provide an over-

view of the rationale which supported the decisions to exclude

, , , 73
merit salary prOViSions.

Nelson presented the historical development of the
merit rating program in the District of Columbia. As
explained by Nelson, the program was eliminated because:

In June,l950, after three years of experience with the
incentive salary plan, the superintendent and adminis-
trative officers concluded that the plan was not neces-
sary, that it disturbed professional7morale and that it
was almost impossible to administer.

The Kansas City, Missouri, School District's reasons
for abandoning a merit salary plan were presented by Hazlett:

Among the basic factors influencing the abandonment of
the merit rating plan were the following: (1) sub-
jective evaluation of the quality of instruction; (2)
arbitrary limitation of the numbers eligible for any
one classification; (3) misunderstanding among teachers
within school faculties; and (4) misinterpretations of
the true role of the principal in the improvement and
supervision of instruction.

 

72Ibid., pp. 146-147.

73"Why Merit Salary~ Schedules Were Abandoned,"

Journal'of Teacher Education, 8 (June, 1957), 187-191.

741bid., p. 187.

75

 

Ibid.

 

51

The inequities found to be present due to evaluator
bias were cited by Munro as influencing the decision made by
the Lynchburg, Virginia, School District:

[A merit schedule] Obtained in Lynchburg for at least
forty years, but the request for its discontinuance was
almost unanimous as far as the staff was concerned.

Their objection to it did not include personalities but
was due to their conclusion that it was well nigh impos:7-6
sible for the work of teachers to be impartially rated.

Quincy, Massachusetts functioned under a simplified
merit rating plan. Gossard noted the reasons for it being
judged an undesirable aspect of the salary program:

. . . Quincy . . . some years ago . . . gave additional
salary to outstanding teachers. This plan was dropped
in 1945 when a thorough-going salary survey was made
under the direction of Professor Alfred Simpson of
Harvard . . . . Certain teachers were ajudged to be
superior and were allowed an extra $100 per year in
salary. It is alleged by many of the peOple who were
here while the plan was in Operation that the selection
of teachers was quite subjective. Possibly one-third

of the teachers received the added $100 a year. The
plan started around 1918.77

A Representative Teacher Merit Salary Plan

The concluding section of the literature review on
teacher merit rating is devoted to a description of the merit
salary plan in the Weber (Utah) School District. The intended
purpose of such a description is to present a relatively
detailed overview of the general form assumed by merit salary
programs, when the merit rating concept is applied in practi—

cal situations.

 

761bid., p. 188.

7‘7‘Ibid., p. 190.

52

The Weber School District was selected as representa-
tive of the general class of merit-involved school districts
because of the basic similarity between the Weber Plan and
teacher merit plans in several other districts.

The involvement of the Weber School District with a
merit type salary schedule resulted from the establishment,
in 1954, of the Utah School Merit Study. The State Legisla-
ture, in acting upon a recommendation by a special school
survey committee, authorized investigation aimed at deter-
mining the feasibility Of merit salary programs for pro-
fessional school personnel in Utah.78

The merit committee posed three major questions for
the involved districts to attempt to answer: (1) Can
teaching be defined and described? (2) Can teaching be
evaluated with objectivity and validity? (3) If the first
two problems are successfully solved, can such evaluation be
satisfactorily related to the salary program?79

In 1958, with the approval of the professional staff,
the Weber School District became initially involved as a
participant in the merit study.80

The salary policy, which was developed to include the

merit component, contained the following basic provisions as

 

78Bernard S. Furse, "Merit Pay Is Feasible and--
Sometimes--Desirable," Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961),
143-147.

79ibid., p. 145.

801bid., p. 146.

 

53

reported by Steffensen:

1.

Credit for prior service to determine initial place-
ment on the salary schedule . . . on a basis which.
equates placements with years of prior teaching
experience.

The earning of an advanced degree is a determinant
of a salary differential. The degree must be in a
field of study which is directly related to the
teacher's present, or probably future assignment.

There is a probationary period for the establishment
of eligibility to receive a merit award. The period
is two years of service in Weber.

There is no quota on the number of individuals who
may receive a merit award.

Participation in the merit schedule is voluntary,
dependent upon a contractual agreement by the
teacher.

The amount of the annual merit award is predetermined.
The salary schedule consists of three columns--the
B.A. column, the B.A. plus 30 quarter hours, and the
M.A. column. Maximum salaries are reached in 14
years.

The merit award 81 entirely supplementary to the
salary schedule.

Weber's evaluation process attempted to quantify, or

measure, teaching effectiveness. Those teachers involved in

merit evaluations were evaluated by two-man observer teams.

The formal observations took place approximately eight times

during the school year. The two-man teams usually consisted

Of the teacher's principal and another supervisor, principal,

 

81James P. Steffensen, Merit Salary Programs in Six

Selected'School Districts, U. S. Department of Health,

 

Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin 1963,
No. 22 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1963), p. 27.

54

or consultant. The duration of each observation was thirty

to forty minutes.82

The procedure followed during evaluative observations

has been described by Furse:

Some observations are made by appointment; others are
not. One observer utilizes the revised Cornell Observa-
tion Schedule and codes his observations at five-minute
intervals. Following the Observation, the notes are
coded independent of the other observer's record. From
the two independently coded records, a third consensus
composite is made. Following the observation, one
Observer conggrs with the teacher to review the observa—
tion record.

Furse also noted that attempts were made during two
or three of the observation periods to measure student

. . 84
response through use of the Rose Pupil Behav1or Instrument.

 

The data collected by the observers were treated
statistically and transferred to individual and master
recording charts.85

Teachers involved in the evaluations for merit were
given the Opportunity to meet with a member of the observa-
tion team. At this time, any comments the teacher might
wish included in the file were prepared.86

Other factors which influenced the decision regarding

the granting of merit rewards included: national teacher

 

 

82Furse, op. cit., p. 146.
832222}
aAIbid.
85116161.

 

861bid.

 

55

examinations; pupil achievement tests; a recorded statement
of teacher-time spent in out-of—class activities; a personnel
data sheet of education, experience, writings, etc.; and a
teacher's "List of Imposed Variables," which included factors
which the teacher perceived as limiting his or her effective—
ness and over which he or she had no control.87

The standard for effective teaching at Weber was
based upon the degree to which the teacher adequately con—
sidered the following variables: (1) maturity and abilities
of the child; (2) teacher-guidance in showing or arranging
conditions for self-discovery or how to accomplish goals
effectively; (3) goal-directed drill and practice; (4) per-
ception of the effects of provisional trials; (5) provision
for generalization and transfer; (6) motivation; and (7)
freedom from anxiety and distorting activities.88

The degree of teacher effectiveness was evaluated
almost entirely in terms of teacher classroom behavior.
Extra-class activities were evaluated on a defined time vari-
able. These extra-class activities were limited to school
activities.89

The amount of the annual merit increment was set at

$500.00 for the 1962-63 school year in Weber.90

 

87Steffensen, op. cit., pp. 42-43.

881bid o f p o 4 3 9

89Ibid.

 

56

Recent correspondence with Dr. John, Assistant Super-
intendent of the Weber School District, has revealed that
the above described merit program has been abandoned. Dif-
ficulty in securing sufficient funds from the Utah Legisla-
ture was cited by John as the reason for abandonment.91

According to John, the Weber District has replaced
its merit program with a plan termed, Leadership Pay.
Teachers selected by the administrative staff and the
Teachers Association are considered for this reward. Quali-
fication for Leadership Pay requires that a teacher be per-
forming in a leadership role and working an extended period
Of time.92

John has listed suggestions he believes will assist

school districts contemplating the institution of merit

rating for teachers.93 (See Appendix C pp. 186-188)

Summary

Prior to 1920, teachers' salaries were usually deter-
mined through a process of individual bargaining between the
teacher and the school board. Supposedly, those teachers
who performed in a more competent manner received higher

salaries. Many inequities were found to result from this

 

91Based on personal correspondence between Dr. LaVerd
John, Assistant Superintendent of the Weber School District,
and the writer.

92Ib‘id.

93Ibid.

 

57

practice, and so, in the 1920's, the single salary schedule
came into prominence and began its rapid growth. It was
anticipated by both teachers and school boards that the
single salary schedule would serve to correct the inequities
produced by individual bargaining.

The transfer to single salary schedules did not
serve to eliminate support for the merit concept, however,
and teacher merit rating continues to be a controversial
tOpic. Commonly expressed contemporary Opinions regarding
merit rating display a marked similarity to those arguments
offered nearly forty years ago. Many of the anti-merit
faction tend to support the merit concept but feel that it
is currently impossible to fairly implement it. Two of the
most frequently offered arguments against teacher merit
rating are: (l) objective, accurate means of assessing
teacher effectiveness are non-existent; and, (2) teacher
merit rating produces competition among the members of a
staff, which results in divisive behavior.

PrOponents of individual teacher merit rating contend
that the concept is workable. They have proposed several
plans and listed suggestions to assist in the implementation
of merit programs. These prOposals and suggestions are
usually based upon practical experience, or conceptually
generated through a review of the literature pertaining to
attempted merit programs.

Various teachers' organizations have voiced almost

58

unanimous opposition to teacher merit salary plans. Their
major Objection is focused upon the means by which teachers
are evaluated for merit purposes.

Numerous school districts have attempted to function
under various teacher merit plans. Many of these districts
have abandoned their merit programs. The prime causes for
abandonment continue to be difficulty in the development of
acceptable evaluation procedures and the tendency for such
plans to result in teacher conflict due to competition.

A A typical teacher merit plan was implemented in
Weber, Utah. The finalized plan was preceded by a process
of study and planning on the part of the school district
personnel.

Recent information regarding the Weber plan has dis-
closed that the plan has been abandoned.‘ The lack of suf-
ficient legislative apprOpriations has been cited as the

reason for abandonment.

CHAPTER III
EVALUATION OF TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

"Introduction

 

The evaluation of teaching effectiveness appears to
be characterized by a lack of any general agreement as to the
factors comprising the context in which evaluation should
take place. 1

Opinions expressed by participants in the Pi Lambda
Theta Catena II, provide an indication of the divergent view-
points which are held. One participant believed that "evalu-
ation must occur in a relatively broad context. The nature
of the larger society in which teaching-learning takes place
and the given culture in which pupils hold membership, . . .
may have great bearing both upon approaches to instruction
and upon how teaching should be evaluated." Another point
of view held that "the functioning of a school as a whole may
be a better indicator of effective teaching than assessment
of the merits of individual teachers." An additional view
expressed by a participant suggested that "the classroom
itself is the primary context in which teaching should be
evaluated. And in some cases, the context would be limited

to certain instructional activities that are carried On by

59

60

the teacher in the classroom."1
The colloquy participants not only expressed dif-
ferences of Opinion regarding the.prOper context in which
teaching should be evaluated, they also held divergent views
as to what criteria should be used in the evaluation of
teachers. Pupil outcomes was proposed as the appropriate
criterion by one member, who contended that "according to
one's particular concept of teaching, these outcomes would
range from the total behaviors that the pupil exhibits both
within the school and outside of school to the specific sub-
ject-matter learnings that he acquires." From another parti-
cipant's perspective "the ability of the teacher to adhere
to tested ways of handling subject-matter content" was
viewed as apprOpriate. An additional criterion which was
suggested was:
the characteristics of teachers considered in a rela-
tively broad sense. Personality characteristics and
~various kinds of teacher competencies, including measures
of subject matter preparation . . . motivating and rein-
forcing behavior, organizing and managing beBavior,
counseling and adv1Sing behaVior, and so on.
The variety and quantity of factors which demand con-
sideration in‘a study of the evaluation of teacher effective-

ness has resulted in confusion. Redfern presented one source

of this confusion:

 

1Pi Lambda Theta, The EValuation of Teaching,'A
Report of‘the'secpnd‘Pi‘Lambda'Theta'Catena (Washington: Pi
Lambda Theta, 1967),rp. x.,
. 2

 

Ibid., p. xi.

61

Is it the teacher or his performance that should be
appraised? Experience shows that a satisfactory answer
to this question is not always found before appraisal

is undertaken. This accounts for confusion, if not for
obstacles, in obtaining gratifying and lasting results.
There is considerable experience to support and the view
that the valid appgaisal of the teacher, as a person,

is most difficult.

Fishman analyzed and contrasted the evolution of
teacher evaluation in EurOpe and America. According to his
findings, the investigation of the personal qualities of
teachers has produced less than satisfactory results.

Fishman observed that:
The evaluation of teaching effectiveness in the United
States has concentrated most, it seems to me, on
teacher characteristics and behavior. This is a logical
area for evaluative attention but not only is it one
that Eastern European Jewry roundly disregarded but, more
importantly, it is not an area that4has responded easily
to our own research efforts . . . .

Fishman conceded that the methods a teacher uses are
important to the learning process but noted that "we cannot
yet say just what it is that the effective teacher is or
does."5

The determination Of teacher competence was per-
ceived by Biddle as a near impossibility, because "no one
knows what a competent teacher is . . . few if any facts seem

to have been established concerning teacher effectiveness, no

 

3George B. Redfern, How to Apprgise Teachin Per-
formance (Columbus: School Management Institute, 1 63), p. 8.

 

 

4Joshua A. Fishman, "Cross-Cultural Perspective on
the Evaluation of Guided Behavioral Change," in Pi Lambda
'Theta, op. cit., p. 24.

5

 

Ibid.

 

62

approved method of measuring competence has been accepted,
and no methods of promoting teacher adequacy have been
adOpted."6

Biddle cited two major causes for the current lack
of knowledge about the effectiveness of teachers: (1) con-
fusion; and (2) complexity of the problem.7

The confusion was seen as resulting from the reluc-
tance of some administrators to recognize the problem of
effectiveness at all. Also, many teachers tend to view their
performance in a classroom as a highly personal affair and
not an apprOpriate subject for educational research. The
problem was viewed by Biddle as being compounded because of
.school administrators who are convinced of their ability to
judge teacher competence and see no reason for research on
the subject. According to Biddle, "until the effects
desired of the teacher are decided upon, no adequate defini-
tion of teacher competence is possible."8

The complexity of the problem was viewed as center-

ing upon the inability to discriminate between teacher

effects and effects of other teachers, parents, or alternate

situations.9

 

6Bruce J. Biddle, "The Integration of Teacher Effect-
iveness Research, " Contemporary Research on Teacher Effect-
iveness, ed. Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellena (New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 2.

7Ibid., p. 3.

81bid., p. 4.

91bid., pp. 4-5.

63

Stake contended that "there is little knowledge any-
. . l
where today of the quality of a student's education." 0 He
viewed school grades as being based on the private criteria
and standards of the individual teacher. Standardized tests
were also felt to be inadequate since they tell where an
examinee performing "psychometrically useful" tasks stands
with regard to a reference group. Stake could discern little
insight being gathered as to the level of competence at
which the student performs scholastic tasks.11
Barr argued that the numerous factors which comprise
the teaching process tend to make investigation difficult:
Part of the difficulty associated with the development
of an adequate program for the measurement and predic-
tion of teacher effectiveness arises from the facts that
teaching means many different things, that the teaching
act varieslgrom person to person, and from situation to
situation.
The variety of conceptualizations pertaining to both
teaching and evaluation were cited by Barr as initial sources
of confusion. As a first-step in the clarification process,

he proposed that "one must define teaching before it can be

1
evaluated and effectiveness predicted." 3 This lack of a

 

10Robert E. Stake, "The Countenance of Educational
Evaluation," Current Research on Instruction, ed. Richard C.
Anderson and Others (Englewood Cliffs:APrentice-Hall, Inc.,
1969), p. 355.

1W1bid., p. 356.
~12A. S. Barr and others, Wisconsin Studies of the
‘Measurement'and'Predigtion of Teacher Effectiveness (Madison:
DefiBar Publications, Inc., 1961?, p.71.

*13

 

 

 

.....

Ibid.

 

64

generally agreed upon definition was also seen as affecting
the develOpment of a common criteria for evaluation. Barr
noted:

The Opinions are so varied among teacher educators,
administrators, and teachers that each person can be
said to have a more or less private system of evaluation
all of his own. This is not a mere statement of Opinion
but a matigr that has been amply substantiated by
research.

Hamachek contended, however, that "I think we do know
what the competent--Or effective, or good, or whatever you
care to call him--teacher is . . . ."15 His position was
founded on the criterion of specified personal character—
istics of teachers. In supporting his views, he stated:

In essence, I think the evidence is quite clear when it
comes to sorting out good or effective from bad or
ineffective teachers on the basis of personal character-
istics. Effective teachers appear to be those who are,
shall we say, "human" in the fullest sense of the word.
They have a sense of humor, are fair, empathetic, more
democratic than autocratic, and apparently are able to
relate easily and naturally to students on either a
one-to-one or group basis. Their classrooms seen to
reflect miniature enterprise Operations in the sense
that thgy are more open, spontaneous, and adaptable to
change.

The origin of the formal evaluation of teaching has
been related to late nineteenth century school practice and
the efficiency movement of the early twentieth century. The

influence of Taylor's concept of scientific management

 

14Ibid.
15

 

Don Hamachek, "Characteristics ~of Good Teaching

 

51 (February, 1969), 341-345.
151bid., p. 341.

65

motivated schools to adOpt social surveys, school surveys,
and various other methods aimed at the measurement of
teaching. These procedures were accorded greater public
acceptability by the analogy to scientific management in
industry. The school surveys attempted to measure the effi-
ciency of teaching, usually through use of the newly
develOped standardized tests of student achievement in areas
such as arithmetic and handwriting.
Davis observed that initially:

. . . there was little interest in individual tests of

individual teacher efficiency . . . . the growing use

of individual efficiency ratings for teachers seems to

have been stimulated by the efficiency movement, by

interest in educational measurements, and possibly by

fear of the surveys rather tpgn by direct use of teacher

ratings by the survey teams.

Domas reviewed the literature pertaining to teacher

effectiveness and concluded that:

The consensus of opinion . . . was that measures of pre-

requisites do not measure teaching success, that there

is need for objective information about teaching effect-

iveness, that there is a general lack of agreement con-

cerning what makes a good teacher, and that no method as

yet developed canlge used as the sole measure of
teaching success.

 

17Hazel Davis, "Evolution of Current Practices in
Evaluating Teacher Competence," Contemporary Research on
Tgacher Effectiveness, ed.Bruce J. Biddle and William J.
Ellena (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 44.

 

 

18Ibid., p. 45.

19

2f Teacher‘Competence (Cambridge: The New England School
Development Council, 1950), p. 12.

............................................

 

 

66

PerspectiveS'of'Teacher Effectiveness

 

Numerous factors influence the perspective from
which one views the evaluation of teacher effectiveness.
Ellena, Stevenson and Webb have discussed the inconsistencies
in expectations for teacher effectiveness which may develop
due to the divergence of local philOSOphies:

. . . administrative officials may actually work with

the school board, the teachers, and the community in
attempting to determine what the functions of a teacher
in the local school should be. The decisions of such
groups may range from so rigidly specifying the functions
and activities that little autonomy is left to the
teacher, to stating functions so vaguely and broadly that
virtually all is left to the judgement of the teacher.
Whatever the position of the group, the definitions refer
to teacher function only within a limited geographical
area. . . . The job of the Beacher thus varies according
to the location of the job.2

According to Rabinowitz and Travers, unless one has
made or is prepared to make a value judgement, there is no
way to discover the characteristics which distinguish effect-
ive and ineffective teachers. The effective teacher is
viewed as existing outside the realm of scientific investiga-
tion since "no teacher is more effective than another except
"21

as someone so decides and designates . . . .

It was argued by Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, however,

 

2
0William J.Ellena, Margaret Stevenson and Harold

Webb, Who's a Good Teacher? (Washington, D. C.: American
Association of SOHOol Administrators, Department of Class-
room Teachers, National School Boards Association, 1961),
pp. 5-6.

21W. Rabinowitz and R. M. Travers, "Problems of
Defining and Assessing Teacher Effectiveness," Educational
Theor (March, 1953), 212-219, cited by Ellena, Stevenson
an We b, p. 37.

 

 

67

that the assumption that teacher effectiveness should be only
whatever a community wishes it to be is a faulty one. AThe
notion that teacher competence in practical situations
becomes whatever people in the community think it should,
tends to promote a situation whereby "one man's Opinion is

as good as another's and facts need not clutter the free
exercise of fancy."

Mitzel applied the term criterion to any set of
observations that may be used as standards for evaluative
purposes. He contended that a criterion measure cannot
necessarily be any dependent variable which happens to be
available. The stipulation that a particular measure is a
criterion lends to it connotations of worth and value. If
criteria are trivial, subsequent evaluations must thus be
made against trivial standards.23

The task of selecting relevant teacher effectiveness
criteria has been made nearly an impossible one according
to Mitzel. This difficulty has emerged because of a pro-
liferation of school goals without accompanying agreement as
to the relative importance of each.

Biddle described the central problem in understanding

teacher effectiveness as the need for establishment of a

 

22Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, op. cit., p. 37.

23Harold E. Mitzel, "Teacher Effectiveness,"
‘Engyclopedia'of'Educational Research, ed. Chester W. Harris
(3d ed., New York: Macmillan Co., 1960), pp. 1481-1482.

24Ibid., p. 1482.

 

68

relationship between teacher behaviors and teacher effects.
This perspective suggested to Biddle that two classes of
variables are necessary for the study of effectiveness;
teacher behaviors (an independent variable) and teacher
effects (a dependent variable).25

Teacher properties were classified by Biddle as
psychological traits, motives, abilities or attitudes which
were said to relate to the competence of teachers. Diffi-
culties in the formulation of an agreed-upon method for
measurement has led to controversy as to which method is
really measuring the specific prOperty in question. Accord-
ing to Biddle, "even for such a well-established property as
intelligence there remain discouragingly low correlations
among the most accepted measurement techniques."

It was Observed by Biddle that the traditional
approach to the study of competence called for the selection
of general dimensions or traits of teacher behavior that
"are hypothesized (in rare instances found) to produce given
effects in pupils."27 Atkin argued that the two most pOpular
methods of conducting research on teacher effectiveness, the

psychological approach and the engineering model, both

 

25Biddle, Op. cit., p. 5.

26Ibid., p. 10.

27Ibid., p. 12.

69

28
possess major inadequacies.

It was prOposed by Atkin that too much emphasis on
behavioral science techniques often results in problems being
investigated which bear little resemblance to classroom prac-
tice. Excessive reliance on "hard measures" of behavioral
change tends to result in the manipulation of insignificant
variables, since many of the most important educational
changes cannot be measured. There is also a tendency among
researchers to refine their statistical procedures while
failing to focus upon crucial problems. The lack of rele-
vance to education results from the researchers Operating
from a theoretical basis other than education. Atkin
observed that "it is naive to expect that a significant
amount of such research, considered in isolation, discipline
by discipline, will affect educational practice."

Atkin noted that the engineering model "on the sur-
face . . . seems a most appealing model for educational
research and development activities." This approach
requires the identification of performance objectives toward
which the system should be directed. The system is then

designed so that the objectives will be economically

 

28J. Myron Atkin, "Research Styles in Science Educa-
tion," Current Research on Instruction, ed. Richard C.
Anderson and others (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1969), pp. 33—41.

29Ibid., pp. 34-35.

3°Ibid., p. 36.

 

70

realized. Examination of this approach led Atkin to propose
what he felt were major shortcomings: (1) no recognition of
the competition among diverse value systems and power groups--
no consensus on specific ends exists in education; (2) diffi-
culty exists in the quantification of values and social out—
comes; and (3) failure to recognize that existing systems in
education cannot be discarded as easily as in space and mili-
tary programs.

Mitzel identified three major classes Of teaching
effectiveness criteria. He termed these classes: (1)
product criteria, (2) process criteria, and (3) presage
criteria.32

Product criteria are dependent for their definition
upon a set of goals toward which teaching is directed. These
goals may be stated in terms of changes in behavior on the
part of students.3

Mitzel believed that although advances had been
accomplished in educational measurement, satisfactory tests
of achievement existed only in a few of the basic skill areas.
Adequate measures of social and emotional adjustment, cul—
tural appreciations, and attitudes essential to democratic

living were not available.

 

3IIbid.
32Mitzel,'loc.' cit.

331bid., p. 1483.

34Ibid.

 

71

The lack of research directed toward product criteria
was unjustified according to Mitzel:

Considering the theoretical importance of product cri-
teria in the assessment of teacher effectiveness, it is
surprising that so few studies have used some measure
of student growth a§ the operational definition of
teacher competence. 5

Process criteria were defined as those aspects of
teacher and student behavior which are believed to be worth-
while in their own right. They are not necessarily directly
related to the primary goals of education, though their
presence in the classroom is assumed to have mediating effects
on the product criteria. Process criteria are usually
described and measured in terms of conditions, climates, or
situations involving social interactions between teacher and

, 36
pupil.

Student and teacher behavior as process criteria must
be examined as an interacting whole. According to Mitzel,
this interaction appears to be vital to the learning process.
The complexity of teacher-learning situations provides a
basic difficulty in the utilization of process criteria for

37
the evaluation of teacher competence.
Presage criteria were termed by Mitzel "pseudo

criteria" since their relevance is dependent upon an assumed

or conjectured relationship to other criteria. He contended

 

351bid.
361bid.
37

 

Ibid., p. 1484.

72

that presage criteria are removed from the goals of education
and that only precedent enables their consideration as
criteria. This precedent is founded in much of the research
on teacher competence in which dependent variables, cate-
gorized as presage by Mitzel, were employed.

Four types of presage variables were indicated as
commonly used in teacher effectiveness research: (1) teacher
personality attributes; (2) characteristics Of teachers in
training; (3) teacher knowledge and achievement; and (4)
in-service teacher status characteristics.39

Worcester argued that the value of the observation
of teacher behavior is dependent upon the evidence that the
observed behavior will actually have an effect on the pupil,
which will result in the desired learning. He described
evidence pertaining to the effects of teacher behavior as
"scanty" and noted that any agreement between various
Observers may indicate only congruence of a particular philo-
sophy or psychology of education.40

Surprise was eXpressed by Worcester over the lack of
attention devoted to actual methods of teaching and the

direction of learning, on teacher rating scales. He observed

that:

 

381bid.

 

391bid.
40D. A. Worcester, "Some Assumptions Explicitly and
Implicitly Made in the Investigations Here Summarized," in

Barr, Op.'cit., p. 127.

73

Rather, the observer usually notes personality char-
acteristics, if the teacher is alert, if she appears
enthusiastic and cooperative, if she seems to be
interested in the children, if sh? has good discipline,
if she is forceful and the like.

Barr noted that the criterion of teacher effective-
ness based on pupil growth and achievement is considered by
many individuals as the primary criterion against which all
other criteria should be validated.

Certain limiting factors of this position were
described by Barr as being worthy of consideration. A pri-
mary difficulty he identified was the lack of congruence
between the gains tested and the instructional goals of the
teacher. Testing instruments may be valid and reliable, in
highly generalized situations, but may not be consistent with
the demands of a particular situation or the teachers' pur-
poses. An additional limiting factor is the inability of
tests to validly and reliably measure the major purposes of
school education. The areas of problem solving, personality
development, mental health, aesthetic learning and emotional
growth were viewed by Barr as suffering from inadequate
means of measurement. Test results also fail to indicate
how effects were produced. They are directed primarily at
results at the exclusion of information on means. Another
limiting factor is the difficulty in isolating the effects

of a single teacher from the effects of other teachers,

...................

 

42Barr,“o‘p‘. cit., p. 13.

74

pupils, and parents.

Ellena, Stevenson and Webb supported the position
assumed by Barr on pupil-growth criterion as a means of
determining teacher effectiveness. They argued that although
educational measurement has displayed continued growth for
over fifty years, satisfactory tests of achievement exist in
only a few of the basic skill areas. Adequate measures of
social and emotional adjustment, cultural appreCiations, or
attitudes essential to democratic living are as yet not
available.

The difficulty encountered in determination of the
degree of effect an individual teacher has on pupil-growth
was proposed by Ellena, Stevenson and Webb as a problem which
is far from solution. They noted that:

Many influences shape pupil growth: home, community,
clubs and organizations, various media of communication,
books, magazines, and libraries are but a few of these
influences. Also, the pupil was subjected to the influ-
ence of other teachers in the past. The problem of dis-
entangling these influences becomes difficult indeed.
Though elaborate statistical and experimental methods
have been develOped, there is no one who can demonstrate
a scientific way of making effective use of the pupil-
gain criterion in measuring teacher effectiveness.

Laurits' argued that consideration of the effective-
ness aspect is aided by elimination of the model of a school

as a collection of individuals who can be evaluated and

ordered in rank. He contended that "prOperly seen, the

 

43Ibid., pp. 13-14.
44Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, Op. cit., p. 19.
45Ibid.

 

75

school is a social system whose purposes lend themselves
directly and uniquely to the continual growth and development
of the members."

From Laurits' perspective, the school is character-
ized by three general levels at which analysis might be
directed. The levels are: (l) self-contained classroom, or
teacher working alone; (2) teaching team; and (3) entire
school}.7

It was Laurits' contention that a valid and thorough
evaluation could be realized only through investigation of
the effects of the entire school on the individual. He
noted:

. . . the school, prOperly viewed, is special, different
from the family, different from a group of pals, dif-
ferent from the baseball team. The school is staffed
with specialists, it commits itself to a concern for all
parts of the students' behavior, it means to create a

place for the student, to shape igself to some extent
because that student is present.

Methods of Evaluation

Davis reported on an early study, conducted in 1915,
by Boyce. The purpose of the study was to survey current
practices related to teacher rating in public school systems.

Boyce found that the quantity of items on which teachers were

rated on their level of efficiency ranged from two to eighty.

 

46James Laurits, "Thoughts on the Evaluation of
Teaching," in Pi Lambda Theta, Op. cit., p. 35.
47

 

Ibid., p. 36.
481bid.

 

76

Four major types of analysis were found: (1) descriptive
reports dealing with specified points; (2) lists Of questions
to be answered yes or no; (3) lists of items to be evaluated
by a stated classification, for example, excellent, good,
medium, unsatisfactory; and (4) lists of items to each of
which was assigned a definite numerical value representing
the maximum score that might be given.49

Davis indicated that four basic methods of deter-
mining teacher efficiency emerged from Boyce's analysis:
(1) Promotional examinations--6%;(2) Schedule of qualities
on which teachers are judged--55%; (3) Efficiency grades
for teachers--41%; (4) Judgement of teachers not controlled--
41%. In summarizing the qualities of the teacher evaluated
in fifty of the rating schemes, Boyce found that discipline
led all other areas, being included in 98% of the forms.
Next in frequency were instructional skills and cooperation
and loyalty, each being cited in 60% of the forms.50

By way of contrasting evaluation practices in terms
of development over a period of time, Davis also reported
on a survey conducted by the Research Division of the
National Education Association. The survey examined school

personnel practices in 1961-62. The forms examined were

 

49A. C. Boyce, "Methods of Measuring Teachers'-
Efficiency," 14th Yearbook, National Society for the Study
of Education, Part 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1915), citéd by Davis, op.'cit., pp. 48-49.

50

 

 

‘Ibid., p. 49.

77

analyzed in terms of the methods of evaluation used, and in
the case of check scales, the number of intervals in the
scale of possible judgements set by the forms.

Four primary types of evaluation were found: (1)
multiple-factor check scales; (2) general-factor check
scales; (3) structured comments; and (4) nonstructured com-
ments. Eighty percent of the forms included multiple-factor
check scales, and forty percent no other method. The multi-
ple-factor check scales provide for the recording of a judge-
ment according to a scale on the form. The general-factor
check scales provide for the evaluation of the total-worth
of the teacher by means of a single judgement.52

Davis noted the similarity between many of the evalu-
ation forms in use in 1962 and the "efficiency record" pub-
lished by Boyce in 1915. She stipulated, however, that the
examination of the various forms "still does not bring us to
the heart of the matter: the kind of teacher (or teaching)
being held up as a model by the evaluation form."53 She
further noted that:

A long standing issue among research workers has been
the question as to whether evaluation should concern

 

1National Education Association, Research Division,
'Estimates of School Statistics, 1961-62," Research Report
1961--R 22 (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1961), cited

by Davis, op.cit., pp. 57-59.

 

5'Z‘I‘bid., p. 59.

53Davis,‘op."cit., p. 61.

78

itself with the teacher or the teaching. In practice,
this iisue is clearly resolved: the teacher is evalu-

ated.
The literature on teacher competence was categorized
by Domas according to the factors whose relationships to

competence were investigated or discussed. His analysis

resulted in the following categories:

(1) traits of teachers; (2) students' opinions and
ratings of teachers; (3) procedures and techniques used
by teachers; (4) pupil growth or student progress;

(5) personality type of teacher; and (6) combinations of
two or more of the foregoing categories. Many references
111theliterature, however, did not fit readily into any
of the preceding categories. These included: (7) com-
ments on other studies; (8) rating scales, sggre cards
and tests; and (9) miscellaneous references.

The latter group identified by Domas consisted of
such entries as supervision, duties of principals, teacher
certification, admission to teachers colleges, and salary
policies.

Ryans proposed two general empirical approaches to
the problem of determining criteria for evaluation of
teacher effectiveness. He suggested that evaluation may be
accomplished either through direct observation of the
teacher or through observation of the product of the teacher's

efforts, the pupils. Ryans Observed that:

Of the two, ratings of the teacher probably has been
the most frequently employed. If we are going to judge
someone, or something, our first thought is Of direct

 

5.4‘I'b'id O I p O 6 2 O

55Domas,‘op‘."cit., pp. 8-9.

......

79

Observation. On the surface, at least, it also appears
less difficult to attempt the rating of teachers than

to consider the more complex methodological and statisti-
cal problems associated with measurement Of pupil change.
And ultimately, of course, experience has taught us that
most valid information must begin with subjectively
derived judgements. So pg Often turn to teacher ratings
in studying the teacher.

Ellena, Stevenson and Webb categorized all evalua-
tions as either formal or informal. Within this context they
identified three basic techniques for the appraisal of
teacher performance: ratings, Observations, and measurement
of student gains.58

Ratings may take the form of an over-all estimate of
teacher effectiveness or may be comprised of evaluations of
teacher behaviors and traits. The teachers' peers, students,
or staff personnel may determine ratings. The percent of
efficiency may be ranked, the level of trait may be indicated,
forced choice or various other factors may be involved.
Ratings usually include judgements based on observatiOn and

59
an informal observation of student gains.

Observations were described as usually conducted by
school officials within the classroom setting. This tech-

nique is seldom the only judgemental basis for teacher effect-

iveness and, as noted by the authors, "it is seldom used in

 

57David G. Ryans, "The Criteria of Teaching Effective-
ness," Journal of Educational Research, 42 (May, 1949), 692-
693.

 

58 . .
Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, op.'cit., p. 61.

sglbid.

80

an objective, scientific fashion."60

The measurement of student gain, by standardized
tests, to evaluate teacher effectiveness was described as
apprOpriate only under extensive controls and adjustments to
compensate for factors other than teacher influence.61

The application of the above described methods of
evaluation were not pictured by Ellena, Stevenson and Webb
as contributing factors to the study of teacher effective-

ness. They stated:

There is no concern about adding to the fund of know—
ledge about teacher effectiveness to the extent that

it can be predicted and explained accurately. Local

concerns are usually limited to "what" questions.

"Why" and "how" qugitions are more likely in the domain
of the researcher.

Reavis and Cooper conducted a study of rating devices
used in public school systems. Their analysis was based on
examination of 1538 items found in 85 different rating
scales. Ninety percent of these items were related to teacher
characteristics or behavior. The remaining ten percent were
directed toward the evaluative criterion of pupil results.63

Based on their analysis and support found in per-

tinent literature they received, Reavis and COOper concluded

 

60Ibid.
61

 

Ibid.

621bid.

 

63W. C. Reavis and D. H. Cooper,‘Evaluationiof.u .
‘Teacher Merit in City School Systems.‘ Supplementary'Educa-
'tional MonOgraphs, Number 59 (Chicago: University of Chicago,
1945), cited by Davis, op.'cit., p. 54.

 

81

that:

Ratings appear to be invalid, then, as comprehensive
measures of either general or specific teaching ability.
There still remains for them, however, the sphere of

personal Opinion . . . . It is apparent that ratings
are valid measures of the rater's Opinion of a teacher.

64
Worcester summarized his investigation of methods
used for rating teacher behavior and characteristics, by
observing that few ratings were found which pertained to
behaviors related to teaching and learning as such. He pro-

posed that:

The assumption has seemed to be that if the teacher has
a friendly personality and respects the personality of
the pupil and that if she is active, enthusiastic, and
in good standing with the others of the school personnel5
and in the community, then she is an effective teacher.
Rating scales were found by Ellena, Stevenson, and
Webb to be the most commonly used device for assessing
teaching behavior. They were able to discern no clear
delineation regarding what relevant teacher behavior is.
Rating devices were characterized as being implemented as
"a widespread net in the hope of catching some of the unsus-
. 6 . . .
pected variables." 6 An additional aspect of rating scales
deemed significant by the authors is their dependence upon
the value orientation and goals of the raters. Since a

definitive criteria for teacher effectiveness does not exist,

the rater must depend upon his personal views when evaluating

 

64Ibid.

 

65Worcester,‘Op."cit., p. 127.
66Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, Op. cit., p. 29.

82

with scales.67

Domas traced the development and application of
teacher rating scales, score cards and tests. His findings
were summarized by the following generalizations:

The consensus of Opinion in the comments upon these
devices was that no single device is suitable as a sole
predictor or measure of teacher competence, that there
are many inconsistencies in ranks and weights of items,
and that there is an almost complete lack of knogéedge
concerning the validity of any of these devices.

Ryans developed a listing of factors which pertains
to the relationship between teacher characteristics, as pre-
dictors, and teacher effectiveness. The criterion for
teacher effectiveness was abstracted from various criterion
measures which were cited in the literature. His listing
included:

Measured intellectual abilities, achievement in college
courses, general cultural and specific subject matter
knowledge, professional information, student teaching
marks, emotional adjustment, attitudes favorable to
students, generosity in appraisals of the behavior and
motives of other persons, strong interest in reading
and literary matters, interest in music and painting,
participation in social and community affairs, early
experiences in caring for children and teaching . . .
history of teaching in family, size of school and size
of-community in which teaching, cultural level Of co?-
munity, and participation in avocational activities. 9

Ryans observed that the above listed characteristics

seem to be associated with certain dimensions of teacher

 

67Ibid., p. 31.

68Domas,'o‘p‘.“cit., p. 13.

~69David G. Ryans, "Prediction ofTeacher Effective-
ness," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Chester W.
Harris (aa‘ea.; New York: Macmillan Co.,‘l960), p. 1490.

83

behavior and teacher effectiveness. He noted, however, that
the extent of the relationships has not been found to be
high. He believed this may be due, in part, to the fact that
the information gathered has usually been reported in terms
of averages for groups of teachers and thus, any Obtained
relationship is limited.70

There were also several teacher characteristics
cited by Ryans which appeared to have either little or a
negative relationship to his abstracted criterion. Included
among these factors were: (1) the extensiveness of general
and/or professional education; (2) personal appearance;
(3) grade or subject taught; (4) sex differences (at the
elementary level); and (5) marital status. A negative rela-
tionship was indicated between the age of the teacher, the
amount of teaching exPerience,and teaching effectiveness.
He found some indication of a positive relationship between
increase in effectiveness and eXperience during the early
years of a teacher's career.71

The reliability of the judgements of various parties
involved in the evaluation of teacher effectiveness was
investigated by Ellena, Stevenson and Webb. Based on their
examination of the literature, they prOposed that administra-
tive rating, while not only the most widely used measure of

teacher competence, proved to be a reliable approach.

..................

 

7OIbid.

7lIbid.

 

84

Although administrative ratings usually produced correlations
of .70 or above, they did not produce high correlations with
measures of student gain. Those teacher traits more objec-
tively observable or more independent of opinion were found
to be less susceptible to logical error or halo effect. 'The
authors suggested that ratings made by a single rater were
apt to be contaminated by halo effects.72

Peer ratings were found to have been given limited
application. Teachers tended to exhibit reluctance to
express judgements regarding fellow teachers. Agreement was
found between administrative and teacher ratings. Peer
ratings also appeared to be subject to halo effects.

Student ratings were moderately consistent. Their
reliability increased as the number of ratings pooled,
increased. The limited amount of available research on
student ratings precluded the investigators from general-
izing about the influence on student ratings of various
factors.

Teachers were found to rate themselves high when
self-rating techniques were implemented. Their self-ratings
showed insignificant relationship with administrative

ratings, student ratings, or measures of student gains.75

 

72Ellena, Stevenson and Webb, op.cit., p. 32.
73Ibid.

74Ibid.

75

Ibid., p. 33.

85

Various other approaches to teacher evaluation took
the form Of student descriptions of best and poorest
teachers, parent and teacher descriptions of the behavior of
teachers they recalled as effective, and descriptions by edu-
cational leaders of what they perceive as effective and inef—
fective teacher behavior. Ellena, Stevenson and Webb did
not view these approaches as having been productive or as
showing promise of appropriate directions for future investi-
gations.76

Ryans Observed that the estimates of the behavior
or achievement of students, which he termed product measure-
ments, have been often described as desirable criterion data
for teacher effectiveness. He determined the most defensible
of the product measurement techniques to be:

. . . (a) the direct observation and assessment of
student behavior during exposure to the teacher, who is
assumed to be at least a partial producer of student
behavior . . .; and (b) measurement of student change 77
from before to after exposure to the teacher-producer.

The primary difficulties with evaluation of teacher
effectiveness based on student behaviors and their products,
resides in the variety of factors which may be influential
in producing or contributing to student behavior or achieve-
ment. An additional hindrance to this approach is the dif-

ficulty in developing valid means of isolating and measuring

the facets of the product-criterion. Ryans indicated,

 

761bid., p. 34.

77Ryans, "Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness," p.

1487.

86

however, that such an approach to determining teacher effect-
iveness is potentially promising:

. . . if the rationale of the product (student per-
formance) criterion is accepted, and if the complex con-
trol problem presented by a multiplicity of producers
and the multi-dimensionality of the criterion can be
satisfactorily coped with, student change becgges an
intriguing approach to teacher effectiveness.

Research on Teacher Effectiveness

 

McCall and Krause conducted research directed at
determining the effectiveness of teachers as measured by
pupil growth. The criterion of effectiveness adopted for
the study was the amount Of pupil growth in the areas of
reading, writing, arithmetic, research, reasoning, reporting,
relationships of persons, recreation, and responsible work
skills. The growths each teacher produced in these areas
were combined and weighted according to importance into a
single criterion-of—merit score.7

It was reasoned by McCall and Krause that factors
such as I.Q., pupil drive, educativeness of home and com-
munity, class size, and attendance pattern would have an
effect on the amount of pupil growth. Each of these areas
were measured, the amount of influence determined, and

allowances were then made for each. Through this process,

 

7BIbid., p. 1488.

79William A. McCall and Gertrude R. Krause, ”Measure-
ment of Teacher Merit for Salary Purposes," Journal of
Educational Research, 53 (October, 1959), 73-75}

 

87

Va criterion-score-of-merit was determined for each teacher.80

The pertinent findings of this research may be sum-
marized in the form of several brief statements:

1. The ratings of superintendents, supervisors, princi-
pals, and colleagues, all displayed the tendency to
rate good teachers low and poor teachers high in
terms of the criterion.

2. The only persons in the school found to be profes-
sionally competent to judge the worth of the teachers
were their sixth-grade pupils (.36) and the teachers
themselves (.39) when giving a confidential self-
rating.

3. Training produced a correlation of (.13); years of
service showed a zero (-.04) correlation with merit.

4. Young teachers averaged higher criterion scores than
did older teachers.

In citing implications apparent in their findings,
McCall and Krause Observed:

The findings . . . would appear to invalidate a large
number Of researches which are based on the assumption
that the worth of a teacher can be validly judged by
superior officials, or based upon training, experience,
and knowledge of the subject taught. This means that
‘future research, employing a merit criterion, should use
either pupils' growth as a criterion or some combination
of teacher gaaracteristics really known to correlate
with merit.

McNeil expressed dissatisfaction with the emphasis
he felt was often placed on certain methods of determining
teacher effectiveness. He argued that:

There has been long resistance to the basal proposition
that the effectiveness of methods and teachers must be

.................

 

801bid., p. 73.

8'l'Ib’id.

82Ibid., p. 75.

 

88

measured in terms of the results secured . . . . Those
responsible for evaluating teachers have exalted pro-
cedures in teaching and have seldom examined the prod-
ucts, i.e., the efficiency of the teacher as indicated
by what his pupils can do following instruction. How-
ever, we are beginning to see an increasing number of
bold proposals founded on the assumption that the Ameri-
can public expects results from schooling. As public
support of education increases, there will be greater
insistence on judging a teacher in the lighEBOf his
ability to enhance the learning of pupils.
According to McNeil, a desirable method of accomplishing
teacher evaluation on a basis of educational results is
through application of what he terms, supervision by objec-
tives. This procedure requires that a supervisor and a
teacher reach agreement as to what behavioral objectives are
to be sought for particular pupils and what will be accepted
as evidence that the teacher has succeeded in realization of
the desired gain. The agreement between supervisor and
. . . . 84
teacher is develOped prior to instruction by the teacher.
In order to provide a test for his contentions,
McNeil designed a study which incorporated the use of super-
vision by objectives. Three major hypotheses were tested:
(1) "Supervisors will perceive teachers as more effective in
classroom instruction." McNeil contended that many teachers
are often successful in accomplishing changes in learning

but have not received recognition due to lack of prior agree-

ment between supervisor and teacher on the desirability of

 

83John D. McNeil, "Concomitants of Using Behavioral
Objectives in the Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness,"
Current Research on Instruction, ed. Richard C. Anderson and
others (EnglewoOd Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1969), p. 47.
84 “W

 

Ibid.

89

the results produced. (2) "Pupils will show greater gain in
the desired directions when the teacher's reinforcement is
contingent upon such pupil gains." And, (3) "Teachers will
perceive supervisors' suggestions as more relevant and help-
ful." It was prOposed by McNeil, that under a system of
supervision by objectives, suggestions are viewed as means
rather than ends.85

McNeil found that student teachers who functioned
under supervision by objectives were rated by supervising
teachers as having achieved greater success in teaching, as
determined by pupil achievement, than members of the control
group who functioned in a traditional manner. Supervisors
also rated the experimental group as more successful in the
understanding and use of principles of learning, as
evidenced by subsequent grades they received in student
teaching.86

A related study provided support for McNeil's second
hypothesis. Student teachers were randomly assigned to two
groups, with instructions for teaching language skills. The
control group was advised that they would be evaluated on
appearance, maturity, classroom arrangement, and teaching
procedures. Experimental group members were advised that

their evaluation would be based on their ability to select

appropriate behavioral changes to be sought in learners, and

...................

 

8511618., pp. 47-48.

86Ibid., p. 49.

90

to effect those changes without undesirable by-products.

"In essence these teachers were to be judged by their ability

to get results."87

It was found that pupils taught by teachers in the
experimental group achieved more than those taught by
teachers in the control group. Pupils of teachers in the
results-oriented group showed greater achievement, both in

areas of deficiency and the remaining language skills

measured by standardized tests.88

As a test for his third hypothesis, McNeil requested
that the teachers involved in the previously described experi-

ment, respond to the following items:

. . . (1) amount of time spent in teaching punctuation
skills during the period of evaluation, the extent of
pressure, the amount of freedom to select own teaching
procedures and the amount of time given to individual
pupils as Opposed to the class as a whole . . . . How
would you prefer to be evaluated as a teacher--(a) by
progress evidenced by my pupils (equating for their
initial ability to learn), (b) by my ability to follow
recommended procedures, (c) by my character, the extent
to which I am a model for pupils, (d) by my ability to 9
plan, (e) by my ability to work well with the faculty?

Both groups reported approximately the same amount
of time given to teaching task, felt free to select their
teaching procedures, found supervisor suggestions helpful,
and centered most Of their time on the class as a whole.

The teachers were nearly unanimous (98 percent) in their

 

87Ibid.
881bid., pp. 50-51.

891bid., p. 50.

91

preference for the use of pupil progress as the criterion

for evaluation of teaching.90

Proposals for Teacher Evaluation

 

Laurits prOposed that the evaluation of teaching must
evolve to a point where the school as a unit will be evalu-
ated. He argued that this procedure must begin with the
teaching team comprised of two or more teachers who have the
same students and time to plan together and Observe each
other's performance. The team is also envisioned as incor-
porating interns, aides, counselors, and administrators.
Laurits contended that "In a short time, as the team members
study the individual student together, they can begin to see
and to examine the wider horizons of the school itself."91

Evaluation is viewed by Laurits as becoming an
integral factor in the teaching process:

. . . teachers together plan a set of eXperiences for
the child, observe the student's reactions, evaluate the
process together, and decide on next steps. Evaluation
is a part of teaching and is so employed as to continu-
ously call for the improvement of the work. Evaluation
of this order gives us a school of a different nature
than the one wBEre principal and department heads are
the evaluators.

Barr cited several factors he identified as critical

to the realization of improved methods for the prediction and

measurement of teacher effectiveness. Among the needed areas

 

91Laurits, op.cit., p. 38.

92

of investigation he included: (1) the criterion of teaCher
effectiveness--differences exist due to the varied approaches
and criteria of teacher effectiveness--these differences need
resolution; (2) isolation of teacher influences; (3) separa-
tion of essential and non-essential factors of teacher
behavior; (4) systematic listings of the expectancies rela-
tive to the teacher; (5) a definition Of teaching; (6) tests
which examine the teacher's comprehension of the teaching
process; (7) identification of aspects of a situation that
limit or facilitate teaching up to potential; (8) additional
information pertaining to the biOphysical determiners of
human effectiveness; and (9) methods for assessing the appro-

priateness of the minute to minute decisions made by

teachers.93

Fishman criticized what he identified as the attitudes
Of teachers regarding evaluation. He proposed:

American teachers need to be much more personally
accepting of evaluation than they now are. American
teachers Often react to the suggestion that they be
graded and paid according to how well their pupils learn
. . . as if they were being scalded by boiling oil or
subjected to the greatest indignities. Why shouldn't
teachers be evaluated in this way? We would like to
evaluate physicians according to their patient's sub-
sequent health record; . . . I see no reason for treating
teachers differently, particularly as we find out more
and more about why and how children do or do not learn.

I rather suspect that teachers would be more innovating
and more successful in handling the difficult contextual
factors to which they and their efforts are eXposed in
much of modegz America if this rule were applied in their
case . . . .

..................................

 

93 ‘op.'cit., pp. 147-150.

94Fishman,'op.'cit., p. 29.

93

Support for Fishman's position may be found in
opinions expressed by Lessinger. He argued that although
many results of education are subjective in nature and not
easily audited, educators should deal with those aspects

that do lend themselves to definition and assessment.95

Summary

Several authorities have described the current status
of the evaluation of teacher effectiveness procedure as com-
plex and confusing. A primary need which has been identified
is that of a generally accepted definition of teaching. The
lack of such a definition has been cited as a major reason
for the failure to generate a common criteria for teacher
evaluation.

Various schools of thought have tended to promote
the evaluation of the teacher or teaching from the perspective
to which they ascribe. Many believe that teacher behavior
and teacher characteristics should be evaluated, others feel
that the proper context for evaluation is found in examina-
tion of the performance of the teacher's students.

The research on teacher effectiveness has generally
been described as limited in terms of indicating substanti-
ated courses for the develOpment of evaluation criteria.
Relationships between teacher behaviors, characteristics and

effects have yet to be determined. A limiting factor in the

..................

 

95Leon M. Lessinger, "Accountability for Results:~ -
A Basic Challenge for America's Schools," American Education
(June-July, 1969), 4.

 

94

determination of these relationships, as well as other
aspects of teacher effectiveness, has been identified as a
segmented approach on the part of the involved researchers.
The investigation of effectiveness from the particular dis-
ciplines of the researchers, often at the exclusion of edu-
cational theory, is viewed as an inefficient and unproductive
approach.

Testing practices related to the measurement of teacher
effectiveness have been criticized as inadequate. Measures
of certain basic skill areas have been found to be increas-
ingly valid and reliable. Appropriate tests Of the affective
realm have generally been deemed in need of further study.

The evaluation of teacher effectiveness in practical
field settings has largely been accomplished through the use
of rating forms, which rely on subjective judgements of the
evaluator. Little indication of validity has emerged from
studies of evaluation in which rating forms were used.
Teachers were found to be presently evaluated much in the
same manner and on the basis of the same criteria as they
were in the early part of the century.

The evaluative criterion of student performance or
growth has been sponsored by many parties. The chief criti-
cism of this approach has been the inability to isolate the
effects ofaisingle teacher from the effects of other
teachers, pupils, family, and general environment.

Evidence has been presented which indicates that the

95

most valid approch to the evaluation of teacher effective-
ness may be measures of pupil growth. Additional research
indicated that pupils achieve at higher levels, as measured
by standardized tests, when teachers are aware they will be

evaluated on the amount of learning demonstrated by their

pupils. It was also found that the teachers preferred to

be evaluated in this manner.

CHAPTER IV

GROUP DYNAMICS

Introductory Statement

 

Essential to those who advance a plan for dispensa-
tion of group rewards is knowledge of the behavior which
may be anticipated on the part of group members as a direct
result of the rewards. Initial examination of these reward
effects may begin with a brief investigation of group mem-
bership from a social psychological perspective.

The writings of Mead and Kinch have detailed a
social interactionist theory of self. According to this
theory, the self is not perceived as a unity but as a process
through which the individual identifies and characterizes
himself as a social object in relation to each social situa-
tion or social role within which he behaves.

The social role under consideration within the limits
of this thesis is that of the individual as a group member.
Research and authoritative opinion pertaining to the effects
of group membership on individual behavior in specified situ-
ations will be examined.

As detailed in Chapter I of this thesis, a broad,

 

lWilbur B. Brookover, "Student Role and Academic .....
‘Self-Concept" (East Lansing: prepared for the'Encyplopedia
'of Education, 1970), p. 5.

 

96

97
encompassing concept of group has been adOpted. No attempt
to relate the research reviewed to specific categories of
groups is contemplated. Support for this approach is found
in an analysis of group types by Cartwright and Zander:
Until better empirical evidence becomes available to
establish a fundamental discontinuity along the dimen--
sion of size, it would be unwise to use size to define
the field of group dynamics.

The same line of reasoning holds when considering
all the other criteria which have been proposed. Thus,
it should not be assumed without good evidence that one
set of laws applies to informal groups while another
applies to formal ones, or that a single theoretical
system cannot encompass face-to-face groups and organi-
zations. Similarly, it should not be taken for granted

that a special field of knowledgezis required for groups
having some particular objective.

Comparisons of Individual and Group Performance in
Situations ofiCompetition and Cooperation

The decision to distribute rewards on the basis of
total group performance as opposed to individual competition
among group members for the rewards, may generate a social
Situation which Deutsch has experimentally applied and which
may be termed common fate.3 Of significance to this study
is the level of performance displayed by groups functioning
under induced cooperation as compared to the performance of
individuals in competition for rewards.

Blau studied the effects of competition and

 

 

1960), p.

3Morton Deutsch, "An Experimental Study of the
Effects Of COOperation and Competition on Group Process,"
‘Human'Relations, 2 (April, 1949), 199-232.

98

cooperation on group performance in a government office.
His research was conducted with the interviewers in two
small sections of a public employment agency.4

In his description of the structural conditions
within the agency which affected competitiveness, Blau noted
that the members of one of the sections (Section A) were
more competitive than thOse of the other section (Section B).
The interviewers competitiveness, his hoarding of job files,
was an effective method of improving his placement record
in Section A, but this was not true for Section 8.5

Blau has noted the cooperative characteristics of

the members of Section B:

The members of Section B were more c00perative: they
discouraged competitive practices by making them ineffec-
tive. When they learned about interesting vacancies
they often told one another, but an interviewer who
manifested competitive tendencies was excluded from the
network of reciprocal information and lost the respect
of his co-workers. Any advantage of hoarding jobs was,
at least, neutralized by such lack of COOperation, as

is indicated by the absence of a relation between com-
petitiveness and productivity in this group. Since com-
petitive practices made an interviewer unpopular and
failed to raise his productivity, they were infrequent.

The degree of social cohesion found in each of the
groups was determined by Blau through an analysis of the

intragroup patterns of behavior. He placed particular

 

Peter M. Blau, "Cooperation and Competition in a
Bureaucracy," The American Journal of Sociology, 59 (May,
1954), 530-535.

5Ibid., p. 531.

61bid., pp. 531-532.

99

significance on the effect that social cohesion appeared to
have on the productivity of the group. The anxious concern
with productivity displayed by the interviewers in Section
A was viewed by Blau as causing them to concentrate blindly
upon it, at the eXpense of other considerations.
The neglected aspect of relationships with others

has been detailed by Blau:

Competitiveness in this group weakened social cohesion,

while c00perativeness in Section B strengthened it.

This is further shown by the fact that usually none of

the members of section A spent their rest periods

together, whereas all but one of those in Section B . . .

did. 'Social cohesion enhanced operating efficiency by

fac111tat1ng cooperation and reduc1ng status anx1ety.

The degree of social cohesion within a group was also

proposed by Blau to have an anxiety-reducing effect which,
in turn, was viewed as influencing productivity. He con-
tended that status anxiety is most pronounced in those indi-
viduals who do not feel integrated in their work-group and
thus attempt to derive social recognition from excelling at
their tasks and from gaining approval of their superiors.
Friendly relations with co-workers were seen by Blau as
making the standing of the individuals in the cohesive group
independent of their productivity. The consequent reduction
of anxiety in the anti-productivity-oriented group was

viewed as responsible for actually raising its productivity.9

 

Ibid., p. 534.

81bid.

 

9Ibid.

100

A cooperative approach to task performance would,
on the basis of Blau's study, appear to be advantageous in
terms of furthering the total productivity of a group.

While the competitive situation promoted increased produc-
tivity on the part of the most competitive individual in
the group, the total production of the group was less than
that of the cooperative group. Blau formulated an hypothesis
in which he attempted to summarize and interpret these
findings:
The hypothesis that the cohesiveness of the group and
the competitiveness of the individual in the less cohe-
sive group both reduce status anxiety eXplains the
paradox that the less competitive group as well as the
most competitive individual in theocompetitive group
each was part1cularly productive.

The c00perative behavior displayed by the members of
Section B, in Blau's study, was not directly influenced by an
externally originated group reward policy. The cooperative
group apparently develOped its own intragroup common fate
for purposes of anxiety reduction.

Deutsch has provided an indication that common fate
and resultant group member cooperation may be induced by
stipulating that rewards will be allocated on the basis of
total group performance. He attempted to study the effects

of cooperation and competition upon group achievement. The

study was designed to make comparisons of cooperative and

 

loIbid., p. 535.

11Deutsch,‘loc.' cit.

101

competitive groups as measured by their responses to puzzle
problems and human relations problems.11
Deutsch created a common fate for members of his
cooperative group by informing them that their rewards
would have high correspondence and would be determined by
the effectiveness of the group’s performance. The members
of the competitive group were to be rewarded on an individual
basis, with rewards for the most effective individuals
resulting in loss of reward for those less effective members.12
Deutsch found that observers rated the coOperative
groups as significantly more oriented ("aware of where they
are and where they are going") than the competitive groups
for both kinds of tasks.13 The cooperative groups were able
to solve the puzzle problems more rapidly than were the com-
petitive groups and were also able to produce more quantita-
tively on the human relations problems. The cooperative
groups were also superior in discussion productivity, as
rated by observers, and in written recommendations for the
human relations problems, as rated by judges. The observers
noted that the discussions of the c00perative groups not only
produced more fruitful ideas for handling the problems, but
also that their discussions revealed more insight and under-

standing of the nature of the problems.14

 

lzIbid., p. 201.
lBIbid.

14Ibid., p. 220.

102

The ratings of average individual productivity
showed no significant difference for the COOperative and
competitive groups on the human relations problems. A dif-
ference, less than significant, favored the c00perative
group in solving puzzles.15 Deutsch offered a possible cause
for this difference by noting that "the latter result is
probably explained by the fact that the greater communica-
tions within cooperative groups meant that individuals were
less likely to stay in blind alleys for long periods of
time."16

The cooperative situation also had an effect upon
the support provided for each other by the group members. A
greater percentage of encouraging or rewarding remarks were
made in COOperative groups during discussions. A signifi-
cantly larger proportion of aggressive statements were made
during the competitive group's discussions.17

The cooPerative groups indicated that they felt
obligated as members of a group to participate in a joint
effort. The competitive groups felt less obligated by com-
parison.18

Grossack applied the Deutsch technique for the pur-

pose of creating a common fate among the members of a

 

lslbid.

 

l'6Ib'id., p. 222.

l‘8'Ib'id., p. 223.

103

portion of the groups presenting solutions to a human rela-
tiOns problem. Those groups in which common fate had been
created showed significantly greater cooperative behavior.1
The relationship between c00peration and group cohe-
siveness has been noted by Grossack:
Cooperation may be considered a determinant of group
cohesiveness. Cooperative 35 showed significantly
more cohesive behavior, attempts at influence, exertion
and acceptance of pressures toward uniformity, and C38—
mun1cation of relevance than d1d the compet1t1ve Ss.
Research by Maller generally supports the findings
of Deutsch and Grossack. Productivity was found to be
greater when group members worked COOperatively on the group
task than when they worked independently or in competition
with each other.21
May and Dobb have proposed that individuals will
c00perate rather than compete when COOperation is perceived
as a means by which shared goals may be achieved.

Miller and Hamblin attempted to ascertain a possible

cause of inconsistencies in the findings of small group

 

lgIbid., p. 226.
0Martin M.Grossack, "Some Effects of Cooperation

and Competition Upon Small Group Behavior," Journal of
Abnormal Social Psychology, 49 (1954), 341-348.

Experimental Study in Motivation (New York: Teachers College,
columbia University, 19297} cited by Ralph M. Stogdill,
Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York. Oxford
University: Press, 1959), p. 231.

22 ..........................................................
‘tion (New York: Social Science Research Council, Bulletin
25,1937), cited by Stogdill, p. 248.

 

 

 

104

research dealing with competitive and cooperative situations.
A study involving university students was designed to examine
the influence which interdependence may have upon the pro-
ductivity of cooperative and competitive groups.23

The results of this study indicated that in high-
interdependence situations, as differential rewarding
increased, the productive efficiency of the groups decreased
sharply. In tasks requiring a low degree of interdependence,
contrary to the results hypothesized by the researchers, the
productive efficiency of the group did not increase with

differential rewarding.24

Comparisons of Individual and Group Performance

 

The literature presented in the preceding section of
this thesis has provided an indication that rewarding indi-
viduals in terms of the performance of the group tends to
encourage a c00perative approach to group goal achievement.

Evidence is also available which indicates that when
group and individual performances on similar tasks are com-
pared, that superior outcomes tend to result from the group
approach.

A study conducted by Faust compared the performance

 

23L. Keith Miller and Robert L. Hamblin, "Inter-
dependence, Differential Rewarding and Productivity," Current
Studies in Social Psychology, ed. Ivan D. Steiner and Martin
Fishbein (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965),
pp. 435-445. '

24 ....
. .Ibid.’ p. 445.

105

of groups and individuals on ability to solve spatial and
verbal problems. The mean number of problems solved by
groups was found to be significantly greater than the mean
number solved by individuals for both types of problems.25
The spatial problems were essentially one-step—insight
problems. The verbal problems were of multiple—step con-
struction.26
As a possible explanation for group superiority in
arriving at solutions to the multiple-step problems, Faust
observed that the group may have one member who can solve

one step of a problem, another member who can solve a dif—

ferent step, so that the group may solve the problem even

though no single member could have accomplished the solution

27
working alone.

Faust has generalized his findings in terms of their

implications for various other situations:

The present study has restricted its investigation to
only one aspect of group effectiveness-—performance in
solving certain kinds of problems. However, working in
groups may serve other functions. Participation in

groups may be important because it motivates individuals

in situations in which motivation otherwise would be

inadequate. Group decision making may be desirable, not

because the decision reached is better than that which
would be made by individuals, but because the decision
will Ba accepted by the members of the group once it is
made.

 

25William Faust, "Group Versus Individual Problem

Solving,"'Journal of‘Abnormal‘Social‘PSychOIOgy (July, 1959),

 

68-72.
262§i§,, p. 70.
273:3. p; 71.

106

Research by Lorge compared the ability of groups and
individuals to produce written responses to questions at
four levels of remoteness from reality. The responses pro-
duced by the groups were found to be superior to those pro-
duced by individuals at every level examined.29

Lorge suggested possible causes for these results:

The superiority of team solutions over individual solu-
tions in part may be due to the fact that teams of five
members ask more questions than do single individuals.
Teams, thus, not only get more information, but also
seem to evolge many more fruitful hypotheses regarding
a solution.

Supportive findings by Barnlund indicated that the
group is able to surpass its most capable members on given
tasks. In a study comparing the responses of individual
students and student groups to test questions, he found the
interacting groups able to perform significantly better
than their superior members had performed on a previously
applied form of the test.31

Barnlund cited several reasons he perceived as being
possible causes for group superiority: (1) an individual's
membership in an experimental group produced a higher level

of interest in successful completion of the task; (2) an

individual's membership in an eXperimental group had an

 

29Irving Lorge and others, "Solutions by Teams and
Individuals to a Field Problem at Different Levels of Reality,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, 46 (January, 1955), 17-24.

301bid., p. 24.

 

31D.,C. Barnlund, "A Comparative Study of Individual,
Majority, and Group Judgement," Journal of Abnormal Social
'PsychOIOgy, 58 (1959), 55-60.

 

 

107

inhibiting as well as facilitating effect since the knowledge
that Opinions were to be shared publicly made members more
cautious and deliberate in their thinking; (3) groups dis-
played greater critical resources than did individuals
working alone. Group members perceived different issues and
a greater quantity of issues than did individuals functioning
alone although the level of ability was similar; (4) the
competition between the private prejudices of group members
resulted in a more objective View of the problem.

Additional research by Lorge and others found
evidence that group discussions tend to produce novel ideas.
None of the group members had mentioned these ideas during
individual discussions held prior to the group sessions.

Thorndike found evidence that groups tend to do well
when the solution of the problem permits many alternative
solutions rather than only a limited number.34 A possible
cause for this superiority was offered by Dashill. He
observed that the greater the variety of judgements of others

an individual is cognizant of, the greater the likelihood

 

32Ibid.

3Irving Lorge and others, Evaluation of Instruction
in Staff Action and Decision Making. Technical—Report No. 16
(Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Human Resources Research
Institute, 1953), cited by John W. Thibaut and Harold H.
Kelley,The Social ‘Psychology of Groups (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., I966), p. 267.

34Robert L. Thorndike, "The Effect of Discussion
Upon the Correctness of Group Decisions, When the Factor of
Majority Influence is Allowed For," Journal of Social Psygho-
logy, 9 (1938b), 343-362.

 

 

 

 

108

. 35

that.he will make a correct decision himself. When the
group decision involves a questioning process, Taylor and
Faust found that groups require fewer inquiries to attain
the answers to questions.

The studies pertaining to group effects upon indi-
vidual performance have been reviewed by Thibaut and Kelley.
They concluded that working with others is generally more
productive than working alone. In their analysis of the
information which prompted this conclusion, the authors
observed that many factors in the social setting of groups
may affect the subsequent performance of the members:

In brief, the social setting may be constrictive and
inhibiting, or it may be provocative and supportive.
As to what makes it one way or the other--what varia-
tions in group size, organization, routine, or leader-
ship-~the existing7evidence furnishes only a number of
suggestive leads.

Thibaut and Kelley contended that if systematic,
intelligent decisions regarding when to depend on the indi—
vidual and when to rely on group efforts for productive

thought are to be made, then the above cited conditions must

be identified. If further investigation indicates that the

 

35J. F. Dashill, "EXperimental Studies of the Influ-

ence of Social Situations on the Behavior of Individual Human
Adults," A Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. C. Murchison
(Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1953), pp. 1097-
1158.

6

Donald W. Taylor and William L. Faust, "Twenty
Questions: Efficiency in Problem Solving as a Function of
Size of Group," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44
(July, 1952), 360-368.

37Thibaut and Kelley, op. cit., pp. 271-272.

109

group problem—solving process tends to produce solutions in
an ineffective manner, the authors predicted that it is

very improbable that the entire responsibility for decision-
making would then become the responsibility of individuals.
From the perspective of Thibaut and Kelley, group problem-
solving will probably be continued to a certain extent
regardless of the effectiveness of the procedure.

The necessity for group member participation in not
only the develOpment of goals, but in the determination of
the means by which attempted goal realization will be
attempted, was given high priority by Thibaut and Kelley.
They observed that:

. . . the coordinated joint action of many members that
is necessary to reach certain goals requires widespread
understanding of the nature of the chosen means. If
general participation in developing and planning a
means heightens understanding of it and commitment to
it, the group problem-solving process may be more
economical in the long run than on§9that begins with
the most expert thought and advice.

The literature pertaining to group and individual
learning comparisons has been studied by Davis. His result-
ant analysis is consistent with the position assumed by those
in support of group superiority. Davis noted that:

If we were to summarize the individual-group learning
experiments we have only sampled here, the most fitting
generalization would be that although the difference
between individuals and groups is frequently negligible,

any significant discrepency almost uniformly favors
groups. Groups are more likely than individuals to come

 

381bid., p. 272.

39Ibid.

110

up with a correct response; they make fewer errors: and
frequently45hey arrive earlier at response or learning
criterion.

Group Cohesiveness, Group Norms, and ‘Group‘Productivity

 

Previously cited research has provided an indication
that the degree of COOperation between the members of a
group is an important determinant of the cohesiveness of the
group. The aspect of cohesiveness is, in turn, viewed by
many group theorists as an integral factor in the develOp-
ment of group norms. Seashore conducted related research in
a factory producing heavy machinery.

The reSults of the study, which was designed to

investigate the relationship between group productivity,

group standards, and group cohesiveness have been summarized
by Seashore in the form of the following generalizations:

Our general conception is that group productivity
standards develop in such a manner as to facilitate the
achievement of the goals of the group members. In terms
of the force field acting upon the individual group mem-
ber, we assume a condition in which there are Opposed
forces toward higher and toward lower productivity and
that the standard adopted will depend upon the balance

of these forces. We further assume that the induction

by the company of forces toward higher productivity will
be more or less effective depending upon the confidence
of the individual that rewards will accompany higher pro-
ductivity and penalties will accompany lower productivity.
Degree of group cohesivesness becomes relevant because

it is a factor in the formation of consensus. The hypo-
thesis is that the behavior specified by a group standard
is determined in part by the shared perceptions within the
group regarding the degre of support provided by the
organization of which the group is a part.

 

40James H. Davis, Group Performance (Reading, Mass.:
Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1969), pp.016-l7.

 

1
Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness‘in the
Industrial Work Group (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1954).

421bid., p. 72.

 

 

111

Seashore's hypothesis thus has theoretical signifi-
cance for the manner in which reward systems are administered.
Conceivably, it may be possible to facilitate to a certain
extent the development of high-level group standards through
a system of reward administration which tends to produce
group-member confidence in the organization.

An argument in indirect support of the concept of
group-member participation in the formulation of group goals
and the means by which they may be achieved has been offered
by Festinger and Thibaut. They proposed that as the cohe-
siveness of the group increases and the issues considered
become more relevant, the group tends to exert pressures
upon deviant members. Deviating members show a greater
change in the direction of the group norm.43

The degree of cohesiveness within a group is also
viewed by Klein as a factor which influences deviant group
members. Klein noted that:

Since deviance from the norms of others may cause these
others to withdraw their friendship and/or to interact
with them less frequently, the more cohesive the group
is, the gfiiater the control that can be exercised in
th1s way.

Thibaut and Kelley have analyzed the relationship

between group goals and individual goals. According to

 

43Leon Festinger and John Thibaut, "Interpersonal

Communication in Small Groups," Journal of Abnormal Social
Psychology,_46 (January, 1951), 92-99.

44Joseph Klein, The Study of Groups (London: Kegan
Paul Ltd., 1956), p. 134.

 

 

112

their conclusions, action is taken in both instances to
attempt to put a task in a particular state. They have
observed that group goals are:

. . . more nearly like norms in their dependence on at
least some degree of consensus among the members.
Acceptance of group goals is likely to be high in
organized groups and is increased as members' outcomes
tend to correspond. A source of member resistance to
group goal acceptance may be his concern about whether
compensations will ultimately reward him for lengthy
and arduous participation . . . as long as members are
interdependent in attaining their goals, there must be
wide acceptigce of the chosen means as well as the goals
themselves.

Katz and Kahn have noted that in situations where
cooperative group efforts are necessary, certain methods of
reward distribution often result in the establishment of
protective group norms:

Since there is such a high degree of collective inter—
dependence among rank and file workers, the attempts

to use individual rewards are often perceived as inequit-
able. Informal norms develOp to protect the group
against efforts which are seen as divisive or exploitive.
Differential rates for subsystems within the organization
will be accepted much more than invidious distinctions
within the same subgrouping.

These authors further observed that through applica-
tion of rewards in those situations where varying degrees of

COOperation and interaction are necessary, it is possible

to influence increased productivity in specified areas.

 

45John W. Thibaut and Harold A. Kelley, The Social

Ps cholo of Grou s (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
15%35. pp.LTTTI‘P—7 - 7 .

46Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psycho-
Logy of Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1966), p. 354.

 

 

 

113

Katz and Kahn dramatized this point with the contention that
"many organizations are not assembly-line Operations, a uni—
versity can increase the amount Of research productivity by
making publication the essential criterion for promotion."47
Based on a review Of pertinent research by Likert,
Mayo and Lombard, Brody, and Mann and Baumgartel, Katz and
Kahn proposed that the internalization Of organizational
goals tends to result in low absence and turnover, high pro-
ductivity and maximal spontaneity and innovativeness on the
part Of the employees in the service of these goals.
The process Of internalization of organizational
goals is viewed by Katz and Kahn as one of the most effective
Of motive patterns and yet one Of the most difficult to imple-
ment within the context Of the organizational setting. The
degree of internalization is perceived as being dependent
upon the character Of the organizational goals and their con-
gruence with the needs and values Of the individuals. The
process Of goal internalization is further determined to be

dependent upon the degree Of participation which is afforded

 

47Ibid.

48R. Likert, New Patterns offManagement (New York:
McGraw Hill, 1961); E. Mayo and G. Lombard, "Teamwork and
Labor Turnover in the Aircraft Industry Of Southern Califor-
nia," Business Research Studies, NO. 32 (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University,’l944): M. Brody, "The Relation Between
Efficiency and Job Satisfaction" (unpublished Master's
Thesis, New York University, 1945); F. C. Mann and H. J.
Baumgartel, "Absences and Employee Attitudes in an Electric
Power Company" (Ann Arbor: Institute for SOOial Research,
1952), cited by Katz and Kahn, p. 389.

 

 

 

114

the individuals in the determination of organizational deci-
sions and the allocation Of rewards which are realized by
the organization.49

Research reviewed by Bass indicated that group gOals
which have relevance for the members tend to modify their
subsequent behavior. Participation in the formulation Of
goals and policies is viewed as an important factor in the

50
group's subsequent conformity to them.

Reward Structures

 

Three basic considerations for reward structures
which incorporate salary incentives have been identified by
Katz and Kahn. These considerations are seen as possessing
importance not in terms of specific stipulations, but
importance in the manner in which they are perceived by the
recipients. Those characteristics determined,include:

(1) the rewards musthaclearly perceived as large enough in

amount to justify the additional effort required to Obtain

them; (2) they must be perceived as directly related to the

required performance and follow directly upon its accomplish-

ment; and (3) the rewards must be perceived as equitable to
51

the majority Of the system members.

Rewards have been categorized from a group perspective

 

49Ibid.

50Bernard M. Bass, Leadership, Psychology,'and‘0rgani-
zational Behavior (New York: Harper,’1970).

 

51 .
Katz and Kahn, Op. cit., p. 353.

115

by Collins and Guetzkow. Two major reward classifications
have been developed in terms Of their relationship to the
group. The first classification was termed task environ-
mental rewards. These rewards are events external to the
group. Task rewards are viewed as retaining their effect-
iveness for long periods of time after group action. The
second classification, interpersonal rewards, are events in
the behavior of group members, and therefore, internal to
the group. The authors contended that group members have
much more control over their own behavior than they do over
task environmental feedback.52

Collins and Guetzkow proposed that interpersonal
rewards can be used to support task activities and that task
environmental rewards can mold and maintain certain patterns
of interpersonal relationships. Both kinds Of rewards are
viewed as capable Of supporting either or both classes of
behavior.53

Reward types have also been categorized by Katz and
Kahn. They elected to approach such classification from an
organizational perspective. Two major types of organiza-
tional rewards were identified: (1) system rewards; and (2)

individual rewards.S4

 

2Barry E. Collins and Harold Guetzkow, A Social
Psychology Of Group Processes for‘Decision Making (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), p. 85.

53Ibid.

54Katz and Kahn,'op. cit., pp. 355—356.

116

System rewards were described as rewards which are
allocated on the basis Of membership in the system. They
differ from individual rewards, which are based on differen-
tial effort and performance, in that the criterion for their
distribution is usually determined by seniority in the
system. System rewards were perceived by Katz and Kahn as
.encouraging performance of sufficient quantity or quality to
enable continued membership in the system.

Individual rewards for performance were viewed as
difficult to apply in large-scale organizations but "under
the proper conditions Of immediacy, constancy and adequacy
can lead to increased productive effort."

A study by Porter and Applewhite, based on the
research conducted by Seashore, was carried out in a plastics
company. The intended purpose Of the study was tO examine
the relationship between reward for efficiency and increased
production. The worker's productive output was hypothesized
to be dependent upon the variables: (1) group cohesiveness;
(2) group participation; (3) group norms; and (4) the manner
in which the workers perceived the role Of their authorized
supervisor. These variables were then analyzed in terms of

the effect that reward for efficiency had upon them.57

 

55Ibid.

561bid., p. 356.

57Donald E. Porter and Phillip B. Applewhite,
Studies in Organizational Behavior and'Management (Scranton:
International Textbook Co., 1964), pp. 208-209.

 

117

Reward for efficiency was found by Porter and Apple-
white to be more positively associated with high group norms
when the cohesiveness of the group was high. In instances
where the employees had greater control over their work situ-
ation, the reward for efficiency tended to be more strongly
associated with positive group norms. Positive group norms,
in turn, affected the productive output Of the group.

It was also found that a positive correlation between
reward for efficiency and group norms existed in groups where
supervision was determined to be close. Close supervision
was not associated with perceived pressure from foreman to
increase production or reduce waste. Those groups which
reported close supervision more Often indicated that their
team worked COOperatively.59

Extensive research was conducted by Davison and
others in industrial settings in Great Britain for the pur-

60 While their

pose of investigating incentive plans.
investigations were not directed solely to the concept of
group rewards, insight as to the potential these investi-
gators see for the general class Of incentives is pertinent

to this thesis.

In summarizing their conclusions, Davison et a1.

 

59Ibid.

60J. P. Davison and others, Productivity and Eco-
nomic Incentives (London: George Allen and Univin Ltdi,
1958).

 

118

noted:
. . . our research found that though large increases in
productivity--larger than commonly supposed--can be
obtained by introducing payment by result based on work
study, this introduction bustles with problems in indus-
trial democracy, communication and group psychology.
Engineers, business managers and practical economists
can certainly hOpe to increase the national product by
economic incentives but only if they take account Of ghe
social climate, particularly its liability tO storms.
These researchers also noted the extreme difference
between inducing an individual tO accept initial employment
with a firm and inducing him to modify his pattern of action
after he is a member. The modification process is viewed as
including such factors as " . . . managerial skill and quali-
ties Of leadership, the public Opinion Of the working group,
individual and group attitudes, trade union policies both

national and local, and, Of course, economic incentives."

The Scanlon Plan

 

In the research and theoretical views pertaining to
group behavior and group rewards previously cited in this
chapter, several key factors have emerged as influential in
the determination of the performance Of a group. These key
factors include: cooperation; social cohesiveness; common '
fate; participation; group norms or standards; and relevance
of group goals.

A group incentive plan which has found generally

 

6lIbid., p. 39.

621bid.

119

successful application in many industrial settings and which
is conceptually organized so as to consider these identified
*variabdes was developed, in principle, by Joseph Scanlon
(hiring the late 1930's. Impetus for such a plan was provided
lqy Scanlon's eXperiences during the Depression, when neces-'
sity dictated cooperative efforts on the part of citizens

6
iJi attacking community problems. 3

Scanlon felt that traditional company organizational
patterns did not allow employees to realize their productive
potential either on an individual or group basis. The roles
assumed by employees and managers Often resulted in divisive
behavior on the part Of both groups. There Often appeared

to be lacking a commonality of purpose in the goals Of the

company and those Of the employees.64

Lesieur and Puckett have described Scanlon's views
regarding employee participation and reward:

He felt that employee interest and contribution could
best be stimulated by providing the employee with a
maximum amount Of information and data concerning com-
pany problems and successes, and by soliciting his con—
tribution as to how he felt the problem might best be
solved and the job best done.

Thus the Scanlon Plan is a common sharing between
management and employees of problems, goals, and ideas.
Scanlon felt that individual incentives worked against
employee participation of this nature. He believed that
individual incentives put the direct worker in business
for himself, pitted him against the broader interests of

 

63
Fred G. Lesieur and Elbridge S. Puckett, "The

Scanlon Plan has Proved Itself," Harvard Business Review
(September-October, 1969), 109-118.

64Ibid., p. 110.

120

the company, and produced inequities in the wage struc-
ture that in turn led to poor employee morale. His
concept Of a system Of rewards that would stimulate
employee interest and acceptance of technological change
involved an apprOpriate wage structure reflecting (1)
individual skills and (2) additional rewards, based on
the success Of the enterpggse, to be shared by all
employees and management.

While Operational details may vary somewhat, the
basic features Of the Scanlon Plan when applied in industry
are consistently similar. Lesieur and Puckett have investi-
gated the application Of the Scanlon Plan in various contem-
porary industrial settings and attempted to desCribe their
findings in terms of a generalized description. It was
found that companies usually implement Scanlon's philOSOphy
Of participation by means of a committee system comprised of
a departmental production committee and an overall screening
or steering committee.66

The departmental production committees consist Of
two or more employees, depending on the size Of the depart—
ment, and one or two management members. The management
members are appointed by the company, with the head of the
department, or area, usually chairing the committee. The
employee members are usually elected by the employees in the
department or, in some instances, appointed by the union
leadership. Regularly scheduled meetings are held, at which

time the members insure that each suggestion submitted by

the employees has been recorded along with any action which

 

551bid.
GGIbid.

121

has been taken. The committee must also process all sugges-
tions, attend tO previous suggestions on which action has
not been completed, and consider any other business con-
sidered important to the department's performance. Although
the committees approve the majority Of the suggestions sub-
mitted, they do not have the right tO accept or reject the
ideas presented. The management Of the company usually
reserves this prerogative.67

Following the meetings Of the production committee
and as soon as the data on the company's performance for the
previous month are available, the screening committee meets.
The chairman Of this committee is normally a tOp executive
who serves along with other tOp executives from the various
departments Of the company. The president, steward or other
union Officer Of the local union or unions involved usually
serves and employee members represent various areas. As at
the production committee level, the employee members are
usually elected by their constituents, but in some cases may
be appointed by the union.68

The screening committee reviews the performance of
the previous month and attempts to analyze the possible
causes for both favorable and unfavorable results. An
important function of each member is to Obtain a full under-

standing Of the variables that determine the bonus result, so

 

67Ibid., pp. 110-111.

681bid., p. 111.

122

that this information may be accurately imparted to other
employees. It is viewed as extremely important that the
employees understand the results and maintain confidence in
the method Of measurement which is used.69

An additional function Of the screening committee is
to examine any company problems or matters Of interest which
the management feels should be communicated to all employees.
Any suggestions which have not been resolved at the produc-
tion committee level are discussed and apprOpriate actions
determined. In all cases there is no voting by the committee
on suggestions but there is a thorough discussion Of all
points of view when disagreement occurs. Following con-
sideration, management makes the final decisions.

From the perspective Of the employees, the material
rewards from a Scanlon-type Operation are in the form Of
increased wages. In recent years, the most commonly used
type Of measurement is what has been termed a sales value
Of production ratio. The ratio Of total payroll to sales
value of production inaaprior base period is compared with
the ratio in the current period. Any improvement in the
ratio provides a bonus pool. Usually, 25 percent Of the
pool is the company's share and the remaining 75 percent is
distributed among the employees as that month's performance

bonus. Participation in the bonus reward includes everyone

 

69Ibid., pp. 111-112.

7OIbid., p. 112.

123

in the company up to and including the president, or, in the
instance of larger, multi-plant organizations, everyone
employed in the facility in which the plan is in effect.71
By way Of supportive evidence for the Scanlon philo-
SOphy, Lesieur and Puckett have provided a detailed report
Of the results credited to the plan in three selected com-
panies. An initial advantage was found to be increased
acceptance and accomplishment Of change. The authors
Observed that "while there is a natural human reluctance to
change, employees . . . are now pushing management to bring
in new equipment and to get it Operating prOperly for the
benefit of all."72
Other generalized findings characteristic Of each Of
the three companies include such factors as: "an employee
finds it more natural to take a broader View of the com-
pany's problems" . . . "getting the COOperation and support
of the indirect servicing groups--i.e., tool room, mainten-
ance, and materials handling--is much easier when these
groups receive incentive earnings" . . . "Through their com-
mittee activity, managers are able to discuss company
Objectives with employees and attain a response that is not
possible under an individual incentive system" . . . "It is

very important that the participants look on the success of

the enterprise as being the basis for their own individual

 

711bid.

 

721bid., p. 116.

124

success. When this attitude is present, the entire organi-
zation responds to problems . . . in a way calculated to
get them solved as quickly as possible."73
The financial accomplishments Of the three companies
tend to support the effectiveness they have attributed to
the Scanlon Plan. In each instance, performance bonuses
have been paid to employees in nearly all Of the bonus
periods. A valid indicator, from an economic perspective,
is the stability Of the ratio of sales value Of production
and payroll. In each of the companies examined, the ratio
Of total payroll to sales value Of production is nearly the
same as it was the first year the plan was instituted. The
companies under consideration have functioned under the
Scanlon Plan for at least ten years.74
In concluding their analysis Of the Scanlon Plan in

practical Operation, Lesieur and Puckett noted the necessity
for sound administrative practices:

What may distinguish the three companies more is that

they all have good management. If you talk to the

president or other managers in the companies, you find

one common characteristic: they all know there is no

substitute for good management. It is also important

to note that in each of the companies the union is ably

directed. In other words, the Sggnlon Plan is not used
as a crutch for good leadership.

 

73Ibid.

 

74Ibid., pp. 114-115.

75Ibid., p. 118.

125

Summary

The social role of group membership from a social
psychological perspective has formed the frame Of reference
for the group literature presented in this chapter.

It was indicated that in instances where groups com-
prised Of individuals in competitive situations were com-
pared tO groups which were structured tO promote coopera-
tive behavior among members, that cooperative efforts
resulted in higher productivity and achievement.

Evidence was also presented which shows that when
group and individual performances on similar tasks are com-
pared, the group tends tO perform in a superior manner. The
conclusion expressed by various sources indicates that
working with others is generally more productive than working
alone.

Several interrelated factors were presented as influ-
ential in determining the level Of effectiveness at which a
group may function. The COOperative behavior Of group mem-
bers was found to result in an increase in the group's degree
of social cohesion. Cohesiveness in a group tended to serve
to reduce status anxiety experienced by group members.
Reduced status anxiety, in turn, resulted in increased group
productivity. Cohesiveness was also found to be a deter-
minant of the level of the group norms developed within the
group. Higher group norms affect the productivity of the
group in that they determine the standards Of group perform-

ance.

126

Participation in the determination Of group goals
and the means for accomplishing them was proposed to be an
important determinant of the degree to which group members
will attempt to realize these goals. Participation was sug-
gested as affecting the relevance Of goals to members. Rele-
vant goals were viewed as influential in affecting the
behavior Of group members in a positive manner.

Practical application Of a COOperative approach to
group goal achievement, group rewards for effectiveness,
and group member participation in determination Of the means
for goal realization is characterized by the Scanlon Plan.
This plan, which has a record Of success in several indus-
trial applications, was described in some detail. Rationale
for the plan, in addition to evidence in the form Of case
studies which indicate desirable results from its application,

were also noted.

CHAPTER V

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UNIT INCENTIVE MODEL

' Overview Of Chapter V

 

The concluding chapter Of this thesis consists Of
three related segments:

1. The initial presentation is that Of a descrip-
tive rationale for the school incentive model. Justification
for the characteristics Of the model is found in the research
and authoritative Opinions which have been cited in the pre-
ceding chapters Of this thesis. Any proposals which are not
supported by previously included evidence are substantiated
by data presented in the text Of this chapter. Those facets
of the model which are inputs Of the writer are so indicated.

2. The second segment Of this chapter outlines a
model school unit incentive plan as applied in a public
school setting. The situation is hypothetical. The char-
acteristics Of the designated elementary school are intended
tO depict the manner in which the writer conceptualizes the
implementation of the proposals in a field setting.

3. Chapter V is concluded with the presentation of
a summary,and Observations Of the writer pertaining tO

aspects Of the study.

127

128

Financial Incentives

 

The cultural and psychological significance accorded
to money and its possession and allocation in our society has
been discussed in Chapter I. Society determines those factors
which are deemed meaningful and important and thus worthy Of
varying amounts of financial allocation. The discussion of
this point is not intended to encourage debate regarding
various value systems and priorities, but more precisely, to
observe that in our society, money is meaningful.

If this perspective is projected to the field Of
education, we may conclude that those factors for which
teachers are rewarded above the system reward level are the
aspects Of teachers or teacher behaviors upon which the
public places the greatest significance. The vast majority
of teachers in this country have been shown to function under
a single-salary type schedule. As noted, this structure pro-
vides for additional compensation for teachers as determined
by the number Of years Of teaching eXperience and level Of
formal preparation, usually the number Of university credit
hours which they possess. Research has indicated little
correlation between amount Of teacher experience, formal
preparation level, and teacher effectiveness. We thus have
a situation in public education wherein teachers are rewarded
on the basis Of factors which presently show a negligible
relationship with the degree Of effectiveness at which they

perform. Sufficient significance to warrant financial rewards

129

Ihas not.been accorded teacher effectiveness under the pre-
sently applied reward structure.

The model school unit incentive plan to be presented
in this thesis is structured around one type Of incentive--
financial reward. The ultimate purpose of the prOposed plan
is to provide a device whereby collective teacher effective-
ness is accorded significance, and increased teacher effective-
ness is encouraged and financially rewarded.

The means by which effectiveness is accomplished is
not within the limits of this study. It is, however, anti-
cipated that the incentive plan herein proposed may provide
impetus for investigation into means by which schools may
become increasingly effective.

A final purpose of the model school unit incentive
plan is to provide support, encouragement, recognition, and
financial reward to those schools presently functioning in a

comparatively more effective manner.

Reward Structure

The prOposed teacher incentive model is intended as
an augmenting factor to the regular single salary schedule.
It is necessary that a plan Of this type be easily compre-
hended, implemented, and administered. Since this reward
structure will result in a school district Operating with
two independent salary structures, the fewer demands the plan
requires in terms Of mechanics, the greater the probability

for acceptance and subsequent success.

130

The literature pertaining to attempted teacher merit
salary'plans indicates that these programs have been
:structured to provide rewards for those individual teachers
judged.to be deserving. This aspect Of the attempted pro-
<grams has served to produce one Of the major criticisms Of
teacher merit p1ans--that Of competition among teachers for
the merit rewards.

Evidence has been presented which tends to support
the supposition that the divisive behavior Often produced by
competition among individuals for rewards may be ameliorated
by the institution Of a system Of group rewards. It has
been found that group rewards tend to promote COOperative
behavior among group members. COOperation has been shown to
increase a group's cohesion and group cohesion has, in turn,
been found tO relate positively with the level Of group pro-
ductivity.

Previously attempted incentive plans in education
have neglected to incorporate provisions for group rewards
into the reward system. A major goal Of the model develOped
in this thesis is to promote the positive behaviors which
research has indicated may result from the application of
group rewards.

The maintenance Of a positive, COOperative relation-
ship between building administrator and teaching staff has,
in recent years, been subjected to severe,externally origi-
nated strains. A partial reduction of this conflict may be

accomplished through introduction Of a common goal.

131

Pertinent research on grOUp dynamics, when projected to the
school situation, suggests that advantages may be realized
by the creation Of a common fate for all staff and adminis-
trative personnel Of a given school. Such a common-fate
situation may be induced by stipulating that both faculty
and administration will be evaluted and rewarded on the basis
Of how effectively they achieve a common goal. In the
instance Of this model incentive plan, the common goal is the
degree of success realized by stipulated pupils on pre-deter-
mined educational criteria.

The perspective from which teacher effectiveness is
viewed in this thesis is in terms Of the total school. The
variations in effectiveness among individual teachers, admin-
istrators or other staff members will not be considered ger-
mane to this study. The model incentive structure shall pro-
vide that rewards be equally allocated to the total school
staff as determined by the success produced by their combined
efforts. It thus becomes mutually advantageous for the
effective segments of the school to assist the ineffective;
for the ineffective to strive for improvement; and for the
total staff to search for means and methods whereby the
effectiveness Of the school may be increased.

The promotion Of group responsibility and group
efforts among the members of a school staff may be criticized
for reducing the individuality Of staff members. The concern
may arise that an individual teacher's special talents, crea-

tivity, and pride of personal accomplishment could be stifled

132

'through.creation of a common fate. The model school unit
incentive plan herein proposed specifies no stipulations as
tn) the degree and type of teacher interaction, or as to
‘whether tasks are to be performed on an individual or group
ibasis. It is felt by the writer that this decision is more
apprOpriately the domain of those individuals who are
involved in the tasks. It should be noted, however, that
it is possible to serve as a group member and work for the
achievement of group goals while functioning much Of the
time on an individual basis.

It is intended that group responsibility will
encourage a coordinated effort on the part of staff members
to insure total-school effectiveness, as contrasted with

more limited grade-level or classroom concerns.

Incentive Reward Amounts

The amounts of incentive rewards appear to be rela-
tive in nature and dependent upon the economic status of a
particular geographic location or a specific school district.
The literature examined provides the caution that it is
important that the amount Of the incentive be Of sufficient
quantity to be perceived by the potential recipients as
worthy of sustained and demanding efforts. It remains vir—
tually impossible to arbitrarily determine the size Of an
incentive which will be acceptable to both allocator and
recipient in a variety of situations.

In a school district where the average annual teacher

133

salary is $10,000, an annual incentive reward Of $500 may be
viewed as insufficient to justify increased teacher effort.
Although in a district where the average annual teacher
salary is $6,000, such a reward may be considered by teachers
as extremely attractive.

The problem of the appropriate size Of the incentive
reward is more legitimately resolved by the involved parties
at the time the mechanics of the plan are established. This
topic requires feedback and interaction between those respon-
sible for allocating finances and those who anticipate
receiving rewards.

The process Of organizational goal internalization
by individuals has been suggested to be partially dependent
upon the degree of participation which is afforded the indi-
viduals in the determination Of organizational decisions,
and in the determination of the basis for allocation of
rewards. This position tends to support the above described
procedure.

For purposes of representation in this study, the
amount Of the incentive reward will arbitrarily be estab-
lished at 4 percent Of the average annual teacher salary in

a given school district, for each variable which is measured.

Distribution of Incentive ReWards

 

The literature reviewed by the writer has failed to
produce any indication that an experienced teacher is more

effective than a teacher with less experience or that a

134

principal is more or less influential than a teacher in
determining the degree of a school's effectiveness in terms
of pupil outcomes. This reasoning may also be applied to
special area personnel such as counselors, teachers Of art,
music, or physical education, and teacher aides.

, Since no justifiable basis for reward differentia—
tion has emerged, for purposes of this model it is pro-
posed that all professional certified personnel who function
within a given elementary building receive equal incentive
rewards.

Exceptions to this stipulation are professional staff
members who are also responsible for other buildings or
other duties. Thus, a member of a faculty serving 50 per-
cent of his teaching time in a building where qualification
for the incentive reward has been realized is eligible to
receive 50 percent of the standard incentive amount. A
direct correspondence between percent Of time assigned tO a
given building and percent Of incentive reward for which
eligible, is proposed.

Non-professional, full-time staff members,such as
teacher aides, shall have the amount Of the incentive reward
for which eligible based on 4 percent Of the specified,
average annual job-classification salary in the given school
district, for each variable which is measured. _The direct
correspondence between time assigned to a given building
and percent of incentive reward, as outlined for professional

staff, shall apply to non-professional staff.

135

It is proposed that all supportive personnel Of the
school, as designated in the model in part two Of this
chapter, be eligible for incentive rewards. Support for
this proposal has been provided by the literature dealing
1vith incentive rewards in selected industrial settings. It
‘was found that those employees whose duties consisted Of the
performance Of auxiliary services, displayed a greater
degree Of COOperation and increased concern over the realiza-
tion of organizational and group goals when they shared in

incentive rewards.

Evaluation of School Effectiveness

The evaluation of a school's effectiveness presents
a problem for which there is no apparent generally accept-
able solution. The lack of a common definition Of teaching
and the subsequent absence Of a criteria Of teaching
effectiveness combine to make the evaluation process one Of
inconsistancy and confusion.

A large amount of educational evaluation has been
directed toward the accomplishment of subjective judgements
Of teacher characteristics and behaviors. This method Of
evaluation has been undertaken for a variety Of purposes,
i.e., tenure decisions, prediction Of effectiveness, promo-
tion, merit rewards, improvement of performance, and per-
sonnel records.

The literature on teacher merit rating revealed a

considerable amount of dissatisfaction over the means for

136

determining teacher merit for salary purposes. These evalu-
ative procedures have been generally described as subjective,
invalid, and unreliable. The preponderance of these evalua-
tions have been characterized by evaluator judgements of
teacher behaviors and characteristics. Evaluations of this
type have usually functioned under the basic assumption

that certain teacher qualities are indicative of a superior
teacher, while the absence or lesser presence of such
characteristics signifies a teacher Of reduced capabilities.

Research has not as yet identified,with any degree
of certaintypthose teacher behaviors and characteristics
which tend to facilitate effective teaching in terms of
results.

For purposes Of the incentive model generated in
this study, the most appropriate procedure for the evalua-
tion of teacher effectiveness would appear to be in terms
of the measurement of results produced by the school.
Selection Of this method is not intended to place in low
priority the continued investigation into the kinds of
teacher behaviors and characteristics which produce desired
educational outcomes. The focus Of this study, however, is
not upon teacher characteristics or teacher behaviors. The
model teacher incentive plan herein developed stipulates that
the total school be viewed as the educating agent, and that
evaluation be conducted in terms Of the degree to which the

school realizes its goals in selected areas.

137

Several authorities on teacher evaluation have indi-
cated that the measurement Of pupil gains, or levels Of
pupil achievement, appear to be potentially meaningful
courses Of action. A major criticism of these approaches
is the difficulty encountered in attempting to isolate the
contributions made by individual teachers. This criticism
is applicable tO situations where the purpose Of evaluation
is tO determine the effectiveness Of an individual teacher.

Since this model has stipulated that the educating
agent be viewed in the context Of the total school, the
effectiveness of a given teacher is not to be determined on
an individual basis. The degree Of effectiveness Of the
individual teachers within the school becomes relevant to
this study when viewed in the context of their combined
effectiveness.. This combined effectiveness shall be equated
with the measured abilities Of the pupils in the third and

sixth—grades.

Achievement Testing

 

Testing literature has indicated that, in general,
tests have not evolved to a desirable level Of validity and
reliability. The areas most accurately measured by means of
standardized educational tests appear to be certain of the
basic skills, i.e., reading and arithmetic. Although tests
of student achievement in selected basic skill areas are an
important aspect Of the model developed in this thesis, it

is not within the limits Of this study to examine the

138

detailed facets Of the testing controversy. The writer
assumes that the continued develOpment and refinement Of
tests and testing procedures will allow for increased
validity and reliability in the future.

The comparative level Of achievement displayed by
students in a given elementary school at the third and
sixth-grade levels, in the basic skill areas of reading and
arithmetic, as measured by standardized tests, shall consti—
tute a determinant Of the effectiveness Of the school for
purposes Of this model.

It is assumed that the standardized tests which are
selected will be those that most accurately reflect the
goals Of a given school's instructional program in the

designated areas.

The Standard School

 

The socio-economic status of the parents has been
identified as a variable which has displayed a reliable
relationship with the level Of student achievement in school.
On the basis of evidence found in his nation-wide study of
educational Opportunity in American schools, Coleman Observed
that:

. . . one implication stands out above all: that
schools bring little influence to bear on a child's
achievement that is independent of his background and
general social context . . . equality Of educational

Opportunity through the schools must imply a strong
effect Of schools that is independent Of the child's

139
immediate sccial environment, and that strong indeé
pendent effect is not present in American schools.

The method for determining the relative effective-
ness of a given school for reward allocation shall, in the
areas of achievement, be determined by comparison of the
given school with a local district school designated as the
standard school.

Since socio—economic status Of parents has been
shown to possess a reliable correlation with level of pupil
achievement in school, it is prOposed that the elementary
schools in a given school district be ranked, for purposes Of
comparisons, in terms of socio-economic composition. The
elementary school characterized by the largest prOportion Of
high socio-economic pupil-enrollment within the district
shall be designated as the district's standard school.

If distinctions between two or more schools are
found difficult to accomplish, then those schools deter-
mined as equal in terms Of socio-economic composition shall
each be designated as a standard school.

Both the number of standard schools within a district
and the means by which they are identified may vary greatly.
The suggested criteria for determination Of socio-economic
rankings in this model are based on Brookover and Erickson's

conclusions, and include: occupation, size of income, the

 

1James Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Oppor-
tunity, Survey by United States Office Of Education (Wash-
1ngton: Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 325.

 

 

 

140

manner in which income is received, level Of education, and

place Of residence.2

Equalization Factors

 

When stipulating that financial incentive rewards be
allocated to a faculty on the basis Of measured pupil-per-
formance, it is necessary to insure that the staff of each
school is afforded equal Opportunity for qualification. The
model herein developed shall require that equalization
factors be computed for each elementary school within a
given school district. 7

The initial step in determining an equalization
factor for a given school requires the collection of the
reading-achievement test scores for third and sixth-grade
pupils for the preceding three-year period. These scOres
are then pooled and a school reading-achievement mean com-
puted. The same process shall be applied to the area of
mathematics and a school mathematics-achievement mean shall
be determined.

The achievement means for a given school shall be
deducted.from the corresponding achievement means for the
standard school. The differences between the achievement
means for a given school and the corresponding achievement
means for the standard school shall determine the equaliza—

tion factors. Each elementary school shall thus determine

 

2Wilbur B. Brookover and Edsel L. Erickson, Societ
Schools and Learning (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., I969;
pp. 52.53.

I

 

141

an equalization factor in the areas Of mathematics-achieve-
ment and reading-achievement.

The general formula for computation Of a given
school's equalization factors is E = A - A', where:

E = equalization factor

A = three-year mean-achievement score for standard school

A'= three—year mean-achievement score for a given school

The equalization factors for a given school are not
stable over time. Since they are based on measured perform-
ances over the immediately preceding three-year period, they
are subject to yearly fluctuations, dependent upon levels Of
comparative pupil-achievement.

Standardized testing instruments to be employed for
measurement purposes are the mathematics and reading sections'
Of test batteries such as the Sequential Tests Of Educa-
tional Progress. To facilitate comparisons, it shall be
assumed that the elementary schools herein discusses have
administered the selected instruments for at least a three-

year period.

Student Perceptions of Teacher and Principal Expectations
The second criterion Of a school's effectiveness, as

prOposed in this model, is that Of the manner in which stu-

dents perceive the academic expectations held for them by

teachers and administrators.

142

Rosenthal and Jacobson,3 and Schrank4 have provided
evidence that teacher expectations regarding school academic
ability can result in the subsequent fluctuation of the
actual level Of pupil-achievement toward the level Of teacher
expectation.

Based on this information, the writer has assumed
that the student perceptions Of teacher and principal expecta-
tions may have a direct and influential relationship with
the school's level Of effectiveness in terms of pupil-achieve~
ment.

It has been previously indicated that processes or
means for the accomplishment Of school effectiveness are nOt
within the limits Of this study. The measurement of student
perceptions, in the context under consideration, may be
viewed as evaluation Of a procedure for effectiveness, or it
may be seen as a method Of determining the outcomes Of pro-
cesses. The writer has assumed that student perceptions of
teacher and principal expectations may be measured for evalu—
ative purposes, on the suppositiOn that such perceptions
are outcomes.

The instruments proposed for measurement Of stu-

dent perceptions in grades three through six are tests such

 

3Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson, Pygmalion in
the Classroom (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968).

4Wilburn F. Schrank, "The Labeling Effect of Ability
Grouping," The Journal of Educational Research, 62 (October,
1968), 51-52}

 

 

143

as the teacher and principal sections of the Student

Qpestionnaire, designed for the School Social Environment
5

 

Study. It is proposed that a non-verbal adaptation of
this test, designed to measure similar perceptions of all
elementary pupils in grades kindergarten through two, be
developed by a committee with district-wide representation.

Since student perceptions Of teacher and principal
expectations are viewed by the writer as being influenced
to a greater degree by teacher and principal behavior than
by various factors outside Of the school setting, no basis
for equalization among schools appears justified.

On the student perceptions variable it is proposed
that a total school-mean score, expressed in percentage

notation, be computed for each elementary school within a

given district.

Measurement Procedures

 

Pupil responses tO all testing measures shall be
scored by an agent outside Of the local school district.
Results Obtained by this agent are tO be provided to the
apprOpriate schools and to the district central Office.

It is expected that the scoring agent shall report
the measurement results in a form most appropriate for

application to the incentive reward plan. Achievement test

 

5The School Social Environment Study is being carried
out under the joint sponsorship Of the Michigan Department
of Education and Michigan State University. This project is
supervised by Dr. Wilbur B. Brookover.

144

results shall thus be reported in terms Of a school reading-
mean and a school mathematics-mean for each school. Measures
Of student perceptions shall be reported in the form Of a
given school's mean percentage score.

The determination of the annual total-achievement
scores for the elementary schools shall be made at the local
district level. The general formula for total average—
achievement computation is TA = E + B, where:

TA is the total average achievement score for an

elementary school in a designated academic area for

the year under consideration.

E is the equalization factor for a given school in

the corresponding academic area for the year under

consideration.

B is the average achievement score in the corre-

sponding academic area for a given school for the

year under consideration.

Each elementary school in the district shall thus
Obtain total average-achievement scores in the academic areas
Of reading and mathematics,expressed in terms of grade-
levels.* Since the tests of student perceptions require no
equalization factors, they shall be reported from the
scoring agent in terms of a school-average percentage score

for each school.

Reward Allocation

 

Incentive rewards shall be allocated on the basis Of

145

a given school's comparative performance in each Of the
three areas identified for evaluation. This stipulation
insures that the eligible staff members Of a school will be
rewarded for comparatively superior outcomes when they occur
in the evaluated areas.

All elementary schools within the school district
shall be ranked on average mathematics achievement score, on
average reading achievement score, and on average student
perceptions score. Those schools whose scores place above
the 75th percentile on a specified ranking shall qualify for
the incentive reward amount designated to that particular
area. The total amount Of the incentive reward allocated to
a given school staff is thus dependent upon the number of
evaluated areas in which their school ranks above the 75th

percentile.

Student and Teacher Turnover

 

The length Of time spent in a given school by a
student in order for the school to have an effect on his
achievement is viewed by the writer as a factor Of relative
insignificance. Research by Rosenthal and Jacobson6 and

7

Schrank, in addition to tentative indications provided by

initial attempts at performance contracting,8 provide

 

6Rosenthal and Jacobson, loc. cit.
7Schrank,loc."cit.

8Stanley Elam, "The Age of Accountability Dawns in
Texarkana," Phi Delta Kappan (June, 1970), 509-514.

 

146

support for the position that substantial student gains may
be realized in relatively short periods of time.

‘ Realistic limitations regarding the minimum allow-
able time a pupil must attend a given school, when proposing
that the school has an effect on his achievement, are neces-
sary however. This model will stipulate that a student must
have been in attendance at a given school for a minimum Of
one school—year in order to be included as a factor in the
determination Of the school's effectiveness.

The individual teacher is not the focus Of evalua-
tion in this model. Since the school is viewed as the
educating agent, the length of time a given member Of the
staff may serve in the building under consideration shall be
of nO consequence in terms Of evaluation. Of greater signi-
ficance to the total effectiveness Of the school, perhaps,
is the quality Of the contribution made by a teacher.

The procedure for reward allotment provides an
exception to the above stipulation. In the instance when
a staff member shall serve for a portion of the school-
year, he shall receive a share of the incentive reward
in direct proportion to the length of service provided
that school-year. For example, a teacher entering at
mid-year shall receive fifty percent Of the reward. The
remaining fifty percent shall be alloted tO the teacher who
was replaced. In instances of dismissal for inadequacy, the
released teacher shall not be eligible for any portion Of

the incentive reward.

147

Procedural Details

 

Procedures for the development Of a school unit
incentive plan are presented in the form of a series of
sequential steps. It is assumed that in a specific public
school setting, the incentive model developed by the writer
would be subject to adjustment and adaptation so as to concur
with local school district philOSOphy and priorities. This
assumption is viewed as holding true for the procedural
steps cited in the following section.

Step One: Decision by the board of education to
investigate the school unit incentive reward model. The pur-
pose Of the investigation is to eXplore the feasability Of
adapting the model described in this thesis to the local
elementary school situation.

Step Two: Organization by the superintendent Of
schools of an Incentive Reward Committee. 'The initial task
of this committee is to conduct a feasability study per-
taining to incentive rewards. This committee is formed with
the understanding that if an incentive reward plan is
adopted by the district, the committee shall become a
standing body.

The following groups shall be represented on the
incentive committee: elementary and secondary teachers;
elementary and secondary principals; school board; parents;
teacher and administrative professional organizations;

central Office administration; and teacher aides.

148

Step Three: Adoption by the board Of education Of
the incentive reward committee's recommendation that an
incentive reward plan be developed.

The responsibilities Of the incentive committee
shall include the development of a school incentive plan
apprOpriate for the given district. The plan developed by
the committee shall reflect local, state, and national goals
for education; determine the factors to be evaluated; pro-
cedures for evaluation; instruments for measurement; criteria
for allocation Of incentive rewards; amounts of rewards;
those parties eligible for rewards; standard school for the
district; procedures for implementing and managing the
plan; regulations pertaining to length Of term for com—
mittee members and the process for selection of new members.

Following the necessary number of organizational
sessions, this committee shall convene at least two times
each year to consider requests, recommendations, and

problems pertaining to the incentive plan.

Step Four: Notification from the committee to all
school personnel in the district of the adoption Of the plan,
its design, requirements, and rationale.

Step Five: Written notification by an elementary
school staff of their intention tO attempt to qualify for
incentive rewards during the next school-year. Such noti-
fication should be directed to the superintendent Of schools
by no later than May 1.

Step Six: Written approval from the superintendent

149

Of schools to the staff of a requesting elementary school
informing them of approval for their involvement.

Step Seven: Pupil-testing conducted during the
second week in May. Tests are to be administered by regular
staff members Of the given elementary school and directed to
»the scoring agent no later than the end of the second week.
in May.

COpies Of the scored test results are to be directed
by mail from the.scoring agent to the appropriate elementary
building, and to the Office Of the superintendent by no later
than June 10.

To provide for more broadly based comparisons and
to encourage participation, all elementary schools in the
given district are to administer measurement instruments
appropriate to the incentive plan whether or not they have
elected to attempt to qualify.

Step Eight: Total achievement—scores for each ele-
mentary school shall be computed at both central Office and
the respective elementary buildings. Achievement scores and
perception scores shall be ranked on a district-wide basis
and reported from the central Office.

Step Nine: Those eligible staff members of schools
successfully meeting the requirements for incentive rewards
shall receive their rewards by the conclusion Of the final

week in June.

 

‘5 _
d . ." __‘_. ”a“, “-

 

 

Procedural Flow—-Chart

 

150

 

DevelOpment by incentive
reward committee of a
F_-school incentive plan appro-
priate for the district

 

 

Adoption Of incentive
reward concept by board Of
education

 

 

 

 

 

Notification Of intent to

 

 

 

--participate by individual
elementary schools

 

 

 

Standardized Achievement

 

 

 

Approval to participate from
superintendent

 

 

 

Tests administered in
grades three and six

 

 

 

Perceptions tests admin-

 

 

istered in all elementary
grades

 

 

 

 

Elementary schools ranked

 

 

Equalization factors deter-
mined

 

 

Test scoring agent reports
results to central Office
and to apprOpriate elemen-
tary schools

 

 

 

Individual schools compute
total achievement scores

 

 

 

 

 

on each Of three variables

 

 

Fourth-quartile schools

 

Central Office computes
total achievement scores

 

 

 

determined on each vari-
able

 

 

 

 

Incentive rewards allocated
to eligible staff Of fourth-
quartile schools

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

151

Financial Data

Thomas Jefferson Elementary School

Pupil Enrollment K-6 500
Sixth grade enrollment 74
Third grade enrollment 76

Professional staff:

1 Principal--full-time

 

22 Teachers--full-time
1 Guidance Counselor--full-time
Librarian--full-time
Music Teacher--3/4 time
Art Teacher--3/4 time
Physical Education Teacher--3/4 time

School Social Worker--l/5 time

P F’ +4 :4 H F’

Speech Correctionist--l/5 time
Non-professional staff:
12 Teacher-Aides--full-time
Average annual teacher salary $12,000
Average annual teacher-aide salary $ 4,000
District incentive rates:
Professional staff member--$480.00 per fourth quartile
ranking
Non-professional staff member--$l60.00 per fourth

quartile ranking

152

Measurement data:
Equalization factors mathematics 1.0
reading 1.2

Achievement scores for current year mathematics 4.6

reading 5.0
Total achievement scores mathematics 5.6
reading 6.2
Perception score 64%
Cost Data

 

For representative purposes, the following itemized
cost tabulation is based on the assumption that the above
cited test scores have enabled Jefferson Elementary School to

place in the fourth quartile in reading and mathematics

 

 

achievement.

Staff Member Cost
1 Principal $ 960.00
22 Teachers ‘ 21,120.00
1 Counselor 960.00
1 Librarian 960.00
1 Music Teacher 720.00
1 Art Teacher 720.00
1 Physical Education Teacher 720.00
1 School Social Worker 192.00
1 Speech Correctionist 192.00
12 Teacher-Aides 3,840.00

 

Total Personnel Cost =$307384;00

Per Pupil Cost $60.77

153

Summary

In develOping the incentive model described in this
thesis, the writer has attempted to draw upon evidence
resulting from social-psychological group research. This
knowledge has been related to the formulation of a financial
incentive reward structure apprOpriate for implementation in

public elementary schools.

 

The proposed incentive model is partially dependent
upon acceptance Of the assumption that in our society finan-
cial rewards possess significant influence not only in the
alleviation Of materialistic wants, but also in the satis-
faction Of certain psychological needs.

The teacherjmerit plans described and analyzed in
the literature reviewed for this study have been characterized
by a general lack Of success. All of the plans examined by
the writer were based on the premise that merit rewards
should be alloted to teachers on an individual basis. Many
individuals have expressed acceptance Of the principle of
reward for comparatively superior individual teacher perform-
ance, but contend that it cannot be equitably implemented.
When applied in typical school situations, reward structures
based on the merit principle have tended to produce competi-
tion and divisive behavior on the part Of involved staff
members.

An additional stimulus for divisive behavior on the

part of teachers involved in merit—rating plans has been

 

154

identified as ani inappropriate process typically used for
identification Of superior teachers. This identification
process is usually accomplished by means Of subjective
evaluations by building administrators. The variables
typically evaluated include such factors as teacher char-
acteristics and teacher behaviors.

Research has shown that groups rewarded on a group
performance criterion tend to exhibit comparatively greater
degrees of cooperation, cohesiveness, and productivity than
do group members in situations Of intragroup competition
among members for rewards. The Scanlon Plan provides one
practical example Of a successful group incentive plan
which has been applied in several industrial settings.

This evidence has provided the foundation for the
reward distribution structure prOposed in the group incentive
model. In the model, designated professional and non-pro-
fessional staff members of a given school are viewed as a
school unit and rewarded on a group basis.

School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness have
emerged as vague and Often misinterpreted phrases. General
agreement on the various components which unite tO comprise
a definition of teaching has not been realized. With no
accepted definition of teaching, the evaluation of teachers
or schools on a general criterion Of effectiveness is
severely hampered.

The writer has arbitrarily stipulated, for purposes

 

155

Of this incentive model, that an effective school is one

 

which produces comparatively superior outcomes in terms Of
pupil-performance.
A given school's level Of effectiveness is deter-

mined by measured, average pupil-performance scores in

"III‘

reading and mathematics, and by pupil responses to measures
of student perceptions Of teacher and principal expectations.
The average reading and mathematics scores at the third and
sixth-grade levels Of a given school are assumed to be
representative Of that school's average achievement level in
these areas. A given school's average student-perception
score is determined by responses to test items administered
tO the total student body Of the school.

Since the socio-economic status Of parents has been
shown to correlate with pupil achievement, equalization
factors are provided for schools of comparatively lower
socio-economic composition. Equalization factors are deter-
mined by means Of comparisons between the average achieve-
ment scores of the elementary school characterized by the
greatest prOportion Of high socio-economic student composi-
tion, and the average achievement scores Of each Of the
remaining schools within the district.

The qualification for reward by a given school staff
is dependent upon the school's placement on district-wide
rankings on each Of the three measured variables. Those

schools ranking above the 75th percentile on a given

156

variable become eligible for the incentive reward amount
stipulated for allocation.

Although not a specific function of this thesis, the
writer has attempted to indicate the need for, and desira-
bility Of, participation. The ultimate level Of success
realized by a plan such as proposed in this thesis, or any
other organizational scheme, is viewed as being largely
dependent upon the involvement Of various segments Of the

organization.

Observations

 

The teacher merit literature reviewed by this writer
has indicated a general lack Of progress in the evolution of
functional teacher merit plans. Earliest plans were
structured so as to identify and reward those individual
teachers viewed by administrators as performing in a superior
fashion. The most recent plans examined have held to the
same premise--merit rewards are most apprOpriately allocated
on an individual teacher basis.

Research on group dynamics, which includes evidence
Of the effects of member behavior and productivity produced
by competition for rewards, has been under investigation for
a number of years. Although the available evidence has for
some time indicated that group rewards may alleviate the
type Of difficulties encountered in attempted teacher-merit
plans, these group strategies have.not been applied to

financial reward structures in education. The writer

 

157

believes that in any organization or group, the involved
individuals determine the success or failure Of various
endeavors, regardless Of the logical attributes a given plan
may possess. The COgent point to be cited, however, is that
certain organizational schemes may possess a structure or
orientation which tends to inhibit certain behaviors on the
part Of the group members. Conceivably, the individual
teacher merit schemes possess inherent characteristics

which tend to produce undesired teacher behavior.

Closely related to the apprOpriate structure for
incentive reward dispensation is the perspective from which
one views the school. If a child's school experiences are
viewed as a process Of unrelated teachers and teachings
presented in a series of segmented and isolated annual events,
then perhaps those teachers providing the most meaningful
experiences during a given year should legitimately be
rewarded for their individual efforts. If, however, the
school is viewed as a unit comprised Of interacting segments,
and is evaluated in terms of the level of effectiveness
achieved by the total-school in efforts directed toward the
realization Of common goals, then school personnel are more
accurately viewed as groups of individuals.

The writer believes that just as the related com-
ponents which unite to comprise an individual are most
meaningful when examined in the context Of the total person,

so are the varied aspects of the school most meaningfully

 

158

examined from the perspective of their functions in terms Of
the total school situation. Of greatest educational signi-
ficance is what occurs to and within a child as a result Of
his total experience in a given school.

In determining the effectiveness of a school, the
areas designated for evaluation may be viewed as contingent
upon certain expressed values and priorities. A meaningful,
responsive evaluation process should necessarily reflect the
values and priorities established as functions of the
school. Difficulties encountered in designing evaluative
instruments and procedures which accurately measure progress
toward established goals are a major source of the contro-
versy centered around educational evaluation.

Subjective judgements are generally criticized on
grounds Of human inaccuracy, while Objective measures are
questioned in terms of validity and reliability. If, as many
contend, the most accurate instruments available are those
designed to measure cognitive skills such as reading and
mathematics, then the increased application of these instru-
ments tends to place added significance upon the variables
_ they are designed to measure. This is not to demean the
acquisition Of cognitive skills, however, there has for some
time been expressed a growing concern regarding the signifi-
cance of affective considerations such as self-concept and
perceptions Of expectations. A growing body Of knowledge is

providing indications that certain of these affective

 

159

factors are not only important in their own right, but that
they may have a direct, causal relationship with the level
of cognitive learnings which students achieve.

Any indirect accordance Of a secondary status to
affective factors may be partially due to reluctance on the
part Of public school educators to use instruments Of measure-
ment which are of questionable reliability and validity. It
is perhaps axiomatic to Observe that improved measurement
instruments are needed. But perhaps benefits which may be
derived through the use Of instruments presently available
are not being fully realized. Measurement devices are cur-
rently available which are designed to measure self-concept,
attitudes, and perceptions. Buros9 cites numerous published
instruments which measure student self-concept and attitudes
at the elementary school level. In addition, measures such

as the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory, and the Student

 

Questionnaire, which was mentioned in this thesis, may

 

also be considered.

While the stipulated limitations Of this study indi-
cate that no attempts to determine what the goals of educa-
tion or Of a specific school should include, the structure
Of a model which requires evaluation Of student perceptions
indicates a bias Of the writer. If man is viewed as posses-

sing virtually unlimited potential and the degree to which

 

9
Oscar K. Buros, Tests in Print (Highland Park, New
Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1961).

 

160

this potential is realized is perceived as dependent upon
interpersonal relationships, then certain aspects of the
school environment emerge as priority considerations. The
decision to reward teachers and principals on the basis Of
student perceptions Of eXpectatiOns is such a consideration.
Although supporting research indicates a relationship
between pupil perceptions and subsequent level Of achieve-
ment, the effect Of perceptions upon achievement is not the
sole reason for inclusion Of this factor. Variables such as
student self-concept and student perceptions may hold poten-
tial for pupil accomplishments in school which are presently
not considered attainable. Conceivably, future advancements
will show that the aspects of school which determine not
only what and how much children learn, but to a degree what
they become, are dependent upon the ability Of school per-
sonnel to influence the affective domain.

Evaluative procedures may be utilized not only to
determine the relative progress Of current endeavors, but
may also be used to designate and accord significance to
areas which show promise Of future importance. Failure to
recognize this dual role evaluations may assume, results in
limiting the benefits which may be derived from the evalua-
tive process.

In the judgement of the writer, a vast majority Of
the literature on teacher merit-rating suffers from a lack

Of Objectivity. Perceived fluctuations in the quality Of

 

161

t the instructional program of a school, which are related to
the adoption of a merit—rating plan, have been determined
and reported by means of subjective Observations. Those
individuals favoring merit-rating for teachers have shown a
tendency to report positive results due to merit-plans.
Those Opposed to such teacher merit plans tend to perceive
negative influences produced by teacher merit schemes. Due
to a lack of data Obtained by systematic, Objective assess-
ments Of attempted plans, it cannot, with any substantial
'basis for support, be stated that rewarding teachers in a
manner consistent with the "merit principle" has any influ-
ence on a given school or teacher's effectiveness.

It is anticipated by the writer that the structure of
the group incentive model proposed in this thesis will allow
for the statistical determination of correlations between
rewards and the achievement and perceptions variables. Such
statistical analysis may provide insights as to the most
appropriate applications Of financial incentives.

It is further anticipated that the dependency Of
incentive rewards upon measured effectiveness will encourage
evaluation in terms Of outputs or results. As has been indi-
cated in the body Of the thesis, the prepondenance Of teacher
evaluations have been characterized by subjective judgements
Of behaviors and personalities. Consensus as to appropriate
teacher behaviors and characteristics has not been forth-

coming.

162

It would appear to the writer that when a purpose Of
evaluation is stipulated to be the determination of effective—
ness, that the significant aspects of a school, for this
purpose, are the results which are produced. Input factors
such as teacher behaviors, curriculum selections, auxiliary
services, and organizational patterns are thus viewed as the
means for outcomes, not the ends. The incentive model pro-
posed in this thesis attempts to place emphasis upon the
ends; upon the outcomes which result from inputs.

Perhaps input factors have been accorded too much
emphasis and attention at the neglect Of the examination of
outcomes produced by school. Again, this is not to propose
that investigation and refinement Of input factors is not
important. From the literature reviewed it would appear,
however, that educational evaluation procedures have tradi-
tionally tended to be applied to only selected aspects Of
the school setting. They have typically been oriented to
the examination Of input factors and have failed to receive
adequate application directed tO the measurement Of results
produced.

The pervasive practice Of evaluation in terms Of
teacher behaviors and characteristics is viewed by the writer
as a possible retardant to educational innovation and change.
Teachers are encouraged to conform to the established norma-
tive performance criteria within a given school or school

district. There exists no substantial body Of evidence

163

which provides direction as to which behaviors, characteris-
tics, and combinations Of the two, produce desired results.
If schools and school personnel are evaluated in terms of
outcomes effected, they are then perhaps free to investigate
various avenues which hold promise Of influencing results.

The adoption of a pragmatic approach to the evalua-
tion Of school effectiveness would appear to be a promising
course Of action. If a given school is identified as able
to consistently perform at a comparatively higher level Of
effectiveness, then insights may be gained from investiga-
tion into the causes for this superior performance. The
analysis Of success appears to be a more appropriate approach
than does the continued evaluation Of factors which may or
may not be instrumental in producing desired results.

TO an Observer of the current political, economic,
and educational factors which are affecting the public
schools, the model developed in this thesis may appear as
impractical and unworkable. A basic assumption under which
the writer has functioned, however, is that both education
and the factors which influence it will continue to display
progress in terms of priority establishment and the level of
SOphistication at which problems are approched.

The model which has been proposed is not intended to
provide a panacea for the various problem areas faced in
elementary education. It represents one approach to a more

effective utilization Of financial rewards. The ultimate

 

164

benefit to be derived from the adaptation Of such a plan
being, of course, educational improvement.

The writer encourages research designed to identify
relationships between group rewards and level Of pupil per-
formance on variables designated as goals Of school. Insights
pertaining to the attributes and limitations of group incen-
tives, as applied in this model, may be most accurately
achieved through evaluation of the plan as it functions in a
practical setting. The writer would View as desirable, close
analysis Of the model as adapted and in Operation in various
school districts.

Another investigator reviewing the evidence cited in
this thesis may devise a more practical, functional, model--
this is desirable. It is the position of the writer that
Sufficient justification has been established to warrant the
adaptation Of this model to practical situations, where and

when, the circumstances permit.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Anderson, Richard C., and others, ed. Current Research on 1
Instruction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1969.

 

 

Barnard, Chester I. The Functions Of the Executive. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.

 

Barr,'A. S., and Burton, William H. The Supervision Of
Instruction. New York: D. AppIeton and Co., 1926.

 

 

, and others. Wisconsin Studies Of the Measurement
gpd Prediction Of Teacher Effectiveness. Madison:
Dembar Publications, Inc., 1961.

 

Bass, Bernard M. Leadership, Psychology, and Organizational
Behavior. New York: Harper, 1960.

Biddle, Bruce J., and Ellena, William J., ed. Contempprary
Research on Teacher Effectiveness. New York: HOIt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

 

Brighton, Stayner, and Hannan, Cecil. Merit Pay Programs
for Teachers. San Francisco: Fearon Publishers,
1962.

 

Brookover, Wilbur B., and Erickson, Edsel L. Societ ,
Schools and Learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.,'
1969.

 

Buros, Oscar K. Tests in Print. Highland Park, New Jersey:
The Gryphon Press, 1961.

 

Callahan, Raymond E. Education and the Cult Of ‘Efficiency.
Chicago: UniverSity Of Chicago Press, 1962.

Campbell, Roald F.; Corbally, John E.; and Ramseyer, John A.
Introduction'topgducational'Administration. New York:
Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1958.

Carlton, P. W., and Goodwin, H. 1., ed. lThe'Collective
Dilemma: 'NegotiationS‘in Education. Worthington:
CharIes A. Jones Publishing Co., 1962.

166

 

167

Cartwright, Dorwin, and Zander, Alvin. 'Group'Dynamics,
‘ Research and Theory. Elmsford, New York: Row
Peterson and Co., 1960.

 

 

Castetter, William B. Administering the School Personnel
Program. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1962.

 

Chandler, B. J., and Petty, Paul V. ‘Personnel'Management in
School Administration. New York: World Book Co.,
1955.

 

 

Coleman, James,and others. Equality Of Educational Oppor-
tunit . Washington, D. C.: U. S. Office of Educa-
t1on, Government Printing Office, 1966.

 

Collins, Barry E. and Harold Guetzkow. A Social Psychology
pf Group Processes for Decision Making. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

 

 

Crystal, Graef. Financial Motivation for Executives. New
York: American Management Association, 1970.

 

Cubberly, E. P. Public School Administration. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Co.,51929.

 

Davis, James H. Group Performance. Reading, Mass.: Addison
Wesley PuBlishing Co.,‘1969.

 

Davison, J. P., and others. Productivity and Economic Incen-
tives. London: George Allen and Univin Ltd., 1958.

 

Domas, Simeon J. Report Of an Exploratory Study of Teacher
Competence. Cambridge: The New England School
Development Council, 1950.

 

 

Eastmond, Jefferson N. The Teacher and School Administration.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1959.

 

Ellena, William J.; Stevenson, Margaret; and Webb, Harold.
- Who's a Good Teacher? Washington, D. C.: American
Association of School Administrators, Department
Of Classroom Teachers, National School Boards Associ-
ation, 1961.

Fawcett, Claude W. School Personnel Administration. New
York: Macmillan Company, 1964.

 

Gage, N. L., ed. ‘Handbook of Research On Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1963.

 

Gauerke, Warren, and Childress, Jack. 'The Theory and Practice
'Of School Finance. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

 

 

 

168

Harris, Chester W., ed. ‘Encyclopedia of Educational Research.
3d ed. New York: Macmillan Co., 1960.
Huggett, Albert J., and Stinnett, T. M. ‘PrOfessional

'Problems of Teachers. New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1956.

 

 

Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social PsychOlOgy of
Organizations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1966.

 

Kemp, Gratton C. ‘Group Process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1964.

 

Klein, Joseph. The Study Of Groups. London: Kegan Paul
Ltd., 1956.

 

Leavitt, Harold J. Managerial‘Psychology. Chicago: Univer—
sity Of Chicago Press, 1958.

Likert, Rensis. The Human Organization: 'Its Management and
Value. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

March, James G., ed. Handbook Of_Organizations. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1965.

 

Murchison, C., ed. A Handbook of Social Ps cholo‘ . Wor-
cester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1353.

New England School Development Council, Merit Salary Committee.
Teacher Competence and Its Relation to Salagy. Cam-
bridge: The Council, Spaulding House, 1956.

Pi Lambda Theta. The Evaluation Of Teaching, A Report of
the Second Pi Lambda Theta Catena. Washington, D. C.:
PiiLambda Theta, 1967.

 

 

Porter, Donald B., and Applewhite, Phillip B. Studies in
organizational Behavior and Management. Scranton:
InternatiOnaI Textbook Co.,41964.

Redfern, George B. How tO Appraise Teaching Performance.
Columbus: SEhOOI’Management Institute, 1963.

Rosenthal, Robert,and Jacobson, Lenore. Pygmalion in the
Classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1968.

 

Seashore, Stanley. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial
Work Group. Ann Arbor: University Of MiEhigan, 1954.

 

Simon, Herbert. ‘Administrative Behavior. New York: The
Free Press, 1957.

 

169

Steffensen, James P. ‘Merit'Salary ProgramS‘in'SiX‘Selected
'School Districts. U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin
1963, NO. 22. Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, 1963.

 

 

Steiner, Ivan D., and Fishbein, Martin, ed. ‘Current'Studies
‘in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc.,lI965.

 

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group Achieve-
ment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

Thibaut, John W., and Kelley, Harold A. The Social Psycho-
logy Of Groups. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966.

 

 

Tulin, T. G., ed. Practical Approaches tO Teacher Perform-
ance Appraisal. New York: Barrington and Company,
1961.

 

 

Tye, Kenneth A. The Principal and the ‘Challenge Of Change.
Melbourne: The Institute fOr Development of Educa-
tional Activities, Inc., 1968.

 

Young, Lloyd P. The Administration Of_Merit-Type Teachers'
Salary Schedules. New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1933.

 

 

Periodicals

 

Barnlund, D. C. "A Comparative Study of Individual, Majority,
and Group Judgement." Journal Of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 58 (1959), 55-60.

 

 

Blau, Peter M. "Cooperation and Competition in a Bureaucracy."
The American Journal Of Sociology, 59 (May, 1954),
530-535.
'Burke, Arvid J. "Some Dangers of Merit Measurement." The

Nation's Schools, 1 (January, 1948), 27-28.

 

Davis, Hazel. "Facts and Issues in Merit Salary Schedules."
Journal Of Teacher Education, 8 (June, 1957), 126-
135.

 

Detroit Free Press, March 3, 1971.

 

Deutsch, Morton. "An Experimental Study of the Effects of
Cooperation and Competition on Group Process."
'Human Relations, 2 (April, 1949), 199-232.

 

170

Doyle, Roy P. "Upgrading Professional Competence-~13 Merit
Rating the Answer?" 'ArizOna‘TeaCher, 49 (November,

 

Elam, Stanley. "The Age Of Accountability Dawns in Texarkana."
Phi Delta Kappan, 51 (June, 1970), 509-514.

 

Engleman, Finis E. "Difficulties and Obstacles Inherent in
Merit Ratings for Teachers." 'Journal'of Teacher
Education, 8 (April, 1957), 136-139.

 

 

Faust, William. "Group Versus Individual Problem Solving."
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology (July, 1959),
68-72.

 

Festinger, Leon, and Thibaut, John. "Interpersonal Communi-
cation in Small Groups." 'Journal Of Abnormal Social
Psychology, 46 (January, 1951Y, 92-99.

 

 

Filbin, Robert L. "Merit Salary--A Realistic Approach to
Upgrading the Teaching Profession." 'School'Board
Journal, 150 (April, 1965), 11-12.

 

Furse, Bernard J. "Merit Pay is Feasible and--Sometimes--
Desirable." Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961),
143-147.

 

Gallup, George. "Second Annual Survey Of the Public's Atti-
tude Toward the Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan,
52 (October, 1970), 97-112.

 

Gibson, Robert C. "Paying for Pedagogical Power." Phi
Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 148-151.

 

Grossack, Martin M. "Some Effects Of Cooperation and Com-
petition Upon Small Group Behavior." Journal Of
Abnormal Social Psychology, 49 (1954), 341-348.

 

 

Hamachek, Don. "Characteristics of Good Teaching and Impli-
cations for Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan,
51 (February, 1969), 341-345.

Karam, Irvin A. "Merit Rating Salary Plans in Public School
Systems Of the United States, 1955-56." Journal Of
Educational Research, 53 (December, 1959), 144-148.

 

 

Katz, Irving. "Why I Oppose Selective Merit Pay." Phi
Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 161—163.

 

Kleinman, Jack. "Merit Pay--The Big Question." ‘NEA Journal,
52 (May, 1963), 42-44.

171

Lesieur, Fred G., and Puckett, Elbridge S.. "The Scanlon
Plan has Proved Itself." 'Harvard Business Review
(September-October, 1969), 109—118.

 

Lessinger, Leon M. "Accountability for Results: A Basic
Challenge for America's Schools." 'American‘Educa-
'tion (June-July, 1969), 4.

 

Lieberman, Mern. "A Foundation Approach to Merit Pay."
’Phi Delta Kappan, 41 (December, 1959), 118—122.

 

Lorge, Irving and others. "Solutions by Teams and Indi-
viduals to a Field Problem at Different Levels Of
Reality." 'Journal Of Educational'PsychOlOgy, 46
(January, 1955), 17-24.

McCall, William, and Krause, G. "Measurement of Teacher

Merit for Salary Purposes." 'Journal of Educational
“Research, 53 (October, 1959), 73—75.

 

McKenna, John J. "The Administrative Requirements for a
Merit Plan." 'School Board Journal, 140 (June, 1960),
14-16 I

 

Mason, James I. "A Second Look at Merit." ’School Board
Journal, 148 (April, 1964), 17-18.

 

Megal, Carl J. "Merit Rating is Unsound." Phi Delta Kappan,
42 (January, 1961), 154-156.

 

Mitchell, Jerry B. "Merit Rating: Past, Present, and Per-
haps." Phi Delta Kappan, 42 (January, 1961), 139-
142. 'i

 

"Report Of the Citizens Advisory Committee on Teachers
Salaries, Winnetka, Illinois." Phi Delta Kappan,
42 (January, 1961), 161-163.

 

Rozzell, Forest and others. "Satisfactory Pay Should Precede
Merit Rating." The Nations Schools, 2 (February,
1948), 27-28.

 

Ryans, David G. "The Criterion of Teaching Effectiveness."
Journal Of Educational Research (May, 1949), 692-
693.

Sandrin, James V., and Steere, Robert F. H”Gallup Poll Repli-
cated." ‘News,'Notes,‘and‘Quotes Newsletter Of the
Phi Delta Ka a, 15 (January, 1971), 3.
Schrank, Wilburn F. -"The Labeling Effect Of Ability Grouping."
‘The Journal of Educational Research, 62 (October,
1968), 51-52.

 

 

 

fi

.

I.
_

172

Smith, Currien C. "Why Teachers Dislike Merit Rating."
'Overview, 1 (February, 1960), 41-44.

Stirling, Thomas. "What is the Case for and Against Merit
Rating for Teachers?" "Bulletin of the 'National
Association of Secondary School Prihcipals, 44
(April, 1960), 92-95.

 

 

Taylor, Donald W., and Faust, William L. "Twenty Questions:
Efficiency in Problem Solving as a Function of Size
and Group." ‘Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44
(July, 1952), 360-368.

 

Thorne, Edmund H. "Teacher Merit Rating Really Does Work:
Here are Sixteen Tested Requisites." The Nations
Schools, 64 (November, 1959), 70-71.

 

Thorndike, Robert L. "The Effect Of Discussion Upon the
Correctness of Group Decisions When the Factor of
Majority Influence is Allowed For." Journal of
Social Psychology, 9 (1938b), 343-362.

 

 

Vander Werf, Lester. "Trouble with Merit Systems." School
Board Journal, 12 (August, 1952), 17-18.

 

"Why Merit Salary Schedules Were Abandoned." Journal of
Teacher Education, 3 (June, 1957), 187-191.

 

 

Unpublished Materials

 

Michigan Education Association. Correspondence between
Douglas Ward, President of the Michigan Education
Association and Governor William Milliken. August,
1969.

Senate Bill 1083. Teachers' Incentive Pay: Establish Demon-
stration Plan, duplicated by Michigan Association Of
School Boards and Michigan Association Of School
Administrators, 1969.

Weber School District. Personal correspondence between Dr.
LaVerd John, Assistant Superintendent and the writer.

'Other'Sources

 

Brookover, Wilbur B. "Student Role and Academic Self-Concept."
East Lansing: prepared for the Encyclopedia of Edu-
‘cation, 1970.

 

 

173

Bureau Of Research, Michigan Department of Education. ‘Pur-
‘poseS'and'ProcedureS'Of the Michigan Assessment Of
Education. Lansing: The Bureau of Research, 1969.

 

Justman, Joseph. 'Merit‘Rating:"A'Survey'of‘the'Recent
Literature, Publication NO. 137. New York: Board
Of Education, 1958.

National Education Association. "Merit'Provisions in Teachers'
salary!Schedules,“l968-69: Research Report 1969-12.
Washington, D. C.: National Education Association,
1969.

. Salaries and Salary Schedules of Urban School
Employees, 1956-57: Research Bulletih 35. Washing-
ton, D. C.: National Education AssociatiOn, 1957.

. The Arguments on Merit Rating:‘ Research Report

1959-30. WaShington, D. C.: National Education
Association, 1959.

New York State Teachers Association, Committee on Merit Pay-

ments. Teacher Merit and Teacher Salary. Albany:
The AssociatiOn, 1957.

APPENDICES

174

 

APPENDIX A

LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL

175

 

APPENDIX A
LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL

January 22, 1971

Dr. LaVerd John

Weber Board of Education
1122 Washington Blvd.
Ogden, Utah 84404

Dear Dr. John:

A section of my doctoral thesis at Michigan State University
will include a description of the teacher merit salary plan
in Weber.

My prime source of information regarding the plan has been
the analysis by James Steffensen published in 1962. Recent
telephone contact with the board Office in Weber led to my
being referred to you as a possible source Of additional
information.

Any details you may be able to provide regarding the current
merit structure and anticipated changes will be greatly
appreciated.

Sincerely,

James L. Honchell

Apt. 925-H Cherry Lane
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

JLH/lh

176

 

177

mph»): (llmmtg firhnnl Emma

Has wanmnrou IDULWARO
OGDEN. UTAH 84404

January 27, l97l

WM. R. BOREN
SUPEIUHTINOINT

DALE SCHIHMELPFENNIG
CLIRK

Mr. James L. Honchell

Apt. 925-H Cherry Lane
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan #8823

Dear Mr. Honchell:

Enclosed is a COpy of letter sent to a Mr. Douglas J. Jones.
that the information in this letter will be of help to you.

Sincerely, fl

/ . -°
ngg:;fiéég,{i.xezé;c//

LA VERD JOHN
Assistant Superintendent

Lszm

LAVERD JOHN

' AIIIIYANY IUPtllNTINDINT

JAY l. TAGGART
Auncnur luv-cumnmnur

 

I hOpe

 

 

 

 

178

January 22, 1971

Mr. Douglas Ward
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

Dear Mr. Ward:

A segment Of my doctoral thesis at Michigan State University
includes a discussion of merit salaries for teachers.

On file at the Michigan Education Association headquarters
in East Lansing is a letter directed by you to the Governor
of the State Of Michigan. The letter in question is in
response tO a proposal by the governor for statewide pilot
studies in merit rating.

Due to your position at the time, as president Of the MEA,
I feel the correspondence accurately reflects the Official
views of the association regarding merit rating.

The contents Of the letter would be valuable information
for my study.

I request your permission to quote your letter to the Governor
in its entirety in the text Of my thesis.

Sincerely,

James L. Honchell

Apt. 925-H Cherry Lane
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

JLH/lh

179

March 10, 1971

James L. Honchell

Apt. 925-H Cherry Lane
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Dear Mr. Honchell:

In regards to your letter of January 22, 1971, you do have
my permission tO include the letter I wrote to the Governor
in your thesis. The position on merit pay was developed
directly from MEA policy statements, and, as I recall, was
directed to the Governor during the initial states of the
Education Reform drive.

The MBA is still supporting the experimental pilot study
approach to merit rating, however, quite frankly there is
little enthusiasm for such an approach and even greater
skepticism that a fair and equitable program could be insti-
tuted and retained in a school system.

Sincerely,

Wm. Douglas Ward

4920 South Hagadorn
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

APPENDIX B

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MEA PRESIDENT AND

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

180

 

APPENDIX B

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MEA PRESIDENT AND

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

On Friday, August 11 there was discussion regarding
teacher incentives and merit pay. The MBA position on merit
pay, as adopted by its Representative Assembly (1968) has
been: We believe that educators must continually evaluate
their performance and effectiveness. However, no studies
have yet been able to indicate a practical, Objective method
of distinguishing outstanding teacher success with sufficient
validity to be applicable for salary purposes. When such
methods and criteria are developed and accepted, we will
welcome a procedure for salaries based on a "merit system."
We are not Opposed to merit pay and this was included in my
remarks-Bgfore the Commission. However, we do see many
problems in effectively introducing a "merit" system into the
State of Michigan.*

 

*Based on Official correspondence between Douglas
Ward, President Of the Michigan Education Association, and
Governor William Milliken. August 15, 1969.

181

 

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER MERIT SALARY PLANS

182

 

APPENDIX C

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEACHER MERIT SALARY PLANS*

Conditions in the setting in which salaries develop.

1.

. . . a stimulus from some local source to which the
school administrators are receptive.

A climate Of community and Official willingness to supply
the additional funds needed for planned salary increases.

State level approval Of merit pay.
Currently adequate salaries for professional staff members.

The overt sanction of the principle Of merit pay by the
teaching staff as shown by the ,teacher poll.

A poll should also ascertain that there is teacher con-
fidence in the professional competence and integrity Of
the administrative and supervisory staff to carry out an
impartial merit salary system.

exploratory phase in the develOpment Of merit salaries.

. . . establishing a study committee Of administrators,
supervisors, teachers, school board members and other lay
peOple. The study committee should initially have its
functions well-defined as an exploratory group, and
should thereafter have freedom Of action to chart its own
course Of study.

The superintendent's role should be identified as that Of
a regular member Of the study committee. Study by the
group should include familiarization with relevant
research, survey of merit salary practices, and survey Of
Opinions in other school systems which have merit pay.

In the local school system, Opinions on acceptance of the
principle Of merit pay and willingness to have a merit
salary system should be systematically determined.

 

*Robert C. Gibson, "Paying for Pedagogical Power,"

Phi Delta Kappan (January, 1961), 148-151.

183

184

Following such study, the group conducting it should have
the responsibility for recommending on the advisability
Of adopting a merit salary plan. If it is advised, and
if the local teachers' association Officially approves
the recommendation, the study group should be given the
reSponsibility for devising a merit pay plan.

work Of the planning committee

. . . actual planning Of the merit salary system can
begin with the study group becoming the planning committee.

Fundamental in the merit salary plan should be provisions
for flexibility in the evaluation Of specialized per-
sonnel, identification Of the personnel to evaluate
teachers, and provision for discussion between evaluators
and those evaluated.

. . . standards for quality Of work should be developed
and evaluation Of all professional staff members should
be provided.

The planning should actively involve the teacher repre-
sentative on the committee, and should provide for
acceptance Of the final merit plan by the teaching staff
before it is actually adopted.

Further assurance Of success is provided by an unhurried
approach which extends over two years or more from the
beginning of initial study to adoption Of merit pay.

The planning group should constantly identify intermediate,
sequential Objectives aimed at the final goal of a merit
pay plan.

. . . development Of standards for quantity Of work and
elimination of comparisons, to the fullest extent possible,
in the evaluations Of teachers.

An intermediate decision on acceptance Of plans for teacher
evaluation should be made by teachers.

Submission Of the whole plan for community approval, fol-
lowing acceptance by the teachers, promotes its eventual
success.

Continuing successful Operation of merit salaries

l.

A committee should be established to assess the success
of the plan and identify changes needed. This committee
should be composed Of representatives Of all concerned
groups.

185

Careful considerate treatment should be given to teachers
throughout the Operation Of a merit salary plan. These
provisions apply: Acquaint teachers with their personal
evaluations; provide Opportunity to appeal ratings and
placements on the salary scale with resultant review and
adjustments if justified; acquaint new teachers with the
merit salary provisions.

All information regarding teachers' personnel evaluations
and salaries should be held in confidence among those
directly concerned.

Continuing means should be available for assessing the
confidence of teachers in the competence and integrity
Of evaluators.

A trial period should be established for the merit salary
plan at the outset, and a course Of action should be
planned for the possible exigency Of future discontinua-
tion.

186

- November 24, I970

Mr. Douglas J. Jones
25? Groom-ray Park
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 275“

Dear Mr. Jones:

Thank you for your letter of November l7, l970. in answer to your questions, l will
attempt to review briefly our experience with merit pay, and also indicate what we are
doing at the present time.

than Dr. T. H. Bell, who is now Acting Commissioner of Education in the U.S. Office
was Superintendent in our district, we attempted a merit pay program. This program was
part of a state-wide study which was conducted at that time to determine whether or
not merit pay for teachers was feasible. A small amount of money was allocated for this
' project. it soon became evident that the legislators had in mind a damn" program. rather
than a merit program. They felt that we could take money from the below-average teacher
and give it to the meritorious teacher without increasing the total salary budget.

There were a few items which at least made us feel that our program was successful and
which i would recommend as guidelines for any district moving into a merit pay program:

i. All teachers in the district, whether in merit or not, must be observed
for a 30-minute teaching period at least twice during the school year
by a team of observers comprised of either principals or District Office
representatives.

{0

Any teacher desiring to be comic! 3er for merit pay mu t make appli-

cation to the Superintendent to be evaluated on additional eight times

during the year by the above-mentioned team. The members of the observation
team might change from observation to observation. The teacher may be
evaluated by as many as ten different administrator: during the year.

3. Some observations should be made unannounced and others with the
teachers made aware of the observation in advance.

_2_1s7

4. The observer: should write a description of what the teacher and students
are doing during the observation period. No iudgmentai statements are
acceptable. One observer in our program wrote his notes in long hand
and the second observer used a code which was developed by the district.’

5. After the observation period is completed, the two observers and the
teacher should sit down together and agree that the description of what
has taken place is accurate. They formulate one accurate description
of what has taken place during the observation.

6. After an agreement is reached, the events that have transpired during the
observation period are classified into seven categories. Those seven
categories are the caential conditions for learning, and are as follows:

 

a. Did the presentation take into account the differences in
maturation?

b. Was there sufficient motivation?
c. Was there freedom from distracting and distorting anxieties?
d. Was there provision for goal-directed practice and drill?

e. Did the student have ample opportunity to perceive the effects
of his trials and errors? -

f. Wes provision made for the generalization, application and
transfer of the learning?

9. Was there teacher guidance in setting the looming goals?

7. After the observed activities are categorized, the evaluating team met again
with the teacher involved and discuss with her the essential conditions for
looming that should be provided. in areas where there is a weakness the * _
teacher is helped to understand what she must do to strengthen the weakness.
The teacher may say at this point, ”if i strengthen these areas, than i will
be a better teacher, because learning will take place more effectively. "
And the answer should be, “That is true. What we are trying to develop
is meritorious teaching. "

8. After the ten observations are made, the teacher must then apply again to
have the observation records considered for merit pay. The decision regard-
ing merit pay is made by the District Superintendent and his staff of directors
and supervisors in light of: (l) the observations, (2) the teacher's past
experience and performance, and (3) the teacher's score on the National
Teacher Merit Examination.

. This program of merit pay was discontinued because the legislature did not appropriate money
to pay for the meritorious teaching above and beyond a regular salary schedule.

188
-3- .

The legislature has appropriated $60,080.00 to our district during the i970-7l school year

for w. at t. :27 call Leadership Pay. This money is allocated to these teachers who are selected
lzy the administrative staff and the Teachers' Aszaciation. To qualify, the teachers must be

in lcadcrzhip positions and work an extended period of time. The leadership pay must be

at lcczt 8“ 6 of the teacher' 5 basic salary.

in ad:"‘ien to this program, the district pays some leadership money to teachers who are
per. arming in leadership rolls or who are doing additional work. The to.al number involve—:3
tax: for is l32 taac..::rs cut of 770.

l. l .3320 t'..3 ' istics-action will he of help to you. We feel the program has been positive and
he: incrcaze the morale or the tcccnc rs in the dis .rict. I am cnclczing a copy of our

Mular salary schedule which you might use to figure the 8% leadership pay. If i can
be of (art. :cr help to you, plcase let me know.

5 rcera'y'

l.a\.’:.':l .léltn
-.::?:?:nt Superintendent

Ll/br

APPENDIX D

CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTEMPTED TEACHER MERIT SALARY PLANS

189

APPENDIX D
CHARACTERISTICS OF ATTEMPTED TEACHER MERIT SALARY PLANS*

l. Careful investigation revealed sixty-nine merit rating
salary plans in active use in the United States.

2. All sixty-nine merit pay plans in the study could be
divided into seven distinct types: (1) the Supermaximum
plans, (2) the Accelerated Increment type, (3) the Bonus
plans, (4) the Multiple Track plan, (5) the Periodic
Merit Evaluation type, (6) the Annual Outstanding Teacher
Award, and (7) the Summer Merit Teacher Projects Program.

3. The pupil pOpulations:h1the sixty-nine districts included
in the study ranged from 647 to 15,491. However, fifty-
two or 75.2 per cent of the total districts had pupil
enrollments of fewer than 5000 pupils.

4. Sixty—four or 92.7 per cent of all the plans analyzed
have been developed since 1946.

5. The typical merit salary plan was found to have been
develOped by a committee consisting of the superintendent
or supervising principal, building principal, teachers,
and representatives from the school board. Teachers
usually constituted a majority of the committees.

6. The majority of superintendents disclosed that merit-
. rating plans were developed as a result of pressure from
the school board. Few merit salary plans were developed
at the request of the faculty and administration.

7. The majority of merit pay plans were found to include
formal written criteria for measuring teacher performance.
However, most plans did not have the evaluation policies
and procedures reduced to a written form.

 

*Irvin A. Karam, "Merit-Rating Salary Plans in Public
School Systems of the United States, 1955-56,"'Journal'of
"Educational'Research, 53 (December, 1959), 144-148.

 

 

190

10.

11.

191

The percentage of teachers receiving some form of merit
pay in the sixty-nine districts in the year 1955—56
ranged from 0 to 61 per cent of the total faculty. The
mean was found to be 21 per cent.

The most frequently reported negative merit device was
the withheld increment. Mere existence of negative merit
features gave no true indication of the degree of use.
Few teachers were found to have been penalized when
salary was determined for 1955-56.

The selection of teachers for merit evaluation depended
largely on the type of merit plan used within the district.
In the two most frequently used types, the Supermaximum
and the Accelerated Increments, approximately 60 per cent
of the eligible teachers were rated. The remaining eli—
gible teachers were eliminated by screening devices
designed to restrict evaluation to the more likely can-
didates.

Criteria for choosing superior teachers were usually
divided into several categories:

a.

Teachers Personal Qualities appeared as factors for
determining merit in 75 per cent of all plans studied.
They had a mean weighting of nine per cent of the
total criteria.

Eighty-eight per cent of the plans mentioned Teaching
Ability of Effectiveness as a criterion. This factor
received a mean weighting of sixty per cent when used.

Pupil-Teacher Relationships were recognized as a cate-
gory in 68 per cent of the plans and had a mean
weighting of eleven per cent of the total.

Relationships with Staff Members appeared in 59 per
cent of the rating plans and received a mean weighting
of ten per cent of the total when used.

Fifty-nine per cent of the plans contained the cate-
gory, Contributions to the Community. The average
weighting was eight per cent of the criteria.

The factor Professional Growth was found in 39 per
cent of the plans and had a mean weighting of ten per
cent.

Contributions to the Total School Program appeared in
59 per cent of the plans. The average weighting was
fifteen per cent of the criteria.

‘l.
" x —m-_.

 

 

192

Though implied in many cases, only one plan specifically
mentioned Pupil Achievement as a means of appraisal.
Eleven, or 15 per cent, of the plans had no definite rating
criteria other than the subjective statement "superior

. teaching."

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

The typical merit-rating plan involved several persons

as evaluators. Superintendents participated in the
appraisal in 77 per cent of the total plans examined.

In approximately 73 per cent of the systems, the building
principal served as an evaluator . . . . Teachers were
serving as raters in only 11 per cent of the total plans.

In 86 per cent of the plans, the classroom observational
visit was used as a technique for determining teacher
effectiveness. In only a small percentage of cases were
the visits limited to just one or the other type.

Approximately 65 per cent of the total plans contained ‘
some means whereby the teacher might.appea1 the decision
of the evaluators. However, these privileges of appeal
were seldom used.

There were no public acknowledgements made of merit award
winners in 71 per cent of the districts using merit pay
systems . . . . Announcement to the general public was
made in only eight per cent of the districts.

Teacher opinion polls were frequently conducted by dis-
tricts for the purpose of measuring teacher reaction to
the merit plan.

"Tilliiiilfliiiilli