:13: h
«:3 EJI‘

. .fl (MTAVU.
a

.
l.

. 2 u
hurt: .

5, I!
.. .11! .

Shun
. ‘1 RES“...
312.

.
3
4393..

a 3. v3.33);

s..£:nw. 5531:.

x... 33.3w: .4
2. .n.

V?

(2.3:: 1. 6a
3".) {‘7 I
>I IV. .5

.1... I

k
3.-.; r
32:.)
p 9 L110 .
{£230.13 5.
22.1.. .1- 3
;.¢...!2.;

.a\

V; ..
.1?!’..... t
.nvv‘ 315.,

P...

. z. 2 3;.
L? .73.

 

n
,p;

ITiiiiiiiuiiiiiiii\miiiiil _

3 1293 01420 3362

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESQS

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
COLLEGIALITY: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF
TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS
IN TWO URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS

presented by

BARBARA J O REINKEN

has been accepted towards fulfillment..-
of the requirements for '

PH . D . degree in EDUCATION

  

Major professor

   

MW

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY 3
Michigan State:
University i

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or More dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WM‘I

 

COLLEGIALITY: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF
TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS
IN TWO URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS

By

Barbara Jo Reinken

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education and Staff Development

1995

ABSTRACT

COLLEGIALITY: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF
TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS
IN TWO URBAN HIGH SCHOOLS

By

Barbara J. Reinken

Reform proposals call for the restructuring of school organizations. These reform
proposals maintain that teacher collegiality is important. This study explores high school
informal collegial relationships to better understand this phenomenon. Three areas of
interest guided this study: 1) teachers' perceptions of the collegiality; 2) contextual
features that affect collegial relationships; and 3) the relationship of teacher collegiality
and teachers' work.

This study was completed by using qualitative methodology. Thirty-six volunteer
teachers from two urban high schools completed a semi-structured interview. Data from
the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching (CRC) was also
utilized as this study was a special project within the larger national study.

The findings suggested that the phenomenon of teacher professional collegiality
was complex. Teachers made decisions about potential colleagues based on values of
independence and interdependence, etiquette of collegiality standards, and individually
developed personal characteristics of other teachers. Furthermore, issues, forms of

collegiality, and other contextual features affected the determination of collegial

relationships. Self-interest and personal needs were an underlying factor as decisions
were made. Lastly, collegial relationships impacted teachers' work by supporting,
networking, and sharing information. Thus, collegial relationships reduced the
complexity, uncertainty, stress, and intensity of work. Knowledge gained during collegial
relationships was only implemented if it was deemed worthwhile.

Based on these findings, a theory -- the system of collegiality -- is suggested as
one way of understanding the development and maintenance of collegial relationships.
As reform policies focus on restructuring schools, the system of collegiality will give
further understanding to the tensions between independence and community, and self-

interest and organizational interest.

Copyright by
Barbara Jo Reinken
1 995

Dedicated to
My Loving Husba

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are so many wonderful friends and colleagues near and far who have
supported my efforts throughout graduate school. To you I sincerely thank you for your
kindness and support. Among this group are a few persons who stand out as most
important to the completion of my graduate studies.

I wish to thank the many teachers who took time throughout my graduate program
to speak with me about their work. I especially thank the thirty nine teachers who gave
of themselves and told me their stories which are found in this dissertation. Without
these stories I could not have written this disseration. Thank you for your willingness to
give of yourselves.

I am indebted to my colleagues in the larger research project, the Center for
research on the context of secondary school teaching (CRC). As a center graduate
assistant, I explored high schools and gained insights concerning the daily lives of
teachers. The financial assistance provided by the Office of Educational Research (OERI
Grant G0087C0235) made this work possible. Special thanks to Juliann Cummer, the
center administrative assistant, who was always positive, efficient and thorough in
finding answers to my questions about the center's work.

A special thanks to the many graduate students I have had the privilege of
meeting in the course of my graduate studies. Especially to Barbara Lehto and James

vi

Spillane who where there when I needed to talk and who gave me continual support
while completing this work. James was also my connection to campus, gathering
information and giving suggestions, as I continued to work long distance. J ames' insights
and knowledge have been most helpful in expediting many aspects of the final process of
completing my graduate program.

I am also appreciative of my guidance committee. Each has supported me
emotionally and intellectually during my graduate work. Joyce Putnam was there for me
during the beginning of graduate school. She was a great listener and helped me work
through concerns and difficulties of a first year graduate student. Joyce also gave me the
opportunity of being a member of a collegial group in which listening and reflecting were
the norm.

Linda Anderson has also been most important to my graduate work. Her sound
knowledge of and practical suggestions for research design and execution were most
helpful. She knows how to ask the hard questions with kindness. It was through
discussions with Linda that I learned the skills necessary for observing and gaining
insights about teachers and their work.

I am most appreciative and grateful to Brian Rowan, the director of this
dissertation, who has been a guiding light in my graduate work. Without Brian, this
dissertation would not have been possible. Brian first made possible my graduate
assistantship with the CRC. His professionalism in working with graduate students is
outstanding. He trusted, supported and encouraged me, and continually critiqued my
work with great interest and understanding. Brian took the time to understand me as a
person and respect what I had to offer the educational community. He became a

vii

colleague and a friend -- a person I could talk with, ask questions of, and never feel
intimidated. Brian's knowledge and ability to understand the deeper meaning of our
discussions has been exceptional. I deeply appreciate all the time and interest shown to
me during my graduate work. To Brian a most warm and appreciative thank you.

I am also deeply indebted to Laura Roehler, the chair of my graduate committee.
Laura has been a friend, mentor, and colleague. Laura has supported my graduate work
in many ways. Laura gave me the opportunity to develop skills in staff development and
to explore with teachers their drinking and understanding of teaching issues. Laura has
been my critical friend. She has pushed my drinking and my ways of seeing the world
and myself. Laura has stood by me during the more difficult periods of graduate studies
when the joy of learning was lost from sight. She took personal interest in my whole life
and became a friend, when I just needed to talk about non-professional matters. I always
appreciated the coffee breaks we took to just talk about life.

I also acknowledge my family. Sara Reinken spent numerous hours proofing
chapters, giving suggestions and keeping my spirits up. She is a wonderful mother-in-
law whose unending faith in me never faltered. To other relatives who helped reduce the
tension of graduate school and were there to give emotional support, I thank you so
much.

Mostly, I am indepted to my husband, whose unconditional love and constant
support have helped make my graduate studies possible. Without his steadfast
encouragement and willingness to be a partner in my endeavor, I could never have
finished this program. He is truly a remarkable person, sure of himself and me. He has
been my most critical colleague, strongest advocate, and loving partner. He read,

viii

critiqued and spent many hours helping with much of my graduate program. He
willingly took over home duties while continuing his own professional work. He is and
continues to be my rock of Gibraltar. Without David I would not be able to fulfill my

dreams and find the joy in learning. Thank you for being you and having faith in me.

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................ xv
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................... xvi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .............................. 1
Background and Need for the Study ........................ 1
Statement of the Problem ................................ 10
Purpose of the Study .................................... 10
Research Questions ..................................... l 1
Definition of Terms ..................................... 1 1
Research Assumptions .................................. 12
Review of Methodology ................................. 13
Study within a Study .................................... 14
Limitations of the Study ................................. 14
[1 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ......... 17
Sociological Perspective on Professional
Collegiality .................................... 18
Summary of the Sociological
Perspective ..................................... 22

Organizational Perspective on

Collegiality ..................................... 23
Effective School Research ......................... 24
Professionalization of Teaching .................... 27
Summary of the Organizational
Perspective on Collegiality ................... 32
Teacher Work and Teacher Change
Perception of Collegiality .......................... 33
Collegiality as Social Support ...................... 35
Collegiality as Storytelling ......................... 37
Collegiality as Aid and Assistance ................... 39
Collegiality as Sharing ............................ 44
Collegiality as Joint Work ......................... 46
Team teaching ............................. 47
Staff development .......................... 49
Summary of Workplace and Teacher
Change Literature .......................... 52
Toward an Understanding of Collegiality ................... 53
Culture of Collegiality ............................. 54
Structure of Collegiality ........................... 55
Behavior of Collegiality ........................... 56
Chapter Summary ...................................... 56
III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................... 58
Selection of the Sample ................................. 58
Selection of Sites ................................. 58

xi

Falls Park School District ................... 59

LaSalle High School ....................... 62

Monroe High School ....................... 67

Selection of Teachers ............................. 69
Description of sample group ................. 72

Research Design ....................................... 73
Rationale for Research Design ...................... 73
Dimensions of teacher collegiality ............ 76

The Research Instrument .......................... 79
Rationale ................................ 79

Interview guide format ..................... 81

Data Analysis ......................................... 82
Chapter Summary ...................................... 87

IV TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL

RELATIONSHIPS ..................................... 88
Culture of Collegiality .................................. 89
Value of Independence ........................... 91

Value of Interdependence ......................... 94
Etiquette of Collegiality ................................ 102
The Personal Characteristics of Teachers .................. 108
Chapter Summary ..................................... l 17

V OTHER CONTEXTUAL FEATURES AFFECTING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS ..... 121

xii

Issues ............................................... 122

Forms of Collegiality .................................. 129
Other Contextual Features .............................. 135

Organizational Arrangements ..................... 135

School Governance ............................. 141

Students ...................................... 147
Chapter Summary ..................................... 149

VI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIALITY

AND TEACHER WORK .............................. 153
Supporting ........................................... 155
Networking .......................................... 158
Sharing ............................................. 161
Implementation ....................................... 166
Chapter Summary ..................................... 170

VII SUMMARY, REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH, DISCUSSION
SYSTEM OF COLLEGIALITY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ..... 173
Summary ............................................ 173
Review of Recent Research ............................. 175
Organizational Perspective on Collegiality ........... 175
Effective schools research .................. 176
Professionalization of teaching .............. 177

Teacher Work and Teacher Change Perpective of
Collegiality ............................. 182

Teacher work ............................ 182

xiii

Teacher change literature ................... 184

Contextual features ....................... 188
Discussion ........................................... 191
Teachers' Perception of Collegiality ................ 191
Contextual Features ............................. 196
Issues .................................. 197
Forms .................................. 197
Other contextual features ................... 198
The Relationship of Collegiality to
Teachers' Work .......................... 202
Differences Between the Sites ..................... 205
Summary ..................................... 206
The System of Collegiality .............................. 207
Conclusions ......................................... 209
Recommendations for Further Research ................... 212
APPENDICES
A COVER LETTER AND ATTACHED CONSENT FORM .......... 214
B PROFESSIONAL TEACHER COLLEGLALITY
INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................. 217
C INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT DATA WORKSHEET ................. 222
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................... 226

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Student Ethnicity and Gender Information For LaSalle High School .......... 63
Staff Gender, Ethnicity, and Education by Position for LaSalle High School . . . . 65
Student Ethnicity and Gender Information For Monroe High School .......... 68

Staff Gender, Ethnicity, and Education by Position for Monroe High School . . . . 70

Teacher Selection by Department at LaSalle and Monroe .................... 74
Teacher Demographic Information for the Sample Group within each Site ..... 75
Demographic Characteristics Concerning Collegial Relationships ........... 1 15
Time Logistics of Professional Collegial Interactions ..................... 137

XV

LIST OF FIGURES

Example Typology by Site of Teacher
Self-Reported Value of Independence ................................... 86

A Typology by Site of Teacher Self-Reported
Values of Collegiality ............................................... 90

A Typology by Site of the Sample Group
Self-Reported Etiquette of Collegiality ................................. 103

A Typology of the Personal Characteristics Reported
as Important for Collegial Relationships ................................ 1 10

A Typology by Site of Teacher Self-Reported
Forms of Collegiality ............................................... 130

Typology of Information Use Gained from
Professional Collegial Relationships ................................... 154

xvi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This is a study of teachers' professional collegial relationships, the contextual
features surrounding these relationships, and the consequences of collegial interactions on
teachers' work. Reformers assume that professional collegial arrangements "will enhance
teachers' capacity for learning and problem solving, build solidarity and cohesiveness
within schools, and satisfy teachers' needs for affiliation" (Rowan, 1990:374).
Consequently, professional collegial relationships are suggested as one way to reduce the
teacher isolation presently found in schools and to improve the image of the profession as
a whole.

Currently there are many questions concerning this assumption. This study will
explore teachers' professional collegiality as currently found within two urban
comprehensive high schools to generate hypotheses concerning teacher professional

collegiality.

Background and Need for Study
Reform proposals to restructure the organization of schools are a prevalent topic
in educational literature. Two lines of reform currently dominating the discussion on
restructuring schools are based on conflicting accounts of how schools should be

1

2
organizationally structured (Rowan, 1990). More specifically, the organizational

structure these reforms address is the coordination and control of the work completed in
schools -- the technology of teaching. Technology is defined as "the actions that an
individual performs upon an object, with or without the aid of tools or mechanical
devices, in order to make some change in that object" (Perrow, 1967: 195). In other
words, advocates are pressing reforms that directly impact the technology of teaching
based on assumptions they hold about the nature of teaching and learning and how it
should be completed. It is these assumptions that are conflicting.

On the one hand, schools are loosely coupled and need to become more rational
and bureaucratic. These reform proposals are grounded in the effective schools research
and call for common school-wide goals, use of direct instruction, and frequent evaluation
of students. The assumption in these proposals is that the technology of teaching can be
routinized by centralizing goals and standardized procedures for completion of work.

Other reforrrrists indicate that schools are centralized and bureaucratic thus stifling
the professional autonomy of teachers. These reform proposals call for more teacher
autonomy, authority and power. Advocates of professionalization of teaching indicate
that the technology of teaching can not be accomplished by use of routine behaviors
because the technology of teaching is complex and non-routine (Gage, 1978; Lortie,
1975; Rowan, Raudenbush, & Cheong, 1993). This assumption is based on the
"uncertainty, instability, and uniqueness inherent in the nature of the work" (Sykes,
1983:90). These reformists refer to the variability of students, context specific situations,
and previous instructional exposure as factors which create the uncertainty, instability and

complexity of teaching and learning. Specifically, the argument is that the technology of

3

teaching is a complex task requiring "problem-solving activity that relies heavily on
teacher judgment and discretion in developing a situationally effective response" (Elmore
& McLaughlin, 1988:39).

Even though these reform proposals have conflicting ideas of how school
organizational structures should be restructured, one component of both reform proposals
is that the organizational structure should include teachers working together and engaging
in face-to-face interactions.

In the effective schools literature, teachers work as a school community to
develop mission statements, goals, and complete problem-solving activities together. The
reforms based on professionalization of teaching suggest that problem solving completed
through joint participation with other teachers can give "access to a larger pool of ideas,
methods, and materials" and prepare teachers to adapt flexibly and quickly to the varying
and specific demands of students (Little, 1990:523). Thus, both these reforms assume
that teachers will engage in face-to-face encounters about professional matters.
Furthermore, it is assumed that these encounters will lead to and maintain collegiality
among a community of individuals (Bimbaum, 1990). More importantly, professional
encounters -- teachers' professional collegiality 1 -- will improve the effectiveness of
schools and the quality of teaching "by tapping the collective talents, experience, and

energy of their professional staffs" (Little, 1987:492).

 

‘ The term professional collegaility denotes interactions among teachers that are based
in professional matters. These interactions do not include personal or social encounters
that might occur while at the workplace. For the remainder of this paper, the term
professional collegiality and collegiality are used interchangeably.

4

A pervasive problem currently found in schools is that teachers seldom engage in
joint problem solving (Little, 1990). Present research portrays teachers as working
independently and in relative isolation, learning by experimentation, and having little
voice in school or organizational matters (Goodlad, 1984; Jackson, 1968; Little, 1987;
Lortie, 1975). Relatively rare is the portrait of teachers working collaboratively or
collegially for the purpose of joint problem solving or indimdufiggwth and
development. Thus, teacher collegiality appears to be minimal at best. Furthermore, the
lack of collegiality decreases their ability to perform well in the classroom and places
limits on the effectiveness of schools.

From this perspective, collegiality involves more than belonging to the same
profession, holding a shared mission, or enacting appropriate behaviors. Professional
collegiality also involves participation in discussions about work and/or collaboration
among individuals in order to solve shared problems (F eiman-Nemser & F loden, 1986;
Little, 1982, 1987, 1990). That is, collegiality involves teacher professional development
based on continual development of practice through shared experiences with peers (Little,
1981; Rosenholtz, 1989; & Zahorik, 1987). Thus, newer conceptions of how to improve
the effectiveness of schools and the quality of teaching suggest that teachers need to work
together and interact about topics important to their work for the purpose of solving
problems and learning teaching practices on the job.

A difficulty with this view of professional collegiality is that it is restricted to
classroom work -- specifically classroom management, instructional techniques, subject
matter knowledge, student learning, and assessment. However, many teachers, especially

at the high school level, engage in activities beyond the classroom that can also be

5

considered professional work. These activities include: student club sponsorship;
tutoring; coaching; committee work at the school and district level; work in professional
associations; staying current on school events; and maintaining order throughout the
school. As a result, in this study I will focus not only on professional collegiality in the
context of classroom practice but also on professional collegiality as related to non-
classroom dimensions of teachers' work.

Many researchers believe that to increase collegiality among teachers there must
be a change in the context in which teachers work (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1987;
Hargreaves, 1984; & Little, 1984). As a result, research has recently turned to school
culture as an important factor in educational reform. Purkey and Smith (1983) suggest
that school culture is arrived at by linking context with process. Purkey and Smith define
context as organizational structure, roles, norms, values, instructional techniques, and
curricular information. Process "refers to the nature and style of political and social
interactions and to the flow of information within the school" (Purkey & Smith,
1983:440). If teachers' professional collegiality is seen as a process, then Purkey and
Smith’s (1983) work suggests that collegial relations in schools will be difficult to
describe or change without considering the contextual features in which they are
embedded.

The current enthusiasm for collegiality has spawned numerous school
improvement programs that involve both contextual and process aspects of schooling.
These programs include coaching, mentoring, and team arrangements; shared decision
making; collaborative curriculum development; shared views about school improvement;

and more. With the ever-growing emphasis on programmatic approaches that embrace

6

teachers' professional collegiality, many questions are raised. What does teachers'
professional collegiality mean to teachers? How central or peripheral is collegiality to
teachers’ professional growth? How does collegiality affect teachers' control over
working conditions? What importance do teachers put on professional collegiality?
Even more importantly, what forms of collegiality are found in school settings? What
beliefs, norms, values, and attitudes guide peer collegial relationships? What effects do
school improvement programs have on teacher collegial interactions? What contextual
features of these programs foster or inhibit collegial relationships? What are the
outcomes of teachers' collegial relationships to their work?

These questions are significant in that the term collegiality remains conceptually
vague and ideologically optimistic. Advocates of professional collegiality suggest that
collegial relationships can reduce the teacher isolation so prevalent in the school
workplace (Lortie, 1975; Goodlad, 1984; Sizer, 1984;). Collegiality is also thought to
improve, to some unspecified degree, teacher knowledge, skill, judgment, commitment,
and morale. In general, collegiality is thought to enhance the combined capability of
groups and organizations. In other words, "advocates have imbued [collegiality] with a
sense of virtue" (Little, 1990:509).

A close review of the literature on teachers‘ professional collegiality, however,
raises doubts about the positive effects described above. First, the connection between
collegiality and school improvement (i.e., change) may not be warranted. Groups bound
by shared beliefs and purposes can as easily thwart change as promote it (Sergiovanni &
Starratt, 1988). For example, Lightfoot (1983) uses the term collegiality to describe a

group of teachers at Carver High who collectively resisted administrative changes by

7

forming a covert gossip ring that allowed them to preserve their own inertia. Four years
after the entry of the new principal, some of the faculty were still "dragging their feet and
resisting his directions" (Lightfoot, 1983:44).

The second difficulty with assuming that collegiality will improve the
effectiveness of schools and teaching is that "collegiality [generally] does not add up to
muc " (Little, 1987:501). For example, team collaboration often involves minimal
planning and coordinating rather than deep discussions of classroom practice (Cohen,
1976; Cohen, Meyer, Scott, & Deal, 1979; Cohen, 1981). In part, the lack of depth in
team relationships occurs because teacher interdependence is typically more contrived
than real, that is, "perched precariously on the margins of real wor " (Little, 1990:510).
Such collegiality often centers on scheduling or other coordination activities that simply
allow for the continuation of independent work.

Third, externally created programs designed to promote collegiality rarely
promote sustained collegial relationships. Most programs use specific contextual factors
to bring groups of teachers together. Dependent on a variety of circumstances, these
programs quickly reduce teacher motivation to collaborate with each other. The difficulty
with externally developed programs that try to stimulate teacher collegiality is that
teachers' work is based not only on the kinds of contextual factors changed by such
programs (e.g., time, schedules, number of students, subject matter), but also on social
factors (e.g., personal beliefs, backgrounds, values). Metz's (1986) description of three
magnet programs is an example of this difficulty. In her study, two of the magnet schools
developed a specific approach to the education of children. But within a three-year

period, teachers' collaboration in these schools had deteriorated to the point that teams

8
were either collaborating minimally or not at all. Changes in staffing and diverse beliefs

about teaching and learning interfered with collaborative work.

The fourth difficulty with colleagueship in schools concerns the way collegiality is
defined and explained by research. Researchers have been predisposed to limit what are
considered collegial interactions and to further limit what is considered the work of
teachers. Much of the latest research suggests that teachers are collegial only when they
are interacting about the practice of teaching. In other words, collegiality has been
studied either as discussions of teaching practice or as collaborative problem-solving
concerning this practice (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986). An even narrower definition
of teacher collegiality is that teachers are collegial when they are giving or receiving help
(Little, 1981; Rosenholtz, 1989; Zahorik, 1987). This definition emphasizes teacher
professional growth and deve10pment and describes collegial teachers as those who work
jointly and "share the responsibility for the work of teaching" in the classroom with a
group of students (Little, 1990:519). Thus, teachers either work in isolation or they work
collegially (Goodlad, 1984; Little, 1987; Lortie, 1975).

The difficulty with these views is that no allowance is made for other forms of
interactions teachers may engage in or for collegial interactions that focus on work
beyond the classroom. These conceptions present an either/or perspective. Teachers are
not private practitioners who use space within a building and work independently of each
other, nor are they continuously interacting with each other about their classroom
practice. In fact, there are multiple forms of collegiality that can and do occur within
schools on a daily basis. This is not to say that the present views of collegiality are

unimportant, only that other "forms" of collegiality (i.e., ways in which teachers interact)

9
are lefl unexplored (Little, 1990). Various other forms of collegiality suggested by Little

(1990) include storytelling, sharing, aid and assistance, and joint work. But these are not
all inclusive. To date, research concerning teacher collegial relationships has usually
focused on one form at a time, dismissing other forms as non-collegial.

There is a necessity to take a broader look at teacher professional collegiality to
develop an rmderstanding of collegial relationships within the workplace, contextual
features related to professional collegial relationships, and the impact collegial
relationships have on the work of teachers. In fact, most recently there has been a call for
further investigation of teacher collegiality to better understand the multiple forms of
collegiality, as well as the meaning of collegiality (Little, 1990). In order to specify the
nature and significance of these multiple forms, research will require revealing

...the situated meaning or value teachers attach to various interactions... [At

present], there have been few explicit attempts to encompass multiple conceptions

or dimensions of collegiality in single studies, to discriminate among these
various forms of collegiality, and to trace their apparent consequences. (Little,

1990:531)

A further need concerning teacher collegiality centers on the level of schooling
under study. At present, most literature on teacher professional collegiality focuses on
elementary schools (Cohen, 1976; Little, 1981; Rosenholtz, 1989; Zahorik, 1987).
Except for one high school in Little's (1981) study of staff development in urban

desegregated schools, no other studies specifically focus on this topic at the secondary

level.2

 

2. This was verified through interviews with Dr. Thomas Bird and Dr. John Zahorik, who
both have researched this topic.

10
Statement of the Problem

 

This study examines teachers' professional collegiality as it occurs within two
urban comprehensive secondary schools. Specifically, this study uses teachers'
perceptions to develop meaning for the term collegiality. This includes the multiple
forms of collegial relationships teachers engage in, and the underlying criteria which
guide and direct teacher collegial relationships. The study also explores contextual
features that surround the professional collegiality found in these two sites. Finally, the
study describes teachers' perceptions of how their professional collegial relationships

effect their work both in and outside the classroom.

hypose of the Study

At present "the concept of collegiality has been employed in many ways, perhaps
most commonly as the panacea for most institutional ills" (Bess, 1988:113). The purpose
of this study is not to elaborate on institutional ills, but to develop a more robust
conception of teachers’ professional collegiality and to generate hypotheses concerning
teachers' collegiality at the secondary level. This study extends the current research on
teacher professional collegiality in four ways: 1) it describes teachers' perception of
collegiality -- what collegiality means to teachers and the criteria teachers use to judge a
relationship as "collegial"; 2) it discriminates among various forms of teacher
professional collegiality; 3) it explores how various contextual features influence and
shape collegial relationships; and 4) it reports on teachers' perceptions of how collegial

interactions affect their work.

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

below.

11

Regarch Questions

 

The following research questions guide this study:

How do teachers in the two urban high schools perceive professional collegial
relationships?

What varied forms of collegiality do secondary teachers engage in during their
work within these schools?

What contextual features of the workplace do these high school teachers see as
influencing the phenomenon of professional collegial relationships?

In what ways do professional collegial relationships influence the work of these
teachers?

What similarities and differences concerning the phenomenon of teachers'

professional collegiality are found between these sites?

Definition of Terms

This study uses several terms in its discussion. The major terms are defined

Professiorflollegiality is defined as professional relations among colleagues that

are based on professional work matters, as opposed to social or personal matters. These

professional relationships are defined by the values and criteria that are developed and

maintained by way of regular face-to-face contact. For the purposes of this study the

terms professional collegiality and collegiality are used interchangeably.

Culture of collegialig is defined as a collection of beliefs and values about what is

appropriate behavior in collegial relationships as these beliefs and values exist in the

12

minds of organizational workers.

Etiquette of collegialiy is defined as the unwritten codes which members of an

organization follow so that certain things deemed likely to injure others are not

forthcoming.

Formflf collegiality is defined as phenomenologically discrete teacher-to-teacher

exchanges that vary from one another in the way information is exchanged, the purpose

for which information is exchanged, and the degree to which persons expose their work

to the scrutiny of others.

1)

2)

3)

4)

Research Assumptions

 

This study is based on the assumptions that:

As human beings, teachers are social by nature. They engage in interactions with
other teachers by virtue of their social nature.

Teachers, through interactions with other teachers, use the content of their talk to
change their perspective and/or knowledge, to reaffirm their perspective and/or
knowledge, and/or to develop an understanding of the other person's perspective
and/or knowledge of the subject under discussion.

Teachers who view peers as colleagues, by some definition, give more credence to
these peers than they do to persons who just share space within a physical
structure.

Teachers continually engage in an interaction and exchange process with their
context by acquiring, interpreting, and acting upon the information received. In so

doing, teachers create new patterns of information that effect changes in the whole

13

field. Thus, relationships are continually changing or being modified as a result of
continuous interaction.

5) The sample group has been present in each site long enough to have joined peer
groups in the building and developed an understanding of appropriate norms,

structures, and behaviors for working within the site.

Review of Methodology

This study used qualitative methods to gather data in the pursuit of creating
hypotheses concerning teacher professional collegiality. Specifically, interview methods
were deemed appropriate for this study in order to establish the status of the phenomenon
within a given setting and population. This study's interview guide consisted of a semi-
structured format with open-ended questions. Hence, this study's data collection was
conducted by asking individuals within a population what they knew, believed, perceived,
and valued about teacher collegiality.

The procedure used to conduct this research study included: 1) development of an
interview guide; 2) testing of the interview guide with volunteers from a site with similar
characteristics; 3) revision of interview guide for clarity, length, and focus on study
questions; 4) establishment of the sample group in each of the two sites by use of
stratified random selection; 5) administration of the teacher interview to thirty
participants; and 6) analysis of data to generate hypotheses concerning teacher
professional collegiality.

The analysis consisted of categorical coding of data, frequency counts of codings,

and selection of descriptive quotations. These procedures were used to summarize,

14

present conclusions, and generate hypotheses about the phenomenon of teacher

professional collegiality that occurs in urban comprehensive high schools.

Studeithin a Study

The study conducted here was part of a larger study of the context of secondary
school teaching recently completed (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). The Center for
Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching (CRC) used both surveys and
interviews in its research (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). In using a sirrrilar methodology,
this study contributed information to the larger study and did not conflict with, hinder, or
contaminate data collection in the larger study. More importantly, this study drew on data
from the larger CRC study, including the 1990 and 1991 teacher interviews. The present
study was undertaken in 1991, the third year of the larger study. Therefore, the
participants within the sites were familiar with the research project's methodology, goals,

and the presence of researchers in the building.

Limitations of the Study

There are four limitations to the study: the generalizability of findings, the
measurement of cognitive processes through interviews and questionnaires, bias in data
collection due to one data collector, and study boundaries.

Limitation l: Generalizability of the Findings

Generalizability beyond the sample and sites is limited due to the research

methodology employed. Descriptive studies inform researchers of "what is" in specific

settings. As such, this form of research does not create laws and conclusions applicable

15
beyond the subject matter described, but does provide clues for subsequent research

(Simon, 1969). Furthermore, the fact that every school has a unique social organization
and an underlying culture limits generalizability of results. Also, the sample size is
limited and restricted to two sites. Therefore, since a majority of the teaching population
at the secondary level is not represented, the generalizability of the findings is limited.
Limitation 2: Measuring Cognitive Processes

The validity of research concerned with mental aspects of individuals (i.e., beliefs,
values, attitudes, knowledge) has been questioned by research methodologists (Y inger,
1986). When teachers are asked for their understanding of their actions or knowledge,
there is no guarantee that responses capture the person's true perspective. "Discounting
the possibility of intentional deception, it is difficult to judge how accurately people
report on their own perspectives" (Feirnan-Nemser & Floden, 1986:506). Even with
knowledge, there is the possibility of not having the ability to express it accurately, or
even of not understanding the underlying meanings. Therefore, measures used to assess
teacher perceptions and their underlying reasons for actions may be subject to questions
of validity.
Limitation 3: BE in the Data Collection

Possible bias may exist in the interview data because only one researcher collected
all data. Bias on the part of the subjects is possible even though interviews are recorded.
Transcriptions are not a full account of the events and responses. They lack information
about body language or subjects’ eagerness to please (Borg & Gall, 1983; Cohen, &
Manion, 1989). Also, bias on the part of the researcher is possible. At the time of the

study, the data collector had background knowledge of the school culture. Such

16
knowledge could lead to prej udgrnent of teacher collegial relationships and thereby lead

to bias in data collection. Although the use of semi-structured interviews and analysis by
a second researcher would help to reduce bias of a single data collector, this researcher
chose to note limitations concerning bias instead.
Limitation 4: Study Boundaries

This study's focus is the school and the teachers within the school. Excluded from
this study are certain aspects of the school culture (such as the interactions with
administrators and students) that also add to the phenomenon of teacher collegiality.
Also excluded fiom this study are outside influences such as district personnel,
community, and other professionals whose interactions could influence teacher
professional collegiality with peers. The difficulty with research in natural settings such
as schools is the complexity and interactive fluidity of the setting (Elmore & McLaughlin,
1988). At some point, boundaries need to be established for the purpose of studying a
phenomenon. In this study, the boundaries are the school's social organization and more

specifically, teacher interactions with other teachers within the setting.

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

This chapter presents a review of the literature related to teacher professional
collegiality. Specifically, three varied definitions of teacher professional collegiality
frequently found in the literature are discussed. This review of the literature concerning
teacher professional collegiality is divided into four major sections. The first section
reviews the sociological perspective on collegiality and focuses on collegiality as an
element of professions. The second section reviews the organizational perspective on
collegiality and exarrrines literature within the field of education that focuses on
organizational elements of schooling. The third section critiques the teacher work and
teacher change literatures as these relate to teacher professional collegiality. The final
section presents a conception of the phenomenon of teachers' professional collegiality that
incorporates characteristics of the three perspectives of collegiality found in this literature
review.

Each section contributes to the theoretical basis for this study. The sociological
perspective on professional collegiality provides a foundation for the more recent
definitions found within the education profession. The organization literature focuses on
social context and school governance research that suggests features useful to the
development of the teacher professional collegial relationship phenomenon. The

17

l 8
literature on teachers' work and teacher change further explains the contextual features

important to collegial relationships and the impact collegiality has on the work of
teachers. This section also explains various forms of collegiality not found in the other
definitions. The fourth section presents an interpretation of collegiality that may be
useful in researching this phenomenon in educational settings.

Most of the literature on collegiality is theoretical in nature with little empirical
research having been completed. What little research there is has been conducted at the
elementary level. Therefore, despite the continual use of the term collegiality in recent
educational literature, it is a relatively unexplored concept. Since educational reformers
frequently claim that collegiality is critical to school effectiveness, it is crucial to have a
clearer rmderstanding of the concept and the phenomenon to which it refers. This study
contributes to the emerging field of research on collegiality by conducting a hypothesis-
generating study concerned with understanding collegiality as it presently occurs.
Furthermore, this study extends research on teacher collegiality into urban public

secondary schools.

Sociological Perspective on Professional Collegiality
The sociological perspective on collegiality is drawn from literature on the
professions. In this literature, collegiality is one of three attributes usually associated
with the definition of a profession (Starr, 1982). Basically, the sociological literature on
professions defines relationships between members of the same occupation as collegial
relations (Gross, 1958). However, to say someone is a colleague does not help to define

collegial relationships. Even though "there is considerable ambiguity among sociologists

1 9
over the meaning of the term 'colleague'" and collegiality (Bucher & Strauss, 1961:330),

for the purposes of this study, a more robust definition is developed‘. Such a definition
would place more stress on the "brotherhood" of colleagueship. Blumer (195 7), for
example, ascribes collegiality to persons having a sense of belonging together and
identifying with each other in a common undertaking. Specifically, collegiality is found
where there is a feeling of intimacy and closeness based on a sense of shared common
experiences, shared fate--what is good for one is good for all-~and shared understanding
of appropriate behavior. Gross (1958) indicates that "colleagueship implies a deeper
relationship: members of colleague groups are bound together by a strong sense of asap}
glam" (p. 224). This deeper sense of relationship between colleagues is built on
shared attitudes, norms, and the formation of informal and formal associations (Bucher &
Strauss, 1961; Cogan, 1953; Freidson, 1984). The degree to which there is group
consciousness and integration of culture is one criterion used to measure the
professionalism of a vocation (Cogan, 1953). Thus, collegiality is based on the
development of a culture that everyone shares and on the strength of the bonds that hold
the group together within the culture. The term "culture of collegiality" is used in this

study to define this sense of collegiality.

 

' A less robust definition is that persons are colleagues in name only - coworkers or
formal members of an occupation. The dictionary states a colleague is "a fellow worker in
the same profession" (Neufeldt, 1988:274). Thus, teachers are colleagues. They are
coworkers and have formal membership in the teaching profession based on specified
criteria (i.e., college course work, state licensure, and district contract.

20
Three norms are suggested as important to the “culture of collegiality.” 2 The first

is the norm of selflessness. As described by Wilensky (1964), this norm pertains to a
professional’s devotion to the client's interest more than to personal interests or
commercial profit. This is considered the service ideal and is found even in non-
professional organizations such as clerk-customer relations. The second and third norms
focus specifically on collegial relations. These norms include maintaining professional
standards and recognizing the competence of colleagues. Specifically, the norm of
professional standards means persons should honor the technical competence of other
formally qualified persons within the same group, avoid criticism of colleagues in public,
and condemn unqualified practitioners. The norm of colleague competence is having
awareness of personal competence, having an awareness of and honoring colleague
specialties, and referring clients to more competent colleagues when necessary.

When all three norms of collegiality are found, then the essential conditions of
professional collegiality are present. For example, the norms just described facilitate on
collegiality include such things as collegial control of members (i.e., governance), the
development of a shared mission and shared values for work, the enforcement of shared
norms of correct behavior, and a shared technical language. These characteristics of
collegial relationships are developed during the socialization process and maintained

through relationships (i.e., face-to-face interactions) during professional work.

 

2 In general, norms are presumed to be beliefs about how members of a social group
should act. These beliefs are widely shared by the members and/or believed to be so shared
by the members. Commitment to a norm implies the person both holds the belief and also
believes that most others hold the belief about the way members of the profession should
act (Glidewell, Tucker, Todt, & Cox, 1983).

2 1
Research using the sociological approach to study collegiality within the teaching

profession suggests that collegiality among teachers is limited. Lortie's (1975) classic
sociological study of schoolteachers, for example, investigated teaching as a profession
and more specifically teachers’ professional collegial relationships. His findings
suggested that collegiality was almost nonexistent among teachers -- teachers worked in
relative isolation and had little sense of shared meaning or collectiveness with other
teachers. This finding was based on two important characteristics of collegiality --
socialization of members into the professional culture of teaching and the development of
a technical culture of teaching.

First, Lortie suggested that socialization into the occupation of teaching was
minimal, as shown by his finding that teachers had little sense of shared experiences, fate,
or understanding of appropriate behavior. He explained this finding by reference to two
features of the professional training of teachers. First, practice teaching occurs over a
short period and is usually supervised by a single teacher. As a result, teachers learn on
the job with little time to interact with others. Also, the beliefs, values, and attitudes
appropriate to teachers are not well defined during the induction period. Thus, teachers
are not enculturated into "occupational unity. "

Second, Lortie found little evidence of a shared technical culture among teachers,
that is, no shared technical language or shared and "generalizable body of knowledge and
practice" (Lortie, 1975:79). Lortie argued that these elements of collegial culture failed to
develop in schools because organizational structures of bureaucratic control and the
cellular formation of classrooms inhibited collaboration about work among teachers.

Lortie's (1975) study suggested that teachers have limited professional collegiality due to

22
the nonexistence of a shared culture and a limited formal knowledge base. F urtherrnore,

the prevalent organizational structures currently found in schools suppress professional
collegiality among staff members.

Lortie's (1975) sociological perspective on collegiality called attention to the
contextual features that surrounded professional collegiality, including the cultural
aspects of organizations, clients, and socialization into the occupation. Because
professionals fi'equently work in bureaucratic organizations, these contextual features
become important to the collegial relationships of the professional members. Recent
sociological literature discusses this phenomenon. F reidson (1984) suggested that
collegial relations often became more formalized within corporations. Additionally,
professional collegiality could diminish within bureaucratic organizations as tensions
arose around the issue of collegial control versus bureaucratic control. Thus, in
bureaucratic settings like schools, tensions occur between the profession and the
organization as to which group (profession or bureaucracy) creates and maintains various
controls over work (Freidson, 1984).
§_um_rn_ary of the Sociological Perspective

The sociological perspective on collegiality focuses on the culture shared among a
vocation's members. This culture is seen as consisting of shared values, norms,
experiences, and meaning. The strength of collegiality is determined by the extent to
which socialization creates among members a singular view of work and how members
are to relate to one another. The norms of collegiality suggested as essential to
professional groups evolve from these shared understandings. As a result, the

sOciological definition of collegiality is occupational unity expressed as a culture within

23
an occupation. The sociological perspective suggests that the socialization of individuals

into teaching and the organizational context of teaching are the main reasons for the

lirrrited professional collegiality found among teachers (Lortie, 1975).

anpgational Perspectives on CollegiaLig

In this section, the organizational perspective on collegiality is developed by
reviewing some of the recent literature on school improvement. Much recent research in
this area seeks to discover organizational characteristics that can improve schools.
Collegiality in this literature is often seen as an important organizational characteristic of
efiective schools (Brookover et al., 1979; Cohen, 1987; Edmonds, 1983; McLaughlin,
1987; Richardson, 1990; Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J ., & Smith,
A., 1979). As a result, attention is paid to the design of organizational interventions that
foster increased collegiality among teachers. These interventions attempt to change the
culture of the school generally or to change the governance of the school.

Two specific lines of research in this tradition are reviewed here: effective schools
research and efforts to professionalize the occupation of teaching. Each of these lines of
research presents a different definition of professional collegiality among teachers, but
each has the same goal -- to improve schools through organizational change -- and each
relies on the same assumption -- that schools as organizations, and not teachers as
individuals or districts as total units, should be the target of change.

The school improvement literature focuses on the school as a "social system"
(Bidwell, 1965; Parsons, 1959) and "stresses the interrelatedness of practices and roles,

and the interdependence of persons and structures in school organization" (Little,

24
1981 :25). The concepts of interrelatedness and interdependence highlight the social

organization and structure of schools as workplaces. It is this social organization in
which professional collegiality takes place. Sykes (1990) suggests that schools as
organizations, not the profession as a corporate group, should be the focus of efforts to
improve collegial relationships because each school maintains an individual culture and
organization. An underlying assumption in the school improvement literature is that the
cultivation of high levels of professional collegiality occur as staff members reach
consensus on school organizational issues, policies, philosophy, and goals (McCormack-
Larkin & Kritek, 1982).
Effective Schools Resga_rc_h

The effective schools research seeks to identify school characteristics that make a
difl’erence in the education of disadvantaged students. As such, the school is taken as the
relevant unit of analysis in order to find organizational characteristics important to
successful student achievement. Five characteristics of schools have been discussed
consistently in reviews of effective schools research.3 For the purposes of this review, the
focus will be on the research findings that give meaning to teacher professional

collegiality.4 These findings concern the school culture or school social organization and

 

3 There are many reviews of the effective schools research literature (Good & Brophy,
1986; Kyle, 1985; Loucks-Horsley & Hergert, 1985; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rowan,
Bossert and Dwyer, 1983). For this reason, a complete review of all research completed is
not given here.

4 At this time, no eflective schools research has been found that used high school level
organizations. However, Bryk and Driscoll (1988) present a very persuasive argument
about high schools as communities that has much in common with the effective schools
research reviewed here.

25

focus on high staff expectations and morale, clear school goals, and a strong sense of
community (Cohen, 1987; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Norms, attitudes, shared beliefs, and
values of participating staff are important to creating a cohesive school community.
Within such a community, the independence of teachers' work, based on varied personal
beliefs, is assumed to be reduced as a cohesive community is developed. The empirical
study of effective schools by Brookover et al., (1979) is most important to the concept of
shared teacher expectations and school social climate (Purkey & Smith, 1983). This
study of 68 Michigan public elementary schools was designed to better understand
organizational characteristics that differentiate more eflective schools from less efi‘ective
schools. The researchers theorized that student achievement would be affected by the
school's social system, which was seen as composed of three interrelated variables --
social inputs, social structure, and social climate. After using questionnaires to measure
norms, values, and beliefs concerning student achievement, motivation, ability, etc.,
Brookover et al., (1979) concluded that social climate was a large contributor to the
between-school variance in student achievement found in their study. In this study,
characteristics of the school social climate found to be most important included: 1)
teachers’ beliefs that all children can and will learn; 2) teachers’ expectations that all
children can learn appropriate patterns of behavior; and 3) common norms focused on
high performance levels. The conclusion reached by the authors was that when teachers
hold similar beliefs, have similar academic standards, and work toward similar goals,
student achievement improves.

The research of Brookover et al., (1979) implies that collegiality evolves as

teachers develop common goals and objectives. Furthermore, it assumes that there is

26

little tension between the goals and objectives of teachers and those of organizations.
This perspective on collegiality differs somewhat from the sociological perspective,
however. For example, there is no talk in the effective schools literature of "brotherhood"
or norms concerned with mutual respect among colleagues (i.e., recognizing
competence), although there is some discussion of norms of selflessness and maintaining
standards. In addition, the culture of collegiality is seen in effective schools research as
being formed within the school because of the focus on organizational goals. The result
is that the culture of collegiality may or may not be shared by professional group
members beyond the school organizational setting. This suggests that collegiality can be
strengthened by transforming current organizational features that allow teachers to
maintain individual goals, values, and beliefs. Using this research, many school systems
have initiated programs in which school staffs work as groups to develop school mission
statements, goals, and student outcomes. These formalized understandings are used to
guide the work of the staff and to alter the loose connections of teachers by forming
collegial teacher groups that have clear and shared beliefs, norms, and values.

The result, as suggested by effective schools research, is that collegiality can be
based on the development of common organizational goals, objectives, missions, and
beliefs. Teachers who exhibit similar and uniformly high expectations for students,
similar views of student ability, and similar school goals for students are seen as collegial.
To the extent that these ideas are held in common, cultural collegiality is developed, but
because the culture is formalized by means of local organizational understandings, this
definition is dissimilar to the sociological definition. The sociological definition suggests

that members are socialized by the professional community to "believe" all members will

27
believe and behave appropriately. In the effective schools approach, socialized "belief' is

developed organizationally through formalized mission statements, goals, and outcome
standards designed to guide behavior.

This perspective on collegiality is currently being used in school improvement
programs. The main purpose of such programs is to reduce the individual autonomy
found within schools by developing social controls that encourage teachers to work
toward the same goals and objectives. Therefore, effective schools programs create,
through formal means, a school community based on formal academic goals and
objectives that govern faculty behavior (Cohen, 1987). This idea of governance is also
found in the professionalization of teaching literature.

Professionalization of Teaching

The view of collegiality found in the professionalization literature focuses on
collegial governance. Bidwell (1965), for example, suggests that schools are more than
formal organizations with the basic characteristics of bureaucratic organizations. Schools
also have a tendency toward debureaucratization due to the "inherent bureaucratic conflict
of authority based on expertise and on legal criteria" (p. 1012). Authority based on
expertise leads to professionalism and to attempts by teachers to acquire control over
various aspects of their work. Legal authority involves the authority of administrators to
manage schools.

Professional authority is often seen as a form of autonomy, but autonomy can be
either individual or interdependent. Presently, teachers appear to have a great deal of
individual autonomy. That is, teachers have great personal control over instructional

practices within the classroom. Interdependent autonomy, on the other hand, would be

28

based on shared decision-making across classrooms and at the school level. Currently,
interdependent autonomy appears to be minimal to nonexistent in American public
schools. Moving to an interdependent form of autonomy would involve teachers in more
sharing, collaborating, and group decision-making about classroom work and school-wide
issues. This is the concept of autonomy found in the literature on teacher
professionalization.

Schiffer (1980) suggests that giving teachers greater control over school
governance is one way to increase teacher autonomy and professional collegiality. She

describes this control as the "principle of colleagueship."

The principle of colleague authority is the principle that much, if not all, authority
should be in the hands of the school faculty. The school should be a self-
governing community in which the faculty group has major control over policy,
and the individual teacher has major control over what takes place in the
classroom (p. 95).

Autonomy in Schiffer’s (1980) definition is both interdependent and individual.
Interdependent autonomy is collegial group control over school level policy, while
individual autonomy is the exercise of personal judgment about classroom practice. In
creating teacher autonomy, Schiffer warns against teachers becoming separated from the
social context. Autonomy is not defined as isolation, but "a force that binds people
together [so that] sharing of ideas and experiences and communication between and
among teachers, administrators, and paren " results (p. 117). This definition assumes
that teacher autonomy is possible and in fact achievable. But autonomy is a relative
attribute given to a group or individual based on trust and rationality (Wilensky, 1964).
Schiffer does not suggest how this trust and rationality is achieved in this radical view of

professionalizing the vocation of teaching.

29
Currently there are efforts to incorporate teacher autonomy within school

improvement programs. Most efforts are not as extreme as Schiffer's total control of
school policy. Hallinger and Richardson (1988) describe models of shared leadership in
which teachers are involved in school-wide decision-making but with varied levels of
input and in varied areas of school governance. These models are conceptual in nature
and based on reviews of research, reports, and proposals. They include: (1) principal
advisory councils; (2) instructional support tearrrs; (3) school improvement teams; and (4)
lead teacher committees. These models suggest varying degrees of teacher autonomy in
certain areas of school governance.

Sykes (1990) brings to the discussion of teacher professionalization a more
conventional approach to professional authority. He suggests that an "image of
professionalism that emphasizes elite status, private power, social distance from clients,
and single-minded pursuit of careers will not serve teaching" (p, 84). But the underlying
attributes of collegiality are appropriate for a new conception of the profession.
Furthermore, professionalism as a theme for school improvement and restructuring is a
necessary complement to other initiatives.

Sykes (1990) describes principles useful in the formation of school-level
professional communities that emphasize collegial relationships. The first principle
suggests that a culture of collegiality be developed to guide the work of the school
community. Socialization into this culture is encouraged by yearly reviews of school
mission statements and outcome reports (i.e., school improvement proposals and
evaluations) and by setting goals and targets for teachers that assist in establishing

universal norms for the commtmity. Second, faculty working collegially should

30
participate in the construction and coordination of the curriculum. Third, teachers should

develop a broader knowledge base so they can interact collegially with groups inside and
outside the school about the practice of teaching.

Autonomy within this conception of professionalization shifts from individual
(private) to interdependent (public). Teachers as a collective unit would have a voice in
determining the direction of the school community. Consequently, restructuring of the
occupation of teaching involves empowering teachers by giving them more control over
standards of practice and norms of conduct. The emphasis on norms and standards is
different from Schiffer's (1980) concept of school-level authority -- setting school policy.
Sykes (1990) focuses on the cultural aspect of professionalism -- behaviors and attitudes -
- and suggests a formal structure be defined. In this way, collegiality is maintained within
the group. For without cultural aspects of collegiality (i.e., shared beliefs, values, and
attitudes), the formal structures or programs of schools become merely political in nature
(Bess, 1988) - individuals working for personal interests. This breakdown of collegiality
to a political state is possible when the norms embedded in a culture of collegiality
disintegrate -- people lose the belief that colleagues are equal in competence, authority,
power, and shared interests (Freidson, 1984).

A study by Blase (1987) illustrates the political (i.e., self-interest) orientation of
teacher relationships in an examination of political interactions among teachers in a high
school. Blase formd that teachers often developed a political stance in their interactions
with others based on differing norms, values, and beliefs. Moreover, he argued that this
political or self-interest orientation influenced the direction of faculty interactions and

governance. In this case then, norms, beliefs, and values developed in schools, but these

31
were not collegial as defined from the sociological perspective because they were based

in self-interest rather than shared beliefs.

The professionalization literature also discusses the effects of organizational
context on the development of collegiality. This literature focuses on diminishing
bureaucratic patterns of authority and increasing collegial authority by changing the
governance structure of schools to give teachers more decision-making authority in the
development of school-level policies. Furthermore, this literature suggests other changes
in the structure of schools that are needed to encourage the development of teacher
collegiality in schools. For example, Hargraves (1984) indicates that collegiality cannot
occur without important changes to teachers' roles. He suggests that the following
changes would increase teacher collegiality: (1) reducing work loads so teachers have
time to devote to decision-making activities; (2) developing out-of-school visitations; (3)
using working hours for in-service training; (4) moving to school-centered, not teacher-
centered, innovations; and (5) broadening the concept of teacher experience beyond the
confines of the classroom. In this view, teacher collegiality and teacher autonomy would
develop as teachers move away from focusing on classrooms and developing shared
cultural valuation of other experiences.

Thus, as suggested by the professionalization literature, teacher autonomy and
teacher decision-making are approaches to improving school organizations. In this
literature, professional collegial relationships become a vehicle to gaining teacher
autonomy. Teachers working together cohesively and collaboratively gain control over
multiple aspects of their work. However, terms such as "values" and "beliefs" are

missing in most of this literature (an exception is Sykes [1990]). Instead, this literature

32
focuses mostly on changing the organizational structure of schools away from patterns of

bureaucratic decision-making and toward patterns of collegial decision-making.
Hargraves (1984), for example, focuses on structural changes in the role of teachers and

argues that such changes are needed to support the development of collegiality in schools.

Summm of the Organizational Perspective on Collegiality

 

Collegiality as defined in the organizational literature is different from the
sociological perspective. Even though the effective schools literature preserves the norms
of selflessness and standards, the norm of recognition of others is not found. This norm
is important if trust is to develop. The professionalization of teaching literature describes
collegiality in terms of autonomy within the school bureaucracy. Inherent in all
organizational literature is the concept that cultural aspects of collegiality need to have a
formal structure so an organizational culture developes. Such activities as creating shared
mission statements, standards, goals, and giving teachers more decision-making authority
in school-level governance are suggested as ways to acquire this structure of collegiality.
For this structure of collegiality to develop, changes in various aspects of the organization
are necessary. The effective schools literature stresses the social control of teachers
through formal means. The professionalization literature stresses professional control
and governance over the work of schools. In other words, teacher collegiality will evolve
only as organizational structures make appropriate changes. But the reverse is also true.
Organizational structures will change as teacher professional collegiality develops. This
assumption is the basis of the next section, which looks at literature concerning teacher

work and teacher change.

33
Ie_acher Worl_c_and Teacher Char_rge Perspectives of Collegia_li_ty

In this section a third perspective on professional collegiality is discussed by
reviewing the literature on teacher work and teacher change. Central to these literatures
is the assumption that "teachers' involvement with one another as colleagues is
firndamentally bound up -- for good or ill -- with their orientation toward their work as
classroom teachers" (Little, 1990:510).

In defining collegiality, this perspective focuses heavily on classroom work. Yet
the term collegiality means many things within this focus. Little (1990) argued that the
"recent acaderrric and professional literature subsumes a wide array of teacher-to-teacher
exchange under the broad terms collegiality or collaboration" (p. 511). Alfonso and
Goldsberry (1992) defined collegiality as

...a relationship characterized by collaborative efforts to accomplish
common goals. Collaboration implies both mutual involvement in
identifying and selecting specific objectives and mutual responsibility for
designing, implementing, and evaluating strategies to achieve these
objectives (p. 95).
Little (1987) described collegiality as "colleagues talk[ing] to one another about teaching
often, at a level of detail that makes their exchange both theoretically rich and practically
meaningful" (p. 503). Specific topics included: 1) planning and preparation; 2)
evaluating topics, methods, and materials concerned with teaching; and 3) observing and
teaching one another about new ideas and practices.

Important to both of these definitions is a focus on advancing teacher

understanding and practice of teaching by working closely with peers. Furthermore, these

definitions suggest relationships that are continuous, face-to-face, under public scrutiny,

and collective in the identification and implementation of instructional, curricular, and

34
management goals and objectives. In creating such definitions, the assumption is that

there are norms and beliefs guiding the collegial/collaborative relationships and that these
norms and beliefs focus on interdependence and collective autonomy.

Until recently these norms and beliefs were viewed as "a thing" that was or was
not present. In other words, unless teachers were "fully involved" in these collaborative
activities they were not collegial. Little (1990) now suggests that collegial relationships
may vary along a continuum from weak to strong dependent on the fi'equency, amount of
involvement, and depth of usefulness to the practice of teaching. In other words, to think
in terms of "degrees of normness" may make "it possible in research to investigate
whether, in what form, and to what degree norms 'exist', instead of taking them for
granted" (Jackson, 1966:36). The term "forms of collegiality" is thus one way of
describing varying degrees of collegiality on the continuum (Little, 1990). The forms
suggested by Little (1990) include: storytelling, aid and assistance, sharing, and joint
work (listed from weak to strong).

These are phenomenologically discrete forms that vary fiom one another in the

degree to which they induce mutual obligation, expose the work of each person to

the scrutiny of others, and call for, tolerate, or reward initiatives in matters of

curriculum and instruction (Little, 1990: 512).

This section uses these forms to organize research literature concerning teacher
work and teacher change. Using the continuum concept, this review starts with the most
independent form and moves toward the most interdependent form. To the four forms
Little (1990) suggests, a fifth form is added -— social support (Blase, 1987). Contextual

features that appear to influence the form and the form’s impact on the practice of

teaching are also discussed.

35
Collegiality as Social Smrt

Social support is the weakest form of collegiality. Social support develops as
teachers come to accept the vulnerability, insecurity, and fallibility of the vocation. This
acceptance requires a social context in which one is accepted and supported so that the
pain and frustrations of work are reduced. Although most recent literature focuses on
collegiality as cognitive development, social support is also suggested as important (Bolin
& F alk, 1987). This type of support focuses on sharing, understanding, and bonding with
others. In Blase's (1987) study, teachers talk of praise, recognition, therapeutic advice,
gratitude, and empathy as forms of social support. Bolin & Falk (1987) define teacher
collegiality as friends who listen and share conversations about the work of teaching,
about how students differ over various time periods, about developments in traditions,
and about the conflicts between students and traditions, and between students and school
rules. Colleagues are group members who help in the narration of the group story, so the
members can more readily recognize changing values and meanings. Social support also
emphasizes ritual and continuation of traditions. The basis of social collegiality is trust
and rapport as they relate to the interaction between the attitudes and beliefs of the
individual, and those of the social organization. Therefore, social support develops an
individual’s consciousness of self within the larger system.

Little (1990) suggested that norms of independence, presentism, and conservatism
are pervasive elements in social support because there is no real focus on the practice of
teaching in this form of collegiality. A school's staff can be described as "close", but
when "close" is understood as large doses of camaraderie, sympathy, and moral support,

the emphasis is on social and interpersonal interests. Hence, teachers can have a social

36
support system without having a shared belief about the practice of teaching. This

phenomenon is not unrealistic in the vocation of teaching. A teacher's vocation is
described as a lonely, private, and isolated affair perpetuated by contextual features of
time schedules, batched student groups, and egg-crate physical arrangements (Lortie,
1975, Sarason, 1982).

This is not to say that teachers do not form groups within schools. Teachers
create groups because this is a natural form of social organization for people. However,
the basis for the group formation is to gather moral support so the private work of
teaching continues. Cusick (1983) formd teachers to be fiiendly and cordial but distant in
terms of professional matters. Specifically, teachers do not talk much about classroom
matters with other teachers. Cusick suggests that teachers develop individual approaches
to teaching based on personal values.

Gold and Miles (1981), while researching an attempt to implement open education
at one elementary school, reached a similar conclusion. The teachers in this study
implemented an open education program and came under siege by the school board and
community. These teachers created an internal support system that was a defensive
reaction to the hostile groups. This support system did not extend into classroom
practices but was used to gather support against complaints and fi'ustrations the external
groups voiced.

Woods (1979) extended the concept of social support by suggesting that humor is
an important element in staff room settings. "It is a supremely important part of school
life, allowing the restoration of a perspective more in line with preferred identities" (p.

236). Specifically, through hmnor, teachers are able to relieve tension, gain support,

37
evaporate conflict, jealousy, envy, or hatred, and gain self-esteem, status, or power.

Woods also indicates that there are times when humor does not work. At these times the
social support system of collegial relationships is in danger of deteriorating.

In conclusion, social support as a form of collegial relationships is an important
means by which teachers come to terms with both contextual and vocational features of
their work. When teachers laugh about these matters, they relieve fi'ustration and gain a
better perspective. At other times they form groups to protect themselves from outside
pressure, and/or maintain traditions and rituals. Most importantly, teachers seek out and
associate with other teachers so that they do not feel alone psychologically and morally.
Inasmuch as some social support involves story-swapping about the practice of teaching,
social support as a form of collegiality to some extent overlaps with the storytelling form
of collegiality.

Collegiality aaStorytelling

Storytelling as a from of teacher collegiality is somewhat more focused on
classroom matters and is used to cultivate information indirectly. By exchanging stories
about the work of teaching, teachers can search for specific ideas, solutions, or
reassurances without approaching another teacher directly. In other words, teachers keep
casual acquaintances and enduring fi'iends distant from their work in the classroom.
Teachers do this to reduce the strain on fiiendships possible if social relations are carried
into the classroom and the practice of teaching. Thus, the use of sporadic and informal
story-swapping does not hinder the social support form of collegiality.

Storytelling, like social support, maintains the isolated, privatized, and

~idiosyncratically specialized practice of teaching that has been recorded over the decades.

38

The norms of individualism, presentism, and conservatism continue to maintain group
relationships. Because teachers have only snatches of time, they develop scant
knowledge of other teachers' practice. Stories are used to gain information indirectly
without specifically requesting help. These indirect forays to gather knowledge are useful
as a means of gaining information without having personal knowledge scrutinized.
Furthermore, storytelling is beneficial if it helps create a shared technical language or if it
reveals knowledge of intent or practice useful to change in current work. In this way,
storytelling is useful in building a common culture based on shared understandings of
work. But to the extent that stories are "litanies of complaints," little of practice is
learned, analyzed, or invented.

Stories also serve other purposes. Hammersley's (1984) study of secondary school
stafl-room talk indicates that teachers, by way of story telling, gain valuable information
about students, common problems/ issues, and/or upcoming activities that could impact
their actions in the classroom. Hammersley suggests that storytelling is not only used in
classroom practice but also serves as a rhetorical function (i.e., the talk protects teachers'
professional identities when threatened by student actions). Furthermore, there is a
collective self-protection within the teacher group that serves to maintain current
practices and relieve pressure to change.

In conclusion, teacher work research suggests that storytelling is a means of
gaining information indirectly without jeopardizing personal values, status, or social
relationships in the eyes of other teachers. The current context of schooling, in which
students are batched and moved between teachers who work in relative isolation from

each other, reinforces this form of collegiality. Self-protection is maintained by way of

39

not revealing practices and not discussing change. Teachers use storytelling as a way of
becoming informed about clients and events that may impact practice. Teachers also use
storytelling to reinforce the concept of self-preservation in light of difficulties that arise.
As teachers gain in self-confidence, they become more direct in their search for ideas,
information, and reassurance. They therefore move beyond storytelling into aid and
assistance.

Magiality as Aid and Assistap_c_§

Aid and assistance as forms of collegiality are the giving and getting of help for
the purpose of finding out information about some aspect of teachers' work. Most aid and
assistance is found as an informal event, but there are programs that are specifically based
on this concept. Thus, aid and assistance are suggested as important means for teachers
to develop and learn about the practice of teaching.

Teachers usually turn first to their peers for aid and assistance (Lortie, 1975). In
doing so, teachers are careful not to interfere in other teachers' work. Teachers will give
and request aid, but they adhere to established structures (boundaries) for engaging in this
form of collegiality so they are not left open to judgment and criticism about their
competence in practice. Therefore, engagement in this form of collegiality is not as
plentiful because teachers must try to manage interactions so they do not jeopardize their
self-esteem and professional standing. The result is that interactions focused on the
practice of teaching are infrequent, completed in a piecemeal fashion, and lack the in-
depth discussion that may be necessary for follow-through. In this way, the aid and
assistance form of collegiality may serve only to confirm current practices. It may not

change practice due to the lirrrited depth, detail, or contextual sensitivity needed for

40
follow up and/or application of knowledge to practice.

Research on "mutual aid" as a form of collegiality is found in two varied literature
areas - formal programs and informal interactions. There is an extensive literature on
formal programs such as clinical supervision and mentoring that encourages teacher
collegial relationships (Cogan, 1973; Goldhammer, 1969; Lovel & Wiles, 1983). The
difficulty with these programs is that they are conducted in a hierarchical arrangement.
For example, mentoring programs are based on the expert-novice relationships, which
does not lend itself to mutual responsibilities. Many clinical supervision models are used
for evaluation purposes by administrative personnel. Since these programs do not address
peer-to-peer relationships, they are not discussed here.

Within the formal program literature, there are studies that use a similar structure
to the clinical supervisor model but focus on teachers working with teachers (Goldberry,
1980; McNergney & Carrier, 1981; Roper, Deal, & Dombush, 1976; Smyth, 1983). For
example, McFaul and Cooper ( 1984) completed a case study of twelve teachers in one
urban elementary school. They found that even though teachers were able to execute the
clinical process, the conceptual and analytical focus of the intervention was weak. In fact,
"teachers appeared to honor an unwritten agreement that no one would be made
uncomfortable in the [clinical] process" (p. 7). Thus, norms of independence, presentism,
and conservatism were maintained. Incongruent aspects of the school context also
appeared to substantially effect the implementation of the program. Specific contextual
features having an effect on the depth and quality of teacher interactions included: 1) the
isolation and fragmentation of staff (i.e., building architecture, time schedules, teacher

subgroups by years of teaching, ethnicity, type of instructional approach, etc.); 2) the

4 l
stratification of teachers by the administration (i.e., a pecking order); 3) the

standardization of curriculum and pedagogy as imposed by policies; and 4) a reactionist
approach to decision-making (i.e., little long-range planning due to client mobility,
fluctuating policies, inconsistent administrative actions, and unanticipated interruptions).
Hence, the organizational environment and prevailing norms and beliefs may affect the
outcomes of the formal program.

The research concerning informal aid and assistance is not as plentiful, but it is
very important to this study of collegial relationships. A study completed by Mager,
Myers, Maresca, Rupp, and Armstrong (1986) found that teachers who changed subject
area, grade level, schools, or status were likely to ask for aid and assistance. In following
24 teachers from varied grade levels over a one year period, Mager, et al., (1986) found
that teachers' requests for aid and assistance were more episodic than sustained. They
requested help only when a specific need arose and then only if expertise was available.
In this study, the aid and assistance given by teachers focused on specific information
concerning the work of teaching (i.e., curriculum, materials, information, advice on
teaching, etc.). However, there were also times when aid was more a form of social
support.

Zahorik (1987) also explored teacher collegiality as it happens naturally within
elementary schools. In interviews with 52 teachers in six elementary schools selected to
represent varied school organizational arrangements, Zahorik found that teachers spent an
average of about 63 minutes each day talking with peers. Of this time, 65% (41 minutes)
was focused on teaching, learning, and other educational matters. As to aid and

assistance, teachers indicated they got help an average of eight times a week and gave

42
help an average of ten times a week. Most teachers (75%) indicated that collegial

interchanges were with teachers at the same grade level. All 52 teachers indicated that
school colleagues were their major source of help because this help was readily available,
immediate, and provided information about specific problems. By categorizing question
responses, Zahorik found that teachers talked most (70%) about materials, discipline,
activities, and individualization that focuses on a group of students or a particular student.
The remaining 30% of talk covered a variety of topics more central to the practice of
classroom teaching, such as methods, objectives, lecturing, questioning, reinforcing,
evaluating, and organizing. Teachers reported that they did not talk about these topics as
much because they felt knowledgeable in these subjects and/or because they saw teaching
as personal and private, idiosyncratic, and intuitive. Contextual features influencing
collegial help included school SES (Social Economic Status) and school organization.
These contextual features did not influence how much help was received (i.e., analysis
indicated teacher exchange of help was uniform across the six schools), but they did
influence the categories in which help was received. In low SES schools, discipline help
was more frequent, while in higher SES schools, materials and individualization help was
more fiequent. In traditional schools, help in the form of materials was more frequent,
while in schools having team arrangements, individual help was more frequent. Teacher
experience as a contextual feature was not related to mutual aid -- all teachers, novice and
expert, were equally involved in this form of collegiality.

Zahorik's (1987) study suggests that teachers do regularly engage in aid and
assistance. This engagement is brief. It centers on specific problems, is completed within

a narrow range of teachers, and focuses on topics that are somewhat removed fiom the

43

personal practice of teaching. In this way, the norms of individualization, presentism, and
conservatism are continued. However, because aid and assistance occurs around topics
related to teaching, the collegial relationships developed in this form of collegiality are
more interdependent than in the social support and storytelling forms. School
organizational features and clients also influence the topics but not the frequency of aid
and assistance. Zahorik also suggests that due to the presence of the privacy norm and
the shallowness of the conversations, aid and assistance are unlikely to lead to profound
changes in the practice of teaching. 1

In conclusion, aid and assistance as forms of collegiality are limited, sporadic,
shallow, and usually focus on topics other than the practice of teaching, (i.e., on students,
materials, issues, etc.). Because asking or receiving help makes public one’s personal
beliefs, practices, and knowledge, teachers create structures that act as guidelines for
appropriate behavior within this form of collegial relationship. These structures are
related to and help maintain the traditional norms of independence, presentism, and
conservatism. Contextual features also impact aid and assistance in that teachers are
constantly dealing with present conditions that include organizational features, clientele,
policy practices, and interactions with administrative groups. Zahorik (1987) suggests
that due to both the continuance of traditional norms and contextual features, there is little
hope that the practice of teaching will change dramatically by use of aid and assistance as
forms of collegiality. This same conclusion is found in studies of formal programs of
peer collaboration (Goldsberry, 1980). However, when mutual aid focuses on sharing of

materials, this form of collegiality begins to approximate sharing as a form of collegiality.

44
Collegiality as Sharing

Sharing as a form of collegiality is the sharing of materials and methods and/or
engaging in an open exchange of ideas and opinions about teaching. This form of
collegiality expands the collective pool of technical information among teachers. In this
way, individualized practices become more public because in making ideas and intentions
known to others, teachers expose their practice and communicate their expectations. This
visibility provides opportunities for all other colleagues to learn about one's practice.

As collegial relationships move toward interdependence on the continuum,
sharing can become more powerful than aid and assistance in developing a collective pool
of information. The difficulty is that sharing can also be reduced to the level of aid and
assistance depending on the cultural norms of the group. Currently, sharing as a form of
collegiality is discussed as a part of other forms of collegiality. For example, Zahorik
(1987) classified sharing of materials as the most frequent form of aid and assistance
because the sharing of materials that he observed did not increase the collective technical
knowledge base among teachers. Instead, teachers simply followed norms of
independence to maintain privacy of practice. However, if the underlying cultural norms
of sharing support interdependence, then sharing can lead to an open exchange of ideas
and opinions. Thus, the outcomes of sharing as a form of collegiality depend on the
cultural norms guiding teachers' work.

Rosenholtz's (1989) study of the teachers' workplace is an example of fluctuations
within the sharing form of collegiality. In this study, Rozenholtz asked teachers in 78
elementary schools if they shared and what they shared. The results suggested that

teachers defined sharing as story sharing, instructional material and idea sharing, and

45

instructional problem-solving. Specifically, in schools where teachers were more
isolated, stories were used for sharing. In collaborative schools, teachers shared materials
and ideas, and engaged in instructional decision-making activities. Rozenholtz's findings
indicate that the contextual variables of shared goals, shared decision-making, and
teaming influence the extent to which sharing as a form is more interdependent.
Rozenholtz’s findings further show that the way sharing as a form is used directly affects
teachers' learning opportunities, which, in turn, affect work practices. For example, in
collaborative schools where teachers used collegial sharing to work together on
instructional materials and ideas, and on instructional problem-solving and planning
activities, teachers learned more about teaching from each other and used this new
knowledge in their practice. On the other hand, in isolated schools where teachers used
collegial sharing as an aid to gathering materials, teachers learned less about teaching and
used less of this knowledge to change practice.

In summary, the sharing form of collegiality can expand the collective pool of
information among a group of teachers if the sharing is purposeful in nature and if
cultural norms encourage sharing. On the other hand, sharing can also include more
independent forms of collegiality. Apparently, sharing either gains or loses strength
depending on the organizational culture in which it is found. As suggested by Rosenholtz
(1989) and Zahorik (1987), underlying cultural norms are a powerful determinant of how
sharing takes place. Besides the cultural aspect, Rosenholtz (1989) suggests that other
contextual features influence the form of collegial relationships. These features include
teacher attributes such as certainty of practice, purpose of work, beliefs about students

and teaching, and organizational arrangements such as clear understanding of school

46
mission and goals, and team teaching. Neither Rosenholtz (1989) nor Zahorik (1987)

find clients to be an influence on collegial relationships (i.e., teachers in both high and
low SES schools appear to collaborate equally). As for the impact of sharing on the work
of teaching, Rosenholtz (1989) indicates that teacher learning opportunities improve as
teachers engage in more intense sharing of materials and instructional decisions. This
form of sharing suggests joint work as a form of collegiality.

Collgialitv as Joint Work

Joint work as a form of collegiality is defined as teachers sharing the
responsibility for their teaching practice. This is a form of collaboration that resembles
truly collective action because it involves contributions from all participants in order to
complete the work of teaching successfully. The joint form of work is stronger than other
forms of collegiality because it works to improve or change present practice and to
influence future directions of the group. Thus, learning and change are important
qualities of joint work.

To become engaged in joint work, teachers have to overcome negative perceptions
of reduced independence, loss of individual latitude to execute personal preferences, and
loss of private autonomy. When teachers view joint work positively, they can "engage in
direct commentary on the moral, intellectual, and technical merit of classroom practices
and school level programs or policies" (Little, 1990:522). Teachers who truly engage in
joint work are respected for their knowledge, skill, judgment, competence and
commitment -- the norms of collegiality found in sociological literature.

Recent teacher change literature suggests that joint work often occurs within

subgroups within the school rather than within the school as a whole (Scott, 1988). This

47

concept of subgroup action is much different from the concepts found in the
organizational literature. In the organizational literature, emphasis is placed on
schoolwide activity. But there are four reasons why joint work often occurs within
subgroups. First, there can be a number of groups within a school engaged in joint work
(for example, departments or teams), and each of these subgroups can have varying
agreements as to educational matters and use norms of collegial interaction and
interpretation that differ widely. Second, groups can develop based on a shared
perception of the school's culture or cultures, and these groups can have differing
professional beliefs and practices. Third, teachers may hold memberships within multiple
subgroups within the school organization. This is not uncommon at the high school level,
where teachers often belong to one or more departments depending on teaching
assignment, are members of school wide committees, coaching staffs, etc. Fourth, there
may be differing collaborative relationships due to naturally occurring arrangements
and/or formal organizational arrangements. The Rosenholtz (1989) and Zahorik (1987)
studies are examples of naturally occurring arrangements that viewed teachers in
traditional settings. These studies suggest there is little joint work among teachers in
traditional organization structures. Most research concerned with joint work focuses on
two newer organizational arrangements -- team teaching and staff development.

Team teaching. Team teaching programs, which involve organizational
restructuring of students and teachers, emphasize teacher professional collegiality as joint
work. Cohen and associates (1976, 1979, 1981) have completed extensive research on
teacher interactions within elementary-level team teaching settings. In a longitudinal

study of team teaching, 1973-1975, Cohen focused on teacher interdependence and

48
collegiality. Three findings are very important in this study. First, teachers developed

more complex collegial relationships when more highly differentiated instructional
materials were incorporated into instructional practices. In other words, as teaching
became more complex, teachers worked more closely together. Second, architectural
arrangements affected the intensity of teacher collaboration, with open space
arrangements increasing joint work more than traditional egg-crate arrangements. Third,
teams were fiagile and unstable. Most teams focused on scheduling and management
issues rather than on issues of teaching.

Bredo (1977) also researched relationships among teams of elementary school
teachers. He concluded that joint work was most intense when teams were small,
members were of equal status, and members had equal influence over each other.
Findings further indicated that the degree to which members were interdependent varied
and that on the whole, interdependence was limited. Hence, the teams in his study, like
the teams Cohen (1976) studied, did not reach the full level of joint work suggested by
the definition. These teams had infrequent relationships or used a structured scheduling
and coordination approach to joint work.

Bishop (1977) took a different approach to the study of joint work in collegial
relationships. In a comparison of two elementary school organizations -- self-contained
and team work arrangements -- he examined three types of associations: 1) fiiendship; 2)
work-related discipline; and 3) work-related instructional programs. Bishop found that
teachers participated in multiple groups but did not rrrix friendship groups and work-
related groups. He also found that team teachers spent more time on work-related issues

than self-contained classroom teachers but that friendship associations were strong in

49
both organizational structures. Third, he suggested that relationships in all three types of

associations were weaker in self-contained than in team classrooms. Lastly, working in
team teaching settings had no relationship to the work orientations of the teachers.
Teachers in team settings continued to look to themselves and their students for their
rewards and satisfactions. In addition, teachers working in team situations tended to talk
more about work-related matters, but the talk was of a structural sort and helped to
maintain the individual autonomy found in previous forms of collegiality.

Staff development. Little (1982), in a now classic study of staff development
implementation, suggested that there are underlying cultural norms that are essential for
staff development programs to impact teachers' learning and improvement. In an
extensive study of collegiality in six urban schools (three elementary, two junior high and
one high school), Little explored teacher collegiality as a result of formal staff
development programs. Little was most interested in schools as workplaces and looked
for organizational characteristics conducive to continued learning on the job. Two norms
seemed to differentiate more successful schools from less successful schools in her study.
More successful schools had teachers who embraced the norm of collegiality (i.e.,
teachers working together) and the norm of continuous improvement (i.e., expectations
about the business of teaching). Little’s (1987) research suggests that joint work as a
form of collegiality is possible, but is rarely sustained where formal structures,
competence, and the commitment of members do not support it.

Grimmett and Crehen (1989) and Ponzio (1987) have also completed research on
professional development programs designed to stimulate teacher partnering and thereby

improve teaching. Both studies indicate that teacher partnering can enhance inquiry

50
about professional practice, but only to a certain point. Grimmett and Crehan, for

example, suggested that partnering led to the joint work form of collegiality only when
teachers trusted partners enough to help evaluate teaching practices, draw conclusions,
and refiarne the context so problems could be addressed G.ittle [1981] also reached this
conclusion). Ponzio (1987) suggested that teacher partners frequently did not engage in
joint work because they often drew personal conclusions without reliance on a partner.
Ponzio argued that this result may have occurred because "the program staff who
generally promoted the idea that responsibility for any conclusion drawn and changes in
teaching behavior ultimately rested with the individual classroom teacher" (p. 37). This,
of course, is another example of the norm of individualism. In summary, both of the
studies just described suggest that joint work is most likely when the normative
environment of schools encourages collaboration. Such norms must foster a sense of
equality and trust between partners.

Little (1987) suggests that a variety of positive outcomes are a result of joint
work. First, joint efforts have helped to improve student academic outcomes (Little,
1981; Bird & Little, 1985; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979).
Second, there are benefits to teachers in the form of instructional range, depth, and
flexibility (Cohen, 1981); influence and respect (Bredo, 1977; Meyer, Cohen, Brunetti,
Molnar, & Lueders-Salmon, 1971); and career rewards and daily satisfactions (Little,
1981). Third, there are three benefits to schools: 1) joint work helps to coordinate the
daily work of teaching across classrooms; 2) joint work fosters the examination and
testing of new ideas, methods, and materials that are important to meeting the ever-

‘increasing demands placed on schools; and 3) joint work can ease the strain of staff

5 l
turnover formd most frequently among beginning teachers (Little, 198 7).

In summary, the research reviewed in this section suggests that joint work, as a
form of collegiality, is based on teachers taking joint responsibility for their teaching
practice. Research on teaming and staff development suggests that joint work is
undertaken and intensified as teaching becomes more complex (i.e., when highly
diversified methods/materials are in use or when organizational arrangements bring
people in close proximity to one another). Even though collegial influence increases as
teachers engage in joint work, interdependence may not increase unless traditional norms
of independence and privacy are altered. The most influential form of joint work
involves interdependence among teachers and can only be reached when traditional
norms are exchanged for norms of collegiality and experimentation.

Besides altering cultural norms, successful joint work depends on a number of
other contextual conditions. Support and governance must be altered so that teachers
focus on the cognitive aspects of teaching and less on organizational and managerial
aspects. Organizational arrangements need to be aligned with the program so the context
reinforces and supports cultural norms necessary for joint work (i.e., interdependence).

Also important to the understanding of joint work is the group structure. Joint
work is usually found in small groups within the school community. These groups may
organize by informal arrangements but most often are organized by external programs, an
approach that fi'equently leads to contrived collegial relationships. Informal arrangements
rarely lead to joint work that is meaningful and extensive due to a variety of contextual
features. Fruthermore, teachers belong to multiple collegial groups based on different

forms of collegiality. Specifically, teachers seem to keep friendship groups separate from

52
work-related groups. The result is that a single teacher’s involvement in multiple work

groups can difier in intensity and duration across the different groups he or she is

involved in.

Summary of Workplace and Teacher Change Literature

 

In the literature on teachers' workplace and teacher change, collegiality is defined
broadly to include a variety of forms including social support, storytelling, aid and
assistance, sharing, and joint work. While seemingly distinct, these forms in actuality
meld together into a continuum that ranges from weak forms (i.e., social support) to
strong forms (i.e., joint work). Three factors are important to understanding these various
forms of collegiality.

First, a culture of collegiality is present in all groups. This culture is usually based
on traditional teaching norms of individualism, privatism, and conservatism. Only when
cultural norms change and new norms arise do teachers move toward more
interdependent forms of collegiality. Among the norms that enable teachers to engage in
interdependent forms of work are the norms of collegiality and experimentation discussed
by Little (1981). These norms are similar to those found in the sociological perspective
on collegiality, which holds that underlying beliefs and shared values are important to the
development of effective professional groups. Furthermore, as discussed in the
organizational literature, it may be necessary to formalize the structure of collegiality in
order to provide teachers with guidance concerning interdependent working relationships.
Such formal arrangements can nullify traditional cultures and structures of collegiality
based on norms of independence and help produce the cultures and structures that

encourage interdependent joint work.

53

Second, teachers belong to multiple collegial groups of varied size. For example,
research suggests that teachers separate friendship groups from work-related groups.
Within work-related groups, teachers engage in a variety of forms of collegiality
depending on the purposes for which a group is formed. All groups come together
around personal and group beliefs. Thus, the beliefs that teachers have about collegiality
can affect the nature of collegial relationships that develop within a school.

Third, contextual features other than culture and formal structure can influence the
form of collegiality teachers use. For example, school SES appears to affect the form of
collegiality in schools, with teachers in low SES settings talking more about discipline
and students than teachers in high SES schools. In addition, teachers’ personal beliefs
about students, teaching, and subject matter, as well as status of a teacher and a teacher’s
assignment can affect collegiality.

In conclusion, the body of literature on teachers’ work and school change suggests
that stronger forms of teacher colleagueship reduce teacher isolation, improve
instructional techniques and curricular materials, and increase job satisfaction (Alfonso &
Goldsberry, 1982). Moreover, as Little (1987) suggests, these changes may improve
student outcomes. In order to create settings where interdependent collegial relationships

are strong, restructuring the school's culture and organization is necessary.

Toward an Understaardingmf Collegiality
This chapter suggests that a thorough understanding of professional collegiality
involves understanding three interrelated dimensions of this form of social action -— the

culture of collegiality, the structure of collegiality, and the behaviors associated with

54
collegiality. These elements are described below.

Culture of Collegiality

Culture as defined here is ideational, a collection of ideas existing in the minds of
organizational members. These ideas can be clear or amorphous, but are aggregated
across workers and serve partially to guide behavior. The cultural of collegiality is a
"concept reflecting the content and strength of prevalent values, norms, attitudes,
behaviors, and feelings of the members of a social system" (Payne, 1971). The culture of
collegiality focuses on the deep levels of values and beliefs shared by members of a
collegial group (Schein, 1985). Thus, members adhere to the culture in varying degrees.

To participate in the culture of an organizational group, each member must know
the culture. To be a functioning member is to be able to decode the cultural meanings
and shape them into efficient guides to daily behavior. Persons can be socialized into an
organization's collegial culture, but unless the culture is shaped by both the group and the
organization, the behaviors could be detrimental to the work of the organization. The
more enculturated into an organization individuals are, the less their personal or
idiosyncratic values, beliefs, and dispositions influence behavior. Thus, culture is
important to the functions of life and work in groups Ed in organizations (Deal &
Kennedy, 1982).

Within any organization there are varying cultures. Within the high school
organization these cultures may be based on departrnentalization, teaming, varied
programs or nonacademic interests (i.e., coaches, club sponsors, committees, etc.). These
varied collegial cultures develop, however, only when individuals trust in the goodness of

others and are willing to act on that belief. Bess (1988) suggests two dimensions of this

55
trust - individual/organization balance, and self/other balance. The

individual/organizational balance implies that "there is no necessary conflict between
individual and organizational goals" (p.92). The self/other balance is "the belief that
there is no necessary conflict among individual goals" (p.92). Thus, a culture of
collegiality impresses itself on both the organization and the individuals within the
organization.

Structure of Colleg'LalLty

The second element of collegiality concerns the control that members of a group
have over their work environment and peers. In recent educational literature, terms such
as empowerment, control, autonomy, and decision-making are discussed as elements of
effective schools. In the organizational literature, structure is typically defined as the
pattern or design by which organizations are divided and integrated (Bess, 1988). In
other words, collegiality as structure is associated with modes of control that link units of
the organization both as individuals and groups. Thus, institutions having collegial
structures "are typically believed to conform to a recognizable pattern of authority to
regulate the activities of their members" (Bess, 1988:99). For the purpose of this study,
the term "etiquette of collegiality" is used to describe this pattern of authority.

As used here, the etiquette of collegiality refers to more than a set of rules or
patterns of authority that give teachers participatory rights in school decision making.
The mere presence of participatory rights does not alone ensure a structure of collegial
control (Bess, 1988). As has been suggested, when teachers gain decision making rights,
relationships may become merely political in nature. The etiquette of collegiality goes

' beyond this individualistic idea and is instead based on a shared culture of collegiality

56
that controls the behavior of members (Sykes, 1990). Therefore, collegial etiquette is the

organizational manifestation of cultural collegiality. It both symbolizes the culture and
gives visible evidence that the culture can be maintained.

For collegial etiquette to be legitimate, organization members must believe that
organizational goals, expectations, and controls are rational and meet organizational as
well as individual needs. In other words, "rationality means not only the perceived
reasonableness of the system to accomplish organizational objectives of efficiency and
coordination, but its correctness as a political statement that will attend to individual
needs of equity and justice" (Bess, 1988:91).

mm» of Colleg'aLlity

The behavior of collegiality refers to the actions and interactions among faculty
and between faculty and others as these are guided by both the culture and etiquette of
collegiality. As suggested above, the culture of collegiality is the nexus of beliefs and
values guiding collegial etiquette in an institution. Collegial behavior is the complex of
actions taken by a professional group engaging in various institutional roles and refers to
patterns of relationships and interactions among colleagues as they perform various
firnctions. In conceptualizing the behavior of collegiality, descriptions of peer
relationships will bring forth "forms of colleagueship" such as sharing, story-swapping,

aid and assistance, and joint work.

Chapter Summary
This chapter reviewed three perspectives concerning collegial relationships. Each

' perspective explained a diflerent definition of colleagueship based on one element of

57
collegiality -- culture, etiquette, and behavior. Furthermore, this research suggests there

are degrees of colleagueship that are dependent on a number of factors including: 1)
organizational culture; 2) contextual features; and 3) the work of teachers. In studying
collegiality, various researchers have developed one or two of the collegial elements, but
no studies of collegiality have described all three elements of collegiality that occur
within a bureaucratic organization. Furthermore, in developing an understanding of
collegiality, many researchers narrow the focus and concentrate on only one form of
collegiality, such as joint work or aid and assistance. The present study furthers research
on collegiality by using the three elements of collegiality discussed above to describe
professional collegial relationships within two high school settings. This study also
explores how these relationships are affected by the context in which they occur. Finally,
the study describes the impact of naturally occurring collegial relationships on teachers'
work. Therefore, this study pursues the following questions in order to generate

hypotheses about professional collegial relationships at the secondary level:

1. How do teachers in urban high schools perceive professional collegial
relationships?
2. What varied forms of collegiality do secondary teachers engage in during

their work within these schools?

3. What contextual features of the workplace do these high school teachers
see as influencing the phenomenon of professional collegial relationships?

4. In what ways do teacher professional collegial relationships influence the
work of these teachers?

5. What similarities and differences concerning the phenomenon of teachers'
professional collegiality are found between these sites?

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This study is designed to better understand teacher professional collegial
relationships, contextual features surrounding these relationships, and the consequences
for teachers' work. This chapter presents the research design and methodology used by

this investigator in the collection and analysis of data.

Selection of the Sample

Selection of Sites

This study was conducted in two urban, desegregated, comprehensive high
schools (called LaSalle and Monroe) located in a single school district in Michigan.1 The
design of the study holds constant district-level context but allows examination of how
variations in school context affect collegiality. The two schools included in the study are
"average" urban comprehensive high schools based on a data analysis conducted by the
Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Schools (CRC) (CRC Teacher Survey

Data Report, 1991). That is, measures of school climates, classroom instruction,

 

' To maintain confidentiality pseudonyms are used for all names, locations, and programs.
, As much as possible, identifiers with courses taught are also removed to further maintain
anonymity of persons teaching specialized courses.

58

59
professional growth and development, department climates and policies all tend to be

near the average of what is found in United States high schools generally.

The sites were also selected based on their four-year involvement in a district-
sponsored school improvement program that encouraged teachers to work on a school
wide basis to further the educational programming and context of the school. The school
improvement program is similar to a new state directive that encourages site-based
governance in schools.

To understand the sites chosen, a brief description of the district and the two
schools is included. First the district is described and then the two schools.

Falls Park School District. Falls Park School District is located in one of the
larger urban centers of a midwestem state. The city of Falls Park dates to the era of stage
coaches, during which time it was a stop on the westbound stage line. The oldest section
of town has many renovated homes dating back to the late 1800's, but there are also
several modern downtown office towers. The main source of business is light
manufacturing and service industries. There are also a number of higher education
institutions in the area, many of which are affiliated with religious groups.

Falls Park district has approximately 31,000 students attending 43 elementary, 5
middle and 4 high schools. The students represent five major ethnic groups-~Asian (2%),
African- American (3 7%), Hispanic (7%), Native American (1%), and Caucasian (53%).
A majority (55%) of students comes from economically-disadvantaged homes as indexed
by the federal lunch program count in the Fall of 1990. Like most urban districts, student
attendance and dropout rates are a concern. Over half of the students in the district

. missed more than 10 days of school during the year of this study and approximately

60
13.5% of the students dropped out of school. The educational program of the district is

conducted by 2300 professionals (K-12 teachers, community education teachers,
management and support personnel) and 1800 support stafl‘ members (paraprofessionals,
office personnel, and personnel with transportation, maintenance, and operations
functions).

Falls Park school district, like most urban districts across the nation, is having
financial difficulties. District leaders struggle each year to provide a quality education
program even though funds continue to decline.2 Because the district must go to the
community each year with nrillage proposals, much time is spent educating the public
about the district's needs. In recent years, millage proposals have been difficult to pass.
This results in continuous layoffs and recall of district personnel. In order to avoid
layofls, teachers much have at least 16 years seniority. During the year of this study,
teachers with seniority of 23 years were put on layoff notice and not recalled until after a
second millage vote passed. As a result, in the past few years teachers start each school
year unsure of what they are teaching, where they are teaching, or whom they are
teaching.

Despite this organizational chaos, the district continues to implement reform
proposals to improve the educational process for students. In the mid 80's, under the

direction of a very progressive superintendent, the district implemented many features of

 

2 Revenues reported by this district during the summer of 1991 were $147,500,000 of
which 48.9% came from local property taxes, 30.5% from state aid payments, 7.5% from
federal supplements, 13.1% from other local miscellaneous payments. Expenditures were
distributed to instruction (55.9%), Instructional Services (15.6%), Operations and
.Maintenance (10.3%), Administrative Services (5.3%) and other (12.9%)--pupil
transportation, capital outlay, fiinge benefits.

61
the efi‘ective schools approach to school improvement. Three features - student

standards, collaboration, and instructional methodology -- directly impacted the high
schools and the work of high school teachers in the district.

First, the district increased student standards by increasing high school graduation
requirements. These new standards required students to pass four years of English, three
years each of math and social studies, two years each of science and health/Physical
Education, one year of fine arts/foreign language, and one semester each of computer
technology and career planning. To enact these requirements, the district established a
core curriculum taught within a three track system. The curriculum within each track was
standardized across the district so students transferring between schools were in
approximately the same place in the curriculum no matter what school they attend.
Students were also required to pass the district's five graduation competency tests based
on the standardized curriculum. The tests were in the areas of reading, mathematics,
writing, reference skills, and life skills and were administered in grades 9 - 12.

Second, the district developed a "collaborative approach" to school improvement
within the district through the development of School Improvement Councils (SIC) in
each school. At the time of the study, teachers were thus involved in school governance
and the school improvement process. Each school was required to develop a mission
statement, goals, and create programs that focused on school improvement.
Collaboration with local businesses was also endorsed for the purpose of gaining
community involvement. Finally, collaboration between district level administrators and
school administrators was implemented. District level administrators were assigned a

. school or schools to further the school improvement process. Time was spent discussing

62

pertinent student data (i.e., course grades, test scores, attendance, etc.) with the school
administrators. This information was then used to develop school improvement
programs.

Third, with grants from local businesses, the district implemented an extensive
professional deve10pmcnt program for teachers. In this program, teachers learned about
effective teaching, Mastery Learning, peer coaching, cooperative grouping, student
mediation, etc. Grant money allowed the district to release teachers during the school
day, or receive compensation for after school time or summer institutes. Teachers
attending staff development programs became mentors in their schools and were expected
to help other teachers learn and implement the concepts in their classrooms.

In conclusion, Falls Park School District is not unlike many other urban school
districts. Even with financial shortfalls they are working to educate students. Their
approach has been to develop programs that rely on the concept of teachers working
collegially as the means of improvement and change.

Lafialle High School. At the time of the study, LaSalle High School was in the
process of transition. For some time, the school has been perceived by the community as
the best in the district. However, since desegregation, the image of the school from the
teachers' perspective had changed. This was due to a change in students and a continual
change in superintendents and school administrators.

Within the past ten years preceding the study, student enrollment at LaSalle had
dropped by more than half from a high of 2100 to 1050 students. The student population
also changed, moving from a majority white, upper to middle class student population to

- a nriddle to lower class student population. Table 1 gives student demographic

63

 

 

Table 1
Student Ethnicity and Gender Information
For LaSalle High School“
Ethnicity
American Asian/ Black/ Hispanic White/
Indian Pacific Not Not
Islands Hispanic Hispanic
Total
Number of
Students 1 0 19 421 .5 27 609
Percent of
Students 01 02 39 01 56
Gender
Male Female
Total Number
of Students 530.5 556
Percent of
Students 49 51

3 Based on 3rd Friday count, 1990. This information includes special education students.

64
information. Approximately 11% of this population are enrolled in special education.

There is a relatively low drop out rate (7.9%) and a low mobility rate (10%). Informal
student interviews conducted by this researcher suggest that students perceive the school
as a good place to learn. There is no evidence of student gangs or violence in the school.
Administrators report that during the year of this study there were only 2 fights and no
drug-related incidents.

The staff at LaSalle also changed in the years immediately prior to the study.
Staff turnover was approximately 30% in the preceding 6 years, mostly due to
retirements, although reductions also resulted from layoffs and loss of students.
Administrators further indicated that turnover in staffmg was expected to continue as
more staff retired. Teachers at the school were highly experienced. The mean number of
years taught in the school was 9.64 (SD = 8.10) and the mean years of teaching
experience in the district was 17.72 (SD 7.49). Only 6 teachers have less than 10 years in
the system. Demographic information on the staff is found in Table 2.

Teachers at LaSalle were trying to rebuild the school's image by creating
innovative programs. First, the staff reduced the number of academic tracks to two,
regular and advanced. Second, they adopted a series of Advanced Placement courses in
English and Social Studies. Third, groups of teachers designed and implemented
interdisciplinary approaches to instruction in vocational education, business education
and restaurant management. These innovative programs were hindered by a lack of
funding and a central office vs. school power struggle. The staff labored to continue
these program implementations while the district continued to reduce staff and place

- further requirements on the school's programs.

Teachers
Number
Percentage

Counselors
Number
Percentage

Media Personnel
Number
Percentage

Administrators
Number
Percentage

Teacher
Number
Percentage

Counselors
Number
Percentage

Media Personnel
Number
Percentage

Administrators
Number

Percentage

65

 

 

 

Table 2
Staff Gender, Ethnicity, and Education by Position
for LaSalle High School a
Gender
Male Female
31 25
55 45
2 2
50 50
1
100
3 1
75 25
Ethnicity
Caucasian Black Hispanic/
Indian
44 10 2
79 18 03
2 2 O
50 50 0
1
100
2 2 0
50 50

 

Total

56
100

100

100

100

Total

56

100

100

100

100

66

o3

o3

o3

o2
cm

:33.

 

S
I
2:
_
mm
I
we
m
288:5
co em+
“Soon— c332

mm
_
2 2
h a
om+ 2+

c882 c832 Bums:

m5

cw

em
3

am
2

53:on

 

oonoQ 55835

3.283 N 033.

.S-m :o 88:08 c2888: £5. a

owfiaoocom
c3852
mcoeebmmfiaer.

ommfioocom

838:2
Ensembm «€02

owSGQoBm

“38: Z
£28880

owfiqoocom
congz
“Boson.

67
Monroe High School. Monroe High School is the oldest high school in the

district and one of the oldest in the state. Many well-known persons have attended the
school. All community members interviewed by this researcher talked of this inherited
tradition, but they also spoke with pride of the ethnically-diverse student population
found in the school at the time of the study.

Like LaSalle, student enrollment at Monroe had dropped by more than half from a
high of 2,000 to an average of 950 students. Approximately 14% of this population were
special education students. Table 3 gives the student demographic information. Even
though the student population had stabilized, there was much student mobility. Teachers
and administrators indicated that over the course of a year, there was about a 65% change
in the student body. A drop out rate for Monroe High School was not available, but
information gathered suggested that approximately 18% of the student population left the
school and could not be traced. Mobility was suggested as one reason for the high drop
out figure. Over the years, there have been no racial problems at Monroe. Student
interviews did suggest that there were divisions among the students based on motivation
to learn -- students interested in learning versus students who did care about learning.
There was no evidence of student gangs or violence in the school during the time of this
study. Administrators reported that during the year of this study there were no major
disturbances in which weapons or drugs were involved.

The Monroe staff changed constantly. Even though there was a stable core of
teachers who prided themselves in teaching at Monroe, significant staff changes occurred
each semester and year. Also, in the six years prior to this study, the administrative staff

- changed yearly. Due to the continual teacher mobility, no specific stafl turnover

68

 

 

Table 3
Student Ethnicity and Gender Information
For Monroe High Schoola
Ethnicity
American Asian/ Black/ Hispanic White/
Indian Pacific Not Not
Islands Hispanic Hispanic
Total
Number of
Students 4 4 119 29 609
Percent of
Students 01 02 39 01 56
Gender
Male Female
Total Number
of Students 530.5 556
Percent of
Students 49 51

3‘ Based on 3rd Friday count, 1990. This information includes special education students.

69
percentage was calculated. In fact, teachers would leave only to return at a later date.

Most staff changes were due to layoffs and loss of students, but there were also
retirements. Teachers at Monroe were highly experienced. The mean number of years
taught in the school was 10.86 (SD 8.87) and the mean years of teaching experience in the
district was 17.34 (SD 9.16). Only six teachers had less than ten years in the system.
Thus, a buffer group of staff came and went while the core staff remain stable.
Demographic information on the staff is found in Table 4.

Teachers at Monroe were working to improve the educational environment for all
students. They were most interested in creating an educational environment in which all
students could learn. At Monroe, all teachers were members of the School Improvement
Council (SIC). The SIC was divided into five "teams" that focused on five mission
statement goals. Each team was struggling to create programs and policies acceptable to
the total staff. Consensus was difficult enough within the school, but getting district
support for implementation was even more difficult. The staff had implemented a new
hall discipline policy during the year of the study, but they were struggling to implement a
new classroom discipline program.

Selection of Teachers

Within each school, a sample of fifteen teachers was chosen from a sampling

3

frame that included all teachers who returned the 1990 and 1991 CRC questionnaires.

The sample of fifteen teachers represented approximately one fourth of the staff in each

 

3 Teachers participating in this study were taken from a pool of teachers who returned
. the CRC survey in the spring. These teachers had knowledge of the larger study and had
taken time to complete the survey.

Teachers
Number
Percentage

Counselors
Number
Percentage

Media Personnel
Number
Percentage

Administrators
Number
Percentage

Teacher
Number
Percentage

Counselors
Number
Percentage

Media Personnel
Number
Percentage

Administrators
Number
Percentage

70

 

 

 

Table 4
Staff Gender, Ethnicity, and Education by Position
for Monroe High School a
Gender
Male Female
25 23
52 48
3 1
75 25
1
100
3 1
75 25
Ethnicity
Caucasian Black Hispanic/
Indian
42 5 l
88 10 02
3 1 0
75 25 0
1
100
2 2 0
50 50

 

Total

48
100

100

100

100

Total

48

100

100

100

100

71

oo—

2:

GE

2:
xv

188.

 

 

mm m
E m
oo H
~
mm mm om
fl fl m
3 mo 2 mm mm
b v w 3 H M
Enema—Em
mo om+ om+ 3+
88cm c832 c832 Same—2 “832 53:25
02on cosmosem

6.283 e 03¢

owfieoouom
~38: Z

.3-m so 823er Stanton": $5. a

accumbmmEEe/x

owficoocom

598: Z
Egcfiom «€02

owfiaoocom

898:2
mac—omesco

owfieoocom
89:52

3:83.

72

school and approximately one third of the teachers who returned the questionnaires
(LaSalle had 43 possible participants; Monroe had 39 possible participants).

The fifteen teacher participants were chosen by a dimensional sampling process
based on department and gender as dimensions. First, the percentage of teachers in each
department size was determined. Second, gender percentages were calculated for the
school. Then a sample of teachers was drawn so that department size and gender
percentages were maintained. A reserve list was also developed for each department and
gender within the department.

Description of sample gpopp. Teachers were sent a cover letter and attached
consent form explaining the study and asking them to volunteer to participate (see
Appendix A). At LaSalle, 13 teachers in the initial sample volunteered to participate and
two replacements were secured from the department reserve list. At Monroe 13 teachers
fiom the initial sample list volunteered. One reserve teacher in one department
volunteered but due to factors beyond this researcher's control there was no other teacher
in the second department to replace the selected teacher. Thus, one department at
Monroe is not represented in the final sample. In order to maintain an equal number of
interviews between schools, a reserve list teacher was added from the English department
as this was the largest department in the school.

During interviews it was determined that three teachers from each site who were
not included on the interview list could add valuable information to this study. These
three persons represented department Chairpersons, media specialists, and school
improvement council chairs. In all, eighteen teachers from each site were interviewed

during the course of the study. Fifteen teachers were selected based on dimensional

73
sampling procedures and three were added during the study due to key positions they held

in the teacher groups. Table 5 shows the comparison between the number of
departmental teachers who returned questionnaires and the number of departmental
teachers interviewed. The table illustrates the sample group similarities between the two
sites.

Table 6 provides demographic information for the final sample of teachers within
each site. The table suggests that demographically the two schools have relatively similar
sample groups with the exception of ethnicity. This difference is due to the fact that there
is a difference in the minority staffing between the two schools and that ethnicity is not
considered a dimension of sampling. Average years of teaching experience are relatively
similar in both schools (LaSalle=11.6; Monroe=12.7). Average years in the school
district are also similar in both schools (LaSalle=22; Monroe=20.7). In conclusion, the

sample group fiom each site is relatively similar except for ethnicity.

Resparch Desigp

Rationale for Research De_sigr_r

This is a descriptive study. The methodology utilized is "focused ethnography."
Unlike general immersion in a presumably new and unfamiliar culture, a focused
ethnography assumes partial knowledge of a setting. Erickson (1977:62) suggests a
"consciously directed inquiry" is appropriate. In this case, prior theoretical and empirical
work guides the inquiry, the formulation of guiding questions, and the conduct of
interviews. Specifically, concepts discussed in the literature review were used as a

beginning of inquiry. During inquiry, further broadening of these concepts occurred.

74

Si

2+:

‘13va

55% 05 maize page 80:38 Be momofieoaam 5 E3832 6ch

c
:3
M

2+:

:i m

fl
c

I\\OMN

S

Heatwave .3 3:38:83 33 as cog BEBE 6:3 Become. me 898:: 38,—. a

850
3300 «:52
3 05m

acmuaosem
Ecouaoc>

Geranium
38am

eozmoeem
samba

3:55 30cm
ooeomom
mowmfiofiez

oweemg :wmocom
Beaum—

 

EoEtmmoe E
333285 52:32

a GMHZ
”CECE

Heatwave E
eoBomZBE 89:32

a mvnz
23mm..—

«cognac

 

m 2an

09:32 was 0:33 we “cognac .3 :cwoBom genome...

School

LaSalle

Monroe

School

LaSalle

Monroe

75
Table 6

Teacher Demographic Information for the Sample

 

 

 

Group within each Site
Gender Ethnicity
Male Female Caucasian Black Hispanic
10 8 14 4 0
11 7 16 1 1
Level of Education
Bachelor Master Master Master Master
+10 +20 +30
3 6 2 3 4
3 7 3 2 3

76
Findings resulted in the development of hypotheses about the phenomenon under study.

To develop the research design in this study, three specific concepts or areas of interest
were examined. To understand each area of interest, theoretical dimensions were
developed. These dimensions are explained below.

Dimeflms of tearcher collegiamy. This study concerns teacher professional
collegiality. There are three guiding questions or areas of interest that focus this study.
These areas of interest are: 1) teachers' perceptions of collegial relationships; 2)
contextual features surrounding collegial relationships; and 3) the impact of these
relationships on teachers' work. The case studies, empirical research, and theoretical
literature concerning the phenomenon of teacher collegiality suggest that within each area
of interest there are important concepts that need to be explored. For the purpose of this
study the term dimensions is used. Dimensions are a way to partition an area of interest
into concepts or units that can be measured by defining the dimension. The specific
measures when viewed together give meaning to the dimension and thus to the area of
interest.

In this section, the three areas of interest along with the dimensions and their
specific measures are reviewed. By attending to the literature concerning collegiality, the
dimensions and measures are developed to permit past research to help guide the
development of the interview instrument and the analysis process. The dimensions
included here are not all inclusive of possible dimensions and measures for the
phenomena of collegial relationships.

The first area of interest concerns teachers' perceptions of collegial relationships.

Research suggests that three dimensions of teacher collegiality offer the best description

77
of how teachers understand collegial relationships. These dimensions include culture of

collegiality, etiquette of collegiality and behavior of collegiality. As found in Chapter
Two, all three of these dimensions are necessary to develop an understanding of
collegiality.

To measure the culture of collegiality, I analyzed the beliefs and values espoused
by teachers in interviews. Beliefs are statements about reality which people accept as true
(Doob, 1994). Beliefs are also the framework that guides perceptions. Values are
convictions about what is good/bad, appropriate/ inappropriate, right/wrong. Kilby (1993)
suggests that values are conceptions of what is desirable or worthwhile. They are abstract
concepts about behavioral preferences. Some research discussed in Chapter Two focuses
on norms, but norms are based on standards of desirable behavior and help to guide
behavior in specific situations. Values, on the other hand, are more abstract and influence
norms (Doob, 1994). In this study, the measure for culture of collegiality is based on the
beliefs and values this sample group of teachers perceives to be their reality and that are
accepted as true, real, desirable, or worthwhile.

The etiquette of collegiality was measured by information about collegial etiquette
that teachers reported in interviews. Collegial etiquette concerns the unwritten code that
members of an organization follow so that certain things deemed likely to injure others
are not forthcoming. This code is based on the values and beliefs held by the group and
rules that the group develop from their culture to guide their behavior. Collegial etiquette
concerns subjects deemed appropriate or "off limits" when interacting with peers, ways of
behaving in groups and in the work setting, and formal and informal control of the

environment.

78
The behavior of collegiality was measured by gathering data from teacher

interviews about the forms of collegiality (i.e., social support, storytelling, aid and
assistance, sharing, joint work), patterns of group memberships, and frequency of
interactions among teachers. In other words, the behavior of collegiality is indexed by the
actions and interactions among a group of people that is guided by cultural beliefs and
values about collegiality and the etiquette of collegiality.

The second area of interest in this study is the context of collegiality. Four
dimensions are suggested as important here. The first dimension, teacher demographic
information, is measured by analyzing data concerning ethnicity, gender, years of
teaching experience, years in building, former teaching location, staff mobility across
departments, and teacher stability in the school. The second dimension, organizational
arrangement of teachers, is measured by examining the organization of teachers in the
work setting (departmental, teaming, committees, other activities), scheduling of work,
physical arrangement of the staff, and building and department size. The third dimension,
school governance, concerns school policies about teachers' work and students, and the
School Improvement Council. To measure teacher work policies, data was gathered
about assignment to space, course assignments, teacher load, and committee assignments.
To measure student policies, data was gathered about policies concerning attendance,
tardiness, discipline, homework, and testing. The firnctioning of School Improvement
Councils as governing bodies was assessed by gathering information about the
formulation of school goals and mission statements, the match between the personal goals
of teachers and school goals, and the effectiveness of the School Improvement Council.

The fourth contextual dimension is clients. This dimension was measured by looking for

79

statements that relate collegial relationships to student characteristics such as ethnicity,
track, SES composition, student mobility, dropout status, and attendance.

The third area of interest involves the connection of collegial relationships to the
work of teachers. There is only one dimension in this area of interest -- the relationship
of collegiality to work. To measure this dimension, I examined how collegial
relationships influenced teachers' morale, learning, and/or efficacy. Interviews were
reviewed for statements that reflected the connection of teacher collegial relationships to
the practice of teaching.

These areas of interest, the dimensions within, and the measures used to
understand them, provided a guide for the development of the interview instrument and
an analytic fi'amework for developing hypotheses concerning the phenomena of teacher
professional collegiality within and across the two high schools.

The Research Instrument

A semi-structured interview was used as the basis for gathering data in this study.
The interview data was supplemented with documents and interviews completed in the
larger CRC study. In order to reduce researcher bias, all interviews were transcribed
verbatim.

Rationale. The interview guide used in this study followed the format of the
larger CRC project and survey instruments used in other research on this topic (Little,
1981; Zahorik, 1987). The nine item interview guide had a semi-structured format with
open-ended questions that allowed for some deviation fiom the guide through probes for
further clarification (see Appendix B). This form of interviewing "helps to bring out the

affective and value-laden aspects of respondents' responses and to determine the personal

80
significance of [respondent's] attitudes" (Selltiz et al., 1976:318). It is also appropriate

for retrieving information about complex subjects (Borg & Gall, 1989; Selltiz et al.,
1976). Open-ended questions are used for purposes of creating "a framework of reference
for respondents' answers, but put a minimum of restraint on the answers and their
expression" (Cohen & Manion, 19892313). Borg and Gall (1983) suggest that semi-
structured interviews are "generally most appropriate for interview studies in education.
[They] provide a desirable combination of objectivity and depth and often permit
gathering valuable data that would not be successfirlly obtained by any other approach"
(p. 442).

Although semi-structured interviews have many desirable features, several
sources of error in the interview process must be considered when developing interview
questions (Borg & Gall, 1983). The first source of error pertains to the interviewee and
his/her reaction to the interviewer and interview guide. Suspicion, lack of motivation,
desire to please, or wanting to look good are all sources of potential error. The second
source of error is the interviewer's predisposition. The predisposition includes being
uncomfortable with the interviewee, allowing personal opinions to lend meaning to what
is said, failing to develop rapport with interviewee, and having pre-expectations about
answers. The third source of error involves the procedures used to conduct the study that
includes explanations of what the study is about, gaining cooperation fiom informants,
length of the interview and location of the interview.

The following techniques were used to compensate for the three sources of error.
Interviewee error was reduced by having participants volunteer and by asking them to

relate specific instances of collegial occurrences during the interview. Interviewer error

81

was reduced by viewing each interview as a new story and taping interviews for further
identification of sources of error. To reduce the procedural errors, interviewees were
thanked before time, given the opportunity to choose their time and date, interviewed in
their rooms, and given the opportunity to interview by phone which only one interviewee
asked to do.

The interview guide and protocol were developed and then pretested in a school
similar to the two in this study. The pretest assessed item clarity and language, evaluated
item construction, checked opening orientation, and developed this researcher's
experience with the instrument (Boyd & Gall, 1983). The pretest participants were asked
to indicate misunderstandings they encountered in the interview. Thus, pretesting
entailed not only completing the interview, but also receiving feedback on difficulty in
understanding questions and framing responses. Revisions of the interview schedule
were made based on information gained from the pretest.4

Interview guide format, Questions on the interview guide cover the three parts of
this proposed study. Question one asks for general demographic information deemed
appropriate but not overlapping information received in the larger CRC study. Questions
developed for understanding teachers' perception of the meaning of collegiality include
2,3,4,5,6,8, and 9. Questions concerning the context in which collegial relationships

occur consist of 2,6,7,8, and 9. Questions focused on the outcomes of collegiality involve

 

4 This author recognizes the staff at Dover High School (a pseudonym) who volunteered
to spend a prep period completing the interview, and two hours after school discussing the
interview questions, this researcher's clarity and composure, and the topic of teacher
collegial relationships. Their help and interest was greatly appreciated. Furthermore,
during the time of question development, Kathy Semak and James Spillane, Graduate
students on the larger CRC study, helped refine questions used in this study.

82
4, 5, 6, and 9. Overlap in these categories is created by the use of probes. These probes

were used when further information and/or clearer information from the interviewee was
needed.

An important purpose of the interview guide was to gather information about
collegial relationships as they occur in different groups. As the research literature
suggested, collegiality has been defined as broadly as whole occupations (the profession)
to smaller work groups (teams). In creating this interview guide, these varied groups
were included. Questions 2 through 5 focus on smaller groups. Question 6 and 7 discuss
school wide groups. Question 8 investigates work teachers engage in outside the
classroom such as coaching, clubs, and/or school improvement projects (Lieberman &
Miller, 1984). Question 9 is about collegial relationships within professional groups

beyond the school.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was completed by use of qualitative methods described by Miles
and Huberman (1984). Qualitative data is found as words rather than numbers. This
form of data is attractive because it gives rich descriptions and explanations of local
phenomenon. But analysis of this form of data is difficult because methods of analysis
are not well formulated. Some researchers believe that qualitative data analysis is an "art"
that uses intuitive approaches to data analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1984:16). In fact,
there are few detailed descriptions of the process of data analysis reported in published
case studies or reports. Even when extensive explanations are presented, the lack of

common language and the labor-intensity of the analysis process creates ambiguity. The

83
result is that qualitative research needs explicit, systematic methods for drawing

conclusions.

In this section, the qualitative method of analysis used in this study is explained as
clearly as possible. This analysis consisted of three concurrent activities-~data reduction,
data displays, and conclusion drawing/verification (see Miles and Huberman, 1984).
Unlike quantitative analysis, qualitative analysis is a continuous, interactive enterprise.
The process is cyclical among the three activities. Analysis in this study was completed
by using a coding system approach. Because of the volume of data available to this
research study, data reduction by use of coding was deemed most appropriate. Coding
systems were used for purposes of focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming
raw data into organized units in such a way that final conclusions or hypotheses were
possible (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

In this study the data were first coded or organized by using the three areas of
interest and the underlying dimensions discussed above. This procedure reduced large
amounts of data into manageable components so further clarification and abstraction of
meaning could be completed. Coding was completed separately for each individual. This
allowed for later site-level analysis to be performed for use with the fourth research
question concerning similarities and differences between schools. Coding was completed
by reading the interview and placing code numbers and letters in the margin. For
example the code 1A was used for the first area of interest, first dimension, culture of
collegiality.

The coded data were then transferred to an individual interview worksheet

(Appendix C). This worksheet was created by use of the areas of interest, the underlying

84

dimensions, and the measures for each dimension. This worksheet's purpose was to help
sort interview data for further analysis. The worksheet helped to reduce and organize
interview data onto four pages. Phrases and statements along with page numbers were
recorded on the worksheet. Thus, when reference to original interviews was necessary it
was easily made. Further coding was completed after grouping together all statements
across individuals by the specific dimensions and their measures. Miles and Huberman
(1984) use the term pattern coding to describe this form of coding. Pattern coding is the
process of clarifying and abstracting meaning from data by identifying themes and sub-
themes within the data. By having all data for a specific measure placed together, themes
start to emerge and data conclusion drawing/verification occurs. Coding at this level
groups phrases and statements by themes such that patterns developed. In order to group
interview data by dimensions and measures, tables, matrixes, and network displays are
created. These displays help to organize and assemble large amounts of information so
the data is read for themes. It also permits conclusion drawing and action taking by
reducing complex information into selective and simplified Gestalts.

For the purpose of displaying the results, typologies are used. Typologies are a
display that organizes data such that levels of meaning are developed. Specifically, in
this study typologies are used to illustrate themes, sub-themes and meanings which
teachers' language suggest. Typologies also present quantitative information by way of
numbers and percentages that indicate the proportion of the sample represented in each
theme and sub-theme. This use of numbers and percents is not meant to shift attention
away from the substance of the qualitative word descriptions. It is used to suggest the

strength or weakness of the concept in relation to other themes and sub-themes.

85
"Essentially, words and numbers keep one another analytically honest" (Miles &

Huberman, 1984:55). When identifying themes in qualitative analysis, researchers isolate
happenings that occur a number of times and that are consistent in a specific way. To say
that a theme is important, significant or recurrent is to say counts have been made.

In pictorial form, Figure 1 represents a portion of the typology concerning the
culture of collegiality dimension. Specifically, this figure presents one theme that
emerged from the data analysis. This typology also illustrates the sub-themes and
meanings within this theme. These sub-themes and meanings help define the theme and
suggest areas of strength and weakness.

In conclusion, to generate meaning from the interview data, an approach described
by Miles and Huberman (1984) was used. Coding in this approach was systematic, but
allowed for intuitive thinking to be simultaneously completed. Coding was completed by
first separating teacher statements by area of interest and dimension. Afler organizing
common data across interviews, pattern coding was used to identify common themes and
sub-themes. Typologies, network displays, matrixes and tables were usefiil ways of
displaying findings. Conclusion drawing/verification was continually used while coding
to help develop hypotheses about the phenomenon of teacher collegiality within these two
school settings. Number counts were made to better understand trends, verify or refiite
hypotheses, and to keep this researcher analytically honest. Intuition and plausibility
were incorporated into the analysis as part of the three integrated analysis activities. For
purposes of this study, an overview of the qualitative data is first described by using

typologies and then further described by quotations so nuances are understood.

86

 

 

 

 

Culture of Collegiality
Value of
Independence
17 (94%)
16 (89%)
Privacy Individuality
8 (44%) 15 (89%)
10 (56%) 12 (67%)
- 0 Authority — 0 Philosophy
5 (28%) 2 (17%)
6 (33%) 6 (33%)
_ o Inferiority _ 0 Personality
3 (17%) 8 (44%)
6 (33%) 6 (33%)
— 0 Teaching Style
8 (44%)
5 (28%)

a The numbers represent LaSalle first and Monroe second.
Key: 0 Designates a meaning for the sub-theme.

Note: Each n and percentage indicates the proportion of LaSalle and Monroe teachers
(base of 18 for each site) represented at each level of the typology.l

Figure 1

Example Typology by Site of Teacher Self-Reported
Value of Independence a

 

' A teacher was counted only once at each level regardless of how many statements of
that type the person made. The range of discrete statements per teacher was 1-9.
Statements tended toward single classification, except where a single statement was
composed of two parts and classified separately.

87
Chapter Summary

This chapter addresses the methodology and analysis procedure used in this study.
In the first section, the process for determining the sites and sample group was presented.
Dimensional sampling was used to select thirty of the thirty-six sample group teachers.
Six additional teachers were added during the study.

A qualitative methodology was used to complete this study. Considering the
literature review, three areas of interest and their conceptual dimensions were defined in
order to guide the development of the interview guide and data analysis. Analysis was
completed by use of Miles and Huberman (1984) coding system. The use of coding
techniques allowed for data reduction, display, and conclusion drawing/verification that
led to hypotheses concerning the phenomenon of teacher collegiality.

The findings are presented in three chapters. Chapter four introduces findings
about individual teacher perceptions of professional collegial relationships. Chapter five
discusses contextual features that affect collegial relationships. Chapter six describes the

affects of collegial relationships on the work of teachers.

Chapter IV

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS

This chapter discusses teachers' perceptions of two important dimensions of
collegiality -- the culture of collegiality and the etiquette of collegiality. The chapter also
describes how teachers decide about who they will form collegial relationships with. The
data analysis suggests that these decisions are shaped by three factors: the culture of
collegiality in a school, the etiquette of collegiality in the school, and the personal
characteristics of teachers. At the individual level, teachers make complex decisions
about potential colleagues using these dimensions. The three factors shaping colleague
choice seem relatively straight forward, but in actuality are related in complex ways. The
complexity of this choice process results fi'om the fact that teachers put more or less
emphasis on different factors depending on external features. Specifically, each teacher
develops an understanding of the collegial culture in the school, intemalizes the cultural
etiquette, and defines a set of teacher characteristics that they deem important for
potential colleagues to have. The determination of potential colleagues is then based on
how the perceptions are melded together with external factors. This chapter is organized
around the three factors that afi‘ect choice of potential colleagues and are individualized
by each teacher. The first section describes the culture of collegiality as perceived by this
sample of teachers. The second section discusses the etiquette of collegiality that

88

89
teachers describe. Section three examines the personal characteristics suggested and

implied as important to collegial relationships.

Culture of Collegiality

 

Interview data suggest that the sample of teachers studied here developed a
collegial culture that helped guide their professional collegial relationships. Generally,
two values were important to this culture: independence and interdependence. The value
of independence stressed the desirability of working alone in the classroom without
having colleagues interfere, and focused on aspects of teachers' work that remained
external to collegial relationships. The value of interdependence, by contrast, stressed the
desirability of being connected to others. This value was the foundation of collegial
relationships.

These values of collegiality were discussed by all of the teachers in the study.
Figure 2 presents the sub-themes and meanings associated with teachers' discussion of the
two values. As the figure shows, all teachers in the sample discussed the value of
interdependence and nearly all discussed the value of independence. Within these
discussions, multiple sub-themes emerged. For example, when talking about the value of
independence, teachers talk of "being the captain of their own ship" and "having a
personal teaching style." Figure 2 suggests that there was little difference between the
two schools in terms of the values of collegiality discussed. In both schools teachers

discussed the themes and sub-themes shown in Figure 2 in similar ways and with similar

fiequencies.

90

d; 8 8:88 .5: 0.808080. 080.88 .8 088 0:8. 888—0 8 :888 82? 0.808280. 95 00:88 0: .: 0033 88:8 8: 8 03 88808 00.8 08
mo :80 :8 6808.85 :80 .029 :80 .888 8880 m: 0: 8:82 8:88 5:3 828080 88888 .050 98:80: 8280: a :8: 8888—0 8: 8 88:8
8 83 0: 8:80: 8:82 8 80:3 .0388 .8“: .388 880: 05 090 85 .8 8880§m 888 Be: .8 80888: _0>0_ :80 8 008 88 88:8 8 80:80: < _

 

. @8028 .6 88>
:0toa0m..:0m 80:80:. .8 2mm .3 32093. <

N 05m:
._ 08:8
00: 05 .8 828088 :8 _0>0_ :80 8 880880.. A08 :80 8.: m: :0 083 80:88 00802 :8 0:895 .8 80:88.8 88088 088080: :8 a :8m ”082

0805-85 .8 8888 0088885 0 ”8M

Ava—000m 00.502 08 Haw 02mmwr— HGUmOHQOH whom—ga— Ofi a

 

 

 

 

 

8.3.: w 8.3: w 3&3 m
818 : $8: a §§ w
808280»on l .083 gm. 1 035 8880.7
8.3.: w 8.8: 2 3%: e 3.9: 0 8m: 0
8.3.: w 8.2: 2 exam: 5 8.3: 8 £3: m
08083... I 835. 880880.80. 8:88:08 8.88.87
88: a 8.8: 8 :83 8 exam: 0 8.3 0
8%: m $8: 8 8.3: 2 3:: N 8&3 m
88:00. L magma? 8288:800- h:ao8=:mo .8853?
8.9: 2 8.8: 2 8.»: z 8.8: 2 8.0: 2
3.2: S 8.8: 8 8...: t 3.3: 2 8.3.: w
.388 85.8 baéaoo 882.385 52:
_ L _ L
§8: 8 exam: 2
§8: 2 3%: :—
oocoflcomofiuous .«o 033/ oogvflonofis mo 03a>
r , _

 

88828 a. 228

9 1
_\[_alue of Independence

More important than how many teachers discuss the values, is the meaning of the
talk. In discussing the value of independence, the teachers focused on classroom practice
and more specifically on how they engaged students in learning activities. The sub-
themes of privacy and individuality suggest different ways of interpreting independence.

The privacy sub-theme focuses on having control and authority over a specific
space or knowledge. Authority is how teachers talked about having control and
remaining private. Control over space was found in teachers' talk of how the classroom is
their "territory" or "ship" and how other teachers "do not mess with it too much." Randy’s
statement about the privacy sub-theme emphasizes that classroom practice is independent
of collegial relationships.

I think it is the matter of territory, this is my room, this is my domain, and I do my

job in here and it is just like I tell my students this is mine. To think of somebody

even coming in and taking over my class, it is like it belongs to me, so I feel like
that's what the other guy must be thinking. because it seems like I‘m kind of
edging in on his territory and maybe making him feel uncomfortable... But there
is just something about, I think, that this is that person's territory and you can
know that things are going wrong in it, in a teacher's room. You can know this
without a doubt and still you leave that territory to him. You know, you still say
well it is his room, he has got to deal with it. You know, so it is the same thing

when they are doing something good, you know. (laughs) Leave this territory
alone.

Inferiority is the second meaning associated with the idea of privacy. This
meaning refers to teachers' knowledge base or lack of it. Some teachers suggested that
the practice of teaching is kept private because of lack of knowledge and because public
teaching might make them feel inferior to their peers. They fear "having somebody say,
well gee, why don't you know that." One teacher states, "I think most teachers here don't

feel like they are successful.... and consequently I think there is a reluctance to openly talk

92
about it for fear of criticism or acknowledgment of failure, that kind of thing." Inferiority

is also perceived more negatively as a way of getting others into trouble.
I think most of them have the feeling that somebody's gonna go squeal and if they
aren't doing the things right, and then the principal comes and they're gonna try to

tack them to the wall. I know what that feeling is because I had a principal that
tried to do that.

In other words, the privacy sub—theme centers around maintaining power over clients and
teaching knowledge. When it comes to what happens inside the classroom these teachers
agree that "Everybody pretty much stays out of each other's hair around here I think."

A second sub-theme associated with the norm of independence focuses on teacher
individuality. The teachers in this study defined individuality by talking about how each
teacher has a personal philosophy, a teacher personality, and/or a personal teaching style.
Teachers talked about having a personal philosophy to explain their independence. "1
incorporate those things that I think fit in with my philosophy and with my personality."
"I think they teach in terms of their philosophy of education." Furthermore, teachers
suggested that having different philosophies is acceptable and that philosophical
difl‘erences would not hinder collegial relationships.

I had one teacher tell me just last week.... We were having a talk in the hallway

and we are good friends, very good ..... and ab, he was talking about how it

shouldn't make any difference if a [department] teacher can't [do something], as
long as he can teach a kid how to [do something]. See I’m a little different from

that. And we have a different philosophy and he knows it and I know it and we
talk about it frankly and we were very open on it.

The second way that teachers in this sample defined individuality was by talking
about personalities. Teachers' perceptions of some peers included terms such as "loner,"
"aloof," and "pessimistic." These teachers were not discussed as colleagues, but as other

teachers in the building. Mainly teachers talked about their own individual personality.

93
They saw themselves as individuals with individual personalities who did not want to be

like other peers.

Most of what I do can't be duplicated anyway because, again, it has more to do
with me as a person and what my personality is as opposed to, you know. I mean
I have a method to my madness but someone else doing that would be an
affectation. Just as if I were trying to do something exactly the same, it would be
an affectation as well.

I guess that's where the individual difl‘erences start to come into it. I think
everybody in this school, in particular, they have their own style, there is a lot of
unique people here. I don't want to be like the guy next door, okay, and I don't
think the guy next door wants to be like me.

Personalized teaching styles were a third meaning teachers associated with
individuality. Imitation and conformity were not qualities that teachers worked to
achieve. Belief in individual teaching styles allowed teachers to make sense of how they
went about their work differently from others. It was also useful in maintaining
independence from others as far as classroom practice. Two quotes illustrate this point.

I'm a firm believer in teaching styles and personalities and ah, you know, I

wouldn't suggest anyone tries to emulate me and I certainly am not going to try

and imitate anybody else, because you know, you have to sort of strike your own
bargains with your kids and live with those bargains. Sometimes they are not
always the choices you'd like to have.

I do not interfere with other teachers and I do not interfere with teachers in regards

to their teaching methods-.. The way they teach and I teach probably are two

different things... I don't want to create any animosities among other staff
members.

The value of independence helps to explain how some aspects of teachers' work
become external to collegial relationships. Teachers go about their teaching practice
without interference fiom others and without having to conform to specific ways of
working with students or teaching practice. Teachers value their independence for a

variety of reasons as suggested here. Thus, the practice of teaching (i.e., that which takes

94
place in the classroom between the teacher and students) remains private and individual.

Craig - a teacher at Monroe -- summed up the value of independence by suggesting that
even though this value separates teachers, when it is held by all teachers it supports
collegial relationships. Specifically, when all stafi‘ value independence, no one oversteps
"territorial" boundaries. Therefore, the value of independence allows the staff to develop
collegial relationships based on other aspects of their work.
I don't know if you've gotten a sense or not that the people here operate, so many
of them operate to the ttme of a different drummer. The fact that we all kind of
march along and hear different beats is also something that brings us together. If
Carson is a little wacky or if Cosmo is a little bit strange, Or Buckley has his crazy
puns and jokes. And whatever I do....if we are all different in that way, in our

different ways, then we also recognize that that difference is a strength, which also
unites us.

yalue of Interdependence

The teachers studied here also valued membership in collegial groups. Here, this
is called the value of interdependence because teachers suggest that collegial relationships
form when teachers "need each other." In fact, collegial relationships are necessary in the
daily work of teachers. The value of interdependence allowed teachers in this sample to
meet a variety of professional needs. As a result, every teacher in the sample made
statements concerning the necessity of being interdependent. Figure 2 shows three sub-
themes associated with the interdependence value -- continuity, sharing, and support.

In the continuity sub-theme three different meanings are discussed by teachers --
coordination, consistency and staff unity. In all of these meanings, there is a common
view that collegial interactions help to reduce the complexities and uncertainties inherent
in high school teaching and therefore make the work of teaching less difiicult and trying.

For example, Donald -- a teacher at Monroe -- stated: "[it is] better to know what is going

95
on then to have to deal with what comes through the door."

Coordination as a meaning for continuity focuses on curriculum and
programming. Teachers talked of "making sure we are all at the same place at the end of
the semester" and "help[ing] each other when planning programs or trips." Coordination
is seen to produce continuity within the school and across schools. The emphasis on
coordination found among teachers in this sample results fiom the contextual features of
these high schools - most notably, student mobility. Most of the teachers talked of
"checking" with another teacher about course curriculum "to make sure we are about in

the same place" because

we have to consider that we have a very transient population. I‘d say that's our
number one problem. We have kids coming and going ahnost daily and it's hard
and even though they end up in another public high school in the city, we would
like them to be about at the same place where they left and if we don't all follow a
certain pattern, they're going to be off... we have lots of change, even within our
[school] by semester. We never used to but now we do because we have so many
graduation requirements and so few kids we don't have the flexibility we used to
have, and so when that's the case, uh, there's just so many teachers to go around
and so you must stay together...in other words [students] don't even have to
change courses but they'll change teachers because something else might only be
offered third hour. Algebra, let's say algebra four or something. And so this kid
has to take that at that time so now he can't have me anymore third hour, he's got
to have Mr. Jones or something. You know, and then it throws everything else
off... it's kind of confusing and it's time consuming to start all over with half a new
group or more. It's not the easiest...

One teacher suggested that more coordination was needed, but this was not a common
belief among teachers in this study. This teacher's idea was to focus more on the practice

of teaching.

See, I think we should go more towards a codified, some sort of
coordinated presentation for materials in terms of timing, in terms of tests,
that type of thing and there are the people who resent that in terms of
giving up their individual freedoms but I don't know if that's such a bad
thing. I think it'd be better to have some sort of standard people can

96
adhere to and allow for personal variances.

Teachers in this study also discussed coordination of programs within departments
and across the school. Within the department, there was talk of creating a structure "so
that we are not constantly repeating the same grammatical things. You know you do
verbs, nouns, adjectives, prepositions, every year." Coordination at the school level
involved the development of school wide programs. Charles Leggett, for example,
explained the coordination necessary to prepare for a special assembly.

Dwight was supposed to run [the assembly], but he had another meeting he had to

go to, a conference out of town. So he was doing parts of it and I was working

with him on parts of it. We got it done and anybody walking in wouldn't know

there were any problems, but we worked real hard to get that thing set up in like
three days...

Consistency, the second meaning teachers used to describe continuity, referred to
school-level policies and programs. Specifically, teachers valued collegial relationships
in which they developed a shared understanding of how the group -- whether small or
large -- addressed school-level contextual features consistently. Two statements are
presented as examples of consistency. In the first example, Clayton Buckley reports
being unsure about whether he is completing school-wide detention paperwork correctly.
He did not want students to find inconsistencies between staff so he went to another
teacher who was doing it differently.

I've looked at some situations with respect to school policy and there seems to be

a discrepancy between the way that I handle something and the way someone else

handles it -- according to the paper work anyways. So I'll go and check and say

"am I ofi base or what's the story here". Quite often I'll just find out that we're
handling the paper work in a different way or whatever.

A second example involved teachers consistently working to improve student behavior in

the halls. As a staff, the Monroe teachers discussed the problem of bad language and

97
developed a policy designed to improve student conduct in the halls. Basically, all
teachers agreed to be in the halls during passing time and to tell students when they were
using inappropriate language. With the backing of the administration, the teachers were
able to improve hall conduct.
We had a problem this year with inappropriate language in the halls and we talked
about that several times....I think it helped people who were not necessarily going
along with the [student] behavior, but were not intervening and telling the kids to
watch your language. It sort of gave them some support in doing that. Like I‘m
not going to go up to a crowd of kids and say 'I don't want to hear you say this'
without knowing that other people feel the same way and knowing that if it came
down to it, we could take them to the office for discipline or whatever. So I think

that helped in that it has improved a lot...The kids are becoming more aware too,
they will see an adult present and they will really watch what they are saying.

Staff why is the third meaning related to continuity. This meaning was discussed
by a smaller group of teachers than the other meanings of coordination and consistency.
When discussing staff unity, teachers talked of building consensus among the total staff,
working together to improve instruction, and developing social relationships through
social activities. The idea of staff unity called attention to what was not currently
happening in the schools, but what teachers would like to see happen. In other words, the
teachers who discussed staff unity wanted to see the staff bond more closely so there
would be continuity within the school. They believed that teachers who are united as a
staff create better educational settings for students. Working together to solve problems
and interacting in a collegial fashion was important for those who discussed staff unity.

I don't see any real unity in the staff as to where we're headed, and I think

that's another thing that we want to address here. You know, where are we

really trying to go?... Yeah, and until that is defined, you are not going to

have a unified staff - I think, and maybe I'm off base at saying this -- you

come to some decision as to where you are headed and those who are not

in agreement with that decision should go elsewhere, because you won't
get there if you don't have consensus.

98
Teachers also talked about staff unity in terms of social activities. These teachers

indicated that there was little staff unity even at the social level.
And the social aspects of it. I don't know if we are involved in the way we
should be. Maybe we should have a Christmas party and do some of the
fun things for ourselves and for the faculty that we try to sometimes do for

the kids... I think we need to do more things as a whole. These things are
harder and harder to do and I don't know why.

Sharing is the second sub-theme that emerged when teachers discussed
interdependence. This sub-theme focuses on asking and giving of information whether it
be about materials, teaching methods, school programs, clients, etc. All the teachers
indicated that they engaged in sharing.

In discussing the theme of sharing, many teachers discussed the process of asking
for help. Apparently teachers are willing to ask for help when needed. But teachers
tended to respond in general terms when asked if they would request help from others.
For example, teachers said, "I'm not afraid to ask questions ifI don't know something," or
"Oh my gosh yes. You don't know. I'm new to this program and I've asked a thousand
questions." Asking for help was not seen as conflicting with the value of independence
because the requests were rarely about the practice of teaching. Moreover, teachers
apparently asked for help from a stable and specific set of colleagues.

Oh yeah, I have no problem with [asking for help]. Probably Ruby, Sonny,

basically any of the teachers in the English Department because we are, it is a

large department, and we are pretty honest with each other and pretty frank and if
somebody can't do something they'll tell you. And if they can they will help you.

Giving help was the second way teachers talked about sharing. Figure 2 illustrates
that a majority of the teachers interviewed remembered giving help during the year of the
study. In explaining this help-giving, the teachers talked about materials, classroom

management suggestions, and/or information about specific students. "It was on

99
discipline in the classroom, what would I do." "Recently Clayton and I were talking

about a situation [in] which he was feeling kind of low about something and he said, well
what would you do....this was with a student who he didn't think that he was reaching."
School context variables strongly affected the nature of sharing in these schools.
In particular, many teachers requested help from others because of scheduling and
staffing changes.
This fall, the teachers who had been assigned to teach the course I'd been teaching
last year all came to me, all these men... And they all came and said, oh, help, how
do we do this?... So I gave them Xerox copies of all my stuff and just told them

how I had run the course and several times since they ...[have come back with
questions].

Five teachers indicated that no one asked them for help during the year of the
study. Of these five teachers, three taught specialized courses with advanced students.
"I'm the only one who teaches [this course] and no one else...No one else wants to discuss
what I'm doing in [this course]. Most people don't know anything about [this subject]."
The fourth teacher was new to the program and only in the school half time. Duncan, the
fifth teacher, talked about how he worked alone.

Well, because of the changing world. Carol left and I inherited her two [course]

classes....The [course] is a new prep for me so everything I‘ve got except for the

textbook is basically new. I've had to put it all together myself and [another
course] I haven't taught that for two or three years so the whammy of having to do

a lot of preparation each night and the extra class is physically wearing me
out....[Duncan has no prep hour].

A third sub-theme related to the value of interdependence is support. Thirty-three
of the teachers stated that they thought colleagues gave them support. The specific
interview question asked, "Do you think that the people in these groups give you
support?" The response was followed by a probe that asked for examples of what support

meant. Teacher responses suggested three meanings. The first meaning contained

100
general responses. These responses included statements like: Support is "having someone

there when you need them." "They give vocal support like you're doing a good job." "If I
go to them for anything -- tests, moral support -- they would do it." For example, Charles
suggested that support means collegial backing when presenting an idea. "Well, in a
meeting if we talk over something and we say this is the way we want to, you know,
approach the administration or something on an issue, then I feel I have their support."
Randy response to this question was similar.
Oh yes, definitely. When you need them they are there. You can count on them.
Just recently with the counselors, I received in a two week period of time...six
new students who are new to Falls Park, or new to [the school]...and they
transferred in the middle of doing a research report and I‘m wondering now why
am I getting all of these students. So I go straight down and it was cleared up very
quickly.
Being there and helping was what these teachers suggested when they talked about
general support. Having people back you up was what support meant to these teachers.
What I feel by support is that I feel that they give honestly, they give me their

honest opinions about things, whether that is to agree or to disagree and that if
they say something, they're willing to back that up with action by standing up and

saying [30]....

Academic support was the second meaning teachers gave to the sub-theme of
support. Here, teachers suggested that they received support that pertained to classroom
work. Teachers talked about needing ideas, materials, or supporting colleagues in front
of students. For example, collegial support was seen as "encouragement and [being] very
candid. They'll say, well, I don't think this will work and this type of thing." It is having
someone who "will follow through and back me up" when there are problems with
students. "Supporting each other as far as backing each other up and how they approach

discipline and their teaching style and stuff like that." Teachers also talked about support

101
as being there when you have a new subject to teach. "If it's a new subject, something

that I never taught before, I would go to some of the teachers that have taught it and just
get some information..." Thus, teachers suggested that academic support was being there
for others and helping them with things that are more directly related to classroom
practice.

Psychological support was the third meaning discussed by the teachers in this
study. Teachers suggested that support was very important to help them reduce stress and
increase morale. Teachers turned to their colleagues for psychological support. They
needed to know that what they were doing was OK because the work of teaching is
stressful, complex and continually changing. "I think it is important to have somebody
there.... It's just nice at those times when there is someone else around who you can ask
are you having trouble with those kids or is it just me." Psychological support is helping
colleagues overcome the emotional aspects of the work of teaching. "If I have a
frustration or a problem I could talk to any number of those people and they could make
me feel better and I hope I can do the same for them."

The thing that I think is most crucial is that if I'm feeling frustrated or I'm feeling

inadequate or whatever, I could talk to any of those people, any one of them and
they'll make me feel better about what I'm doing here and feel better about myself.

Within the interdependence value, support as a sub-theme is necessary to these
teachers in their work. Support helps teachers deal with a variety of emotions --
frustrations, uncertainty, stress, inadequacy -- which are inherent in the work of teaching.
Turning to colleagues to gain assurances, encouragement, and further their knowledge

reduces tensions and anxiety so they can continue with their work.

102
There are no differences between the schools as to the sub-themes and meanings

that describe the values of independence and interdependence. As Figure 2 illustrates,
similar numbers of teachers in both schools discussed these two themes and sub-themes.
Furthermore, teachers used multiple sub-themes in their talk. Finally, all teachers felt that

both cultural values were important to the development of collegial relationships.

Etiglette of Collegiality

Etiquette refers to the unwritten code of conduct that teachers used during
collegial relationships. In this study, teachers linked collegial etiquette to the values of
collegiality such that collegial etiquette reinforced the values of independence and
interdependence. The specific nature of collegial etiquette was flexible and depended on
the collegial relationship. This suggests that there is not a simple set of rules, but rather
flexible standards that change depending on the circumstances. For example, one teacher
stated "It depends on the issue and it would depend on the person. There are some
people, who I feel are more approachable than others and more open..." The etiquette of
collegiality, then, is like a rubber band that is stretched to meet the needs of the user. At
some point collegial etiquette can reach its limit and collegial relationships break.

In this study, teachers' talk suggested that there were four sub-themes associated
with collegial etiquette. These sub-themes appear to describe standards of propriety, that
is, criterion established to judge the content, extent, value, or quality, of a collegial
practice (Neufeldt & Guralnik, 1986).

Figure 3 illustrates the four standards that were found in this study. This figure

presents the number and percentage of teachers in each site who made statements about

103

.m-_mm

5:88 con 355083 888% .«o owqfl BE. 3818 samba 05 090 35 mo 858083 .988 26: .«o mac—Emmob 0805 some E 8.8 baa @8550 mm 8582 < N

 

. bmaaozoo co ”sanctum
votaomfiom 95.5 295m o5 mo 85 .3 tame—09¢. <

m 05w;

.255 some 5 3:88.58 9: Co 033 $388 8832 can “Emma‘— mo come—each 8339: $8303 93 a scam 682

.2353 m3“ mam—tame Seamus—u comma 0.53 E383 803m 3

.283 09:82 28 Eu 533 com @2585 2a 938.. 2:. .

 

gas a 3&8 m §8c 2 @9me 2
$03; a $.va v $8: a: 1&8: 2
Egg
28.5w 395m Ensure 23¢. 32%
38:3 @3500 38803—8 88E 0825 82 cecaommom
_ _ , _ _

£2: E
§8 : E

N £3330 co oegzsm

104
each standard. Analysis of the data indicated that teachers in both sites used the same

standards and that similar numbers of teachers made statements concerning these
standards. Furthermore, most teachers used multiple standards simultaneously to judge
the propriety of collegial practices.

Four concepts are important to understanding how teachers in this study discussed
the etiquette of collegiality and used this etiquette to make decisions about potential
colleagues. First, each teacher described the etiquette of collegiality in ways that were
consistent with the values of collegiality previously discussed. Second, teacher
statements suggested that the standards were flexible. Third, when someone did not
comply with a standard they were removed from the list of possible colleagues. Fourth,
teachers used multiple standards when they talked of making decisions about whom they
would engage in collegial interactions.

The first standard discussed here is the respond/do not initiate standards. This
standard describes how teachers approached "being there for others." In this study,
teachers talked mostly of being there when asked. The standard is "do not impose
yourself on others, but if they ask be available." Six teachers (17%) in the sample
indicated that they freely gave advice and helped at anytime without having a teacher first
request it. Twenty-eight teachers (78% of the sample) used qualifiers when discussing
the respond/do not initiate standard. These qualifiers included statements about not
imposing self or tempering statements. "I try to make myself available. I try to offer
suggestions but I don't try to impose myself because I just don't think that that's my
place." "I‘ll have to temper that. Well I would say, 'what did you think about, or one time

I tried such and so,‘ or something like that, but that's probably as far as I would venture."

105

If it wasn't asked, I guess I‘m just not that kind of a person. I just couldn't go up to
somebody and just give them advice on something 'cause I don't think I would like
for somebody to do that to me, you know.

These examples suggest the boundaries teachers place on collegial interactions. The
boundaries establish a limit to how far teachers can venture towards infiinging on other
colleagues' work.

If potential colleagues do not comply with the respond/do not initiate standard,
they are removed from the possible list of colleagues. For example, two teachers talked
about non-compliance to this standard. One teacher told why he stayed away from
another teacher. The second teacher told why others stayed away from him.

I was having trouble with the video camera, when I was teaching oral
communications. I video taped the students and was told that [another teacher]
had borrowed the camera over the summer to take pictures of his kids and so he
knew about the camera. So I asked him if he would come down to my classroom
and tell me what, I thought it was just one little setting I wasn't getting right and
he refused to come help me. Oh, yes. So I just, I mean, that's one person I stay
away fi'om.

I'm kind of an aloof sucker. I am. I think the faculty sees me that way. Plus I
think a gym teacher, who in the heck would ask a gym teacher anything... Even

though I am an academician. I am a very intelligent person. They sure as heck
couldn't come to me and ask for advice.

Most teachers who violate the stande of responding but not initiating fail to honor the
"respon " element of the standard. Terms teachers used to describe these violators were
aloof, outcasts, unfriendly, not helpful, and not knowledgeable. The result was that those
persons were removed from the potential list of colleagues.

A second standard of etiquette is the honor competence/avoid criticism standard.
This standard reinforces the value of independence by allowing each teacher to teach
independently -"to do their own thing in their own way." The standard also encouraged

avoidance of criticism by "not booing teachers down for opinions", "listening without

106
judgment", and "not taking personally any talk." Teachers also put qualifiers on the

honor competence/avoid criticism standard. For example, they said they would listen but
did not have to accept what was said, arguing that teachers "may teach in any way they
want as long as it doesn't interfere with my teaching."

Making opinions known was an important part of the honor competence/avoid
criticism standard, and etiquette required teachers to allow other staff members to feel
free to give opinions. Within the sample of teachers studied here, all but one teacher felt
free to make their opinions known. One teacher talked about staff meetings at Monroe.

I don't think that I have seen anybody who was reluctant to say what they think at

one of these staff meetings... Well, they get frustrated with the guy that is talking

about something that is not supposed to be talked about, now, but they allow it,
yeah. Nobody hoots them down and says sit down, shut up, you know, anything
like that.

Teachers who violate the honor competence/avoid criticism standard do such
things as "downgrade a teacher in front of students" or "butt in when not wanted." Derek
explained how one teacher violated this standard in commenting on a new classroom
management program that the staff would soon vote on.

And then all of a sudden, one of the teachers, very unprofessional, started running

me down in front of her kids....because that[new discipline program] was against

what she wanted and so on and so forth and I just confronted her and I told the
kids, I said, hey. She doesn't have anything to say about it because she has one

vote, I have one vote and I said, she doesn't like the way I teach, I said that's too
bad because, I said, you're here. You have to perform. I give the grades.

One difference found between the two sites concerns where opinions could be
expressed. Teachers at Monroe frequently expressed opinions in large school group
settings (61%) rather than in small groups (33%). "I just usually shout them out. I mean,
I'm not usually too hesitant to give my opinion." Teachers at LaSalle indicated that they

turned to small groups (67%) and rarely used school-level groups (22%). LaSalle

107
teachers in this study talked of the networking system that allowed peers to understand

personal views. Furthermore, the LaSalle sample suggested that they share opinions only
with "certain people [they] trust." "I would go towards individuals or small group and
then work behind the scenes [to make my opinions known]." Thus, personal
characteristics of teachers are involved in the development of collegial relationships and
are intertwined with the etiquette of collegiality.

A third standard of collegial etiquette is the courtesy standard, or treating others as
one would wish to be treated. Teachers indicated that they did not do things to peers that
they would not want done to them.

I don't allow students to go into other peoples' classrooms to get books, materials

or anything like that....I don't want that to happen in my room and therefore I
won't make somebody else go through that.

Nine teachers talked about the courtesy standard with statements very similar to this one.
These statements did not suggest that there was any flexibility in how this standard was
implemented. Thus, this standard appeared to be more rigidly applied than others.

The final standard of collegial etiquette -- the humor standard-- was discussed by
a smaller number of teachers than the other three standards. Teachers who mentioned this
standard argued that work was less tense when there was humor and laughter. These
teachers felt it was important to have a laugh at work. However, humor could never be
allowed to hurt another staff member. One teacher explained the humor standard as:

There's a lot of teasing and a lot of garbage that goes on. Somebody is class

clown, you know what I mean. There's always somebody pulling jokes. I mean

but there's nobody gets hurt, it's just good clean fun. That's kind of nice to have
on the staff.

Humor helped to relieve the tension of teachers' work. "Good clean fun" was the

boundary of acceptable humor and the staff did not step over it. Dex White talked about

108
humor in the following way.

Well, I think it's somewhat needed just to do with the setting we're in and the
problems we face so we joke about everything. There are very few things that are
sacrosanct that are not joked about. Ifyou can't handle being made a joke of
occasionally, you don't belong in this building, because if you can't laugh at
yourself, you're in deep (1me here.

The Personal Ch_aracteristics of Echers

The third factor shaping teachers' decisions about whom to choose as colleagues is
the personal characteristics of teachers. As teachers talked in interviews, it was evident
that they had a set of personal characteristics that they thought were important for
collegial relationships. Although teachers did not overtly list these personal
characteristics, the valued characteristics of peers became evident when analyzing the
interviews. Some statements were general in nature while other statements were specific.
One teacher suggested that selection of potential colleagues was based on instinct.

....there are certain people I feel I could confide in, other people I don't think I

would. Just a gut feeling, nothing you could pin down. Just, you know, you make
certain decisions based upon instinct and that's what we base them upon.

Many teachers in the study, however, were more specific about peer characteristics. In
this section, these personal characteristics are discussed. Four themes are used to
describe the personal characteristics valued by teachers when choosing colleagues. These
four themes include cognitive knowledge, affective traits, external relationships, and
demographic features. The cognitive knowledge theme concerns subject matter
knowledge and contextual knowledge. The affective characteristics theme includes peer
dispositions and attributes. External relationships describe peer relationships beyond the

school. These relationships include spouses who teach, teachers as close friends, and

109
professional organizations. The demographic theme includes gender, ethnicity, years

teaching, and staff mobility and stability.

Figure 4 portrays the first three of the four themes. The fourth theme,
demographic characteristics, is best illustrated in table form. Teacher talk suggested that
personal characteristics were important to them as they made decisions about whom to
engage in collegial relationships. All teachers included talk about these characteristics.
Figure 4 indicates the number of teachers who made comments concerning colleagues in
each of the three themes. All teachers in the study used multiple themes when talking
about colleagues and why they turned to them. Also, there were no large differences
between the sites in any of the themes or sub-themes.

Teacher talk suggested two sub-themes associated with the cognitive theme of
personal characteristics. The first sub-theme was subject matter knowledge -- both
content area knowledge and instructional knowledge. Teachers in this study described
how they turned to teachers in the same department and/or teachers who taught the same
subject. Thirty-one teachers indicate that they frequently talked with colleagues who had
a similar knowledge base. "Generally we stick within the math department and we just
generally talk about where we're at and what we're doing...We don't talk subject area to
the whole staff. Ah, subject area is pretty much within the group." "Well in terms of the
department, the support is knowledge of the fields, the science related subjects and
sharing of those ideas on how to teach a subject and also knowledge of where the
equipment is and that kind of stuff."

Teachers who did not indicate that they talked about course content most

frequently taught isolated courses. These teachers felt cut off and had to turn to people

110

8886 .«o own—E och .AouoE :88: o5 2.5 85 mo mason—88“” .888 26: .3 mmofioawo: ooh 2: we 88. :28 “a 85 inc 3.58 mm 8:88 <

82882 38:8 .8

“58095 no notoqox 8888830 858$ o5 me .8283. <

a. 285

.m - N m_ .8528» 8Q 8coEo§m

m

 

”85% ooh o5 .«o 58.88%

:5 _o>o_ :28 8 “8:88:88 3:88 8832me 3.33 .. 30:8 :28 w: .«o owns: 82888 Moan—am o5 mo come—omen 883:5 owflcoouoa :5 a scam 8qu

 

 

885.88 a mofinwmmoa o Sovm

 

 

3:8 2 3.8: S 3.8: 2 3.2: t
3.”: z 3%: 2 3.8: E 3.8: 2
owvowsocm owvogonvm
m3~5§< 80332—me #52602 gown—m2 “comb—am
O O O O
r L _ _
3cm: 2 3.»: z 3.8: 2
3.8: 2 83: t 3.8: 2
owvorsoqv—
mQEmEEo—ox o>uoob< 32:on
_ _ _
3.8: 2
3.8: 8

maEmcozsom Emozoo no.“ 8388850 8:88am

lll

outside the school.
If there is more than one teacher involved as is the case in biology. I know the
biology teachers do share materials back and forth. Now that doesn't happen in
physics because there is only one teacher teaching it. Although I know he has
gone to a lot of institutes and so forth and I have done the same thing in chemistry

and so that for Raymond and myself, that would be our only source of sharing
since there is no one else on staff to share with.

The second cognitive knowledge sub-theme was networking knowledge. All of
the teachers in the study talked about networking with other peers in the building.
Teachers networked with people who had information or who could help get information
to others. These people were not necessarily in the same department or subject matter
areas. Network topics included knowledge of school programs, current issues, or student
information. For example, Randy discussed how she wanted to get more information
about the SIC program.

Yeah, we talk about that and I talk to Stan Jones a little bit. He's not real happy

with it. I‘ve got to hear more about it. I've got to hear more of the specifics. Um,

I don't change quickly, you know, it takes, it is just that I'm just too old I
guess....We talk and hash that out back and forth.

The theme of affective characteristics included the sub-themes of disposition and
attribute. Disposition is defined as having a tendency or bent of mind. Teacher
statements such as "his ideas are usually the same as mine" or "he was thinking the same
thing and we started talking" are examples of the disposition sub-theme. Attributes are
characteristics or qualities in an individual that teachers liked or valued, such as "trust",
"honesty", "respec ", "good listener" or "there when needed." Examples of teacher
statements include: "I found out in the past, I can trust what they are going to say." "They

know me, they listen and we can kind of bounce ideas off of each other." "They're people

_ that I value, you know, their opinion more than others."

112
External relationships, the third theme of personal characteristics, were also

discussed by teachers as a way to explain the cases of collegial relationships that reach
beyond the school. For example, some teachers were married to teachers on the staff or
to teachers in the district. One teacher married to a staff member stated, "A lot of our
conversation is school and it's interesting conversation even though you hate to take work
home with you." Teachers talked of how they were close to colleagues and did things
outside the school. "Randolph and I do a lot of things socially together including
worshipping together so we're pretty close. Reuben is my other confidant in the building
....he and I are 'best fiiends.‘ So we converse often." This teacher indicated that they met
at work, "right here at the school.... I'll bet you all of us go back beyond 23 years of being
together.... When we were younger we did stuff together. I mean athletically." Some
teachers made time for social activities with staff by engaging in non-work activities. "I
[Reginald] see Steve a lot of times, we play basketball in the mornings so I see him a lot
there." Otherwise, Reginald and Steve do not have the opportunity during the day.
Teachers also worked together on programs. "So we've become friends because of
common activities and we are very close fiiends because of that....Yeah, well Roderick
and I handle the detention center together. Well that came after the fiiendship had
developed."

Professional organizations were also a place to develop collegial relationships
beyond the school. Of the 36 teachers in this study, 14 (39%) were not members of any
professional group beyond the local union, while 22 (61%) teachers did belong to at least
one professional group. Of these 22 teachers, 14 (39%) teachers indicated that they

attended meetings -- varying between infrequent to regularly. Only three teachers had

113
close ties to professional groups. Reasons for having close ties included "being able to

talk to people of the same content area", "having a shared understanding", or "having
common experiences." Sadie talked about how her close ties to a professional group
were based on social support.
I belong to an organization which has over 100 members and they are almost
all teachers... and my other fiiendships and a lot of my social activities come from
that group. We take a retreat together for a week and we have workshops. We
have one this Saturday. That organization I've been a member of now about four

years and it's really changed my relationships with other teachers, has really
changed as a result of that groups.

Teachers also turned to professional groups to further develop cognitive knowledge.
Ralph Sanderson, for example, noted that he had to turn to an outside group in order to
gain knowledge about the subject he taught.

I'm the only one who teaches [this subject]....No one else wants to discuss what

I‘m doing in [subject]. Most people don't know anything about [this subject] but
I'll go to a meeting with [subject area] teachers. That's entirely a different story.

The fourth theme was demographic characteristics that seem to be important to
decisions about potential peers. The teachers in this study suggested that they talked with
many teachers. But when asked directly, they indicated that there were colleagues they
interacted with more frequently. Using this list, demographic information about collegial
relationships was developed. This information included gender, ethnicity, years teaching
experience, relationships from other schools, professional organizations, staff stability
and staff mobility.

Findings indicate that for the teachers in this study, closest colleagues were not
always in the same department, but they were often in the same building G..aSalle=11
[61%] & Monroe=9 [50%]). A smaller group of teachers indicated that they talked most

V frequently with teachers in their department (LaSalle= 5 [28%] & Monroe=7 [39%]).

114
The special education department was especially close in both schools. These teachers
were close colleagues for many reasons.
Just the fact that it's special ed. and that we have just a common inter-woven unit
within special ed. We all have the same students and we have all basically gone
through the same programs and I think that's probably what brought us all
together. That's one of the main reasons why I don't transfer to another place
because I think the people within the special ed department, particularly Sue
Gargan and a few of the other teachers, we all kind of relate very, very well

together. And since that occurs, it's so easy to get along and work, so I think it's
an excellent working relationship.

There were four teachers who indicated that they did not have a close colleague at the
school (LaSalle=2 [11%] & Monroe=2 [11%]). These teachers made statements such as
"I'm basically a stay-in-my-room type person" or "people here are basically loners I
think..." One teacher reported that he converses with no one and that "for that reason I
do not like it here."

Using the list of persons each teacher indicated they talked with the most, gender
and ethnicity information were developed. Table 7 shows the results of the analyses].
Teachers for the most part engaged in collegial relationships with teachers who were of
the same gender and ethnicity. As teachers talked of their collegial relationships, it
became evident that men related to men and women to women. Close collegial groups
were of one gender and usually one ethnicity.

Years of teaching also appeared important in collegial relationships. In analyzing
the data, a span of two years was considered the "same" age and colleagues beyond the

two years were placed into the categories of younger or older. Approximately half of the

 

' For teachers who did not indicate a close colleague, other teachers in the school

that they talked with were used for developing gender and ethnicity information.

1 15
Table 7

Demographic Characteristics
Concerning Collegial Relationships

 

 

Gender Ethnicity
Same Mixed No information Same Mixed No information
LaSalle 17 1 15 2 1
Monroe 15 2 1 15 2 1
Years Teaching Experience
Younger Same Older No Information
LaSalle 2 9 3 4
Monroe 2 11 4 1

Colleagues Former Location

 

No Comment Not Colleagues Are Colleagues
LaSalle 12 3 3
Monroe 17 l 0

Professional Organizations *
Member Not Attend Not

 

 

Member Attend
LaSalle 11 7 7 10
Monroe 10 7 5 12
* The professional organization question was not asked to one
teacher.
Staff Stability Staff Mobility
Stable Not Stable One School Two Schools
LaSalle 16 2 15 3

Monroe 1 7 1 17 1

116
teachers in the study had close collegial relationships with peers having the same years of

teaching experience. The teachers who engaged in collegial relationships with younger or
older peers did so for other reasons. For example, one teacher in a core curricular area
worked very closely with a teacher in vocational education. These two teachers did not
have similar years of teaching, but did have a similar philosophy and vision of the
educational process.

Collegial relationships also appeared to form primarily among teachers in the
same school. Excluding the five teachers who never worked in other schools, most
teachers made no comments about staff members from other schools being current
colleagues. Four teachers made statements that they knew a peer from a former school,
but they did not indicate that they engaged in collegial relationships with them in this
school. Only three teachers stated that they maintained collegial relationships with
colleagues from other schools. All three maintained these relationships because the
colleague was in the same department.

Stafl stability also affected the development of collegial relationships. Very few
teachers changed departments or content areas. The three teachers who recently changed
departments indicated that they maintained collegial relationships with peers in their
former departments. For example, Sadie stated:

I've finally begun to carefully talk and ask questions [to two teachers next door]

since I've been in this classroom as of J anuary.... As I explained with Alice Filias,

we were both teaching [the same course]. Okay. And we became friends through
that. We are totally totally different people. As human beings, we have, we're
very, very different in lifestyles, totally different but we seem able to be close
friends and real supportive of each other anyway....We just had a chocolate malt
after school yesterday and we talk about curriculum. We began our friendship

because we both taught the same course and we tried to communicate and share
speakers and things like that. [Now] we talked about problems with students. We

ll7

named certain students and in a couple of cases, we had them in common....One
thing she said last night was that the students had worked real well in her class
that day and she mentioned that her classes were noisy but they were working and
they were on task and that she likes to do group work.

Itinerant teachers represent a special case in the study of collegial relationships.
Apparently, teachers who traveled between buildings had little time to interact. They
found themselves not communicating.

I was going to J C during this time. I missed the connecting of people and finding

out what was going on and I've kind of felt like I was out of the grapevine and that

is not so much being in a grapevine, but just being a part of the place. I kind of
lost that sense of, a little bit of a sense of community. I wasn't anything anywhere
for anybody. It is very, very difficult I think to be in and out of a place because

you don't, you miss a meeting or you miss, there is always something going on
that you are not going to be involved in.

The three itinerant teachers indicated that they maintained colleagues in one school, but
not the other.
Basically I go in and say good morning to people and I go in and teach and then
[leave]. My room is in the basement down in the comer. There's some other
people down there, but my room, because of it's position it's kind of

isolated....Yeah, isn't that funny? Here I've been here for a whole year and I don't
even know her name. [The teacher next door.]

Chapter Summa_ry

This chapter discussed teachers' perceptions of two important dimensions of
collegiality -- the culture of collegiality and the etiquette of collegiality.

In the first dimension, culture of collegiality, the teachers in this study suggested
they developed a collegial culture generally based on two values of collegiality -- the
value of independence and the value of interdependence. The value of independence

focused on maintaining control over classroom practice (what took place in the classroom

118
between the teacher and students). Teachers in this study described control by referring

to privacy and individuality. Privacy allowed teachers to maintain authority and control
over their classroom practices and teaching knowledge. Individuality allowed teachers to
maintain different philosophies, personalities, and/or teaching styles. The value of
interdependence focused on how teachers perceived collegial relationships to develop.
Specifically, teachers developed collegial relationships when help was needed. Help was
defined by the teachers in this study to mean continuity, sharing, and support. Continuity
emphasized coordination, consistency and unity. In other words, the development of
similarity between colleagues on such matters as scheduling, pacing, curriculum content,
programs, and views about schoolwide issues. Sharing focused on giving and receiving
help in the areas of curriculum, materials, students, or school wide issues and policies.
Support concerned being there for colleagues - helping, giving assurances, boosting
morale, lifting spirits, giving encouragement -— when they needed to deal with
psychological and academic situations that were inherent in their work. Thus,
professional collegial relationships were valued by the teachers in this study because
these relationships could reduce the complexity and uncertainty of working in high
schools, could help to maintain a schoolwide semblance of order, could help to develop
stronger staff bonding, and could reduce the stress, frustrations, complexity and
continually changing nature of the work.

The second dimension discussed in this chapter, etiquette of collegiality, refers to
an unwritten code of conduct. The sample suggested that the etiquette of collegiality was
linked to the values of independence and interdependent such that the code reinforced the

school's collegial culture. Furthermore, the collegial etiquette described by the teachers

1 19
in this study was flexible and dependent on specific collegial relationships. However,

colleagues were sanctioned if they did not comply with the individual's or group's defined
etiquette of collegiality.

Through data analysis, four sub-themes were suggested as being associated with
the etiquette of collegiality. These sub-themes appear to describe standards of propriety
used during collegial relationships. The respond/do not initiate standard described how
teachers approached being there for others. Specifically, teachers talked of being there
when needed but not initiating help. The honor competence/avoid criticism standard
gave credence to the norms of privacy and individuality found in the value of
independence. Basically this standard reinforced individualism and maintenance of
differences found among the teachers in this study. The courtesy standard focused on fair
treatment of colleagues -- do onto others as one wants done to themselves. The humor
standard described the need for a laugh, but not at the expense of another stafl‘ member.
This standard was useful to reduce tension, frustration, and stress found in the work of
teachers.

This chapter also described personal characteristics of teachers that were used
during the decision making process to determine potential colleagues. Four themes
emerged from teachers' talk - cognitive knowledge, affective characteristics, relationship
characteristics, and demographic characteristics. Basically, teachers looked for potential
colleagues who had the following teacher characteristics: 1) subject matter knowledge or
networking knowledge they needed; 2) similar beliefs, values, and qualities of trust,
respect, and support; 3) qualities important to friendships beyond the work place; and 4)

- similar demographic characteristics such as gender, race, years of teaching experience,

120
and same school work place.

The use of these personal characteristics suggests the individualization that
occurred in making decisions about potential colleagues. Specificially, each teacher used
personally held beliefs, values of collegiality and understandings of the etiquette of
collegiality along with their personally developed characteristics of teachers to determine
potential colleagues. This became a complex process as teachers melded together and
gave more credence to some features over others.

The decision making process was further complicated by the fact that contextual
features also impacted decisions. Contextual features found in this chapter included
student mobility, curriculum sharing, class scheduling and staffing changes. The result
was that in the process of developing collegial relationships the teachers in this study
turned to a stable and specific set of colleagues usually found in the school. Thus, being
an itinerant teacher or changing departments impacted the development of collegial
relationships. These findings were similar across both schools. The only difference
between the two schools was in the location of where information was shared. Reasons
for this difference were not discussed by the teachers in this study.

In conclusion, this chapter developed teacher perceptions of important factors
used to understand the phenomonon of collegiality and to shape the choices and decisions
teachers make about potential colleagues. In the next chapter, external features such as
the contextual factors mentioned in this chapter are examined for how they affect the

decisions making process and the development of collegial relationships.

Chapter V

OTHER CONTEXTUAL FEATURES AFFECTING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLLEGIAL RELATIONSHIPS

This chapter presents findings concerning dimensions other than those discussed in
Chapter TV that influence teachers' professional collegiality. Specifically, within the
school there are features that are present that teachers perceive as important to
professional collegial relationships, and they take these features into consideration as they
make decisions about engaging peers in collegial relationships. For the purpose of this
study, these features include issues present in the school, forms of collegiality available,
and other contextual features. Specifically, issues are the content of the interactions
professionals discuss. Forms of collegiality shape how collegial interactions are
conducted. Lastly, other contextual dimensions, such as the organization of the school,
school governance, and students affect the development of collegial relationships. This
chapter presents the results concerning how the phenomenon of teacher professional
collegiality is affected by these dimensions of school context. Each feature is discussed

separately.

121

l 22
Issues

For the purpose of this paper, issues are problems, topics or subjects that propel
teachers to engage in collegial relationships. In other words, issues are what bring peOple
together to interact. Issues, therefore, complicate decision making about possible
colleagues. As teachers talked about issues, four themes emerged.

First, teachers' attention to issue was rooted in self-interest. That is, teachers
became involved in issues based on personally held beliefs and values or needs that they
had. "I think basically it is self-serving the topics we do talk abou ." In other words,
teachers made decisions about what issues were important and then found colleagues with
whom they could interact about these issues. Donald, for example, stated that he did not
join some collegial groups because the issues discussed were not of interest to him.

....everyone else really is social and political and everything else. They
tend to gather in other places in the moming...That's a little too intense for me.

Too many conversations about too many things that I don't care about.

At LaSalle, a group of teachers from across the content areas developed a new
program because of personal needs. Raymond Devereux explained how the issue
emerged.

I had a desire to get kids involved in making equipment. Is how it started out.

And this idea that you're in physics, maybe you wanted to do a little engineering,

right , and he was -- it was just kind of funny because he was thinking the same

thing and we started talking and I said, 'gee I‘d like to have my kids come down'
and he said, 'I was going to talk to you about having kids come down and do this'

And that's how I got involved in the Polytechnic Training Program. Because he

knew that I was really interested in that type of thing. So it was through the

development of the Polytechnic Training Program that we developed that
relationship.

Raymond and Shawn developed the conceptual framework for this program and recruited

. teachers from the math and English departments to join them. Randy states:

123

Basically the need for a program that would service kids who were obviously not
college bound, but at the same time needed some direction that they could put
their fair energies into. They weren't the bottom bunch who were sort of like the
drug users and the school skippers, but they weren't the college bound kids either.
And they basically were a good group of kids and if you could just direct them.
And they needed some teachers for that... And he came to me for English. In
fact, I forget, something happened that I was angry at him about and in speaking
and in trying to get over this upset, he said by the way, have you thought about
being and I said, well I don't know. He said well it would be nice and we could
work and do and I said oh no, so he talked me into that.

The Polytechnic Training Program group grew to five teachers who worked very closely
with a group of students. They meet weekly to develop the curriculum and confiont
issues that arose in the program.

Teachers in both sites made statements that "issues" were directly related to the
decisions about collegial interactions. For example, when asked whom a teacher would
go to if needing help, teachers made statements such as "It all depends on what the
problem would be. If it was a discipline problem, I'd go to one of the administrators."
Thus, issues of personal interest founded in personal beliefs and values were an important
dimension in making decisions about which colleagues from the potential colleagial
group teachers one would approach.

Second, issues were rooted in commonplace contextual features of schooling.
Issues which were important to a majority of teachers in both schools, for example,
included: students (LaSalle=17 [94%], Monroe=15 [83%]); discipline program
(LaSalle=16 [88%], Monroe=12 [66%]); school programs and policies (LaSalle=17
[94%], Monroe=16 [89°/o]); teaching methods (LaSalle=l4 [78%], Monroe=12 [67%]);
curriculum materials (LaSalle=l7 [94%], Monroe=l6 [88%]); curriculum pacing

(LaSalle=15 [83%], Monroe=ll [61%]); learning activities (LaSalle=16 [89%],

124
Monroe=14 [78%]); and SIC (LaSalle=16 [89%], Monroe=18 [100%]). These are all

issues that arose naturally as part of teachers' work. But, even though these issues are
common to all teachers, teachers' personal needs are what make issues more or less
important. That is, events, topics, or subjects become an issue only when teachers'
personal values, beliefs, or needs are not satisfied. For example, Dorothy's need to create
a stable classroom environment brought the issue of classroom interuptions to the
attention of the SIC committee.
A staff member came to me today who is on the SIC committee and asked if he
could have a copy of [the log of interruptions being kept to share with the SIC]...
I'm driven crazy as all teachers are by lists of students who get excused fi'om class
and I‘ve been keeping track all year...and the other day I got my 19th sheet from
the choir department for excusing these kids from class and I just about blew my

stack... maybe having some hard evidence that interruptions and students being
pulled from classes is indeed a serious problem... might lead to something.

Teachers also indicated that some issues were off limits. In other words, they did
not discuss them because they would alienate peers. These included the smoking lounge,
class schedules, teaching content, and teaching practices. "I don't like to bring up
anything about classes that I teach because I think some of them are upset because I have
all the honors classes."

We know that there are some things that you just leave alone. For Rodney White

for example, he is a very grammar, grammar, grammar, grammar person

and....This is his heart, you know...And he gets very offended [when confronted
about teaching it].

Third, teachers were interested in multiple issues simultaneously. Specifically,
teachers had continual dialogue about multiple issues with multiple groups. By
developing a networking map to track whom teachers interacted with about what issue,

the concept of multiple issues emerged. For example, one teacher explained the various

collegial groups he belonged to and the topic of conversation in each group.

125

In the morning I start off with Dwight, Duncan, Derek and Clifford. That's in the
morning. And then the middle of the morning it is with Summer and Delia.
Proximity, proximity, yeah [their rooms are next door]...Lunch hour it is Dirk,
Dex, Cyril,Comelius. And after that almost no contact. After the lunch hour
there is no contact. It is a matter of trying to get things done for the rest of the
day... [morning] I used to have [room 2000] and the lounge is [2002] and since
I've been here, there has always been sort of an old-timers club there.
[lunch]...there is a lot of valuable information going on up there, I think. If it
wasn't worth my time, I wouldn't be there, but especially since I teach basic, I have
four basic classes and you know, I have a lot of trouble with the kids. There are a
lot of kids that are in trouble and do cause trouble and everything else and so it is
kind of important for me to keep my hands on who is doing what.

Randy, another teacher, indicated that "teaching is so important, I think that all of our
topics of conversation focus around materials, ideas, what to do, what did you do, how
did it go, those types of things 'cause you have such a limited amount of time with which
to work with..." Beyond these "teaching" needs, there are the school-wide conversations.
Randy also talked about the school-wide topics.
...we had a meeting last week and I think we all felt like we were sort of
floundering and not knowing where we're going to go and maybe needing to zero
in on a couple of things and let the rest lie for awhile. That's where the discipline
work came up and then some work that's being done on teaching of study skills as
a possible target area. You get five committees, you're going in so many different

directions and no one really knows if you're accomplishing anything and it's really
hard to measure success.

Important to the theme of multiple issues is that while many of the issues are
based on personal needs, at the time of this study there is one major school-wide issue in
each building. The teachers called these "the issue of the day." This issue focused on a
school-wide topic and was of concern to all staff. In both schools the "issue of the day"
happened to come from SIC and focused on changing teachers' work. There was much
discussion about this issue and where each staff member stood on it. Specifically,
LaSalle's SIC suggested that the school create a 7th period, shortening student contact

V time so staff collaborative planning time could be created. Raymond explained why this

126
planning time was needed.

We have to at least attempt to do something, right. What we want to do is provide
time for the entire staff to participate in decision making about how this school is
going to be changed and function and run and made better.

Teachers in this study were either strongly for the plan, strongly against the plan or had a
wait-and-see attitude. The effect this plan had on instruction and student contact could
directly impact the twin values of independence and interdependence discussed earlier.
Specifically, under the plan, teacher interdependence would increase markedly. Some
teachers wanted to use this opportunity to
address some of the issues that can't be addressed at the district level because
they don't know what's going on out here....eventually we're going to eliminate the
middle track all together. There will be no general education. You're either
college prep or you're in technical prep which is geared toward sending kids to
college or vocational [school]. There are a lot of other things that have to go
along with that and we want to be in a position to make some of those decisions as
a staff and start coordinating what's going on as well as dealing with the day to
day issues.
But there were teachers who had difficulty with change. Randy talked about this issue
and how change was difficult. "I've got to hear more about it, specifics. I don't change
quickly, I'm too old I guess. Fifty one minutes of class, that rubs me and 4 minutes of
passing." Sabrina indicated that change was difficult for the staff.
Well, there are a lot of staff members who look at the SIC team as being real out
of touch with reality. Primarily because we pursue ideas about doing things

another way and a lot of people are very pessimistic that anything different will
ever work or that anything radical will ever make a difference.

Teachers against the proposed changes focused on how it impacted their work in the
classroom. By reducing class time and creating time for teachers to discuss issues,
collaborative planning would alter the personal balance teachers had established between

, the values of independence and interdependence. For example, the "forced" collegiality

127
created by the new schedule would not necessarily create collegial relationships. Roger,

for example, talked about how he would maintain his values in the face of new
arrangements.

What's going to be my contribution to this so called study, that 40 minutes a day
that we're gonna be available? I said, I'm going to avail myself to the kids who
want to work in fitness.

Roger will make available programs for students and not join in the collaborative
planning program.
At Monroe the school-wide "issue of the day" was the drive to create a consistent

classroom discipline policy that all teachers would follow. Dorothy explained the

proposed policy.

We discussed part of our proposal for the building which consisted of a list of
rules and steps that teachers are to follow when dealing with discipline in their
classrooms and we were seeking input both positive and negative regarding the
rules and the list of consequences that we proposed teachers use. The heart of the
discipline program is that teachers and administrators will be consistent when
dealing with students so that no one teacher is the horrible one on the staff
because he or she deals or is perceived to deal more harshly with a student nor is
one administrator viewed as being easy or less tough because we all will operate
under the same set of consequences and guidelines.

This issue affected the value of independence. Duncan explained the issue very well.

I think they're really paranoid about the discipline thing and as far as publicly
discussing what they do or don't do. I think that's a hidden agenda that's not
brought out but it's very difficult to find a teacher that will discuss openly what
they do or do not do in their classroom....we're trying to get a consensus, because
everybody handles discipline somewhat [differently] and we've got so many self-
righteous people I ever saw walk out of the woodwork. We never have any
discipline problems in my classroom... Don't get in my life because it's going
okay and nobody knows about it and I think this is really quite intimidating to a
lot of people to publicly bring up those kinds of issues.

Again the issue directly impacted the classroom practice that was the basis for the value

, of independence for the teachers in this study.

1 2 8
As teachers engage in collegial interactions about issues, they apparently turn to

peers who have similar perspectives. Thus, personal needs concerning an issue may lead
persons to choose peers who may not normally be in their potential colleague group
because they have the same view about an issue. The discipline program is an example of
how a new collegial group of teachers arose and worked together. Dorothy, Duncan and
Derek were not in the same department, were not in a common location, did not share
students. What they did have in common, however, was a personal need to improve
student behavior. These three teachers were the driving group that studied and learned
about a new school-wide discipline approach and conducted staff development for the
school to initiate further support.

Interestingly, both of these school-wide issues were brought to the surface as a
result of individual or small collegial group interests. At Monroe one teacher stated, "I
am piloting a program called the Realistic Student Behavior Program and I made a
presentation in the Fall and am currently chairing a committee to plan and improvise this
for next year." At LaSalle, Roland indicated that the 7th period is an outgrowth of the
Polytechnic Training Program.

I think there are a few people on this staff that are just trying to make a name for

themselves... it's a power base.... I think this is basically an outgrowth of the

Polytechnic Training Program. I think that they think that their ideas will work

for everybody and they are trying to push them down everybody's throat is what it
amounts to.

Fourth, issues and collegial groups change over time. Issues wax and wain. New
"issues of the day" replace issues that are either resolved or dropped. For example, SIC
programs changed the "issue of the day" frequently.

Right now the discipline proposal for the realistic student behavior program pilot

129

for next year, that's been a huge topic of discussion. Probably two months ago, a
SIC committee came up with a study calendar to give to students on which they
would record homework assignments and there was a lot of negative response to
tha ."

Forms of Collegfly

Forms of collegiality, which can be defined as patterns of collegial interactions,
also affect the choice of colleagues. As discussed in Chapter I and 11, previous research
has described five forms of collegial interaction. By using a continuum from independent
to interdependent, the forms indicate whether collegial conversation and activity is more
or less interdependent and based on classroom practice. Some forms of collegiality allow
teachers to maintain independent values while other collegial forms allow teachers to
work more interdependently. For the purpose of this study, these forms are useful for
understanding the connection of collegiality to teachers' work.

In developing an understanding of forms of collegiality, networking maps were
used to establish the types of conversations teachers had when engaging colleagues in
conversations. Figure 5 gives the number and percentile of teachers who made
statements relevant to the various forms of collegiality. This figure uses the continuum
from independent to interdependent to suggest arrangement of the forms. The following
facts are derived from this figure. First, more teachers were engaged in collegial forms
that maintain the value of independence. Specifically, all teachers engaged in the social
support form, while only nine teachers engaged in the joint work form of collegiality.
Second, this sample engaged in multiple forms of collegiality simultaneously. The range

of use of different forms for a given teacher was four to seven. Third, two new forms

130

.né 8 wow: made: we own”. o5. A288 acmooa 2: 25 85 mo aaoaoufim >58 26: mo moo—Eamon: Show :28 8 3:0 baa 3258 mm 85.8“ < _

 

. 838:8 8 88m
wotonom.m_om 8:83. we 35 3 320an <

m 288

..Eoom :28 8 3882:2888
:28 .8.“ 2 mo omen: 828on 8:82 :5 2893 me 59¢qu 98 .8898 882:8 owfiaooooa can a seam 88 Z
.vaeoom 8:82 :5 8.6 o=mm3 Bomoaoo mow—3:38: 98 838:: SE. a

3388: wfinoaoo no vogue: 0E8 358: 5 885m
650on .88on flaw: 038 .968 owbw:
«86:28:82: Eggnog:

 

3: : N 3.8: a 83 .52

 

 

3.8 e 3.8:: 888580

 

 

3cm: 2 3a: a 888

 

 

3a: 2 88: S 8:583. \ 3.

 

 

3.8: 2 3.8: 2 858 88883

 

 

 

3.8: a: 3%: 2 85:58 383 boom

 

 

 

3a.: 2 3.8: 3 e88 328

 

l3 1
were added to better understand the type of interactions used by this sample of teachers.

These are information sharing and organization.

The information sharing form of collegiality includes t0pics about students,
information about programs, and school activities. This form of collegiality is factual as
compared to story telling. Even though this form of collegiality gives aid/assistance to
teachers, it is centered on school level issues, not classroom aid/assistance. In other
words, information sharing is about what is going on in the school or with special
programs. Reginald explains a special program for students having academic difficulties.
The "2 Point" program matches new students with upper class students so they receive
help with schoolwork. The teacher gathers information about how the students are doing
from other teachers.

What we do is we identify incoming 9th graders with low grades from the middle

schools and pair them with upper classmen, to try to get their grades up there, at

least a 2.0 or as close as possible... I've gone to a teacher and found out about a

student. To see how he was doing... how his work is in the class, if he's

1mprov1ng."
Teachers also gather information about schedules for extra curricular student group
activities so they can adjust their classroom work schedule. Teachers do not like
interruptions. Information sharing as a form of collegiality helps to reduce the stress and
tension brought on by interruptions.

Organization as a form of collegiality is placed closer to interdependence because
the issues discussed focus more on classroom practice or a specific group of students.
This form includes discussions about pacing, curriculum development and delivery,

organizing programs, and checking on consistency of policy implementation.

Organization is important because of student mobility, multiple teachers teaching the

132
same course or sequential courses, co-student activity advisors and/or the district

curriculum plan. Teachers are very specific that organization reduces difficulties in their
work. Dex White, for example, described why coordinating his pacing with another
teacher was very helpful.
I work real close with Clayton Buckley....[and] Dan and I work with [another
subject] very closely together. Pacing, content, and areas of emphasis so we have
similar approaches we're talking about similar materials. Just makes sense,
practical. If you're gonna have students that are a fairly mobile group and if

they're mobile within the building, it's nice to transfer from one person to another
and still be within the same areas, talking about the same types of things.

Not developed in Figure 5, but an important finding concerning forms of
collegiality, is the concept of membership in collegial groups. Specifically, memberships
in collegial groups changes depending on the form of collegiality. Membership changes
in four ways. First, the size of the group changes depending on the form. Groups formed
around the more independent forms of collegiality have larger numbers of colleagues.
When teachers talk about social support forms of collegiality, they point to groups like
"the breakfast club" or the morning group. Membership decreases as teachers talk about
forms that are more interdependent in nature. For example, organization of course groups
usually number two or three teachers who are teaching the same course or sequential
courses.

Second, the actual members of collegial groups change as the forms of collegiality
change. In fact, teachers reported that they used different forms of collegiality to engage
different peers in collegial relationships. For example, Dex worked closely with Clayton
Buckley and Dan because he was teaching two courses that they also teach. The

interactions between these colleagues focused on pacing and materials that fall into the

1 3 3
organization form of collegiality. For social support, Dex joined a larger group of

teachers in the faculty lounge, and neither of these teachers was present in this group. At
lunch he met with Dirk, Donald, Cyril, and Cornelius. This group was engaged in
storytelling and information sharing forms of collegiality along with social support. After
school, or sometimes before school, he played basketball with another group of
colleagues. They did this to gain social support.

Third, teachers could belong to multiple groups when more independent forms of
collegiality were involved, but as they engaged in forms of collegiality that were more
interdependent, the number of groups was reduced. Dex's example follows this pattern.
He engaged in three collegial groups that were more independent, but in only one group
that was more interdependent.

Fourth, teachers used multiple forms of collegiality in any one group but the
number of forms varied depending on the purpose of the group. Specifically, teachers
engaging in joint work used all forms of collegiality, but teachers engaging in social
support groups seemed to use story telling and information sharing forms of collegiality
but did not venture into more interdependent forms within the large group setting.

A major difference in the forms between the two schools is found at the
organizational and joint work level. More teachers at LaSalle were engaged in these
forms of collegiality than at Monroe. The reason for this is related to teacher staffing.
First, LaSalle was a larger school and more teachers shared courses or student extra-
curricular activities. Thus, they tended to make sure they had common pacing, course
materials, scheduling, planning of programs, etc. Second, teachers at LaSalle had or were

‘ in the process of developing programs based on team teaching or special curriculum.

134
Polytechnic Training was one such program. Most of the teachers who worked closely

together did so because of curriculum and/or students. Furthermore, for the most part
these teachers taught or worked outside the basic four curricular areas. Special academic
programs at LaSalle included a commerce and industry program, vocational technique
training program, special education program, and health program. The teachers in these
programs team taught, developed and coordinated curriculum, and/or worked closely
together. But even these teachers did not engage in joint work for the improvement of
their classroom practices as suggested by previous research. They did gain "insight into
each others work" and worked together collegially for a purpose. One teacher in the
commerce and industry program explained team teaching this way:

We are truly team teaching... In most of the schools where they do this program
and team teach they are in separate rooms and the rooms have connecting doors.
They will work together planning, coordinating, the implementing, the integrating
of the course but they will teach their separate areas. In other words, this person
will be assigned to teach all the accounting. This person will be assigned to teach
all the computer. And when the student does that one hour a day, they will go to
that room. We are doing that but not as structured because we have all three
rooms going at the same time with kids filtered throughout, doing all different
things and all those different subjects [at one time] [The facility for this program
is one large area divided into three sections]. The three of us filter through the
three rooms so we are always together. We have assigned each one of us an
[subject] area that we will say, 'Oh, this is, so and so is handling this area. This is
what you're going to start. Go over and she'll get you started on such and such.‘
However, if she's not there, then I have to wing it and I have to go ahead and get
them started and so forth. We've had to do that. Eventually we hope to know all
the areas. So, we wanted to team teach in that, we have a person assigned to each
area. They're the advisor, they're the specialist in it. But we wanted also to be
able to do it so we could help any kid anytime. I know that goal is a pretty far
fetched one right now. It seems like that's a lot. It's going to take us a while to
learn all the materials and the software. But with helping each other and just
being there in the same geographic location, we're falling into it. We're forced to
have to learn how to do some of these things. Right now we have arranged our
prep hour at the end of the day.... We divide it up somewhat. We naturally do that
because we have our own specializations and we are dividing up. But we made
sure that in dividing it up, that, as an example the three of us.... I have two areas

135

that I'm assigned to and one of those areas will be with Rosemary and one will be
with Rosetta... So we are working with the other two in some capacity.... Like I'm
not just taking all of the office and doing it by myself. Rosemary likes office too,
so we're sharing that and we do it together. I don't really care for the computer
area that much so I'm helping with the beginning area with the person who's doing
the advanced area....we're working together real closely and not segmenting out.
We've gotten to the point where we almost can think or know what the other
person is thinking....l have found in team teaching that I can feel it. I am growing
and maturing so much because I am finally realizing that I have to trust another
human being to help me. I have to trust another human being to grade my papers
where before I knew they couldn‘t grade them as well as I could. I know they're
going to miss mistakes....But I‘m willing to recognize the fact that that's not that
important... For us to do what we want to do, we can't do it by ourselves. And
also, we have to show the kids that we can work together as a team because out
there in the business world, that's it.

Joint work is also found in extra curricular activities such as student council, two
plus program, athletics, SIC. One teacher explains the honor society program.

I work with Ramona and worked well together but there are, you know, honors
society, to get that induction ceremony [completed takes a lot of organization],...It
worked out fine. Everything, everything worked out just fine and so now that the
induction is over with, we need to get our people back together and pick officers
for next year....

Other Contextual Features

Three other contextual features of schools appear to shape collegial relationships
in schools: organizational arrangements, school governance, and students. The role of
each in shaping collegial relationships is described here.
Organizational Arrangements

Organizational arrangements concern scheduling, how teachers are grouped, and
the physical arrangement of classrooms in the building. Specifically, teachers talk about
time, peers in close proximity, and/or where they are located in relation to others in the

building. Teachers suggested that these features were taken into consideration as they

136
developed collegial relationships and interacted with their colleagues. When this

information was combined with teacher perceptions about collegiality, issues, and forms
of collegiality, the process of developing collegial relationships appears even more
complex.

Interview data suggested that collegial relationships were affected by the school
day schedule. Scheduling allows teachers to meet before school, during the five minute
passing periods, lunch, preparation hour and after school. Collegial interaction during the
teaching period is relatively rare due to the traditional teaching arrangement. Only two
teachers worked together in the same classroom during a one hour period. JoAnne
Clark's interview indicated that there was minimal discussion between her and her co-
teacher during the hour. But they did engage in the joint work form of collegial
interactions to some extent before and after the hour. JoAnne indicated that she and her
colleague talked about what they were going to teach and how the hour went.

No, no, we decide on , we, you know, have it planned out who is going to teach

what particular day or what particular unit that we are working in.... At first it was

a little difficult for them [students] to come across with her and I've had these kids

for a couple of years, so they were used to me and know what to expect from me

and we had to make a setup so they wouldn't think that she was under me. You
know, that we both were equally important here and the little while I worked with
her, then I started leaving her is charge in the classroom... It is like, I mean even if

it is her time to carry out the plan, we can always interject information, you know,
and it is not offensive to one or the other....

Four teachers had student teachers, and these teachers suggested that they interacted with
the student teachers at times other than during instructional period.

Table 8 gives results for this sample group's responses concerning times they
engaged in collegial relationships. Before school was a time suggested by sixteen

teachers as a good time to meet. These teachers talked of their breakfast groups and

137

.mQEmaowfle Emu—Eu 35.85 5? 383:8 mm :02? 38m $5 “on @8580 8:

Ba Ba votoq 2:: a 8865 958033 82:. $582: 38.8.“ manage .5 3066253 328 warren: .283 wage 3 :08 35.53% 838 553,—. N

 

~6an wad—5 mm aim—“332 Ewe—Bo o: 38me :5 woven 083 05 88:00 858855 82: a

boron 083 some “a 33323“ 80:88 mo somtoaoa 830:2: owficooeoq we“ : comm a

 

.. 0%:
§§ 2 3.3 a £5: a eeoaoeam
H35
3ch m 3.2: a 3&8 2 §§ : £53 a 8.82
$.va v $8 o $03 a $38 2 3.8 a 233
eo¢< moi £055 wfimmmm 880m
a $289.33 Ewe—30

.9863on mo moummwoq 2.5.

w 2an

138
lounge groups. The five minute passing time was most frequently suggested as the time

during the day that teachers interact. "My neighbors, of course, out in the hallway, I see
more often just because during the break between classes we are there." "I talk to the
people in my hall of course when we are doing hall duty between classes." "We just
happen to be, in the ...departrnent, we're located in a particular part of the building and
we're always outside our door and we will communicate with one another."

Lunch period was also a time period when many teachers engaged in collegial
interactions.

We meet for lunch every day in a little room. We have a little lunch group. We
never go to the faculty lounge because it's just the bitch room basically. So, there
are three of us. There used to be five but our lunch period didn't mesh this year.
So, there's three of us....

They just happen to have the same lunch, you know that your friendships sort of
wane and ebb and flow depending on what lunch hour you end up with every year.
You know, there are some years when depending on the lunch hour, you know, I
choose to eat alone and get my work done. It all depends on who happens to draw
that particular lunch.

Two teachers had lunchroom duty and developed a collegial relationship because they
were working together.

...ofien times [there is] a lot of extra time that we stand around and
communicate... We compare notes about what he teaches and some of his
requirements that he has for his students and then we compare them. Most often
it's about particular students -- social and emotional type of stuff that we compare
notes on.... That has been kind of interesting.

Seven teachers indicated that they did not engage in collegial interactions during lunch.
Part time teachers traveled during this period to other assignments. Four teachers (i.e.,
two from each building) said they ate alone.

Usually when I get up into this classroom, I'm usually here and every now and

then I'll go down and we'll say something in the hall between classes but most of
the time I'm right here and the kids just work until I get finished and then I go

139

home.

I used to [go to the lounge]. This year I haven't so much, no. I just feel like, I

guess, I want to be more to myself. No one is really in there that, you know, it is

like a lot of men in there and they are talking men talk or something and so I just

[don't go].

Prep period is the least frequently mentioned time for engaging in collegial
interactions. In fact, most teachers in this study stated that they used this time for
classroom preparation. Of the nine teachers who made statements about prep period, only
one teacher stated that it was used for collegial interactions. "A variety of things.
Sometimes social, sometimes the curriculum, sometimes it's bemoaning administrative
decisions. It varies. The people with whom I share my prep period of course." Seven
teachers suggested prep periods were for doing class preparation work. "The free time we
have is prep time and I usually use every single minute of it either grading papers, doing a
bulletin board or going to the library to get materials or whatever." However, one
teacher, Shawn Leman, suggested that the lack of a common prep period hindered good
collegial interactions in the Polytechnic Training Program. He mourned not having it
because during the first year of the program, the group had a common planning period
and met frequently. Due to scheduling during the year of this study, the common
planning period was not possible.

What's happening in the program is it's waning. Ok, it's up for grabs whether it

survives. Yeah, and it's basically because we feel we're not -- the meeting time --

ok. We need the time to get together. We need to be able to do that on a regular

basis or this sucker's not going to go. In fact, I already told them downtown that I

don't want to do it next year unless we have a common planning period, or else it's

a waste of time. Because it is unique, and what's unique about it is you have the

teachers from other disciplines who are working together in a holistic approach

and it definitely, it reinforces, I mean you have some bonding taking place with

the teachers. You have a vested interest now because you're obligated to one
another and you have a responsibility to one another to keep your end of the

140
bargain....

The result was that collaboration and colleagueship declined. This group of teachers was
finding it very diflicult to meet without the common planning period. They were
frustrated about the current program development and coordination. They felt collegial
interaction time was needed to prepare outcomes, plan curriculum, and organize pacing.

After school time was also used infrequently for collegial interactions. Fourteen
teachers talked about formal staff meetings, departmental meetings and SIC meetings.
These statements were not included as the teachers were not engaged in informal collegial
interactions during these meetings. Two teachers said they left early for other jobs. Nine
teachers made statements about "seeing colleagues" after school. Some left the building
to unwind, while others talked to teachers near their room.

We usually meet on a regular basis once a month, sometimes out after school

hours and it is kind of like we kind of unwind and talk about the problem that

goes on with students and how staff relationships or whatever is going and we
basically are the only ones that will end up being convenient enough to show up....

Within the discussion of time, teacher classroom assignments appear to directly
impact collegial relationships. Specifically, teachers talk with peers who have rooms
nearby. Furthermore, some teachers do not like to travel far from their room during the
day because of the physical layout of the building. "I'm kind of in a remote area of the
school" -- four blocks and three stories away. LaSalle's staff was housed by departments
while Monroe's staff had no formal arrangement for classroom assignments. Teachers
suggested that the more senior staff got larger rooms or rooms of their choice. But the
social studies' department was working to have rooms close together. "We tried to do
that so we could share globes and maps and materials and it would be easier for me,

because that is one of my jobs to get around to them and see that they have the materials."

141
Thirty teachers made statements concerning location in the building as important to the

development of collegial relationships (LaSallle=l4 [78%]; Monroe=l6 [89%]).
Statements included "Basically, people right here - department teachers only because we
are housed together." "There are people on the staff that I've never talked to in eleven
years outside of hi, bye, see ya later, ah, that type of thing. Ah, it is just that, you know,
maybe they work in different areas of the building." "People who work on the third floor
tend to stay on the third floor. We don't really have a common meeting area where
everybody goes."

I used....to see him all the time, but Dirk now is on the third floor and that has

been a, ah, awful barrier. It's so darn difficult to get up and down the stairs time
wise....

School Governance

 

Research suggests that school governance arrangements can increase teachers'
professional collegiality. Programs designed to develop common beliefs and values focus
on teachers working together to improve the school environment by the development of
programs and policies. In this study, statements related to school governance were
examined for connections to teacher professional collegial relationships. The themes of
school policy and the SIC emerged from the data analysis as important themes related to
collegial relationships.

The policy theme involves two important ideas. First, colleagues in these schools
appeared to focus on policies directly related to students rather than policies related to
teacher work conditions. Thirty-four teachers said they talk about student discipline,
attendance, tardiness, testing, and/or homework policies almost every day. Teachers

rarely discussed policies concerned with work conditions such as room assignments,

142
schedules, or evaluations. Only four teachers made comments about these topics, and

they never turned into issues among the staff. In all four cases, these teachers talked only
with one other teacher. "One of our members did get pink slipped and was very upset
about that. And we did talk about it for a few minutes." "I don't like to bring up anything
about classes that, you know, that I teach because I think some of them are upset because
I have all the honors classes. Yeah, and so I don't bring that up." One teacher said that
talking about the smoking policy was not appropriate because to do so would cause hard
feelings in the building.

I remember when it first started and it [policy] said if any one teacher in that

building complains, they can cancel the whole building and it is a no smoking

building period.

The second theme that emerged in the interviews was teachers' perceptions that
policies were not followed by peers or administrators. And when policies were not
followed, they became school issues. Teachers talked about the "issue of the day" and
how collegial relationships developed based on beliefs, values and feelings about policy
implementation. For most teachers, the perception was that others did not follow through
on reinforcing the written policies or that policies changed very quickly.

A SIC committee came up with a study calendar to give to students on which they

would record homework assignments and there was a lot of negative response to

that... Because they perceived it as how dare you tell me to do something with my
students, even though it was a vehicle by which the students could record
information and they [the staff] had asked for it. It was not received well and so
there was a lot of discussion....

The triple goose coats in the cafeteria and in classrooms have created a double

pronged offense to some people because they are easily used to store stolen items

with their puffera of pockets and they also actually, for months continuous wear
tend to reek. And there are teachers who have as many as five Airwicks in their

room just to fight that odor and then there are those who say but my materials are
just walking out of the room and they are places where kids can store weapons

143

and it's just not safe. So the rule was imposed that kids could no longer wear
coats in the classroom. That's all well and good except that our heat is sporadic at
best and sometimes it's warm and sometimes it's cold. And the kids are not fond
of being cold in the classroom. And so the rule was rescinded after being in place
for, what was it, I think all of a week. And of course any disturbance in the
routine and what is expected and not expected drives the kids crazy and it creates
a whole furor of discussion and debate among the faculty and the students.

These two quotes illustrate how teachers' collegial relationships developed around student
policies, especially policies that directly affected teachers' personal needs, values, and
work.

School Improvement Councils (SIC) are a second theme in the school governance
dimension. In both schools, the bureaucratic governance structure was reduced in order
for teachers to have a voice in the development of school policy and school improvement.
To understand how this governance program was related to teacher collegiality, two
features suggested by research were analyzed. These features are a shared mission
statement and goals, and control over policy making at the school level. These two
features result in teachers' perceptions of collegial relationships as an outcome of SIC.

It appears that teachers have different ideas as to the value of school mission and
goal statements. Interview data suggests that teachers lmew there was a school mission
statement, but no teacher felt much enthusiasm for it. "I would have to read it off the
wall." "Yes, that's the mission statement which I can't regurgitate to you offhand. There
are five goals..." "We have a mission statement, so nebulous it is ridiculous." The
mission statement was posted in every classroom in both schools. Teachers referred to
this poster when indicating how they know about the school mission. Specifically, the
stafi did not really think about it. It was basically a document developed to meet criteria.

"I think too often we are concerned with covering our tracks. Covering our bases or

144
CYA, to be concerned about what the school's mission really should be. To prepare these
kids for independent, productive lives in society." Delia said completing the mission
statement was nonproductive.
We started it three years ago. I guess I'm a little more for direct action. If
something is broken you need to try to fix it. We spent a year getting the gol darn
mission statement dug out, worded, argued over. Now we got the blasted thing
in.... to me it seems like a lot of fooling around. Again, some people are so big
into let's get all these objectives written and let's pile all this paper work and let's

write this and let's do this and meanwhile you know the school's going to hell in a
hand baske ."

Despite these feelings, a comparison of teacher goal statements with school goal
statements showed that twenty of thirty-four teachers (59%) expressed personal goals that
were similar to school goals. When asked, teachers stated their goals clearly. Basically,
these teachers said they "want students to learn something". "By the time you are done
with high school, there shouldn't be any doors closed to you because of what you didn't
learn and what you didn't take.... And so my goals are to encourage students to reach a
standard that would allow them to be successful in any class in the future." "I want them
to be able to think." "IfI can get them enthusiastic about learning and thinking, I think
I‘ve accomplished it." Even though these teachers had similar goals, they felt they used
"different ways of arriving at the same goal..."

Further analysis indicated that seventeen teachers at Monroe had at least one
personal goal similar to the school's goals, while only three LaSalle staff had goals similar
to the school goals. The structure of the SIC at each school may be one reason for this
difference. All of the Monroe staff were involved in the development of the five school

goals, while only a portion of the LaSalle staff is involved.

145
Interestingly, even though Monroe teachers are committed to at least one school

goal, problems with teacher commitment to the school goals occurred in both schools. In
other words, professional collegial relationships were not developing around school goals
developed by school improvement committees. "It [the SIC] is supposed to draw us
together so that we work together and we have the same goals in the classroom, but we
always have the individualist that says that they won't do it." Teachers expressed
discontent with peers on the SICs and with the products of these committees.

It's one of those things that's very frustrating because everything is so, it gets to be,
like you're on there with Pollyanna and I mean, a good number of the people are
like that. Oh, wow, yes, and let's do this and let's fill out some more forms and
let's do this and so fortunately, there are a couple of us on there that, you know,
say listen, the corps stinks and so that, but it's getting to be very very difficult.

Well I don't know if they are talking more in a positive way about it, ah, how has
it affected relationships you say? You know, it has been divisive in a certain
amount of, in a certain way, I think. People have taken stands and lined up on
either sides of things.

There is the perception that there are a few people who are attempting to ram a
particular proposal down the throats of the rest of the faculty and unfortunately, of
the members of that team, I would say half do not have the respect of their fellow
teachers...

I was on the committee until this school year.... I couldn't see where we were
going. It was kind of a special interest group. Now that I'm not on it I realize

what other pe0ple were saying in that their, who knows what they're doing. I don't
think there is any purpose to it. I think it's window dressing.

The second feature of school governance cited in research literature concerns
teachers' control over school-level policies. In this study, no teacher believed that the
school staff or SIC had control over school-level policies. In fact, some teachers did not
believe anyone had control over anything at the current time.

And at this point I think you could have quite a voice in this place right now. It
seems like principals are saying, staff it's up to you. Going back twenty years or

146

what ever, the principal was the guy who ran the school. And I don't feel that the
principals are running the school anymore at all. I don't know who's running the
school. I think the [SIC] is trying to run the school, and I think that is by design....

I think that the SIC originally started out and had some fairly good intentions and
now without somebody picking up the reins and Clifford is a wonderful person
and he, but he can't do it because he is not in a position to tell me what to do. He
is another teacher, he is a colleague. And there is nobody to pick up the reins and
say look, these are the three or four things that we really want to attack and we are
going to do them. So right now, everybody is saying well I don't know. It is kind
of wafiIing back and forth, it is kind of like an amoeba...

Teachers were skeptical about the purpose of the SICs and what impact they were having
over school-level policy. They had seen the SICs do very little over the past three years.
"I don't think there is any purpose to it [SIC]. I think it's window dressing."

The teachers talked about how they could work on an idea and write up a policy
but that it got "shot down" from some group. Shane described his work on a student
attendance policy and how the administration did not accept it.

I had an idea and I talked to key people, ran it through them and they said sounds
good, and so then I went to the SIC and ran it through them. And they said it
sounded good and so then I wrote it up as a proposal. The staff voted on it on the
last meeting of the school year last year and we sent it downtowm who shot it
down. It turns out that many other people have come up with this same idea and
at the last meeting, ...we discovered that other schools, other districts were doing
somewhat similar things...came out with it this year and it turns out to be almost
word for word the proposal that I issued.

Shawn described the new seventh period plan as being shot down by many different
people.

I'm not sure if - my gut feeling is that there's teachers that would prefer this thing
to be shot down from downtown. There are some that everything that happens
they definitely feel it's being manipulated by someone downtown. And we're
having a very difficult time meeting with people from downtown. There's one
administrator that doesn't even return phone calls, when he said, "I'm an advocate,
I'll be here, I‘ll be here to help you", you know, the checks in the mail, I‘ll love you
in the morning concept? You know, that same old thing.

147
In summary, this sample of teachers did not believe the SICs were improving

teachers' collegial relationships. In fact, a majority of the teachers thought there was no
impact or a negative impact. Fifteen (42%) teachers made statements concerning
negative effects, including terms like divisive, no interest anymore because nothing
happens, a waste of time. In describing a lack of effect, seventeen (47%) teachers made
statements such as "[there is] not much effect one way or other. We get along well."
"People react to each other as they normally would." Only four (11%) teachers suggested
that there were positive things about the SIC. One teacher stated, "It is positive, it is
really positive because we are now working within groups and trying to come about with
some things that are for the students."

mt}.

The third contextual dimension deemed important to understanding professional
collegial relationships is students. Students are the reason schools exist. As such,
students are what bring teachers to the school. To understand how this dimension relates
to collegial relationships, the interviews were analyzed for statements that indicated that
teachers developed collegial relationships based on students. The themes of student
mobility and sharing of specific student groups emerged as themes in teachers' talk about
professional collegial relationships.

Student mobility impacted only those teachers who taught sections of a common
course. For example, two teachers who taught Algebra I suggested that they interact
because students moved between their sections at semester end. In this study, only these
two teachers said that student mobility among teachers was the basis for developing

Collegial relationships. "...Sonny Rogers and I work together -— this has kind of evolved,

148
it's kind of neat because he's the one who also has the other ....class."
Just makes sense, practical. Ifyou're going to have students that are a fairly
mobile group and if they're mobile within the building, it's nice to transfer from

one person to another and still be within the same areas, talking about the same
types of things.

No other teachers made statements that suggested that they had developed collegial
relationships based on student mobility.

Sharing groups of students was discussed by five teachers in this study. "Sharing
groups" refers to how students are arranged in the building. Three of the five teachers
who talked about sharing students were special education teachers. They talked about
how it was important to know how students were doing across the curricular areas within
the department. Sharing of students in special education seemed to be a very strong basis
of collegiality for this department. "It's real important to communicate constantly because
we're all seeing the same students and so we're always making decisions about behaviors,

academics, skill center, those type of decisions that we're all really involved in. .. we
compare students, how their performance [is] because depending on who you are, they are
different in each classroom and we come up with ideas...." Other programs that shared
students (such as the Polytechnic Training Program) also had close collegial
relationships. Charles Leggett, a member of another department, said that teachers within
his department focused on students because they were shared. In this department,
teaching sections of common courses were almost nonexistent.
We talk about the kids too. Because a lot of us do have the same students, you
know, a lot of students that say take Dwight's class and then come right in here
and take my class or something. So we do have, our school is small now, so we

do have a lot of the same kids, almost at the same time. Ifnot, certainly within a
semester.

149
Interview statements suggested that students may be related to teacher

professional collegiality, but only minimally. Special student groups or the arrangements
of particular programs seemed to foster some collegial relationships based on students.
Furthermore, teachers did generally discuss students or seek specific information about
students when needed, but these reasons are not generally the basis for developing
collegial relationships in most cases. Instead, most teacher statements mentioning
students pertain to meeting personal teacher needs, improving instruction, or discussing
student policies. All teachers made statements such as, we "talk about general
characteristics of students." "A lot of curriculum related things and, of course, problems
with discipline in class." "Students and the actual execution of policy, policies
established by the district and/or the administration and, of course, the staff and personal
things." But the flow of particular students among teachers was not an important basis

for the development of collegial relationships.

Chapter Summa_ry

This chapter presented findings about three contextual features that affect the
development of collegial relationships. Specifically, the three factors included issues,
forms of collegiality, and other contextual features. These factors helped determine the
purpose of the relationship, the process of interacting, and the colleagues available.

Issues or the topic of conversation brought teachers in this study together. Four
themes emerged from data analysis as to the afi‘ect that issues had on the development of
collegial relationships. First, teachers attended to issues only if there was self-interes --

the issue impacted personal beliefs, values or needs. And, depending on the issue,

150
decisions about who to approach were made. Second, issues rooted in the commonplace

of the school arose naturally as part of the teachers' work and were of interest to groups of
teachers. However, care was taken when an issue impinged on the etiquette of collegial
standards and offended a colleague. Third, teachers engaged in collegial relationships
about multiple issues simultaneously. While some collegial groups were small, there
seemed to be an "issue of the day" important to all teachers. In this study, the "issue of
the day" impacted the values of collegiality. As teachers made decisions about their
views on issues, the choices of potential colleagues were affected because these teachers
turned to colleagues who held similar views. Fourth, issues changed frequently as did
collegial groups. The outcome was that issues rooted in self-interest and personal needs
directly related to the work of teachers were an important component of the decision
making process used in the development of collegial relationships.

The second factor, forms of collegiality, also affected the development of collegial
relationships. The forms of collegiality determined how relationships were conducted.
As teachers reiterated collegial conversations about various issues, four common themes
emerged. First, all teachers were engaged in forms of collegiality that were more
independent such as support, story telling, and information sharing, while very few
teachers entered into more interdependent forms such as organization and joint work.
Second, teachers in this study used multiple forms of collegiality simultaneously in
multiple groups. Third, two new forms of collegiality (information sharing and
organization) were suggested as being separate from other forms of collegiality.
Information sharing focused on giving and getting factual information rather than story

telling. Organization as a form of collegiality concerned issues closer to classroom

l 5 1
practice such as pacing, curriculum development, or specific groups of students. Fourth,

membership in collegial groups changed depending on the form of collegiality.
Specifically, the form of collegiality seemed to affect membership size, number of
possible groups, and the number of forms used within the collegial group. Thus, the
teachers in this study used information about collegial form structure along with
information about issues when making decisions as to how collegial relationships would
procede. In that teachers used various forms of collegiality, there was a difference
between the two schools. Teachers at LaSalle used more interdependent forms of
collegiality than teachers at Monroe. School size, and the creation of special programs
for groups of students were suggested as reasons for the difference in the number of
teachers who used more interdependent forms of collegiality.

The third factor, other contextual features, also was important to how collegial
relationships developed. In this study, three specific contextual features were found --
organizational arrangements, school governance, and students. Organizational
arrangements, the first feature, focused on time and proximity. Master schedules and
classroom assignment directly impacted who was available at any given time. Collegial
groups changed based on changes in schedules and the distance between work locations
in the building. School governance, the second feature, concerned how school policies
and School Improvement Councils affected the development of collegial relationships.
First, issues that arose in the school appeared to focus on policies related to students
rather than to teacher work conditions. Furthermore, teachers in this study perceived that
policies were not followed. Thus, collegial relationships developed around policy

implementation. School Improvement Councils were found in this study to impact the

152
development of collegial groups but not as suggested by former research. Teachers in this

study held negative feelings towards the SICs and for that reason they developed or
joined collegial groups to gather support for their views. The third feature, students,
appeared to have minimal impact on the development of collegial groups. Specifically,
the only teachers in this study who felt the development of collegial groups were based on
students were in special programs such as special education or the Polytechnic Training
Program.

In conclusion, the results indicate that the phenomenon of teacher professional
collegiality is affected by features of the school context. Specifically, issues, forms of
collegiality, and other contextual features directly affected the development of collegial
relationships and further complicate the decision making process used to determine
potential colleagues. Having an rmderstanding of the multitude of factors -- both
normative and organizational -- used by the teachers in this study when developing
collegial relationships is helpful when examining the relationship of collegiality to
teachers' work. In Chapter 6, the concept of how professional collegiality affects teachers'

work is discussed.

CHAPTER VI

RELATIONSHIPS OF PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIALITY
AND TEACHER WORK

This chapter discusses the relationship of professional collegial interactions and
teachers' work. Specifically, this chapter examines teacher talk about how information
gathered from collegial interactions affects their work. Chapter H suggested that collegial
interactions might help develop a shared understanding of the profession, develop a
common goal for improving the educational process for students, and assist in on-the-j ob
continue learning and the development of new instructional approaches. Whereas
Chapter IV and V described teachers' perceptions of normative and organizational
features of collegiality, this chapter explores how collegiality affects teachers' work

One interview question specifically asked teachers what they did with the
information gained by participating in collegial relationships. The teachers described four
ways (themes) they used information received during collegial interactions. The four
themes include the concepts of supporting, networking, sharing and implementing. The
result of collegial relationships is found in how the teachers in this study used what they
gathered in their work -- the behavior of collegiality described in Chapter II.

Figure 6 presents the four themes pertaining to the use of information from

collegial relationships. The number and percentages represent the number and percentage

153

154

838808088: .888 Emma 80858 8: 83 0: .83 8 :38 038088 9:? 808 808086 8800a a 0888 8:800 8:: 5 808808038 :8 88.83008
8088 3850 83 80:80“ 05 880.88 Pom—0 0:0 088 :83 808.8098 2 88 meme—8: 05 8 80 wfiom 83 8:3 >55: 8 8888088 80m: 0: “00:30.8
80:80: a 80:? 63888 80m .388 80808 05 090 85 we 0.8080080 .888 Be: we 806895 888088 88 35: :80 8 0080 380 88:00 83 80:80: < _

 

32838—3: 880—30 8828085 88.:
3880 003 80:88:85 me .8233.

e 2.8”:

..eoflmfiefi: me on: no 883008 05 8:8 Hoe 803 80:80: 0083. .005 05 .«o 0805
:80 8:85 3:00.080: 80:83 An: 00.832 :8 G 3 0:8qu 90 85.838 88 80:83: 05 008068 0880805: 88 a :8m ”E02

3&8 2
3&8 3
0808085

85:30 II:

3.88 _
3.3 m
om: ..IIII.

 

3.30 2 3.3V : 3.3 e 3.3 a
3.8: 2 3.3 a §§ a 3.83 a
w8808038H .8”: w88:m 8m wag—950 Z 8.: teamsm 8m
_ L A _ _
Agoo: E
Agoo: E
888885 :83

155
of teachers making statements within each theme. In answering the question about how

they used information, all but one teacher said they used the information received in their
work. However, twenty-nine teacher statements about information use included
qualifiers. The themes of supporting, networking, and sharing have relatively equal
numbers of teachers making statements, while the implementing theme has a much higher
number. The range of responses among teachers is one to four themes. Furthermore,
there is little variation between the two schools within each theme. Thus, teachers in both

schools discussed various themes in similar ways and in similar occurrences.

Supporting

Supporting is the first theme suggested in the interviews. Collegial support is
used for emotional well-being. Teachers said that teaching was stressful, uncertain,
demanding and intense. Therefore, they felt that emotional release was important to the
continual demands they confronted. Collegial relationships that fostered support helped
these teachers to refocus, to make life easier, and to receive an emotional boost. "Just to
make life a little easier, I think, and just to make the job less stressful. Ifyou're kind of
on top of it, and have a whole lot of support from a whole lot of different people, I just
feel it's to your advantage instead of complaining about this or that, just not going
anywhere." Being there for others was a value to which these teachers strongly adhered
and the respond/do not initiate standard reinforced it. Support was defined as having
colleagues there to listen, make suggestions, or help relieve the stress and frustrations of
the job. These teachers said they turned to colleagues with questions, concerns, and

because they needed to understand that they were not alone in their work.

156
Psychological support appears to reduce the tensions that enter into teachers'

work. Psychological support gave teachers "... a shoulder to cry on once in awhile, yeah."
The reduction of frustrations and tension allowed teachers to return to their work more at
ease with themselves and knowing they were not the only teacher to encounter similar
problems.
You know, so for instance if you talk about a problem, you air it and you let off
steam...0kay, that would be one thing. You might get moral encouragement to

face the things that you have. Or it is also kind of encouraging in a way to know
that your problems are not necessarily unique.

Venting frustration to colleagues, for example, helped Sadie move on and gather new
ideas. "Talking about what works and what doesn't work. Venting frustrations.
Sometimes that venting leads you to clear up some things and go on from there with new
ideas and new ways to do things."

These teachers also suggested psychological support validated their practices.
Teachers came in contact with problems daily, and made decisions about these problems.
Colleagues became sounding boards to verify that they were not the only one
encountering diffith or different situations and that they were handling these problems
appropriately.

....the person who you are speaking to is kind of a sounding board and you get a

feeling of whether you are doing something good. Urn, they might even suggest

to you something that they are doing and a lot of times I've had teachers that will

say I always feel better after I talk to you because I thought that I was the only one
having that problem.

This psychological support gives teachers assurances and a broader perspective on their
work. "Sometimes you are doing things and you are wondering if you are the crazy one.
You want assurances, I suppose, that you are no ." Support also helps teachers refocus or

look at their difficulties in a different way. "If I'm upset by something, they are

1 57
supportive in the sense of giving advice, making me see things in a more balanced

perspective. Calming me down. Just emotional support." Collegial relationships that
promote psychological support help teachers reduce frustrations, tensions and uncertainty
that is a part of their daily work.

Humor was important to psychological support. Humor gave an emotional
release. Teachers sought colleagues or joined collegial groups so they could engage in
humor.

Clayton is very supportive because he just is an emotional release for me. He can
come in here and we can laugh and boot and holler and he leaves in 20 minutes
and it is, you are not exactly ready for the next group, but it is certainly better than
sitting in here mulling over them and feeling sorry for yourself and feeling a little
bit of self-pity and all that. That last hour was awful...you know. He comes in
and says yeah my last hour was awful too and say well, maybe it's not me, maybe
it is something else.... So it is psychological help.

In both schools, teachers spoke of collegial groups that met for the purpose of engaging in
humor as emotional support. At LaSalle there was the Breakfast Club. They met on
payday Friday's for breakfast. "Sometimes more than that if we need the therapy, but it's
kind of a laugh and scratch session." The Breakfast Club was described as "mental
health... because you laugh and you can't take anything seriously..." There were regulars
in this group.

The ones you can depend on showing up. We have invited others but for one
reason or another, they haven't shown up. It's a group that's known each other for
a long time and it's a group you can trust and probably all have the same bitches.
For the most part they are serious about what they do and they're not just blowing
in the wind when they talk about education. They've been in the pit. They've
been in the trenches... [The conversation is] "pretty much a light breakfast type
conversation. It might be, well the big thing, if anybody gets their name in the
paper...It's to mock, like if you take yourself really seriously, you're going to get
eaten up. It has a tendency to humble you.

l 58
Another member of the Friday Breakfast Club stated, "It is therapeutic....lt is a big

catharsis for everybody. I mean we really lay it all out and come back refreshed."
Humor was also talked about as a way to reduce the tension and frustration that
occurred frequently.
There's a lot of joking going on. I think it's somewhat needed just to do with the
setting we're in and the problems we face so we joke about everything. There are
very few things that are sacrosanct -- that are not joked about. If you can't handle
being made a joke of occasionally, you don't belong in this building. Because, if

you can't laugh at yourself, you're in deep do-do here. Yeah, just part of everyday
sanity of surviving.

Networking

The term networking describes the second theme teachers discussed. Networking
is defined as gathering information about school issues and about colleagues' opinions on
issues, students, programs, school activities, department reports, etc. Teachers suggested
two purposes for networking.

First, networking allowed individuals to understand where peers stood on various
issues of importance to them. "...to get input on the pulse of how everything is effecting
them. How other things are effecting them. How they have adjusted." Through
networking teachers understood ”...the pulse of the school." Teachers gained an
understanding of peers and their views. "... They will be very candid. They'll say, well, I
don't think this will work and this type of thing. They'll give me their negative and
positive feedback and it gives me a chance to then decide whether or not I'm going to try
it." Dick stated, "I do bounce ideas off other people and I try to find out what they are

feeling and how they react to certain things, you know, to formulate my own opinions."

159
In other words, these teachers gained an understanding of peers and their views during

collegial interactions.

Networking allowed teachers to make decisions about the issues of the day. The
seven period day and the school-wide discipline program, for example, illustrate how
teachers came to understand the views of the various collegial groups through
networking. Raymond talked about the various groups that formed within LaSalle around
the seven period day plan.

You have groups of people who are like on the SIC, and you have people who

want to get something done, and you have some people who are, while they

support you but they don't want to put any time into it. Then you have people who
think we are foolish for putting our time into it because nothing may come out of

it... [and then there are those] who have, what I would consider to be a negative
attitude about what is going on.

Because teachers had to commit to this plan in writing, there was a great deal of
discussion. But discussion was difficult for teachers located in isolated areas of the
school. Simon, for example, was physically separated from the staff. "I'm kind of in a
remote area of the school." He stated,

I‘ve had no input from anybody. I don't know what the pulse of the school is. The

last meeting I went to when it came up...I was shocked to see the number of
people who were against it. And who the people were that were against it.

Thus, teachers seem to rely on collegial relationships as a way of understanding the issues
in the school and the opinions about the issues.

Second, teachers said that networking allowed them to make better decisions
about their work. In particular knowing about school wide programs, policies, and
general information appeared important. Teachers' work was made much easier when
they had knowledge of school events. For example, "I like to know what's going on in the

building. To be informed." Specifically, networking allows teachers to be prepared for

160
"what comes through the door" instead of being surprised. The more knowledge teachers

have about "the life of the school," the better prepared they are for making decisions that
impact their daily work.
Oh, to get, a feeling for what is going on in the building. Sometimes you get the
little insights on the fire drills or maybe what is going on with the new discipline

policy or the building improvement team or how is Johnnie doing in science,
math, English and social studies...

Statements concerning networking were basically general in nature. But they did
suggest the importance of having information. Donald, for example, said that networking
had a value to his work. It helped him be aware of what was happening.

Well, it is shop talk. I mean that's all it is is shop talk. It has a basic value in my

job. I mean I want to know what is going on. I want to know what is coming

around the comer before it gets here and you know, whether it deals with some

policies or whether it deals with a kid who is coming in half cocked or with a

problem and you know, I think basically it is self-serving the topics that we do
talk about.

A few teachers made statements that were more specific. These statements
concerned specific issues such as students or departmental meetings. For example,
Dwight talked about having a problem with a student who was normally good in his
classroom. After talking with another teacher about the student, he was considering
changing his mind about writing a referral.

I don't know, ah, if it pertains to a real serious discipline problem, they had it the

same day, hey, maybe a referral you didn't feel originally was necessary and

perhaps after talking with another individual, perhaps you should do a referral on
a person.

Two department chairs made statements indicating that department meetings were
a time to network. They talked of sharing information and giving colleagues time to
discuss issues. "As chair, I go over who is going to be in what things and who should be

there and if they need help and you know, how they're doing and all that sort of thing."

l 6 1
Ruby discussed how teachers were surveyed and given time to discuss issues of
importance to them.
And the last two meetings that I had, I put out a notice before the meeting asking
them if they had issues that they would like to address on the agenda, and these
two meetings ran like two horns each....But people gave me back these slips and
they want to talk about this and they want to talk about that, so whatever they

want to talk about I, you know, give them that part of the meeting that they can
address these things.

Mg

Sharing is the third theme related to the effects of collegial relationships on
teachers' work. Collegial relationships are developed based on sharing. Sharing is
defined as gathering knowledge that relates to classroom practice. The teachers in this
study reported that collegial sharing of information about what happened inside the
classroom and in student activities/clubs was important to their work. In fact, collegial
interactions that focused on professional information gathering were seen as a part of
teachers' work. "To become a professional you have to develop as an individual. Which
to do that takes you outside of your classroom, and then ultimately it comes back to
influence your classroom, OK." Thus, teachers who interact with colleagues about
classroom materials, common pacing, curriculum coordination, methods of instruction are
developing professional knowledge useful to their work in the classroom. Specifically,
teachers in this study said they engaged in sharing relationships because these
relationships made the work of teaching easier and furthered their professional
knowledge. "I hope that I use them [sharing ideas] to better myself and to try new and

different ways of working with the kids."

162
When teachers talked about making their work easier, they ofien referred to

contextual features affecting their work. Inside the classroom, teaching responsibilities
are made easier as teachers work together to locate new materials, share materials, and
develop common pacing systems. Preparing for three different courses daily and having
new students arrive at the classroom door hourly is made easier by sharing and
coordinating with peers. Consequently, contextual features of teaching common courses,
having to teach new courses each year or semester, and students were reasons given for
sharing with colleagues.

Teaching common courses, the first contextual feature, was discussed by three
different groups of teachers. These teachers said sharing materials and common pacing
helped to make their work easier and more successful. Clayton and Dex talked about
how they developed a collegial relationship based on sharing. Clayton states,

"I talked with Dex about what we're doing in [math] and basically how we were
going to split up the sections....We do that [talk] just about every day. It's just to
make sure that even though we know what the scope and sequence is and we
know basically what's on the horizon, it's good just to check because there are so
many interruptions around here that you just don't really know if that's indeed
what you did. I could be saying tomorrow in fourth hour I'm going to do this and
what happens is that everybody's been dragged out and brought some place else
and what happens with that... So it's good to check every day. That's what we
find and it's nice because we're both on the same floor and we usually get here
about the same time.

Dex described the scheduling change at semester and why it was important to have a
common course between the two teachers. He stated:

Well, basically this year Clayton Buckley took second semester [math] and so I
met with him. I told him how far I‘d been and in terms of pacing so we give the
test. We try and give the same test as well so there's more of a continuity. Same
exam so there's no excuses. Well, so and so said this. So and so didn't do that. It
just seems to make more sense.

1 63
New teacher assignments were given as the second reason for developing collegial

relationships with peers. Many of the uncertainties and difficulties in teaching an
unfamiliar course were reduced by developing common pacing, similar curricula, and
shared materials and ideas. Collegial relationships with peers in the department made
teaching less difficult. Working together and interacting about their work helped to make
what was done in the classroom more successful. As one teacher stated: "It helps me
analyze my own course of action. Two heads are better than one. That certainly helps. If
it is a matter of sharing teaching techniques it is useful."

Dex also talked about the continual change in course assignments that he
experienced over the past three years. During these years he taught in three different
departments. In each case, the assignment was given at the last minute and the course
was unfamiliar. In the year of this study, he taught in yet another department. Dex said,
"Dan teaches five hours of [a specific subject]. I teach one so therefore it was totally
senseless for me to try and develop a whole new program my first time through the
course." Instead, Dex used Dan's curriculum plans and adjusted them to his teaching
style.

Teachers also talked about sharing with new teachers who entered the building.

Rebecca Day when she first came in, I gave her all my ideas at the beginning of

the year. Rena Denton, when she came in I did exactly the same thing also. I

gave her ideas on what to use, what were successful and so forth. She had a

difficult time because the kids were not doing their work. But you know, it's just

the sharing of ideas and using them in the program and vice versa. I can take
some of their ideas and I‘ll continue it or try it with another subject.

The third contextual feature discussed by the teachers in this study was students.

Teachers in special programs worked closely in order to promote continuity and

164
consistency for students within their programs. Two examples of this are fiom the AP

program and the special education department.

Sunny Rogers, he's the one who also has the other 11th grade AP class. Uhm,
well, we had one of the same classes, and it's been the case now for a couple of
years and so we've gotten into the habit of going back and forth and kind of,
'where are you and I'm doing this and what are you doing' and then we work
arommd using the -- sharing some of the materials. To work that out together. We
talk about some of the assignments, some of the writing assignments and we will,
he shares his videos with me and if I have, I'm on the look out for like teacher
guides and aides for tmits that I know that he does. Then I pass them over to him
and we worked on the same kind of exam last time, uh we shared information that
last couple of times for the exam and so in effect we really wrote part of this exam
for the same course and felt that we had covered enough of the same things that
we could use that in a Which is kind of good to keep it on target.

I would say that we have regular meetings twice a month and then most
informally we'll sit after school and discuss. It's real important to communicate
constantly because we're all seeing the same students and so we're always making
decisions about behaviors, academics, skill center, those types of decisions that
we're all really involved in.

Learning was a reason suggested by teachers in this study for sharing even though
it was not a contextual feature. Specifically, learning through sharing ideas and materials
was useful to their work. Teachers talked about being curious about new ideas and
seeking out information that might help them. They engaged in collegial interactions to
develop knowledge and improve their work. "One of my personal goals is to be a better
teacher every year that I'm at it. So I'm always trying to pick up new stuff fiom
whomever."

I always want to see if there's something that I can do better. So I like to present

ideas. Maybe there's some way I can fine tune it or maybe I can say, give an idea

and someone says, well, that's neat but I tried it this way and get a new idea so
even though I think I'm pretty good at what I do, that doesn't mean that I've ever

reached the end because I‘m never going to do that. I can always be a little better
and that's a lot of why I talk and present ideas and get ideas.

Reaching out to colleagues for help apparently produced learning and professional

165
growth. Teachers spoke of seeking out information when someone was experimenting

with a new idea. Teachers were curious and wanted to "keep up" with what was going on
around them. Even if they did not use an idea, they at least had an understanding of what
was happening.

I'll go around and look at things that if I hear somebody is trying something out.
As least acknowledge it to myself and say this might be something I could use. I'll
pilfer any paper I can find that anybody is using. Any form or anything and I'll
adjust it to make it work for me....I'm doing it for my own selfish reasons in the
sense that I'm still waiting and I‘ll probably have to wait until I retire to have it all
together.

I refine my tests. I refine some lecture procedures. For instance, I might talk to
Clayton about something. Well, how do you present this or I wasn't too happy
with the way I presented it. Can you give me some suggestions on what you do?
That type of thing.

It might be if somebody would ask a question or need your help so you respond or
it's a reverse, I may need something or have something in mind, or it might just be

some observation or you're aware that somebody's doing something a certain way
so you check it out. Out of curiosity.

Implicit in this leaming-by-sharing is the theme of sharing discussed in Chapter IV.
When information is learned, teachers share it with their colleagues. "Well anything that
I get that I think will be helpful to my department, I go over it immediately. You know, at
least people become aware, if they all know it. That's fine if they want it OK....I don't just
keep it to myself as a secret." These teachers specifically said they share what they have
learned with their colleagues. They do not hold back information. They do what they
value -- they value sharing of knowledge and so they do it in practice.
I learn a lot and then I'm going to pass this stuff on, my notes and other materials
and things that I've learned, to the ninth grade teachers teaching world history....

so, you know, even though we are older and been around probably you might say
well we won't need anything else, but we do keep up with things.

1 66
[nylementation

 

Implementation is the fourth result of teachers' collegial relationships. Interview
statements suggested that teachers did use information they acquired from colleagues in
their work. Teachers implemented information for the purposes of experimenting with
their practice or for improving their work. However, in talking about implementation of
new ideas, most teachers made qualifying statements. Specifically, teachers appeared to
implement only what they decided was worth implementing.

Twenty-nine of the thirty-two teachers used qualifying statements when
discussing implementation. These qualifying statements suggested that teachers made
choices about what information was usefiJl. Their choices were based on a set of criteria.
"1 filter it through and use what would pertain to me and simply disregard the rest."

In this study, both general and specific criteria were found in the interviews.
General criteria were not explained in the interview. "I use as much as I can." "Pretty
much, I just take what I want and throw the rest of it out."

You do something with it or you chuck it. You get some information and

basically, the way it operates now, is you make an immediate response, "yes, I'm

going to use it", and you use it right away otherwise you're going to lose it or you

just can it. Mentally you put a note on it that it's not going to work right now.

The problem is that I'm at the point now if I do that then I'll forget it. Even if it

might be a good idea that I'm not going to use right now.

I use it when I can. Some of it I have to stifle...Well, some of it you know, it is
best to leave it where it came from and not to try and pursue it or to spread it.

Specific criteria for implementing new ideas included: 1) the idea matched a teacher's
values of collegiality; 2) the idea was consistent with past experience; 3) the idea had
been successfully implemented by others; 4) the idea met the needs of students; and 5) the

idea was worth experimenting with.

1 67
The match between a new idea and teachers' values of collegiality refers to the

values discussed in Chapter IV. For example, Delia stated that her personal philosophy
and personality were important criteria that she used when making decisions about
implementing new ideas.
I incorporate those things that I think fit in with my philosophy and with my
personality as a teacher. Some of the things take a more gregarious person than I
am. Some of the things take a totally different kind of person. I am what I am

and I have to do what will work for me within those limits, within those
parameters. I can't be another person.

Meeting personal needs and values appear important to Delia. She made decisions based
on personal views of her teaching style. She also established limits and parameters for
herself. Ruby also talked about making decisions based on personal values and needs.
Feeling comfortable with an approach was important to her.
It's a process. Well sometimes you can actually change what you do, or you can
supplement what you're doing. And sometimes you can figure, well a suggestion,

sometimes you might think that would work for that person but I don't know ifI
feel comfortable doing that process. You have to make some choices.

The second criterion suggested by teachers was past experience. Rodney White
said past experience helped him determine if the information would be useful in his work.
"...I'm not one that is ready to latch onto anything, because I've been through so many. I
know what would be valid. I've got a method to my madness in teaching, that I can
project consequences if I were to try this."

Seeing or hearing about other teacher's success with information was the third
criteria found in the interviews. Randy, for example, said that she heard about using F CA
(Focus Correction Areas) and tried them with her class. She also passed the information
on to another teacher who tried them also.

Usually I try to use it. When Sonny told me about his method, the next time we

168

wrote our F CA, I would say [to the class] we are going to try something new
today. Before the F CA were out and we [teacher talking to a third teacher] were
talking about that. I had told her, I said, I‘ve stopped trying to grade my papers for
everything. It is too hard. It is too time consuming and it makes me not want to
give writing assignments. So I pick out three or four things and that's what I'm
going to look for [FCA]. And she said well that sounds a lot easier, because these
stacks of papers are killing me. And she said she tried it. So I know that it does
get sometimes, the teachers will try those things.

Implicit in this statement is that teachers are looking for ways to make their work easier.
Randy, for example, talked about how time consuming and difficult it was to grade
writing assignments. Steve also talked about using information another teacher had
successfully implemented. His statement implies that there is a continual dialogue about
whether or not a new idea works for him. "If he tries something and it's successful, then
I will use it and if it's successful then I will get back to him and say that worked neat. I
like it or I'll make suggestions to him."

Meeting the needs of students was the fourth way teachers talked about criteria for
implementing new ideas in their work. In particular, teachers suggested that they take
students into account as they make implementation decisions. Such considerations were
especially evident with special education teachers. All special education teachers made
statements about taking students into account before implementing new ideas. "I usually
try to apply it...in my classroom. I may have to adapt it for my students, because you
know the learning styles are different and you know they are lower level." However,
gathering and implementing ideas is not solely the domain of special education teachers.
Many other teachers suggested that they continually interact with colleagues to find new
or different ideas based on student needs. Shane, for example, explained how be

implemented spot quizzes because his students were not completing homework.

169

For instance, Ralph gives these little spot quizzes and they consist of about five or
six questions and I thought well gee, I wasn't at the time getting that much success
as far as homework and getting good grades on homework and so I thought that
maybe if I substituted a couple of spot quizzes for a homework assignment, I'd cut
down on the homework assignments and the spot quizzes would take their place
as far as their grade in the grade book. And I thought it was a good idea, but it
didn't work... Well, it might have been my style, but it wasn't the kids' style
because they didn't get good grades on that either and they got worse grades.

Shane returned to his former instructional style shortly after implementing these spot
quizzes. As Shane said, it may have been something he liked, but the students did not
learn more. Thus, he placed his personal needs aside in order to adjust to student needs.

No matter what the criteria, teachers in this study suggested that they were always
looking for new information to help improve their work. These teachers suggested that
they engaged in collegial relationships "...mainly to find out what they are doing. How
they are doing it, if they've come up with something interesting that I might like to try."
The implication is that teachers are willing to experiment and turn to colleagues to gather
this information. "I'm willing to, you know, I think I'm enough of a teacher that I can sifi
out what I want to experiment with..."

Experimentation, another criterion for implementation, was used to reduce
repetition or improve work. Experimentation includes the use of different materials
and/or instructional approaches. Derek talked about experimenting with different
materials.

I never, I very seldom teach the course exactly the same way verbatim. I‘m always

trying to come up with something new, something different. A different way of

approaching, different type of thing. For example, what I also include for current

events, of course, with the Desert Storm. I use the Time, News Week, and U. S.

News and World Report. I would take excerpts out of there, run them off.

Students would then have to read them and react to them and any of our students,

my students that were in the US. History can't say they didn't know what Desert
Storm was about.

170
Teachers also talked about experimenting with different teaching strategies or approaches

to instruction. "If it is some particular method or technique that they've used in their
classroom and I can find a way to put it into my classroom, I usually do tha ." Teachers
are "on the lookout" for new "things" to implement which could be helpful to their work.
They continually seek information from colleagues that they experiment with in their
work. "1 adapted it [research method] and used it this year with my ninth graders. That's
one example of something that is something she had tried out and I used. I adapted her
book report project [also]..."

At LaSalle, the teachers were implementing a new writing program. They shared
information so colleagues could experiment with it also. Randy talked about how she
found the information to be most helpful in her work.

We were talking about [the writing] program. And he came in, he said I wanted
to tell you this because I think you would really appreciate it. He was working on
the checking of how the students peer check each other's paper and he says I think
I've got a new twist. Have the student who is doing the checking be a little more
responsible by doing the following. For each of the F CA, Focus Correction
Areas, if they for example, say that the student has an excellent topic sentence and
it turns out that there is no topic sentence at all, give them a minus one, because
obviously they were not really checking for a good topic sentence. Or that the
person used capitals appropriately and you find several places in there where
capitals were not used appropriately minus one point, so he gets points off of his
grade points, based on how well he checked the other person's paper. And so you
know, I thought well that sounds great, I'll try it...and then I told him the next day I
said we tried it and oh boy you should have seen them. They were hustling, and
looking for those things, including sentences and transitions and whatever.

Chapter Summag

In this chapter the relationship between professional collegiality and teachers'

work was discussed. Teachers' talk suggested four ways information received during

1 7 1
collegial relationships was useful to their work - for support, for networking, for sharing,

and for implementation. There were no differences between the two schools concerning
the usefulness of collegial relationships to work.

Collegial support was the first theme discussed by the teachers in this study.
They used support to reduce the stress, uncertainty, and the demands and intense nature of
the work. In other words, these teachers used support for emotional well-being.
Collegial support allowed the teachers to enter their work refreshed. Support was also
used to validate teaching practices and broaden perspectives on current important issues.

Networking was the second theme found in the interviews. Collegial relationships
based on networking were used to gather information about potential colleagues' views,
beliefs and values, and/or about specific school-wide factual information for coordination
purposes. These teachers used this information in making decisions. Clearly, networking
was used by the teachers in this study to be better informed and have a basis for making
decisions about a multitude of issues that they confronted daily.

Sharing was the third theme. Collegial relationships allowed teachers to share
their work. Sharing was used to reduce the complexity and uncertainty of teachers' work,
and to develop knowledge useful to their work. Therefore, sharing was useful in the work
of teachers because it addressed the continual change that these teachers encountered.
Changes included classroom interruptions, scheduling changes, mobility of students, and
the continual change in the professional knowledge and content knowledge teachers
needed for their work.

The fourth theme was implementation. Implementation was how these teachers

' talked of using collegial relationships in their work. Teachers implemented information

1 72
received during collegial relationships for the purpose of experimenting or improving

their work. However, the teachers in this study appear to implement only what they
decide is worthwhile. Thus, after receiving information, the teachers in this study used
criteria to judge the value of the information and make decisions as to its usefulness in
their work.

In conclusion, implicit in all teacher statements was the concept that information
gained from collegial relationships was not only useful, but used during work. However,
these teachers apparently used information because they wanted to. They sought out
knowledge because they wanted to be better teachers, help students learn more, or make
their work easier, less fi'ustrating, or less stressful. Hence, collegial relationships allowed
teachers to stay current on school happenings, improve themselves, develop consistency
across classrooms, and/or make better informed decisions about issues they continually
confronted. The results of this chapter, when combined with the findings from Chapters
IV and V, suggest that there is an extensive collegial culture in these schools. This

culture is further described in Chapter VII.

CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, REVIEW OF RECENT RESEARCH, DISCUSSION,

SYSTEM OF COLLEGIALITY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This chapter is divided into six sections. The first section gives a brief summary
of the study. The second section presents a brief review of recent research. The third
section discusses the study's findings. The fourth section describes the hypotheses
formulated from this study. The fifth section introduces conclusions regarding the
phenomenon of professional collegiality. The final section provides recommendations

for fiuther research on the phenomenon of professional collegial relationships.

Summm
This study was motivated by the idea that professional collegial arrangements are
a means of improving the effectiveness of schools and the quality of teaching. Recent
research suggests that engaging in serious collaboration based on mutual examination of
teaching and learning will equip schools for steady improvement of student learning,
teaching, and teacher education. Professional collegial relationships are also suggested
as a means for teachers to cope with the complex, non-routine work, that requires them

to adapt flexibly and quickly to varied and specific demands.

173

174
This research firrther suggests that there is currently very little professional

collegiality in public schools -- that teachers do not discuss their work and/or collaborate
to solve problems. But these findings occur because researchers have tended to use a
single definition of teacher professional collegiality. Missing from the research literature
is a broader understanding of what current professional collegial relationships look like,
what contextual features surround these relationships, and how these collegial
relationships are related to the work of teachers.

This study was designed to investigate the naturally occurring collegial
relationships found in two urban high schools. Several varied definitions of professional
collegiality were reviewed for elements important to understanding this phenomenon.
What distinguished this study from other studies was that no definition of collegiality
was imposed on the data. Instead, in this study, teachers were allowed to explain their
perceptions of the collegial phenomenon. It was reasoned that teachers do have
professional relationships that are complex in nature. Thus, this study described the
complexity of professional collegial relationships, the context that impacted the
relationships, and how relationships were useful to teachers' work.

The study sample included 36 teachers fi'om two secondary schools that were part
of a larger study on secondary schools. All sample teachers were participating in the
larger CRC study, and all volunteered to participate in this study.

The study used qualitative methodology. One semi-structured interview guide
was the main method of gathering data. The interview guide was developed by
reviewing relevant research, recalling personal knowledge and experience, and

' continually referring to the study's focus. Also used in this study were interview data

175
collected by the larger CRC secondary school study completed over a three year period.

Analysis was completed by use of Miles and Huberman (1981) analysis
procedures for qualitative research. Their procedure includes coding and category
development, data reduction, data displays and conclusion drawing/
verification.

Analysis of the phenomenon of teacher professional collegiality as found in this
study was specifically focused on three areas of interest: 1) teacher perceptions of
collegial relationships; 2) contextual features that influence relationships; and 3) how
information gained fiom collegial relationships is used in teachers' work. Differences

between the two schools in the study were also analyzed.

Review of Recent Reseagh

Before discussing this study's findings, a brief review of the current research
concerning the phenomenon of professional collegiality is in order. Since Chapter II was
written in 1990, research concerning the phenomenon of collegiality has continued to
develop. This brief review covers research from 1990 till 1995. Included in this review
of more recent research are two of the three literatures discussed in Chapter II -- the
organizational perspective, and the teacher work and teacher change perspective of
professional collegiality. The sociological perspective is not reviewed as that
perspective was a historical perspective in Chapter II.
Organizational Perspective on Collegiality

The organizational literature discussed in Chapter I] included the effective

' schools research and research on professionalization of the teaching profession. Both of

176
these literatures continue to suggest the importance of professional collegiality. Each is

briefly reviewed.

Effective schools research. The effective schools research continues to
emphasize the importance of a strong school culture based on the belief that all children
can learn. This culture is reinforced by the development of a shared vision and school
goals (Wohlstetter & Smyer, 1994). Collegiality and collaboration have become
important components of the effective schools research as they are the basis for the
development of the school culture (Peterson with Brietzke, 1994).

Most recently the effective schools literature has focused on schools as
communities. As such, the term is used to further the understanding of the school
culture. Sergiovanni (1994b) suggested that schools as communities connect people
based on commitment. "Communities are socially organized around relationships and
the felt interdependencies that nurture them (Sergiovanni, 1994b:217)." These
interdependencies bond people together and bind them to concepts, images, values,
goals, and visions of a shared idea. Collegiality in communities comes from emotional
and normative ties -- felt interdependencies and mutual obligation. As communities
reinforce the underlying school's cultural, collegiality is defined as teachers having a
shared vision and shared goals.

Jones and Ross (1994), on the other hand, defined collegiality in the effective
schools literature as teachers empowered to think creatively and learn new ways of
working. Teachers who work collegially, as decision makers and collaborators, make
improvements to the school's educational program that foster student learning.

' Furthermore, teachers empowered to work collegially in creative ways improve student

1 77
learning by sharing information about the uniform school vision and goals that are

created collaboratively by all staff.

Even though the effective schools research continues, reform agendas using this
research have not been successful. Crow (1994) suggested three reasons for varied
implementation of the effective schools research into practice, all of which focus on
professional collegiality. First, teacher collegial relationships are difficult to develop and
sustain because the common vision and goals are not clear cut and not acceptable to all
staff. Second, teachers don't work together because they perceive that their peers lack
expertise in making needed changes. Third, teacher stability is hard to maintain.
Consequently, professional collegiality based on the concept of community is difficult to
develop and maintain. In conclusion, the effective schools research recognizes the need
for professional collegiality by way of including professional communities as an
important characteristic to the development of shared vision and goals. But, the research
finds systemic change is difficult because of the emotional and normative aspects of the
professional collegiality phenomenon.

Professionalization of teaching. In reviewing recent literature concerning the
professionalization of teaching, two varying ideas have developed. First, as stated in
Chapter II, the professionalization literature continues to focus on school based
management (SBM) programs as a means of developing teacher professionalism (Ogawa
& White, 1994). The purpose of such programs is to develop a shared governance
system in which teachers engage in school wide participatory management. Recent
surveys suggest that approximately one-third of the nations school districts have some

‘ form of a SBM program (Ogawa & White, 1994). Program evaluations have been

l 78
difficult because SBM concepts and descriptions across schools are vague and

ambiguous. Furthermore, of the four elements of participatory management (power,
information, rewards, and knowledge and skills) only power seems to be emphasized --
but even power varies as to the involvement of the school district (Ogawa & White,
1994)

Research findings suggested that SBM programs did improve social and collegial
relationships for those interested in school governance, but there was little potential for
school improvement based on improving teaching and learning (Weiss, 1993). Fullan
and Miles (1992) suggested that SBM as a reform program rarely resulted in changes to
instructional skills or the school's culture. Thus, SBM programs have not entered into
the more rigorous and important work of improving student learning (Kruse, Louis &
Bryk, 1994; Mohrman & Wohlstetter, 1994). Mohrman and Wohlstetter (1994)
suggested that effective SBM programs should foster goals for the educational process
that include the establishment of a learning community where teachers are engaged in
knowledge building about teaching, learning, and curriculum.

Johnson and Boles (1994) suggested that SBM programs promoting the learning
community should focus on two of the other elements of decision making -- information,
and knowledge and skills. In so doing, the SBM programs would foster a professional
culture in which teacher discourse focuses on teaching and leaming and resulting
decisions would benefit students (Lieberman, 1988; Little, 1987; Rosenholtz, 1989). In
order for this to occur, SBM programs should include the creation of a professional
culture. This professional culture will move the SBM program further toward the school

' improvement that reformers suggest as being important. It is the reflecting on

179
knowledge that moves teachers toward collaborative inquiry -- learning and

experimentation with practice - that Little (1990) indicated is the foundation for
collegial relationships and the development of teacher professionalization. Thus,
programs that work to develop the professionalization of teaching through shared
governance must also work to create a school culture that fosters collegiality.

The fourth element, rewards, has not been a focus of SBM programs to date.
Efforts to initiate external rewards have met with resistance from various groups.
Intrinsic rewards as a result of involvement in SBM programs have been suggested, but
to gain these intrinsic rewards teachers need "more time for preparation, improved
curriculum, and additional staff developmen ” (Ogawa & White, 1994: 69).
Furthermore, to gain such rewards, there must be a decentralization of power,
information, and knowledge and skills. Consequently, these four elements are closely
linked and must include all four elements if professionalization of teaching is to be truly
effective.

The second idea found in the professionalization of teaching literature concerns
the concept of professional commrmities as a form of school culture. Sergiovanni (1992)
indicated that all schools have cultures but all schools are not communities. This
concept of professional communities has most recently been associated with school
organizations instead of the profession at large (Kruse & Louis, 1993). In using the
community metaphor attention is drawn to norms and beliefs of practice, collegial
relationships, shared goals, occasions for collaboration, and problems of mutual support

and obligation (McLaughlin, 1993).

l 80
Researchers studying professional communities suggested five elements are

necessary if schools are to be considered strong professional communities (Kruse, Louis,
& Bryk, 1994). These five elements include: 1) reflective dialogue; 2) de-privatization
of practice; 3) collective focus on student learning; 4) collaboration; and 5) shared norms
and values. In order for these elements to exist, several conditions were suggested as
necessary. These conditions were organized into two categories -— structural conditions
and human or social resources. The structural conditions included time to meet, physical
proximity, interdependent teaching roles (i.e., team teaching), communication structures,
and teacher empowerment and school autonomy (SBM). The human or social resource
conditions included Openness to improvement, trust and respect, supportive leadership,
and socialization.

The difficulty with creating these conditions is that people tend to focus on one
condition without the other. In so doing, they create barriers to the development of a
professional community (Sergiovanni, 1992). In other words, a professional community
does not result when only the structural conditions are developed or when only the
human social conditions are developed. Underpinning this discussion of professional
community is the concept of professional collegiality. Professional collegiality will not
develop when there is a focus on only the structural conditions because these conditions
do not increase attention to planning and consultation focused on learning,
experimentation, and trust. Because colleagues are a potentially important source of
work norms and sanctions, schools need to foster professional communities that
emphasize the social-normative dimension of professional practice along with the

' contextual features (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994).

1 81
Researchers who have recently completed studies on professional communities at

the high school level suggested three important findings (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994;
Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). First, school size and the diverse work of teachers were
difficulties that needed to be overcome (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994). Second, gender
composition of teachers appeared to be a significant factor in the development of
professional communities (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1994). Schools comprised mainly of
females were more likely to develop a stronger sense of community than schools that
were more evenly balanced. Third, multiple commrmities reinforced or competed for
teacher membership (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). Talbert and McLaughlin (1994)
"expect that strong teacher communities " fostering professionalism included a common
knowledge base, commitment to students learning, professional identities and
comnritrnents (p. 130). Findings in the CRC research suggested that teacher community
was strongly related to shared conceptions of teaching practice and to professional
commitment. Thus, collegial teachers develop relationships that focus on
interdependence as suggested by Little (1990).

In summary, the recent research and literature concerned with the
professionalization of teaching suggests that reorganizing schools for shared school
governance will not in itself be sufficient to professionalize teaching or improve student
learning. Reorganization programs need to focus on the normative aspects of the
professional community. Furthermore, school size, gender, and competing communities
are features that impact the development of and maintenance of professional

communities within schools.

l 82
Teacher Work_and Teacher Chgge Pergrectives of Collegialiy

Most recent research and literature concerning teacher work and teacher change
has developed three new themes. Each theme is discussed briefly.

Teacher work. The first theme discusses what teacher professional collegiality
includes and the criteria for the development of collegiality in schools. In discussing
teacher collegiality, Fullan and Hargreaves (1992) suggested there were different types of
teacher relationships found in schools. They suggested three forms of relationships that
were not collegial - balkanization, comfortable collaboration and contrived collegiality.
Balkanization concerns the separate and competing groups that seek power and influence
in schools for meeting their own needs. Comfortable collaboration is a form of restricted
collaboration that minimizes the deeper, extended relationships that foster problem-
solving, exchange of craft knowledge and professional support. In this form of
collaboration teachers do share materials, some instructional techniques and bits of
wisdom, but all forms of collegiality are focused on immediate short term issues.
Contrived collegiality is a formal bureaucratic procedure to increase joint work for the
purpose of planning, consultation, and working together. On the whole, contrived
collegiality rarely produces substantial and productive informal linkages (Peterson with
Brietzke, 1994).

The literature also gives further understanding to joint work collegiality, more
recently described as professional collegiality. Sergiovanni (1992) suggested that
teachers are professional colleagues when they are members of a community committed
to a common cause. Furthermore, collegial teachers have shared professional values,

' shared professional heritage and respect for colleagues. In other words, a community of

1 83
collegial teachers is based on norms and values that define the faculty as a community of

like minded teachers bonded to a common commitment. Macke (1994) suggested that
the bonding is based on respect, acceptance and support. Congeniality is not collegiality
in this description. Congeniality concerns friendly human relationships based on
interpersonal loyalty and affection, trust and easy conversation. Congeniality is found in
strong informal cultures that include social norms.

In this description of professional collegiality, there is an emphasis placed on
professional communities within the school's culture. Culture is described as the
structured reality consisting of beliefs, values, and norms that govern the worth of the
group and how the members should feel, think, and behave (Sergiovanni, 1992). Culture
in this respect represents the values that bind people together and provide a normative
basis for action and hold teachers accountable for the numerous tasks involved in
educating students (Grimmett & Crehan, 1992). These values are a deeper level of basic
assumptions and beliefs shared by organizational members. These assumptions operate
unconsciously and define the organization's view of itself and its environment (Schein,
1992). Therefore, teacher professional collegiality encompass deep, personal, and
enduring commitments to a professional community (F ullan, 1990). Or as Sergiovanni
(1992) suggested, they are the virtues of collegiality -- the fulfillment of an obligation
and the way one behaves collegially. What this means is that collegial fulfillment is the
right to expect help and support and the obligation to give help and support. Collegial
behavior concerns the proper professional attitude or orientation and not the behavior

towards other colleagues.

184
In extensive research completed by Johnson (1990), factors critical to the

development of collegial relationships were suggested. First, good teachers who were
committed, generous, open to change, eager to learn, and could see beyond private
successes and failures were a necessary factor. Second, also important were supportive
organizational norms based on sharing, cooperation and congeniality -- interpersonal
harmony was the norm. Third, there were reference groups to which members belonged.
In large high schools these groups were not the total stafi‘ but smaller groups of teachers.
Fourth, sufficient time was needed to develop trust and respect. Fifth, encouraging and
accommodating administrators who promoted teacher leadership, encouraged exchange
of ideas and fostered teachers working together were also necessary.

Furthermore, Johnson (1990) indicated that teachers had a role in the
development of collaborative cultures because they were the ones who constituted and
created the context of collegiality. But even when teacher attitudes and virtues were
conducive to collegial cultures, structural barriers needed to be addressed. These
structural barriers included time to interact, poorly designed schedules, randomly
assigned rooms, and absence of meaningful sub-units in the school. Furthermore, to
sustain collegial relationships, Dorsch (1994) suggested shared interest, democratic
process of deliberation and critique, commitment to colleagues, and
information/communication structures were required.

Teacher change literature. The second theme found in this literature concerns the
question of researching professional collegiality in the workplace. Recently, researchers
have called into question the negative versus optimistic view surrounding the norm of

' privatizm and norm of collegiality (Little, 1992). These researchers suggest that teacher

185
prerogatives are an important aspect to the study of why teachers remain independent

and individualistic. The consequence of this re-evaluation is that "privacy" and
"community" may not be an either/or condition but a fluid, dynamic, and situationally
specific condition which needs to be better understood.

Two prominent researchers suggested very different ideas about teacher
privatizm. Huberman (1993) argued that teachers are independent artisans. Therefore,
organizations need to make the best use of the inevitable independence found in teaching
by creating smaller community units of colleagues. In Huberman's model, the question
of civic purpose, one reason we have schools, was not addressed (Little, 1992). On the
other hand, Hargreaves' (1993) study of teacher planning time suggested that there was a
difference between individualism and individuality (i.e., independence). In fact, he
distinguished between the destructive forms of individualism and the constructive forms
of individuality. Two forms of individuality, Hargreaves (1993) argued, were considered
deliberate strategies teachers used to preserve and extend control over their work. These
two forms included "strategic individualism" and "elective individualism". Strategic
individualism concerned the ways teachers buffer the complex demands of their work by
limiting interruptions and intrusions. Elective individualism focused on the individual
prerogatives teachers preserved so they could fulfill their conception of the ethic of
caring and responsibility toward students. In other words, teachers chose individualism
and only entered into associations with other teachers based on personal beliefs and
values about the work of teaching and whether associations with other teachers
supported or detracted from that work. Opportunity for association was necessary but

not the only condition necessary for interaction. Beliefs and values concerning teachers'

1 86
working relationships also guided interactions within the available opportunities

(Hargreaves, 1993; Smylie, 1992).

These challenges to the "unrelievedly negative stance toward teachers' privacy"
refocus and broaden the possibilities for understanding why teachers exercise
independence and individuality in their work (Little, 1992:161). Little suggested that
future research should take into account the situational variables that teachers describe as
ways to accormt for their actions as individuals and as part of a community. Teachers'
own words and actions could help to develop an understanding of the distinction
between individualism and community. In completing such research, there needs to be
further examination of community to better understand the formation of the group.

"Consciousness of Kind” is how Little (1992) explained the existence of
community in schools. This consciousness of kind is at the heart of community and is
expressed in how the members recognize one another, the social limits they place on
each other, and situational factors each member perceives that indicate a common
identity. Communities may be anticipated by creating boundaries and giving meaning to
group membership but not fully understood by use of the nominal labels currently
applied. Little (1992) suggested that further examination using different labels may be
helpful. In other words, examine data for teacher talk that suggests the varied reference
groups teachers acknowledge and enter. These groups may form around aspects of
teaching such as students, instructional assignments, departments, or specialized subject.
Or, they may form around other conditions found in the context of the school. In any
case, research should look for features that help to explain the conditions of

‘ independence and community found among teachers, groups, and schools. In this way,

1 87
the phenomenon of professional collegiality can be better understood.

At the high school level, departments are one such group that has most recently
been suggested as one way to understand community and professional collegiality.
Interestingly, departments have not been a major factor in former research on high
schools but they are the most prominent domain of potential interdependence among
high school teachers (Little, 1992; Siskin, 1991; Talbert, 1993). Departments as
communities are defined not as groups of teachers but subject specialists who share
specialized language and knowledge. Departments have been found to be subcultures
within schools that bring to the schoolwide culture varied perspectives on the work of
teaching (Inger, 1993; McLaughlin, 1993; Siskin, 1991; Talbert, 1993).

Research studies focused on departments as communities described varied
differences concerning collegial relationships among departments within the same school
(Little, 1993; Siskin, 1991; Talbert, 1993). The nature of collegial relationships in these
up close professional communities were critical to how teachers thought about their
practice (McLaughlin, 1993). Teachers in the same school but in different departments
developed different responses to similar students dependent on the character of the
collegial environment found in the department (McLaughlin, 1993). Highly collegial
departments had an expressed conception of what the department was all about -- a
vision - and how that conception impacted the work of individual teachers. These
highly collegial and collaborative departments were more than supportive social
communities in that they had developed norms of innovation and learning (McLaughlin,
1993). The result was that having a strong professional community was not enough to

' develop a learning community. Reflection, feedback, problem-solving, and democratic

188
decision making were necessary so the community did not stagnated (McLaughlin,

1993). Inger (1993) also suggested that department affiliated communities limited the
pursuit of new curricular and organizational arrangements because the members had
scant opportunities or reason to engage in meaningful collaboration with teachers in
other departments. In conclusion, professional collegiality and individualism in
departments have recently been suggested as one way to better understand the varied
communities found in high schools and the impact these commrmities have on the work
of teachers.

However, to study the phenomenon of professional collegiality by dwelling on
closed classroom doors and boundaries of the department may not be most productive
(Little, 1992). Collegial exchanges are frequent and varying, and teachers may belong to
multiple reference groups simultaneously. Consequently, researchers need to look for
affiliations as they arise in teachers' talk to account for the complexity found in the daily
lives of teachers as they partake in individualism and communities. This emphasis on
the informal nature of teacher professional interactions is important because to date
research concerned with the daily lives of teachers and informal collegiality continues to
be sparse (Bainer & Didham, 1993). Much of the research concerned with professional
collegiality is found within staff development programs or school improvement
programs (Bainer & Didham, 1993; Joyce, 1990).

Contextual features. The third theme in this literature concerns contextual
features important for the development of community within schools. The first
contextual feature focuses on time and the use of time. Raywid (1993) and Sidler (1993)

indicated that time was a necessary factor for collaboration to take place. Poorly

1 89
designed schedules left little time to collaborate (Johnson, 1990). Hargreaves (1992)

agreed but indicated that more time does not necessarily enhance the processes of
association, community, or collegiality. There also must be a commitment to
collaborative work on the part of teachers. The commitment may be found in programs
or agendas which bring groups of people together.

The focus on programs is the second contextual feature discussed in the
literature. Collegial relationships may develop as programs or agendas are initiated but
only if teacher involvement fosters collegial interactions in which there is an exchange of
ideas, debate over issues and techniques, or shared experimentation. In other words,
community and collegial relationships may arise when teachers identify a group as a
source of change or improvement, a source of help to learn the craft of teaching, a source
for developing a shared technical language and deepening their understanding of subject
matter and/or pedagogy within a respectful, trusting, environment. But entry into these
groups and the development of collegial relationships must be voluntary (Krovetz &
Cohick, 1993). Teachers need to be able to choose who to work with and what to work
on. Current research on teacher change using stafi development programs and/or school
improvement programs reiterates what was stated in Chapter II and most successfully
argued by Little (1982, 1990). Teacher collegial talk is an important component of
leaming and making fundamental change to instruction (Dorsch, 1994; Ellis, 1993;
Joyce, 1990; Krovetz & Cohick, 1993; Macke, 1994; Sidler, 1993).

However, collegial relationships can not be forced on teachers by way of
programs or other invented means. Professional collegial relationships are no different

from personal relationships. People "tend to want to, and do, take a more active role in .

190
deciding the purpose, nature, and duration of the relationship" (Cole, 1992:378). Every

relationship is exclusive and rests on individualization. Attention to programmed
prescriptions will not create the most conducive environment for professional collegial
relationships - attention to the school context and culture will. In other words, programs
used as a managerial tool to develop collegiality and cooperation will most likely lead to
teacher rejection or neutralization of the program (Smyth, 1991). Furthermore, as
already suggested, in large schools especially large high schools, program agendas that
focus on developing a school wide collegial environment may not be possible. Teachers
are citizens whose work is idiosyncratic in nature. They have difficulty buying into
broad general visions and missions. A better approach is to develop smaller
communities of colleagues who share some part of the larger school culture and can
make contributions based on their beliefs and values (Huberman, 1993).

To summarize, the teacher work and teacher change literature suggests there are
varied forms of professional communities. Three of these forms do not lead to change or
innovation that are suggested as necessary if student learning is to result. The fourth
form, learning communities, focuses on teacher professional collegiality and gives
further meaning to the conceptualization of professional collegiality. Second, this
literature has reevaluated the dichotomy of individuality and community. The result is
that researchers concerned with teacher professional collegiality need to better
understand why teachers enter varied reference groups. Third, contextual features of
time and programs were reviewed to understand why reforms have not been successful in

creating change in schools.

191
In conclusion, this brief literature review suggests that schools are home to

multiple and sometimes competing or conflicting cultures. Smaller microclimates seem
to replace the school as the most meaningful arena for change, especially in secondary
schools. Reforms should not focus on formal, structural or material aspects of the
workplace, but attend to: 1) the situated norms, beliefs, and values the staff places on
practice; 2) the priorities expressed by the teachers and students; and 3) the problems of
mutual support and obligation. Reforms can not manage or command what happens in
schools, but they can cultivate and support values and beliefs compatible with successful
school environments such that learning communities develop (Little & McLaughlin,

1993).

Discussion

In summarizing this study's findings, 3 discussion of the three main areas of
interest is completed. In this discussion, similarities and differences in this studies'
findings are related to former research concerning teacher collegial relationships.
Igachers' Perception of Colleg'aLlity

The first area of interest in this study was to explore teachers' perceptions about
the phenomenon of collegiality. The findings suggested that these teachers have
cultivated a complex culture of collegiality within which collegial relationships develop.
The complexity results from the ways teachers developed perceptions about the collegial
culture in the school and incorporate personal values, beliefs, and attitudes when making
decisions about potential colleagues available in the environment. Even though each

individual teacher had personalized a set of values about collegiality, all teachers in the

192
study appeared to agree on certain basic points about the culture of collegiality. Three

important concepts emerged from data analysis concerning teacher perceptions of the
professional collegial culture.

First, the culture of collegiality incorporated the value of independence and
interdependence. These values were complementary rather than conflicting. In this
sample group, independence referred to norms of privacy and individuality as related to
the practice of teaching, while interdependence referred to norms of support, continuity,
and sharing which were external to classroom practice. These values were not strict
guidelines, but rather flexible concepts used when making decisions about potential
colleagues. Thus, each individual teacher made decisions about the amount of
independence or interdependence they valued at any given time.

The second concept important to the culture of collegiality was the etiquette of
collegiality found in the school's collegial culture. This etiquette of collegiality was a
flexible unwritten code of conduct that reinforced the values of collegiality. Specifically,
the etiquette of collegiality suggested by the teachers in this study was composed of four
standards of propriety used during collegial relationships. The respond/do not initiate
standard was useful as a way of being there for others but not overstepping the bounds of
independence. The honor competence/avoid criticism standard reinforced the value of
independence. The courtesy standard referred to treating others fairly and as equals. The
humor standard described the need for laughter but not at another teachers expense.

Each teacher used qualifiers to explain personal use of these etiquette standards. But
there were limits to the personal interpretations of the standards. prersons did not

adhere to some semblance of the standards, they were removed from the collegial group.

193
The third concept concerning teacher perceptions of collegiality was that

individual teachers had a set of characteristics for colleagues that they used to make
decisions about potential colleagues. In this study, four characteristics were salient to
teachers. These characteristics included: 1) cognitive knowledge; 2) affective features;
3) relationships beyond the school; and 4) demographic characteristics. Teachers looked
for peers who had valued knowledge and similar views, who they could trust and respect,
and who were of the same gender, race, and age, and who might be fiiends beyond the
school. Teachers rarely entered collegial relationships beyond the school. Instead,
shared fate and daily contacts were important to these teachers as they sought colleagues.
The difficulty was that development and use of peer characteristics could be limiting.
Teachers who found one or more of these important characteristics not available within
the school located colleagues beyond the school. These teachers suggested that
specialized course knowledge, and/or personal interests were reasons for developing
collegial relationships external to the school. Mobility and stability also reduced
development of collegial relationships based on peer characteristics. Teachers who
moved between departments and schools found it difficult to develop trusting
relationships and learn about peers' views and knowledge. However, for the most part,
teacher professional collegial relationships remained inside the school.

These findings suggest that the teachers in this study have a complex perception
of the phenomenon of teacher collegiality. First, these teachers value collegial
relationships that focus on coordination, sharing, and support but not classroom practice.
This finding is consistent with former research. Johnson (1990) found that "teachers

viewed collegial interactions as an essential component of their wor " (p. 155) and their

194
interactions were based on sharing, coordinating and supporting each other.

Second, as in the larger CRC study and also former research, the value of
independence (norm of privacy in former research) is used as a means of privatizing
classroom practices (Huberman, 1993; Little, 1990; Lortie, 1975; McLaughlin, 1993;
Rosenholtz, 1989; Zahorik, 1987). However, this study does not see the value of
independence as being iniquitous. But, as Hargreaves (1993) suggested, the value of
independence as found in this study brings to light aspects of independence that help
explain its continued persistence in school organizations. Specifically, in this study, the
concept of independence is unpacked to understand its meaning and function in the
pursuit of collegial relationships. As in Hargreaves' (1993) study, the teachers in this
study described the value of independence to mean autonomy, control, ownership, the
right to make personal decisions and judgments, and to exercise personal decisions,
initiatives and creativity. These teachers valued individual autonomy and had difficulty
in shifting to collective autonomy. Basically, the values of collegiality found in this
study are an adaptive strategy self-imposed by teachers to protect personal needs. Thus,
this study supports recent research by Hargreaves (1993) in which he talks about the
defensible choice and a preferred way of being and working as reasons for having the
value of independence.

Third, these teachers have a set of etiquette standards to help guide and give
boundaries to collegial relationships. This finding is relatively uncharted in the larger
CRC research and also former research on the phenomenon of collegiality. There are
instances where two of the four etiquette of collegial standards are briefly mentioned in

literature focused on help-giving. These discussions focus on conditions that affect

1 95
collegial interactions. For example, Huberman (1993) stated that "unsolicited offers of
advice or technical assistance are widely interpreted as an expression of arrogance"
(p.29) - which speaks to the respond/do not initiate standard formd in this study. Little
(1990) stated that psychological and social costs -- sense of competence, status, and
obligations incurred - were conditions contemplated when making choices about
seeking help or giving help. These "costs" relate to the honor competence/avoid
criticism standard found in this study. Furthermore, the sociological literature in
describing the norm of professional standard discusses honoring competence (Wilensky,
1964). Much of the literature directed toward the phenomenon of collegiality talks about
norms of collegiality, norms of collective responsibility, norms of personalization, norms
of support for collaboration, etc., but these discussions only state that they need to be
present. Talbert (1993) specifically addressed school norms and structures that give
support to collegial relationships, but specific etiquette of collegiality standards were not
a part of the description of a highly collegial school. Thus, the concept that teachers
develop an etiquette of collegiality gives further insight into the understanding of the
phenomenon of collegiality.

Fourth, the teachers in this study personally developed a set of peer
characteristics they felt were important when making choices about potential colleagues.
Only some of these characteristics are discussed in former research. This study, like
former research found that teachers turn to colleagues who have similar knowledge or
knowledge they desired even if they had to go beyond the school to find it (Johnson,
1990, 1990a; Rosenholtz, 1989; Talbert, 1993; Zahorik, 1987). But mostly, like in

J ohnson's (1990) study, teachers found colleagues within the school. The peer

196
characteristics of affective features and fiiendships have also been found in former

research (Huberman, 1993; Johnson, 1990; Little, 1993). In this study, teachers turned to
peers they trusted who had similar personalities and philosophies (Huberman, 1993;
Johnson, 1990; Little, 1987). Research is relatively silent where demographic
characteristics are concerned. Basically, some characteristics have been briefly described
but have not been researched extensively as a factor of professional collegial
relationships. For example, Cole (1992), in talking about a beginning teacher, indicated
that collegial relationships formed around similar age, personality, experience and
teaching assignments. Little (1993) indicated that department cohesion is weakened
when there are itinerant teachers or teachers are removed. The one exception is gender
as a demographic characteristic. Kruse, Louis, and Bryk (1994) talk about gender
differences in relationship to the development of professional collegial communities.
Outside of these relatively few references, former research on the phenomenon of
collegiality is silent about ethnicity, professional organizations, staff stability and
mobility.

In conclusion, some of the findings in this study concerning teachers' perceptions
of collegiality support former research and the larger CRC study, while other findings
especially the concept of using the values of collegiality, etiquette of collegiality and
other peer characteristics for making decisions are undocumented and give a new
perspective to understand the complexity of collegial relationships.

ContextuTal Ffltgrfi
A second area of interest to this study was the question of how collegial

relationships were affected by the general environment of the school. In this study, the

1 97
analysis of data suggested three factors related to the development and maintenance of

collegial relationships. These were the issues around which teachers interacted, the
forms of collegial relationships, and other contextual features of the school.

5%. Issues are what bring collegial groups together. Four specific points
concerning issues emerged in this study. First, issues were topics of conversation both
individually and contextually developed. In other words, individual teachers entered
collegial relationships because they had an important issue or an issue emerged fi'om the
school context that they formd interesting. Second, each teacher decided to enter
collegial relationships based on a personal need to become involved in a specific issue.
In this way, issues were self-serving. Third, because issues more or less impacted
teachers' work, teachers engaged in multiple issues simultaneously. Specifically, most
issues discussed were connected to clients and/or reduction of teacher independence,
both of which impacted how teachers went about work. But these teachers also indicated
that there were issues that were ofl‘ limits and not discussed. These included policies
surrounding work conditions, or other teachers' independent work. Fourth, issues and
collegial groups changed over time. Issues wax and wane based on group interest and/or
ability to attain a solution.

E_o_rr_ns_. In addition to issues, forms of collegiality guided teacher interactions
during collegial relationships. Through analysis two points became evident. First, seven
forms of collegiality were used by these teachers. To the five forms reported in previous
research, this study adds the collegial forms of networking and organization. A
continuum was developed that classified these seven forms as more or less

interdependent. The analysis showed how these forms reinforced and maintained the

198
values and etiquette of collegiality. No matter what form of collegiality was used,

maintenance of values and etiquette were required.

Second, all teachers in this study participated in all forms that were independent,
such as support, story telling and networking. Fewer teachers engaged in more
interdependent forms, such as sharing, organization and joint work. All teachers
engaged in multiple forms of collegiality simultaneously with multiple groups of
colleagues. Collegial groups using more independent forms usually had larger
membership while groups using more interdependent forms had smaller membership.
Furthermore, teachers engaged in multiple groups when the forms were more
independent, but engaged in one group where the forms were more interdependent.
Thus, there was overlapping membership in independent forms and virtually no
overlapping of membership in more interdependent forms. Finally, within any one
collegial group, multiple forms of collegiality were used. The number of different forms
of collegiality used during collegial relationships depended on the focus of the group --
groups focused more on joint work might use all seven forms, but groups focused on
support did not venture too far toward interdependent forms.

Other contextual features. The analysis also suggests that three characteristics of
the general school environment are related to teacher professional collegiality. These
include organizational arrangements, school governance, and clients.

Within organizational arrangements, three attributes were salient in interview
data. First, scheduling or time directly affected professional collegial relationships. The
main times for collegial interactions were found to be passing time and lunch time.

Thus, class schedules directly related to who was available, when, and where. Second,

199
room assignments affected collegial relationships. During passing time, teachers talked

with persons who were in close proximity, whether they were departrnentally arranged or
randomly assigned. In this study, proximity was an important source of collegiality.
Third, the building's physical structure affected collegial relationships. Being able to get
to various areas of the building allowed for relationships to develop over space.

Teachers who were removed from the general building traffic found development of
collegial relationships more difficult.

The second characteristic of the general school environment was school
governance. Two findings appear relevant to teacher collegial relationships in this area.
First, teachers implemented policies that met personal needs or implemented policies
loosely so the value of independence was maintained. Second, policy development did
not impact collegial relationships. In these schools, the flattened organizational structure
allowed teachers to have a voice in policy development. The school improvement
council (SIC) was supposed to help cultivate community collegiality by embracing
organizational mission, goals and values, but findings in this study suggested otherwise.
No shared mission or goals were found. Furthermore, SIC was unable to establish
policies due to lack of support. from administration and staff. Thus, teachers had
difficulty taking governance into their own hands and creating a school wide collegial
group. These teachers perceived that this externally developed program had little to no
effect on collegial relationships. In fact, they suggested that it was divisive. Thus, these
teachers maintained collegial relationships in spite of the SICs.

The third characteristic of the general school environment is students. Findings

in this study suggested that students had little impact on collegial relationships. The only

200
collegial groups that formed around students included teachers who had a personal need

to work with a colleague about a specific group of students. Student mobility and special
programs appeared to be the only reasons for developing collegial relationships based on
students. Consequently, even though students were a topic of conversation, they did not
seem to be the reason for the development of most collegial relationships.

In summary, issues brought these teachers together. The issues were self-serving,
multiple in number, and continually changing. These findings support former research
on collegial groups (Bolin & Falk, 1987; Huberman, 1993; Little, 1990; Lortie, 1975;
Rosenholtz, 1989; Zahorik, 1987). And, like former research, "collegiality stopped at the
classroom door" (Zahorik, 1987:391). Collegial relationships in this study rarely
included the practice of teaching, or other issues deemed off limits because they would
cause conflict among group members. Thus the ascription provided by Little (1987) that
collegial relationships are "fragile" was found in this study.

Second, this study started analysis of data by using the five forms of collegiality
described by Little (1990) but soon added two new forms to give further delineation to
the independent/ interdependent continuum that has been suggested as important to
understanding the demands on autonomy and initiative. This study supported Little's
(1990) theory that the values and etiquette of collegiality reinforce the various forms of
collegiality and that teachers use multiple forms of collegiality with multiple groups of
colleagues for multiple purposes (Little, 1990; Rosenholtz, 1989; Talbert, 1993; Zahorik,
1987). Furthermore, as in Johnson's (1990) study, membership to groups varied
dependent on the form of collegiality in use and the purpose for the group. Fullan and

Hargreaves' (1991) conception of varied communities based on purpose was also found

201
in this study. In fact, all four types of teacher relationships occurred simultaneously and

not individually as suggested by F ullan and Hargreaves. The most prevalent were the
non-collegial relationships of balkanization, comfortable collaboration and contrived
collegiality. But there was also the rare case of a community working toward
professional collegiality - the polytechnique group. F ullan and Hargreaves' types of
community relationships seemed to relate to Little's (1990) forms of collegiality. The
result was a different approach to understanding the continuum from least interdependent
to more interdependent. Thus, in looking at the interactions, Fullan and Hargreaves
(1991) suggested different meanings to the interactions that occurred.

Last, contextual features affected collegial relationships. The organizational
arrangements of time and location found in this study are well documented in former
research and the larger CRC study (Johnson, 1990; Little, 1987; Lortie, 1975;
McLaughlin, 1993; Talbert, 1993). But this study deviated from the larger CRC work in
that teachers in this study suggested that proximity was important to collegial
relationships (McLaughlin, 1993). The teachers in this study did not talk as much about
departments as the focal group for collegial relationships. But as Little (1992) suggested,
this study looked at all relevant groups. Possible reasons for the lack of departmental
groups in this study could be: 1) teachers were not arranged by department in one of the
schools; 2) teacher relationships were based on special programs; or 3) teachers in this
study described relevant groups due to how research questions were worded.

This study's findings concerning school governance are supported by the larger
CRC work on school contexts (Huberman, 1993; Little, 1990; Little & McLaughlin,

1993). Specifically, in this study, the school-wide improvement program had little to no

202
impact on teacher collegial relationships. Ifanything, the impact helped create collegial

groups working against the larger school-wide program. The most recent policy
discussions on developing collegial relationships in schools suggest that school level
collegial communities may not create the necessary conditions for developing collegial
communities focused on the practice of teaching, especially at the high school level
(Huberman, 1993; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; Smyth, 1991). Little (1990), citing a
particular study, stated: "The conditions and demands of specially constructed teacher
collaborations may conflict with psychological orientations of teachers, the taken-for-
granted social order of the school, and the customary norm of interaction within teachers'
natural reference groups" (p. 530). This could very well be happening in these two
schools.

Also, this study's findings concerning students as a contextual feature, is
supported by the larger CRC research. Like the larger CRC study, "students were the
basic referents as teachers talked about their schools" (McLaughlin, 1993:81). The
findings in this study are consistent with other research that suggest teachers most often
engage in collegial relationships not because of students, but "because they teach the
same subject matter or the same age groups or work in the same kinds of neighborhoods
...[or] they are intrinsically interested in the tools that others have come up with in
settings like their own" (Hargreaves, 1993246).

The Refilationship of Collegi_ality to Teachers' Work

The third research question in this study was the association of teacher collegial

relationships to teachers' work. Findings in this study indicate that teachers used

information acquired in collegial relationships in their work. This information included

203
developing support, gathering information about peers and the school context, and

sharing ideas, materials and knowledge. Furthermore, teachers used information to
experiment and change their teaching practice. But before implementing information,
these teachers indicated that they made choices as to what information was useful.
Specifically, the teachers in this study used qualifying statements when talking about
what information was used in practice.

The decisions teachers made were based on their values and beliefs of
independence. Five reasons for use of information found in this study suggest a focus on
meeting self-interests and personal needs. First, collegial relationships reduced the
intensity of teachers' .work. By engaging in collegial relationships teachers were able to
reduce stress and tension they encounter daily. Second, collegial relationships reduced
the uncertainties of the work. These relationships created stability within a profession
that continually changes. Third, collegial relationships reduced the complexity of
teachers' work. This complexity involves the continual decision making process in
which teachers are engaged. Gaining knowledge through networking allowed these
teachers to be prepared for future decisions. Fourth, collegial relationships helped to
increase the success of work. Teachers who shared materials, ideas, and information
were better able to meet the needs of their students and thus feel success. Fifth, collegial
relationships allowed these teachers to learn and engage in professional growth.

In summary, the teachers in this study stated that they used knowledge acquired
during collegial interactions in their work. Former research concerning collegial
relationships does not deny the existence of information use based on collegial

interactions. The research, however, indicates that the information received is "less

204
concentrated and less consequential then teachers would require to reinvent their work

and their workplaces" (Little, 1993:161). This study is consistent with former research
in that the relationships described in this study, for the most part, constituted relatively
weak influence on changing these teachers' practices. Specifically in this study, as in
most former research on professional collegiality, the collegial relationships are less
concentrated and less consequential to the practice of teaching, but they did influence
teachers. Basically, these teachers sought out colleagues for personal needs and self-
interest or as Huberman (1993) stated:

the lure of community of peers is probably related to the sense of isolation, and of

creeping infantilism in the classroom, to the support sorely needed in times of

real difficulty, to the availability of other minds in moments of uncertainty, or to
the pleasures of working for at least part of the time with fellow adults on

projects of common and abiding interest. (p. 11)

In that these teachers sought help in the areas of support, sharing, and
networking, this study supports former research that found these same areas (Johnson,
1990; Little, 1990, 1993; Zahorik, 1987). Furthermore, these teachers spoke of
experimenting with the information only after they made decisions on the worth of the
information. Former research in staff development suggests that teachers do not make
changes readily unless the changes make sense to them (Gusky, 1986; Heckman, 1987).
Thus, the teachers in these schools learn their craft largely by themselves, by seeking
information they need or want, and experimenting with their practice individually in their
classroom (Glidewell, Tucker, Todt, & Cox, 1983; Lortie, 1975; Pellegrin, 1976;

Rosenholtz, 1989; Little, 1984).

205
Differences Between the Sites

Analysis was also conducted to identify differences between the two schools.
Two differences were formd. First, there was a difl‘erence between the schools as to how
networking occurred. Freedom to make ones' thoughts known was important to the
development of collegial relationships. There was more freedom at Monroe than at
LaSalle. At Monroe, teachers spoke their opinions freely and let everyone know what
they were thinking. At LaSalle, teachers relied on small group networking to make their
opinions and ideas known among the staff. Reasons suggested for this difference
concerned classroom assignments, size of the school, and the implementation of the
collegial culture. In all past research concerning the phenomenon of collegiality where
multiple schools have been studied, difl‘erences have been found as to the congeniality of
staffs (Johnson, 1990; Little, 1982; McLaughlin, 1993; Rosenholtz, 1989; Zahorik,
1987). Most discussions have focused on the school norms of privacy versus collegiality
and not on networking of collegial information.

A second difference was the number of joint work groups found in the schools.
There were more groups focused on joint work at LaSalle than Monroe. The main
reason for this was that smaller collegial groups with similar personal needs had taken
the initiative to collaboratively develop programs that focus on a specific approach to
instruction or a group of students. Findings in the larger CRC study, confirm variances
between departments across schools in which collegial relationships are more or less

focused on classroom practice (McLaughlin, 1993).

206
Summa_ry

In conclusion, the findings fiom this study suggest that collegiality is a complex
phenomenon that includes a wide variety of relationships focused on multiple
professional matters. The flexibility of the phenomenon allows some collegial
relationships to be merely supportive in nature, while others are more "soul bearing" in
terms of focusing on the practice of teaching and the work that takes place behind closed
doors. Having daily contact is important because it enables teachers to build trust,
understand one another's beliefs, values, dispositions, etc., and have a shared fate.
Teachers enter into collegial relationships based on decisions they make concerning who
they approach, what they approach them about, and how they will interact. To make
these decisions, teachers use information that is both individually developed and
developed in the environment. Teachers feel that collegial relationships are useful in
their work because they reduce the intensity, uncertainty, and complexity of the work
while increasing success and learning.

The results of this study concur with former studies on the phenomenon of
collegial relationships. What this study brings to the continuing discussion about teacher
workplace collegiality are three ideas. First, this study unpacks the collegial culture
found in two schools and suggests a set of etiquette of collegiality standards used by
teachers to maintain collegial relationships. Second, this study suggests there are peer
characteristics that impact the development of potential colleagues. Lastly, and most
importantly, this study moves beyond former research to suggest that teachers make
decisions and choices about collegial relationships based on personal values, beliefs,

etiquette standards along with the issues, forms of collegiality and other contextual

207
features. The research literature concerning the development of and maintenance of

collegial relationships, collegial communities, and school improvement have not till this
time described or discussed the decisions that teachers make concerning their
professional collegial encounters. The consequences of the decision-making process
result in a system of collegiality within each building that provides flexibility and

cohesiveness to meet the personal needs of teachers.

The System of Collegflty

The data suggests a theory concerning the system of collegiality found in these
two high schools. This system of collegiality exists in both schools and is very complex.
The system is based on developing and maintaining individual needs. Not found in this
study is a focus on organizational needs. In this section, the system of collegiality is
explained.

The findings suggest that each school maintained a number of collegial groups
that, together, functioned as a collegial system. Because collegial relationships rarely
extended beyond the school, the school can be likened to a highly bounded system within
which a collegial system resides.

Teachers work within this bounded system. They bring to it, or learn within it,
the values and beliefs of the collegial culture, including the values and etiquette of
collegiality. This culture of collegiality is relatively stable. It is maintained over time
because of the flexibility inherent in the culture. That is, teachers have the ability to
place more or less emphasis on difierent cultural values and etiquette of collegiality

standards at various times. Teachers also bring with them values, beliefs, attitudes, etc.

208
concerning personal characteristics of teachers they perceive as important for developing

collegial relationships. These personal characteristics are generated and used by
individuals in the system to form relationships. Thus, each individual enters the system
and creates a list of potential colleagues based on perceptions of the collegial culture and
desired personal characteristics of colleagues they have developed.

Issues, forms of collegiality and other contextual features are also found in the
system. As issues enter the system, collegial groups start to form. But these groups are
not separate and distinct. The concept of overlapping circles within circles is suggested
as the structure of collegial groups. Larger circles have many members, while smaller
circles have fewer members. The overlapping of circles indicates that teachers belong to
more than one collegial group. The circles in this system of collegiality also relate to the
forms of collegiality. Larger groups of colleagues form around independent forms of
collegiality, while smaller groups engage in more interdependent forms of collegiality.
Overlapping mainly occurs in more independent forms. This overlapping allows for
networking within the system so everyone understands each other. In other words,
teachers' views, opinions, and values flow between groups engaged in more independent
forms of collegiality. But the complexity is that no one single form is used in any one
collegial group. Within more independent collegial groups, members use more than one
form of collegiality but usually not more than three forms. In more interdependent
collegial groups, teachers can use all seven forms of collegiality.

Teachers join multiple collegial groups simultaneously based on the number of
issues that are important to them. In order to join collegial groups, teachers make

complex decisions about entering or forming a group based on a large amount of

209
information. Teachers use information about the collegial culture, potential colleagues

accessible, the issue, the forms of collegiality available and deemed appropriate, along
with other contextual features to make decisions on collegial relationships.

There are always multiple issues entering the system continually, so teachers
continually evaluate and re-evaluate personal needs as to the importance of a particular
issue. The outcome is that the issues are in constant flux. But the loosely—coupled
system maintains stability over time because the system allows teachers to flow freely
within it, to work on personal needs, and to maintain personally held values of what
aspects of work are independent of collegial relationships. Thus, teachers enter the
system and engage in collegial relationships when issues arise that jeopardize their value
of independence or when they need to meet personal needs.

In conclusion, the system of collegiality is based on personal beliefs, values and
ideas participants bring to the system and also learn within the system. As teachers are
faced with situations, problems, and issues that enter the system, they make decisions
about engaging in collegial relationships. These collegial relationships last only as long

as the issue is of importance to the individual or group.

Conclusion
As formd in this study, there is a difference between definitions of professional
collegiality dependent on who is doing the defining -- teachers, researchers, reformers.
These differences are based on how the various groups define professional work. Past
research on the phenomenon of professional collegiality suggests that teachers rarely

enter into collegial relationships based on their professional work -- that which takes

2 1 0
place in the classroom between teacher and students. This study confirms that teachers

rarely engage in this form of collegial relationship. But, the strength of this study lies in
the analysis of life in ordinary high schools and how teachers engage in collegial
relationships that focus on a wide variety of other important aspects of work -- carrying
out policy, gaining knowledge about the school, gathering information about peers, etc.
To that end, this study presents a theory as to why the individualism, presentizm and
conservatism of collegiality remains strong. Specifically, teachers naturally enter a
complex collegial system so the work of teaching is made easier, more self fulfilling and
meets personal needs. If schools are to move forward and enter into more interdependent
forms of collegial work, administrators, policy makers and teachers need to understand
the naturally occurring phenomenon of collegiality and use this information to nurture a
different collegial arrangement within school organizations. Thus, implementation of a
different system of collegiality would require an understanding of other aspects of the
educational setting beyond organizational structure and contextual features.

This study suggests that policy frames centering on the formal structural,
material, rule-making, and reorganized governance system as routes to better schools are
questionable. Policy frames and strategies that center on situated norms and beliefs of
practice may be more productive. This means that policy must come to terms with the
tension between individual and community concepts, and the self-interest versus
organizational interests that teachers hold. Specifically, when teachers are focused on
self-interest, other-interests remain obsolete. Policies that focus on situated norms and,
beliefs of practice and on norms of mutual support and obligation could be more

productive. Thus, a closer examination of teachers' orientation to students, teaching,

21 1
learning, and subject matter could help in the development of specific strategies to

cultivate and support values and norms compatible with successfirl schools based on
successful students. In that this study furthers the understanding of how values are
maintained, strategies to alter these values may be more easily developed.

Second, policy reformers need to understand the complexity of the collegial
system and how externally developed programs focused at the school level may be
inappropriate. The findings in this study suggest that the use of multiple communities
within the school may be a more appropriate level of reform. These multiple
communities extend beyond the department level to include various sub-groups. This is
not to suggest that the complexity found in the collegial system developed in this study is
chaotic but is a well ordered system that works to maintain itself. By examining the
system more closely, policy flames could be developed that use the strengths of the
system to alter the work completed within it.

In conclusion, to implement a policy flame or strategy without understanding the
inter-relatedness of the school's collegial system and the context in which it resides will
result in limited change. This is because the collegial system as described in this study is
complex, coherent and resilient to changes suggested for current school organizations.
To develop professional collegial relationships that are long lasting, focused on the
practice of teaching, used to have teachers engage in thoughtful problem solving and
professional development, current institutional structures and individual teachers' ethos

will need to be addressed simultaneously.

2 l 2
Recommendatiorg for Further Research

In that this study of secondary schools was exploratory in nature, a number of
features need further examination. The decision making process used by the teachers in
these two high schools is important to understand. Specifically, the personally held
characteristics of teachers that are used during the selection of potential colleagues needs
further exploration. Also, the concept of using values of collegiality and etiquette of
collegiality flexibly need further clarification. Lastly, there are other groups that
influence the decision making process not included in this study - administrators and
parents for example. The impact of these groups on the collegial system is a question
which is important to understand. Thus, further research concerning the collegial
decision making process and all its components is suggested.

The idea that issues have a great influence on the development and maintenance
of collegial relationships also needs further study. The interview data did not allow for
extensive investigation on how issues impact the collegial system and work to alter it.
In other words, probing into the teachers' stories to get further information was limited in
this study. These probes would help to clarify why these issues are important, why
certain colleagues are selected and what interactions are involved. These stories are also
useful to further understand the interactions that occur during collegial relationships.
Research based on teacher stories would help to extend the understanding of the forms of
collegiality. More intense interviews and observations may give fiuther insight into the
forms of collegiality and how many forms are found in any one collegial interaction.
Teacher stories that are thoroughly investigated could further the understanding of

issues, forms and other unexplored features that teachers may utilize when making

213
decisions or solving problem in their work.

In addition, clients were not found to be an important factor in the development
and maintenance of collegial relationships. The questions on the interview guide may
have been such that teachers did not talk about students as a cause for the development
of collegial relationships. It would seem likely that clients may impact and cause the
development of collegial relationships than was found in this study.

Lastly, the collegial system theory developed in this study should be further
researched to verify and extend concepts within the system. This research could be
useful in producing additional knowledge concerning the phenomenon of teacher
professional collegial relationships at the high school level. In this research, increasing
the sample group size might help to increase the understanding of the networking map.
This research could result in improving schools and teachers' work especially at the high
school level. With further knowledge, the virtues that advocates of teacher professional

collegiality have imbued on teacher collegial relationships may be possible to achieve.

APPENDICES

APPENDD( A

2 14
APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER AND ATTACHED CONSENT FORM

April 16, 1991
Dear ,

At the present time you are being asked to complete an interview on teacher professional collegial
relationships. This interview is being completed by the Center for Research on the Context of Secondary
School Teaching. Approximately 13 of your school's stafl‘ has been selected to be interviewed during the
weeks of .

The purpose of this interview is to understand the nature and extent of collegial relationships as
they pertain to the work related activities teachers engage in during the workday. In previous interviews
and surveys, teacher have stated they engage in conversations with other teachers about school related
topics. What is missing from our research concerning teacher collegiality is a richer understanding of this
topic. This interview is being conducted to better understand the nature of teacher collegiality in your
school. As past research on this topic is limited, especially at the secondary level, there is a need for
furthering our understanding of teacher collegiality.

As an experienced teacher, your comments about collegiality are very important to understanding
this aspect of the context of teaching. The interview will take 35 to 45 minutes. For your convenience, we
are asking that you select a time, location and date for the interview within the dates given above and place
it on the attached Interview Information form. As only one interviewer will be completing this interview,
an alternative date may be necessary if two persons choose the same time period.

The interview information is also being used by Barbara J. Reinken in her dissertation research on
Teacher Professional Collegiality. To meet University requirements, you are asked to sign the Teacher
Informed Consent form enclosed. If you have any questions or concerns, please call collect or contact
Barbara while she is in the building.

Thank you for your cooperation in our continuing efforts to understand the work of teachers at the
secondary level.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Reinken
517-372-3291 (Home)

Dr. Brian Rowan
Chair Educational Administration! Researcher for Context Center
517-355-4538

215

Appendix A cont'd

TEACHER PROFESSIONAL COLLEGIALITY
INFORMATION FOR INTERVIEW

Please complete the following information for scheduling of a conference and return it to
the office.

 

Name

 

School

 

Date of interview

 

Time of interview

 

Location of interview

216

Appendix A cont'd

TEACHERS' INFORMED CONSENT

I am willing to participate in the Teacher Professional Collegiality Study,
conducted by Barbara J. Reinken. I have received a reasonable explanation of the
research, its purposes, and procedures. I know that my participation will involve
completing one interview on teacher collegiality.

My consent to participate is given fleely and I know that I have the right to
discontinue the Teacher Collegiality study at any time without recrimination.

I recognize that all results will be treated with strict confidence and that I will
remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, final results will be made available to me
upon request.

 

(Signature)

 

(date)

 

(School)

I am also willing to allow Barbara J. Reinken to contact me at a future date
during analysis to clarify any information found in the interview. I give my consent to
this component of the research by furnishing a phone number where I can be reached
during the summer.

 

(Stunmer Phone Number)

APPENDIX B

2 1 7
APPENDIX B

PROFESSIONAL TEACHER COLLEGIALITY INTERVIEW GUIDE

1. Interviewee Name
2. Date of interview
3. Time of interview

4. Place of interview
(This information to be filled in by interviewer)

Introduction

From time to time most teachers find they engage in conversations with other teachers
about school related topics. They may engage in many varied topics for any number of
reasons. The purpose of this study is to understand the nature and extent of collegial
relationships as they pertain to the work related activities teachers engage in during the
workday. Knowledge of the nature of teacher collegiality is needed to further our
understanding of the work of teachers in secondary school settings.

As an experienced teacher your comments about collegiality are very important to
understanding the context of teaching. This interview will take 35 to 45 minutes. Please
feel flee to interrupt, ask for clarification, change a response, etc. There are no right or
wrong answers. I am interested in your personal experiences and your opinions. I will be
taking notes while we talk. Also, if you have no objections, I would like to tape record
this interview. Your responses will be treated in the strictest confidence and you will
remain anonymous in written reports of the study. Also all names, places, events, etc. are
coded for purposes of maintaining confidentiality.

Questions:

1.

2 l 8
Appendix B cont'd

To start with I would like to ask for some information.

How long have you been teaching?

 

How many years have you been at this school:

Have you always been in this department:

Have you always taught this subject?

Have you taught anywhere else?

 

 

Do you have the opportunity to talk with other teachers about your work in the

school?

2.1 What sorts of things do you talk about?

2.2 With whom do you usually talk during the day?

2.3 Why do you talk to this (these) person(s)?

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

How would you describe your relationship with this person or
group? (work well together, social bonds, help with problems,
etc.)

What brought this group together and how long have you
associated with the group?

Would you say this group give you support? Describe the support
they provide?

Please describe a conversation you had recently with a colleague.

Describe another conversation you had recently?

21 9
Appendix B cont'd

You indicate you talk about __ and _. Do you ever talk about any of these
other topics? (Cross off topics discussed in question 2 and only state topics left
on list. Circle those talked about and X those not talked about.)

Whom do you talk to about these topics?

Students

Discipline and class management

Testing or evaluation

Learning activities

Materials and resources

Objectives and goals of teaching

Teaching methods

Questioning techniques

Lecturing and demonstration techniques

Curriculum development

Room Organization

Classroom observations

School policies / rules

School wide programs

BIT Proposals

Other topics

Why don't teachers talk about _, _, and ?

220
Appendix B cont'd

You indicated you did talk about these topics: _, _, and _. Why do you

engage in these topics of conversation?

4.1

4.2

What do you do with the information you gain by participating in
this conversation? (Is it helpful to you in any of the activities you
are engaged in as part of your work?)

Are there any mutual understandings within your group that certain
topics are off limits for discussion?

5. In talking to other teachers about events that occur, teachers gather information
about the topic under discussion.

5.1 Would you feel comfortable in asking for information flom others
when you can't accomplish a task?

5.2 Whom would you ask?

5.3 Have you ever asked for help or advice or been asked to give help
or advice? Please describe one such situation.

5.4 Would you fleely give help or advice even if not asked? Why?

6. How would you describe the staff relations in this school?

6.1 What factors lead you to this conclusion?

6.2 What is the faculty trying to accomplish (are there goals the staff is
working toward) and what is expected of the teachers in respect to
this?

6.3 How has this been communicated among the staff?

6.4 How often do you as a total staff or within small groups talk about
these goals?

6.5 What might a conversation sound like concerning (what
trying to accomplish)?

6.6 How do you make your opinions known among the staff? Whom

do you voice them to?

6.7

6.8

6.9

6.10

22 1
Appendix B cont'd

Are there topics you really don't talk about openly among staff
members, but do talk about in private? Why?

How much voice do you have in what goes on around here? Does
the staff work together collegially to improve the school?

What topics have you discussed recently concerning school level
events? Do your discussions lead to changes?

What might a new stafl~ member do that would signal to others that
this person may not fit into the staff as a collegial member?

This school has developed an improvement plan. How has this plan affected
teacher collegial relationships in the building?

7.1

7.2

Do teachers interact more flequently around matters concerning
this plan?

What sorts of things do teachers talk about that are connected to
this plan?

Are you involved in any non teaching activities at the school or district level this
year (examples: advisor, coach, committees)? (If yes, what?)

 

 

If yes, then ask:
8.1 Do you talk with other teachers about __ activities?
8.2 Describe one conversation?
8.3 Whom do you talk to?
8.4 How often do you talk about these activities?
8.5 Why do you talk about these activities?

APPENDIX C

222

Se 3 $5539
85%|. 3

 

cofiowwowflmqg

 

arEmcoua—B 8m
«EEO

 

 

 

oinoflbfiflé—om m Hague—2 beam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comma. m .«o mason £80
8:: $29 $023
chaosbm as: ton—“EU
.889 I. .5 | $5 a.» .l we a.»

a BB

 

PmmmmMMOB <H<Q Homhmbm A<DB>~QZH

U Van—2934a

223
Appendix C cont'd

FORMS/STRUCTURE: Group Level

What talk Whom When/where why talk

 

224
Appendix C cont'd

FORMS/STRUCTURE: School Level

What talk Whom When/where why talk

225

amalgam

 

Enos—amzanoo/x beam

 

sec

ogogm
Ilaaafiégwlco

 

38600

 

3238a e050

 

€082,295 Begum

 

muaoegg
3:03.35ch

3:8 0 savanna/x

 

m so Ecommmowoem

 

EOOummm_o a
U103 GO oofioflg

 

 

285:0

moEmflonoQ

5:83.

mmMDP/xmm éBXmHZOU

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfonso, R., & Goldsberry, L. (1982). Colleagueship in supervision. In T. Sergiovanni
(Ed.), grpervision of teach'mg. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Bainer, D. L., & Didham, C. K. (1993). T_eacher interaction patterns: Can they be
measured? Unpublished manuscript. GSric Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 365 737).

Bess, J. L. (1988). Collegiality and bureaucracy in modern u_niversities: The influence of
information and power on decision-making structures. New York: Teacher
College Press.

Bidwell, C. E. (1965). The school as a formal organization. In S. G. March (Ed.),
Handbook of Organization_s (pp.972-1022). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Bird, T., & Little, J. W. (1985). From teacher to leader: Training and support for
instructional leadership by teachers. Report prepared for Far West Laboratgy.
San Francisco, CA

Birnbaum, R. (1990). How colleges work: The cvbernetics of academic
paganization and leadership. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Bishop, J. M. (1977). Organizational influences on the work orientations of elementary
teachers. Sociologyof Work and Occupations, 5(2), 171-208.

Blase, J. J. (1987). Political interactions among teachers: Sociocultural context in the
schools. UrbapEdutgtion. 22(3), 286-309.

Blumer, H. (1957). Collective Behavior. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), Pfintmales of Sociology.
New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Bolin, F. S., & Falk, J. M. (Eds). (1987). T__eacher renewal: Professional issues, personal
choices. New York: Teachers College Press.

226

227

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (3rd ed.).
New York: Longman.

Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th ed.).
New York: Longman.

Bredo, E. (1977). Collaborative relations among elementary school teachers. Sociology
of Education, 50(4), 300-309.

 

Brookover, W., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweitzer, J ., & Wisenbaker, J. (1979). School
social systema_ and student achievement: Schools can make a difference. New
York: Praeger.

Bryk, A. S., & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The hijaschool as community: Contextual
influences and con_sequences for students; and teaphers. Madison, WI: University
of Wisconsin, National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 302539)

Bucher, R., & Strauss, A. (1961). Professions in progress. American Joumaipf
Sociology, EM), 325-334.

Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. (1990-91).
Continuation application for year four (Vol. 1: Technical Document: Grant No.:
OERI - G0087C0235). CA: Stanford University.

Cogan, M. (1973). Clinical sapervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Cogan, M. L. (1953). Toward a definition of profession. Harvard Educational Review,
23(Winter), 33-50.

Cohen, E. (1976). Problems and prospects of teaming. Educational Research Qu__a_rterly,
1(2), 49-63.

Cohen, E. (1981). Sociology looks at team teaching. Resemh in SociologLof
Education and Socialization, 2, 163-193.

 

Cohen, E. 6., Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R., & Deal, T. E. (1979). Technology and teaming
in the elementary school. Sociolpgy of Education, 2 (1), 20-33.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1989). Research methods in education. London: Routledge.
Cohen, M. (1987). Improving school effectiveness: Lessons flom research. In V.

Richardson-Koehler (Ed), Educator's handboolgA research perspective. New
York: Longman.

228

Cole, A. L. (1992). Teachers development in the work place: Rethinking the
appropriation of professional relationships. hachers College Record. % (2),
365-381.

Crow, G. M. (1994). Community and diversity: Administration in a democratic context.
NASSP Bulletin. 78 (558), 40—45.

 

Cusick, P. A. (1983). The egalitarian ideal and the american highschool: Studies of
three schools. NY: Longman.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of
corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Doob, C. B. (1994). SociologyaAn introduction. Forth Worth: Harcomt Brace College
Publishers.

Dorsch, N. (1994). Making "connections": Creating and sustaining a collegial
communiy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Studies Association, Chapel Hill, NC.

Edmonds, R. R. (1983). An overview of school improvemant programs (Occasional
Paper 67). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research
on Teaching.

Ellis, N. (1993). Collegiality flom the teacher's perseptive: Social contexts for
professional development. Action in Teacher Education, 1_5_ (1), 42—48.

Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Staady work: Policy. practice. and the
reform of american education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Erickson, F. (1977). Some approaches to inquiry in school/community ethnography.
Anthromlogy and Edu_cation Quarterly. _8_(3), 58-69.

Feirnan-Nemser, S., & F loden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), H_andbookof research on teacher (3rd ed.). New York:
MacMillan Publishing Company.

Freidson, E. (1984). The changing nature of professional control. Annual Review of
Sociology, m, 1-20.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (Eds). (1992). mcher development and educational
change. London: Falmer Press.

Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't.
Phi Delta Kappan, Z; (10), 744-752.

229

Gage, N. L. (1978). The scientificbfiasis of the ag of teaching. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Glidewell, J. C., Tucker, S., Todt, M., & Cox, S. (1983). Professional support systems:
The teaching profession. In A. Nadler, J. Fisher, & B. DePaulo (Eds.), New
directions in helping (Vol. 1, pp. 189-212). New York: Academic Press.

Gold, B., & Miles, M. (1981). Whose school is this anyway? Parent-teacher conflict
over an innovative school. New York: Praeger.

Goldsberry, L. (1980). Colleague consultation: Instructional supervisor augmented. In
L. Rubin (Ed.), Critical policy issues in contemporg education: An
administrator's overview (pp.335-344). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Goldhammer, R. (1969). A model of clinical supervision. In R. Goldharnmer (Ed.),
Clinicg supervision: Special methods for the gpervision of teachers (pp. 53-72).
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.

Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A plaae called school: Prospects for the future. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Grimmett, P. P., & Crehan, E. P. (1989). Teacher development, collegiality, an_d
instructional sapervision: Th_e_case of Audrey and may. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Teacher Development: Policies, Practices, and
Research (Toronto, Ontario Canada).

Grimmett, P. P., & Crehan, E. P. (1992). The nature of collegiality in teacher
development: The case of clinical supervision. In M. Fullan, & A. Hargreaves
(Eds.), Iaacher development and educational change (56-84). London: Falrner
Press.

Gross, E. (1958). Work_and socieg. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company.

Gusky, T. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, my, 5-12.

Hallinger, P., & Richardson, D. (1988). Models of shared leadership: Evolving
structures and relationships. The Urban Review. E (4), 229-245.

230

Hammersley, M. (1984). Staffloom News. In A. Hargreaves & P. Woods (Eds.),
Classrooms and staffrooma: The sociology of teachers and teaching (pp. 203-
214). Milton Keys, England: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn‘t: How teachers talk about their
work. Sociologyof Education, _5_7_ (4), 244-254.

Hargreaves, A. (1992). Time and teachers' work: An analysis of the intensification
thesis. Teachers Collegflecord, 24 (Fall), 87-108.

Hargreaves, A. (1993). Individualism and individuality: Reinterpreting the teacher
culture. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Iaachers' work: Individuals,
colleagues, and contexts (pp. 51-76).

Heckman, P. (1987). Understanding school culture. In J. Goodlad (Ed.), The ecology of
school renewal (pp. 63-78). Chicago: National Society for the Study of
Education.

Huberman, M. (1993). The model of the independent artisan in teachers' professional
relations. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work:
Individuals, colleagaes, and contexts (pp. 11-50). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Inger, M. (1993). Teacher collaboration in secondary schools (Center Focus No. 2).
Berkley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Jackson, J. (1966). A conceptual and measurement model for norms and roles. Pacific
Sociological Review, 2(1), 35-47.

Jackson, P. (1968). Life in cla_ssroom_s. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Johnson, S. M. (1990). Teachers 2a work: Achieviag success in our schools. New York:
Basic Books, Inc.

Johnson, S. M. (1990a). The primacy and potential of high school departments. In M.
W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, & N. Bascia (Eds.), The contexts of teaching in

second_ary schools : Teachers' realities. New York, Teachers College Press.

Johnson, S. M., & Boles, K. C. (1994). The role of teachers in school reform. In S. A.
Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, & Associates (Eds.), School-based management:

Orgaarizing for high mrformance (pp. 109-133). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

231

Jones, M. S., & Ross, E. F. (1994). School irmnovement: A cage study. An effective
schools Lamework for paatnerships in systemic reformSchool improvement: A
age stuiy. An effective schools framework for parprerships in systemic reform.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Congress for School
Effectiveness and Improvement, Melbourne, Australia.

Joyce, B. (Ed.). (1990). Changm' g school culture throagh s:taff development.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kilby, R. W. (1993). The study of human values. Lanham, Maryland: University Press
of America.

Krovetz, M., & Cohick, D. (1993). Professional collegiality can lead to school change.
Phi Delta Kappan, 15(4), 331-333.

Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1993). An emergrp' g flamework for analyzing school-bagel!
professional community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S., & Bryk, A. (1994). Buiding professional community in
schools. Issues in restructuring schools, 6, 3-6. Madison, WI: Center on
organization and restructuring of schools, University of Wisconsin.

Kyle, R. M. J. (Ed.) (1985). nghing for excellence: An effective flools sourcebook.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culture in schools. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1984). _Taachers, their world. and their work: @lications
for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1983). The good high school: Portraits of chgcter and culture. New
York: Basic.

Little, J. W. (1981). School smess & staff development: The role of staff development
in urban desegLegated schools (Contract No. 400-79-0049). Boulder, CO: Final
Report prepared for Center for Action Research, Inc.

 

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions
of school success. Americaa Educational Reseagh Journal, 12(3), 325-340.

Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators'
handboolaA research perspective. New York: Longman.

232

Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers'
professional relations. Igchem College Record, 9_1 (4), 509-536.

Little, J. W. (1992). Opening the black box of professional community. In A.
Lieberman (Ed.), The changipg contexts of teaching. 91st yearbook, volume I
(157-178). Chicago, IL: The National Society for the study of Education.

Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds). (1993). Etchers' woark: Individual,
colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Loucks-Horsley, S., & Hergert, L. F. (1985). An acticagaide to school improvement.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lovell, J. T. & Wiles, K. (1983). Mision for better schools (5th ed.). Englewood
Clifl‘s, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Macke, S. (1994). Facilitating professiraal development: Foundational strategies.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Studies
Association, Chapel Hill, NC.

Mager, G. M., Myers, 3., Maresca, N., Rupp, L., & Armstrong, L. (1986) Changes in
teachers' work lives. The Elementary School Journal, m3), 345-357.

McCormack-Larkin, M., & Kritch, W. J. (1982). Milwaukee's project RISE. Educational
Leadership, 4_0_, 16-21.

McFaul, S. A., & Cooper, J. M., (1984). Peer clinical supervision: Theory vs. reality.
Educational Leglership. 11(7), 4-9.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning flom experience: Lessons flom policy
implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2(2), 171-178.

McLaughlin M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace context. In J. W.
Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), What matters most in teachers' workplace
context. In J. W. Little & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' work:
Individuals. colleagpes, and contexts (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College
Press.

Mclaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teachiag and
learning: Strategic opportunities for meetingthe nation's educational goals.

233

Standford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of
Secondary School Teaching.

McNergney, R. & Carrier, C. (1981). Teacher development. New York: Macmillan.

 

Metz, M. H. (1986). Different hy desian: The context and chmcter of three maghet
schools. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Meyer, J ., Cohen, E., Brunetti, F ., Molnar, S., & Lueders-Salmon, E. (1971). The impact
of the open-space school upon teacher influence and autonomy: The effects of an
arganizational innovation (Tech. Rep. No. 21). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University, Center for Research and Development in Teaching.

 

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebookaf
new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Mohrman, S. A., & Wohlstetter, P. (1994). Introduction: Improving school performance.
In S. A. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, & Associates (Eds.), School-based
management: Organizing for high performm (pp. 1-24). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Neufeldt, V. (Ed.), (1988). Webster's new world dictionary: Of american enghsh (3rd
ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Ogawa, R. T., & White, RA. (1994). School-based management: An overview. In S.
A. Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, & Associates (Eds.), School-based management:
Qrganizingfor high parformance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Parsons, T. (1959). The school class as a social system: Some of its functions in
American society. Harvard Education Review, 22, 297-318.

Payne, R. L. (1971). The influence of structure at organizational and group levels.
Administrative Science Quarterly. $0), 61-73.

Pellegrin, R. J. (1976). Schools as work settings. In R. Dubin (Ed.), iandbookaof work,
organizations, and society. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.

Perrow, C. (1967). A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations.
American Sociological Review, Q (2), 194-208.

Peterson, K. D., with Brietzke, R. (1994). Building collaborative cultures: Seeking ways
to reahape urban schools. (Urban monograph series No. UMS-BCC-94). Oak
Brook: IL, North Central Regional Educational Lab.

234

Ponzio, R. (1987). The effects of having a partner when teachers study their own
teaching. Teacher Education Quarterly, EB), 25-40.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementg
School Journal, _8_3_(4), 427-452.

Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership. _5_L (1),
30-35.

Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice.
Educationai Researcher, EU), 10-18.

 

Roper, S. S., Deal, T. E., Dombusch, S. (1976). Collegial evaluation of classroom
teaching: Does it work? Educational Reseaach Quarterly. 1(1), 56-66.

Rowan, B. (1990). Commitment and control: Alternative strategies for the
organizational design of schools. In C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in
Education (V 01. 16). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.

Rowan, B., Bossert, S. T., & Dwyer, D. C. (1983). Effective schools: A cautionary note.
Educational Researcher, 12, 24-31.

Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Teaching as a non-routine
task: Implications for the management of schools. Educational Administration

 

 

Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers worglace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Longman.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J ., & Smith, A. (1979). Fifteen
thouaand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Sarason, S. B. (1982). The culture of the achooland the problem of change. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Schein, E. H. (1992). organizational culturaapd leadership. New York: Jossey—Bass,
Inc.

Schiffer, J. (1980). School renewal through staff development. New York: Columbia
University, Teachers College Press.

235

Scott, W. R. (1988). Work units in organizations: Ransacking the literature.
Commissioned paper: Stanford: Center for Research in the Context of Secondary
Teaching. Stanford University, CA.

Selltiz, C., Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W. (1976). Reseaach methods in social
science (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994a). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994b). Organizations or communities: Changing the metaphor
changes the theory. Educational Administration Merly, fl) (2), 214-226.

Sergiovanni, T. J ., & Starratt, R J. (1988). _Sapervision: Human Perspective (4th ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sidler, J. (1993). _Barriers to school restructuring: The process and content of sta_ff
development. Philidelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools, Inc.

Simon, J. L. (1969). Baasic msgach methods in social science: The art of empirical
investigation. New York: Random House.

Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as different worlds: Subject subcultures in secondary
schools. Educational Administration Quartemy, 21(2), 134-160.

Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's Compromise. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teachers' reports of their interactions with teacher leaders
concerning classroom instruction. Elementary School Journal, 9_3 (1), 85-98.

Smyth, J. (1991). Instructionaasupervision m the re-definiton of who does it in
schools. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Smyth, W. (1983). Theory. resegch. and practice in clinical supervision: A view flom
"down ander." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Houston.

Starr, P. (1982). The social transformation of American medicine. New York: Basic
Books.

236

Sykes, G. (1983). Contraditions, ironies, and promises unfulfilled: A contemporary
account of the status of teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, _6_5 (2), 87-93.

Sykes, G. (1990). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools. In R. F. Elmore &
Associates, Restructuring schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Talbert, J. E. (1993). Constructing a schoolwide professional community: The
negotiated order of a performing arts school. In J. W. Little & M. W.
McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers' woak: individaals. colleagues. and contexts (pp.
164-184). New York: Teachers College Press.

Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school
contexts. American Jour_nal of Educaion, 122 (2), 123-153.

Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? The American Journal of
Sociology, 3(2), 137-158.

Wohlstetter, P., & Smyer, R. (1994). Models of high-performance schools. In S. A.
Mohrman, P. Wohlstetter, & Associates (Eds.), School-based management:
Organizing for highaerformance. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers.

Woods, P. (1979). The divided school. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Yinger, R. J. (1986). Examining thought in action: A theoretical and methodological
critique of research on interactive teaching. Teachingand Teacher Education.
2(3), 263-282.

Zahorik, J. A. (1987). Teachers' collegial interactions: An exploratory study. _T_h_a
Elementary School Jouanal, fl(4), 385-396.

"Illlllll‘lllllllf