LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSED TEACHERS AS THEY RELATE TO OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION presented by MARCIA A. PULLEN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Special Education @Q/ 0% Major grofesso{ Date July 6, 1987 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 IV453I_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to “saunas remove this checkout from Jun-ug-unnc your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. __________———-——--... A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSED TEACHERS AS THEY RELATE TO OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION by MARCIA A. PULLEN A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education 1987 MARCIA A. PULLEN Four hypotheses, speculating on no difference among teachers who had been in position following transfer, over a five year span, were tested in the areas of job satisfaction, rate of absence from the work place, number of grievances filed, and satisfactoriness rating. These four hypotheses were accepted. A fifth hypothesis, speculating on no difference among perceived job satisfaction of the transferred special education teachers and the satisfactoriness rating given by the transferees immediate supervisor during the five year span, was rejected. Generalized findings indicated that local educational agencies appear to lack in planning for the retraining of transferred personnel, presence or absence of formal grievances does not appear to be an indication of teacher job satisfaction, gender and age differences tend to be predictive of teacher job satisfaction, and time in position tends to be predictive of teacher job satisfaction. DEDICATION To my father and mother BLAIR OSCAR BASHORE who taught by example that honesty, faith, hard work, and love of his fellow man would be the keys to success, and MIRIAM RUTH BASHORE who, with her support and love, is a constant source of encouragement and nurturance every day of my life. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. William D. Shaw, who has been by my side in pursuing my goal from the beginning; Dr. Richard Fitzgerald, who was the initial source of encouragement for setting my goal; Dr. Charles Townsend, who shared his expertise in attaining my goal; and Dr. Charles Henley and Dr. Charles Mange , who were supportive and instructive. Special appreciation and thanks are for my Chairperson, who would not allow me to give up and who was supportive throughout the process. I would also like to thank my committee members, each a devoted educator, administrative example, inquisitive researcher, and friend. CHAIRPERSON: DR. DONALD BURKE DR. LOUIS ROMANO DR. STANLEY BRYAN A very special thank you is expressed to John William Simpson. The courage to continue and complete this goal was strengthened and nurtured by the love, friendship, and beauty of our communication and bond. iii List of CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables I: THE PROBLEM . Need for the Study Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms . Limitations II: SELECTED REVIEW OF LITERATURE Job Satisfaction of Certified Teaching Personnel Job Transfer of Certified Teaching Personnel Absenteeism . Grievances Filed by Certified Teaching Personnel III: METHODOLOGY . Major Research Questions Subjects . Instrumentation . Procedures for Data Collection Analysis of Data Summary . IV: RESULTS AND FINDINGS Survey Response . . Demographic Information . . Results of Hypotheses Testing . . Results of Additional Data Analysis and Teacher Interviews . . . Findings iv \OWQO‘ 10 10 15 21 23 26 26 26 28 30 33 33 35 35 36 46 51 57 CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . Summary . Discussion Conclusions Recommendations APPENDICES REFERENCES 61 61 66 74 75 78 99 .10 .11 LIST OF TABLES Gender of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions Current Tenure of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions . Dates of Original Teaching Certification of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions . . . Dates of Special Education Endorsement of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions Method of Transfer Notification of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions Respondent Willingness to Accept a Position Transfer from a General Education Teaching Position to a Special Education Teaching Position Local Educational Agency Retraining Efforts for Respondents Who were Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions Self-Initiated Retraining Efforts of Respondents Transferred from General Education Teaching Positions to Special Education Teaching Positions Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Transferred Teachers' Perceived Job Satisfaction Over a Five Year Span Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Transferred Teachers' Rate of Absenteeism Over a Five Year Span Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance of Transferred Teachers' Satisfactoriness as Rated by Their Special Education Directors Over a Five Year Span vi 37 38 39 4O 42 43 44 45 47 48 49 5. 5. .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 l 2 Pearsons Correlation Test of Transferred Teachers' Satisfaction and the Transferred Teachers' Satisfactoriness as Rated by Their Special Education Director Over a Five Year Span . Test of One- -Way Analysis of Variance Between Female/ Male Respondents and Their Feelings Regarding Relationships with Administration . Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between Female/ Male Respondents and Their Feelings Regarding Materials/Supplies to be Used in the New Job Assignment . . . . . Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between Female/ Male Respondents and Their Feelings Regarding Relationships with New Students . . . Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between Respondents Transferred in 1981-1982, 1983, and 1984-1985 and Their Feelings Regarding New Peer Relationships . . . . . Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between Respondents Transferred in 1981-1982,1983, and 1984-1985 and Their Feelings Regarding Relationships with Administration . . . . . . Test of One-Way Analysis of Variance Between Respondents Transferred in 1981-1982, 1983, and 1984-1985 and Their Feelings Regarding Relationships with Parents of New Students . . . . . . . Comparison of General Job Satisfaction Scores of the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation and a Study of the Effects of Transfer of Special Education Endorsed Teachers as it Relates to Overall Job Satisfaction . Comparison of Satisfactoriness Scores of the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation and a Study of the Effects of Transfer of Special Education Endorsed Teachers as it Relates of Overall Job Satisfaction . vii SO 52 52 53 54 54 55 71 73 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Over the past fifteen years, educators in the state of Michigan have witnessed a major decline in the school age population. As recently as the 1971-72 school year, student enrollment data identified 2,141,761 enrollees in grades K-12. With projections done by Hecker-Ignatovitch (1981), from Michigan State University indications were that by the 1984-85 school year, the Michigan Public K-12 pupil enrollment would be 1,605,586. From 1971-72 to 1984-85, this would constitute a decline of 25.03% in the K-12 student population in the State of Michigan. The November 1986 Michigan Education Report, published by the Michigan Department of Education, reports that there has been an average of 2% per year erosion in the K-12 student population since the 1971-72 school year. With current unofficial state enrollment count showing 1,678,363 students enrolled as of the September 1986 student headcount. This constitutes a 24% decline in the K-12 student population since the 1971-72 school year. One of the conditions that may result from the decline in student enrollment is a reduction in the numbers of teaching staff needed to educate the student population. Such reduction in staff may be accomplished by lay-off (pink-slipping), by attrition (the absence of filling a position with a newly hired employee when an existing employee retires or leaves the teaching profession), or by terminating the employment of an existing employee (firing). When reductions in staff occur, it is often necessary to fill that vacant position with an existing employee. Filling of the position may take place by the transfer of an employee from one job assignment to another job assignment. An issue that is equally as crucial to the educational scene is the emerging consideration of teacher shortage. When student enrollment was on the decline, fewer of our nations college students prepared for teaching assignments, since the prospect of locating a job in their field of preparation was significantly lowered. With the current Michigan student enrollment being some 24% lower than the 1971-72 school year, predictions are being made that the decreases may in fact be "bottoming-out." Phillip E. Runkel, Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Michigan is quoted (1986) as saying, "the total school enrollment in the state is leveling off" (p. 3). His comments are predicated on data demonstrating only a .001% decrease in the K-12 population since the 1985-86 school year (Michigan Educational Report, 1981). In the same vein, Education Research Service (1983) predicts that there will be a gradual increase in the school age population until the 19905, with accelerated growth during the 19905, on a nationwide basis. Additionally, demand projections through 1990 were compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) in 1983. These predictions included a projected need for 294,000 additional teachers to be employed between 1986 and 1990 in the United States. When one looks at the changing educational scene, whether it be through declining enrollment and teacher reduction or increasing enrollments and teacher shortage, assignment of educational staff becomes paramount. This assignment of educational employees is typically undertaken following an evaluation of 1) the school district's need and 2) the qualifications of personnel. While a school district's need may be an uncomplicated assessment and easy to document, an investigation of teacher's qualifications may be complex and a determination of teacher assignment may be based on either their major or minor area of educational perparation. For example, a teacher may be hired to teach science at the junior high level, based on a science minor and may later be assigned to teach Special Education at the elementary school, due to an endorsement in Learning Disabilities. When such transfers of teachers take place, they may be inter-building or intra-building and may be accomplished by teacher initiation (request a transfer) or by administrative directive (assign a transfer). Anderson and Hoyt (1982), in their review and study of specific situations or movements which show conditions that create stress for and between administrators and teachers, found that, teacher transfer and reduction in force can create severe anxiety, and administrators must make sure their actions are clearly understood by teachers and make any transition as smooth and untraumatic as possible. In a 1980 stress/burnout report of the Worchester, Massachusetts, Public Schools (Collins and Masley, 1980) stress factors consistently rated as highest by the personnel were: involuntary transfer, reduction in force, discipline, and salary. After extensive research with four school systems, Johnson (1982) included the following in her conclusions: "(1) domino sequences of seniority-determined transfers, where permitted, can seriously disrupt instruction, (2) many school-people believe that frequent transfers determined by seniority rules rather than choice reduce teachers' allegiance to their schools and principals. Informal working relationships that have developed over time among teachers and principals are precarious and can be disrupted by frequent teacher reassignments" (p. 260). One of the more extensive studies that has been done to identify stressful events in teachers' lives was conducted in Chicago, Illinois. In this study, teachers were asked to estimate the magnitude of stress for a number of events associated with the teaching profession. Involuntary transfer was perceived as the most stressful event (Chichon and Koff, 1979). The aforementioned study was adapted for use in Portland, Oregon (Catterton, 1979) and in Tacoma, Washington (Mazer and Griffin, 1980). As in the previously mentioned study, the event associated with stress and the teaching profession was involuntary transfer. Mager, Myers, Maresca, Rupp, and Armstrong (1986) conducted a year long study which sought to record and describe commonly experienced effects of making transitions and to develop patterns that put into perspective the experiences of individuals as they lived through a transitional school year. Results of their study pointed to three major themes: a period of adaption, stress points, and sources of support. The stress points that were clearly verbalized by the 24 study participants included: 1) events of reassignment - how the change was initiated, how it was made public, rationales behind the changes, and reactions of colleagues and administrators to these event; 2) the ability of teachers to control and direct the events that affected them - nearly all of the participating teachers reported that the changes they were making were voluntary and that that contributed to a sense of professional well-being; 3) the need to be successful at work - success came from student achievement, managing the various tasks of teaching, or a more generalized sense of achievement. The results of this study do suggest that, "making a change in the professional assignment has a more substantial effect on teachers and the work of teaching than is generally recognized (p. 353). As Goodlad (1984) in A Place Called School so succinctly states, " When teachers find themselves restrained and inhibited by problems of the workplace that appear to them not to be within their control, it is reasonable to expect frustration and dissatisfaction to set in" (p. 180). While the previously mentioned studies have been done to identify factors creating stress for today's educators, there is a paucity in the literature as it regards the effects of transfer, be it voluntary (by teacher request) or involuntary (by administrative directive) on teaching personnel. Need for the Study A study of the effects of transfer would have particular significance for educational administrators, as they involve themselves in the long and short range planning for public school systems. Over the past decade, most of the schools' administrators have become embroiled in school closings, staff reductions, and fluctuating enrollment issues, along with the possibility of a teacher shortage. These same administrators are typically involved in the process of transfer of educational staff. They assist in the intra-building transfer and inter-building transfer of personnel (be it to send a staff person or receive a staff person). Transfer in teaching position is a major change in the working environment. The affected personnel may be unfamiliar with recent developments in their new curriculum area; they may be moved to a different school building; they may have a new principal; they may have an entirely new peer group with which to interact. Those persons who are and will be providing direct services to our nation's youth are being affected by change. Adjustment to change may be handled in a very nonchalant fashion by some transferees and in a very unsettling manner by others. The more the possible effects of transfer are understood, the more effectively those difficulties may be dealt with by school boards, school administration, teacher organizations, and by the teachers involved. However, as important as this issue appears to be, at no time, in the review of available literature, was mention made of curriculum areas other than those of general education. Therefore, a study that attempts to focus on the possible effects of transfer among special education teachers may be useful. ur ose o the tud As can be seen in the earlier comments, transfer is a stressful event affecting the lives of many of our teachers, In an effort to address this problem, the present study examined those factors related to the effects of transfer of Special Education endorsed teachers. The general purpose of this research was to study the effects of transfer on special education teachers, as it relates to overall job satisfaction. The specific questions addressed were: 1. Will transferred special education teachers perceive more or less job satisfaction during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year in position? 2. Will transferred special education teachers evidence more or fewer absences from the work place during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year in position? 3. Will transferred special education teachers file more or fewer grievances during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year in position? 4. Will transferred special education teachers be ranked by their Director of Special Education to be more or less satisfactory in position during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year in position? 5. Will transferred special education teachers perceptions of job satisfaction differ from the satisfactoriness rating given by their immediate supervisor during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year in position? e n o 0 Te The terms used in this study were defined as follows: Teacher Transfer: The movement from one full-time teaching position to a different full-time teaching position within the educational agency. Absenteeism: The number of days the transferred teacher was not in attendance during the reqularly scheduled work year. Job Satisfaction: The attitudes and feelings a teacher has about his/her job as measured by the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Grievances: The number of grievances initiated by the transferred teacher during the regularly scheduled work year. Limitations The problem of transferred teachers is national in breadth and involves both regular and special education teachers. However, the population under study was limited to teachers who had been transferred from regular education to special education. The population for the study was drawn from a three county area in central Michigan and may not be representative of other areas of the state. The procedure for coding respondent surveys, for purposes of preserving anonymity, precluded direct follow-up of non-respondents by the researcher. Such follow-up was conducted by an immediate supervisor. CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF LITERATURE Very simply stated, job satisfaction is the way an employee feels about his/her job. It is a generalized attitude toward the job based on a composite of different aspects of the job. "From the individual's perspective, job satisfaction is one of many possible outcomes of job behavior. It is valued, to some extent, for itself and for its influence on other beliefs and attitudes, as well as on motivation and behavior. From the organization's perspective, employees' job satisfaction is of interest primarily because of its possible influence on such work outcomes as absenteeism, turnover, grievances, accident rates, health, training readiness and productivity" (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1983, p. 243). In the following selected review of the literature, attention will be focused on: 1) job satisfaction of certified teaching personnel, 2) job transfer, 3) absenteeism, and 4) grievance issues of transferred certified teaching personnel. Job Satisfaction of Certified Teaching Personnel According to the National Education Association (NBA) nationwide survey, (Gartner, 1982), teachers today have more education and experience than they did five years ago, but they consider themselves underpaid and are less sure that they would 10 ll choose teaching as a profession if they had the chance to choose again. More than one-third of the teachers surveyed said that they "probably" or "certainly" would not choose the teaching profession again, up from 18.6% in 1976. These figures are even more dramatic when the 1981 figures are compared with those of 20 years ago. Then only about 11% said that they "certainly" or "probably" would not choose the teaching profession again. According to Suzanne Gartner, author of the report, "this means teachers are quite dissatisfied with a number of things: salaries, stress, the lack of positive reinforcement they receive from parents and administrators, their self-concept . . . " (p. 579). Cruickshank (1981) and his colleagues have been studying the problems of teachers for the past 20 years. In their research they asked teachers to identify their problems. They based their inquiry on the assumption that a problem exists ONLY in the eyes of the beholder. Across their studies, the problems teachers reported were relatively stable and fell into five broad areas of concern representing unfilled goals: (1) affiliation, (2) control, (3) parent relationships, (4) student success, and (5) time. Cruickshank summarizes affiliation of teachers to be: "(1) a need to establish and maintain good relationships with others in the school, both staff and students, (2) a want for cooperation and support from other teachers and administrators, and (3) a want to have confidence and respect for their colleagues" (p. 403). He concludes that "teachers are relatively gregarious, and an inability to achieve this goal can make them 12 feel lonely, unnoticed, unworthy, alienated, or even rejected. Teachers whose affiliation needs are frequently unmet tend to report dissatisfaction with teaching" (p. 403). Although there are hundreds of job characteristics to be considered by an employee, certain clusters of job characteristics tend to be evaluated together in the same way. The clusters most often found in statistical analyses of attitude questionnaires include: pay, working conditions, supervision, co- workers, job content, job security, and promotion opportunity. In effect, an employee can be assumed to have a component attitude toward each of these aspects of the job as well as a composite attitude about the job as a whole (Wexley and Yuki, 1984). Over the past three decades, several thousand studies have been conducted on job attitudes and their relationship to job satisfaction. At the present time, there is no one widely accepted theory of job satisfaction. However, and attempt was made to identify those factors relating to teacher job satisfaction in a study conducted by Plant (1966) with 2,041 teachers in New York State. Along with his findings of teacher job satisfaction increasing with age, job satisfaction being highest with teachers working with students kindergarten to sixth grade, and teachers at the top of the pay scale being more satisfied than teachers at the bottom of the pay scale, he found that those teachers with the highest expressed satisfaction preferred to remain in their present building and system. 13 Using the control variables of teacher's age, gender, marital status, length of service, salary, family income, school size, absences due to personal and family illness and perception of available resource, Kriess (1983) conducted a study of 900 urban high school teachers in a major city school district in the northeastern United States to explore the relationship between perceived security, affiliation, self-esteem, autonomy, and self- actualization, and the degree of job-satisfaction. Stepwise regression was used to examine further the relationship between the demographic variables and job satisfaction. This procedure examined the strength of association and the predictive value of the ten demographics and job satisfaction. Results found perception of availability of resources and length of service as contributing independently to and serving as mild predictors of job satisfaction. In general, Kriess found that: In order to increase job satisfaction among teachers, school districts must offer teachers opportunities to seek fulfillment of whatever needs they, as individuals, look to the job to fulfill. For teachers who seek security through teaching, school districts can offer adequate financial compensation and the reassurance of job security. For teachers who seek affiliation through teaching, school districts can offer helpful supervision and the time and flexibility to work closely with other adults. For teachers who seek self-esteem through teaching, school districts can provide recognition of effort and performance. For teachers who seek autonomy through teaching, districts can provide chances to share in decision making and to direct the work of other adults. For teachers who seek self-actualization through teaching, school districts can offer routes to fuller personal and professional development. Overall, districts must recognize the individuality of teacher needs and must encourage teachers to clarify their needs and to pursue fulfillment of them through the many avenues available in their teaching jobs (p. 37). 14 Comparing their study with a national sample of workers surveyed in 1977 by the Institute of Social Research at the University of Michigan (Staines and Quinn, 1979 and Quinn and Staines, 1979), Cooke, Kornbluh, and Abramis (1982) found that teachers are significantly less satisfied with the quality of their work lives, more apt to fear losing their jobs, and more likely to experience problems with their jobs than are United States workers in a nationwide sample. They found the general level of job satisfaction reported by 200 randomly chosen teachers (K-12) in southeastern Michigan to be significantly lower than that reported by either the national sample as a whole or by college-educated workers in the national sample. Additionally, Cooke, Kornbluh, and Abramis (1982) found that, "the teachers in their sample had significant problems with the content of their work. They reported significantly more often that it was difficult to get duties and assignments changed than did workers in the national sample. This may be because teachers are forced to accept inappropriate job assignments to avoid being laid-off. Teachers in this predicament find it difficult to obtain reassignments to more appropriate duties" (p. 637). As the literature documents, teachers express concerns regarding affiliation with their adult peers and job security. Teachers who have formed meaningful relationships with building staff and immediate supervisors are often placed in stressful situations when faced with the prospect to transfer to another location or teaching position. Not only will this transferee be teaching in an unfamiliar location, with unfamiliar peers and a 15 new immediate supervisor, but they may also be teaching subject matter that they have not been accustomed to teaching for a rather long period of time. These concerns bring into focus the perceptions expressed by teachers regarding teacher transfer. Job Transfer of Certified Teaching Personnel When asked to identify circumstances creating stress among Chicago teachers, the Chicago Teachers' Union conducted a study in 1978. Their results indicated the major stress factors among Chicago teachers as being: (1) involuntary transfer, (2) managing disruptive children, (3) notice of unsatisfactory performance, (4) threats of personal injury, and (5) over-crowded classrooms. (Morsink, 1982) The factor of transfer, be it voluntary or involuntary, being a stressful event in an educator's professional life has been reinforced by the following surveys and studies: 1. Anderson and Watson (1982) reviewed and studied specific situations or movements which show conditions that create stress for and between administrators and teachers. Their study dealt with stress factors including: accountability, student violence, evaluation, outside pressure groups, and teacher transfer. When isolating the teacher transfer factor, they concluded that severe stress and anxiety may be created, and that administrators must make sure their actions are clearly understood by teachers and make any transition as smooth and untraumatic as possible. 2. Stress factors consistently rated as highest in a 1980 Stress/Burnout report of the Worchester, Massachusetts, Public School's personnel were: involuntary transfer, reduction in force, discipline, and salary (Collins and Masley, 1980). 16 Of 49 potential sources of stress, Saville (1981) found that 3,500 surveyed teachers isolated the following eight sources as being the most important: overcrowded classrooms, threat of lawsuit, student violence, paper work, disagreement with principal, involuntary transfer, discipline, and loss of personal time. Teachers in Chicago, Illinois were asked to estimate the magnitude (i.e. were events more or less stressful) of stress for a number of events associated with the teaching profession. Involuntary transfer was perceived as the most stressful event (Chichon and Koff, 1979). The Chicago, Illinois study was adapted for use in Portland, Oregon (Catterson, 1979) and in Tacoma, Washington (Mazer and Griffin, 1980). As in the Chicago study, the event perceived as being the most stressful event associated with the teaching profession was involuntary transfer. Mager, Myers, Maresca, Rupp, and Armstrong (1986) point to three major themes evident when a change in professional assignment occurs: a period of adaption, stress points, and sources of support. Together, these themes are part of what it is to be a teacher in transition. a. A period of adaption - this may begin as early as the time a teacher is informed of impending transfer and may continue through and well past the transitional school year. b. Stress points - these include events of reassignment, ability of teachers of control and direct the events that affect them, and the need to be successful at work. c. Sources of support - these include both inside the school environment and outside the school environment. This study cited events of reassignment and setting directions as stress points for teachers in transition. It also developed the theme of the uses of support. Without question, they concluded that, "making a change in assignment must figure in the dimensions of teacher satisfaction" (p. 353). 17 An additional reinforcement to the above cited research comes from the research report of Ronald L. Oliver (1984). In applying his results from Teacher Lateral Mobility, he found that at the present time there is no organized effort on the part of management to help teachers prepare for lateral job mobility. Indeed this lack of support for teachers in the midst of environmental changes does contribute to stress experienced by the teacher personnel. Hannay and Chism (1985) report reactions of transferees ranged from anger, fear, or shock to anticipation, resignation, or pleasure when they were informed of their impending transfer. Their research was conducted in an eight school district in the Canadian province of Ontario. Both teachers and principals were involved in the reassignment. With teacher transfer, as reported in the literature, being a primary stress factor in the educators' lives, it is imperative for educators to become more cognizant of both the causes for the perceived stress and potential outcomes of the perceived stress. Dr. Barbara Potter (1982), in her Reassigned Teacher's Project states some potential causes of stress for the reassigned teacher: Lack of knowledge and skills f0 perform effectively When teachers assume a new position, they may feel helpless since they may not posses the same level of knowledge and skills concerning students and curriculum which they had in previous assignments. Lack of feedback Teachers generally find it hard to feel effective since there is no formalized way of identifying their success. Teaching success is less identifiable than in other professions. The teacher's self-concept is also particularly vulnerable at the time of reassignment. Lack of resources Reassigned teachers may be frustrated because they may not know what materials should be used and may not have a personal file of resources for their reassignment. Teachers generally have acquired personal materials that assist them in performing 18 the teaching function. Again, reassigned teachers may feel helpless because they recognize the necessity of these additional materials and the overwhelming task of assembling them for their reassignment. In addition, they may find the district unable to supply them with the additionally needed materials. Lack of professional power Professionals are relatively autonomous in their work. However, reassigned teachers find themselves in the uncomfortable position of realizing that they have no choice about the teaching assignment. Although they are considered professionals, it is clear that they have no power to control their teaching careers. Ad ustment overload Reassigned teachers are expected to learn on-the- job while teaching students. At times this can be overwhelming and annoying to reassigned teachers since they have no control over their work load. Role ambiguity The teacher's role is generally ambiguous and ever- expanding. Due to this ambiguity, it is especially hard for the reassigned teacher to identify the essential and less essential areas at the new grade level. Reassigned teachers are often given confusing messages concerning their responsibilities (p. 28). She further reports that as stress increases for the reassigned teacher, job dissatisfaction may also increase due to the following: A. Dedicated and idealistic - teachers with overly high expectations for themselves and their situations; Professional mystique - the publics' expectation regarding teachers' professional behavior places an added burden; Accepted and liked - while establishing new relationships, reassigned teachers may not feel recognized as competent people; 19 Failure to achieve personal gratification through work - these teachers may be unsure whether they can achieve personal gratification in their new position; Role conflict - the expectations of a new supervisor/administrator may conflict with those of the reassigned teacher and/or a past supervisor/administrator; Over-stimulation - the teacher may be pulled in many directions when preparing for the new assignment; Organizational focus on students - while schools place their major focus on students, the teachers' personal needs may be overlooked; Isolation - during the teaching day, opportunity limited to ask questions or share experience and the reassigned teacher may not want to open themselves to other teachers who are equally occupied; Students - these teachers may be encountering students with greatly different needs than their previous assignment; Lack of non-teaching time - lack of time away from students and student related problems for planning, paperwork, and their own learning process; Context - the environment in which the teaching takes place may include a new room assignment or a new building and a new peer group, where these teachers are initially outsiders; Lack of rewards - those teachers wanting to move into positions of a supervisory or administrative nature may be thwarted due to declining enrollments; Changing attitudes toward teachers - the high esteem regarded to the teaching profession in the past appears to be declining, along with enrollments; and Conspiracy of silence about a problem - these teachers are reluctant to ask others for assistance since they do not want to appear to be unable to deal with teaching issues (pp. 28,29,20). 20 After an intensive study of four school systems, Johnson (1982) reports that "many school people believe that frequent transfers, determined by seniority rules rather than choice, reduce teachers' allegiance to their school and principals. Informal, interdependent working relationships that have developed over time among teachers and principals are precarious and can be disrupted by frequent teacher reassignments" (p. 260). As Potter (1982) reports, some of the signs of stress may be confusing and misleading. Symptoms of stress may take a variety of forms: 1. An increased use of sick time as a result of stress related illness. 2. A cynical and negative attitude. 3. A tendency to isolate one's self from other teachers in the work setting. Preferring to be left alone. 4. Spending less time in direct student contact and relying on guest speakers and movies. 5. A tendency to be depressed or aggressive. 6. A stance of omnipotence, "Super Teacher" 7. A feeling of reality shock. "I never thought teaching would be like this." 8. Inability to empathize, "I don't want to have to care anymore." 9. An attempt to feel good about HOW MUCH I do. "I went through 10 text books." Emphasis on time and tasks and not on accomplishments. 10. Less intense classes and fewer discussions. 11. Becoming more rigid in teaching habits. 12. Inability to deal with conflicting expectations of administrators, students, and self. 21 13. A tendency to have all activities social and otherwise of a work related nature. 14. "Giving up trying" because of lack of influence (p. 31). Literature regarding teacher transfer is painfully thin, especially on the subject of the effects of transfer on the teacher. Teacher mobility studies, which account for most of the literature, are concerned with teacher-initiated moves and are not referenced to involuntary transfer, nor do they mention the special education endorsed teachers. Absenteeism As perceived stress is encountered by educational staff, absenteeism from the work place may be evidenced. Porter and Steers (1973) analyzed various factors in the work situation, as they related to withdrawal behavior (i.e. turnover and absenteeism). They conducted a review that "(3) comprehensively covered research on the topic; (b) represented the research findings in a systematic fashion to the organizational and working environment; (c) attempted to provide a basic conceptual framework for viewing the findings" (p. 151). They found that, "in general, very strong evidence has been found in support of the contention that overall job satisfaction represents an important force in the individual's participation decision. In addition, based on preliminary evidence, such satisfaction also appears to have a significant impact on absenteeism" (p. 167). 22 The review completed by Porter and Steers includes research done with clerical worker, industrial workers, construction workers, scientists, engineers, foresters, insurance salesmen, miners, ward attendants, nurses, technical personnel, blue-collar workers, and physical therapists. While the populations studied do not include educators, the diversity is great enough that one might imply similar results with the teaching professionals. Porter and Steers postulate: 1. With the prevalence of company sick leave policies, an employee can miss work (up to a point) without salary loss. 2. Absenteeism is more likely to be a spontaneous and relatively easy decision, while the act of terminating employment can be assumed to be more carefully considered, in most cases. 3. Absenteeism may allow for temporary avoidance of an unrewarding situation without the loss of the benefits of employment (p. 167). Lock, (1969) in his book, Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, found that virtually all major review of the literature have found consistent significant relationships between job dissatisfaction, and absenteeism and turnover (Brayfield and Crockett, 1955; Herzberg et al., 1957; Schuch, 1967; Vroom, 1964; Muchinsky, 1977). More recent studies have supported these earlier findings (i.e., Atchinson and Lefferts, 1972; Krout, 1970; Taylor and Weiss, 1972; Waters and Roach, 1971; Waters and Roach, 1973). Although, not particularly studied, the effects of teacher absenteeism, on the school district, are typically adverse in nature. Absenteeism disrupts normal operations, causes delays, 23 increases expenses for "sick pay", necessitates the employment of extra personnel to substitute for employees who don't show up for work (Wexley and Yuki, 1984, p. 64). When educational personnel are absent from their work assignment, the educational process in the classroom is altered. The introduction of a substitute teacher for a day, a week, or for a longer period of time forces an adjustment period by the students. If a teacher is absent periodically, this could mean that a variety of substitutes are placed in the teacher's classroom. Due to the differing teaching styles of professional staff personnel. continued disruption to the educational process of the students may result from teacher absenteeism. Needless to say, this may have a potentially deleterious effect on the resultant learning taking place in the classroom. Grievances Filed by Certified Teaching Personnel Complaints and grievances are by definition a response to (perceived) dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work situation (Locke, 1969). Job attitudes affect organizational effectiveness to the extent that they influence turnover, absenteeism, strikes, grievances, sabotage, theft, and so on. The frustration that accompanies job dissatisfaction can lead to aggressive behavior rather than withdrawal. Aggression may take the form of sabotage, deliberate errors, and militant union activities, such as wildcat strikes, slowdowns, and excessive grievances. Aggression may also be displaced to other 24 parties, such as co-workers or an employee's family. Thus there may be a lot of bickering and fighting among employees when they are very frightened (Wexley and Yuki, 1984). In a review of 12 different arbitration cases regarding involuntary teacher transfers in Michigan, over a 10 year period from 1973-1983, it was found that the issues most typically grieved by the educational personnel were: 1. Potential violation of seniority clauses in teacher contracts; 2. Potential violation of the rights of the Board of Education to make assignments and transfer teachers; 3. Decisions made by Boards of Education based on district scheduling needs; 4. Potential violations of teacher contract language dealing with filling of vacancies created by lay- offs without posting position vacancies; and 5. Potential violation of teacher contracts relative to timely notice of impending transfer. Nine of the arbitration cases were denied in total. Two of the cases were in part denied and in part granted. In the one remaining case, the grievance was granted (Michigan Education Association Arbitration Abstracts, 1973-83). Information for the 1984 and 1985 school years was not available to this investigator. As we have seen from the literature regarding teacher job satisfaction, teacher transfer, teacher absenteeism, and teacher grievances, it is the educator who is identifying the difficulties inherent in a transfer in teaching assignment. 25 The stress under which teachers are being placed is formidable and not without side effects. As Miller (1984) suggests, "teachers need help to deal with rapid changes that are occurring and to cope with the reassignments due to the changing enrollments which are taking place. If education is to be a true profession, their organizations must take a more active role in helping teachers learn needed new skills. A profession sets standards and takes responsibility for the competence of its members. If educators want more control, they must be able and responsible professionals - and their organizations must help them" (p. 10). Gay, Dembowski, and McLennan (1984) echo the above Opinion O in their article dedicated to "Preserving Quality of Education During Enrollment Decline." They feel that, "...staff development activities must emphasize professional renewal. School districts and professional organizations should jointly assist teachers in instructional areas experiencing enrollment declines to redirect their careers by developing competencies in those instructional areas in which enrollments are rising" (p. 657). The transfer CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Ma or esearc uestions purpose of this research was to study the effects of of special education endorsed teachers as it relates to overall job satisfaction. To answer this general question, five major research questions were posed, namely: 1. The What is the relationship between perceived job satisfaction of transferred special education endorsed teachers and years of experience in the new position? What is the relationship between absenteeism of transferred special education endorsed teachers and years of experience in the new position? What is the relationship between the number of grievances filed by transferred special education endorsed teachers and years of experience in the new position? What is the relationship between supervisor ratings of satisfactoriness in position of transferred special education endorsed teachers and years of experience in the new position? What is the relationship among perceived job satisfaction of transferred special education endorsed teachers, supervisor ratings of satisfactoriness, and years of experience in the new position? Subjects subjects for this research were selected from Genesee Intermediate School District, Ingham Intermediate School District, and Livingston Intermediate School District. These 26 27 intermediate school districts comprise urban, suburban, and rural populations. Additionally, these intermediate school districts were felt to be representative of the greater general student population for the State of Michigan. The aforementioned intermediate school districts offer a full continuum of Special Education programs and services. These services include teacher/teacher consultant programs for the Severely Mentally Impaired, Trainable Mentally Impaired, Educable Mentally Impaired, Learning Disabled, Emotionally Impaired, Autistic Impaired, Speech and Language Impaired, Severely Multiply Impaired, Hospitalized/Homebound, Physically and Otherwise Impaired, Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, and Pre- Primary Impaired, in addition to ancillary and other related services. It was felt that the wide distribution of special education categorical areas serviced would provide for the sampling breadth needed to be representative. This pool of subjects composed the entire population of special education endorsed personnel who were transferred from general education teaching positions to special education teaching positions. The subjects were researched for the five school year period of 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86. Teachers transferred during the 1986-87 school year were not included in the sample population. The aforementioned five year span was selected as most fairly‘ representing the critical period of change in our school environment. These years encompassed the era of school closings, 28 declining enrollments, and teacher layoffs, as well as, the beginnings of teacher shortage. It was felt that during this five year range, many teacher transfers would have been initiated to accommodate the changing enrollment patterns being realized in our K-12 public school. In a pilot study, phone survey, conducted in January of 1987, it was determined that in 18 of 23 local educational agencies in Genesee, Ingham, and Livingston counties there were at least 44 special eudcation endorsed teachers who had been transferred from general education teaching positions to special education teaching positions during the five year period of 1981- 82 through 1985-86. It was determined that the 1986-87 school year would not be included in the study, due to the fact that any teacher transferred during the 1986-87 school year would not have had a full year in position following transfer, at the time of this study. Without a full year in position following transfer, the factors being studied would be incomplete. Instrumentation A number of options to determine job satisfaction, including personal interviews, telephone interviews, and group interviews, were considered and ultimately rejected, primarily on grounds of practicality or confidentiality. Ultimately the survey questionnaire method was selected. Research question #1 required that teachers report their perceived job satisfaction. Two popular job satisfaction scales 29 using fixed-response questions are: the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist, 1967). Both of these job satisfaction scales can yield a measure of general job satisfaction. While both the Job Descriptive Index and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire have been used with a variety of employee samples, and both have norms provided for employees according to occupational groupings, the scale chosen for implementation in this study was the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. The concept behind the development of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ), as reported by Betz, Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist, (1966) was found to most closely parallel the condition of the transferred special education endorsed teachers. Permission to acquire and use the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was requested of the Vocational Psychology Department of the University of Minnesota, along with permission to acquire and use the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale. The Vocational Psychology Department of the University of Minnesota granted permission for their usage on February 9, 1987 (see Appendix A). Research questions #2 and #3 required only that frequency counts of absences and grievances respectively be compiled, therefore no instrumentation was necessary. 30 Research question #4 required that supervisors report the satisfactoriness (effectiveness) of job performance of the transferred special education endorsed teachers when compared with their peers. The Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale was chosen for the collection of these data (Gibson, Weiss, Dawis, and Lofquist, 1970). Research question #5 required that an analysis of differences among the teachers' perceived job satisfaction, the satisfactoriness (effectiveness) rating given by the teachers' immediate supervisors, and years of experience in the new position. The Minnesota instruments were used to collect these data. Procedures for Data Collection Permission to access the population was sought through a telephone communication with Directors of Special Education at the intermediate and local school district levels. These Directors of Special Education were asked to distribute the survey and the job satisfaction questionnaire to those special education approved teachers who were transferred from general education teaching positions to special education teaching positions during the years of 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale was distributed to Directors of Special Education during February of 1987. This scale included 27 questions comparing the transferred special education endorsed teachers with others in his/her work group and a ranking of where the transferred personnel appeared to perform 31 relative to all special education supervisees. Particular attention was drawn to effectiveness of job performance, proficiency, and general overall value. A cover letter and record keeping form were sent to supervisors outlining the study and their anticipated participation (see Appendix B). The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire was distributed by Directors of Special Education to those special education teachers transferred from general education teaching positions to special education teaching positions over the past five years of 1981-1985. The long form of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist, 1967) was used to measure the degree of job satisfaction held by the selected respondents. This questionnaire included 100 questions in 20 categories, which results in a general satisfaction score. A survey consisting of 15 questions included inquiries regarding: sex, age, current position title, position title prior to transfer, date of special education endorsement acquisition, type of transfer, teaching experience prior to transfer, pay raise as a direct result of the transfer, method of transfer notification, preparation for transfer in position, absenteeism from work for the 1985-86 school year, and numbers of grievances filed for the 1985-86 school year was distributed in conjunction with the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (see Appendix C). While the survey developed to collect demographic data was not field tested prior to its distribution, the information to be 32 collected was judged to be fairly common data that would provide additional insight into a respondents current status. A cover letter accompanied the teacher surveys granting permission for the teachers' participation in the study (see Appendix C). Survey responses from the special education teachers as well as the supervisors were sent directly to the researcher in an effort to protect the anonymity of all participants. Follow-up phone calls were made to the supervisors of the transferred special education teachers in order to elicit a larger sample response. An 18% increase in the number of respondents resulted from the follow-up phone calls. Additionally, phone calls were made to two supervisors to request the names of their participating teachers. Permission to speak with those teachers was granted to the researcher. Telephone interviews of two of the transferred special education teachers were conducted to gain further understanding regarding their feelings relative to the position transfer. All information gained was held in the strictest of confidence to protect the respondents' identity. Responses of the transferees and the Directors of Special Education were matched by the coding procedure assigned to the respondents. The surveys and questionnaires were coded to protect the identity and anonymity of all participants. 33 Applysig of Data The method selected for data analysis of the first four research questions was that of One-Way Analysis of Variance. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences was employed for analysis of these data (SPSS: Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, and Brent, 1975). This method of analysis yielded F-ratios, as well as F-probabilities. Cell comparisons were made. Research question #1 and research question #4 were examined for potential correlations between Job Satisfaction scores reported by the responding teachers and the Satisfactoriness scores reported by their corresponding supervisors. Pearsons Correlation Test was utilized to examine this comparison. Additional data were examined using descriptive statistics, particularly, frequency counts, simple means and percentages. Interview information was reported in a narrative format and compared with analysis data. Summary As reported in the Chapter II review of literature, the research conducted in the field of Job Satisfaction has been primarily focused in business and industry. References to the efforts in the field of education are found far less frequently. The literature examination did not reveal research conducted in regards to transferred teachers, job satisfaction, absences from the work place, or grievances filed by those transferred. The design of this study allowed for analysis of variables often associated with job satisfaction, plus added the dimension 34 of comparing the transferred teachers' job satisfaction perceptions with that of their immediate supervisors. This chapter has introduced the major research questions utilized in this inquiry. The subjects were identified, instrumentation described, and the procedures for data collection were presented. Finally, the techniques employed to analyze all data were presented. Chapter IV contains the findings of the study. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND FINDINGS CHAPTER IV begins with a report of the response to the Background Information Survey, Minnesota Satisfaction Survey, and Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale. This report is succeeded by a presentation of the demographic information extrapolated from the Background Information Survey. Following this report, the results of the hypotheses testing are offered. In the concluding portion, data are reported regarding responses to six additional questions regarding teacher satisfaction and information obtained from two personal interviews of teacher respondents. Surve Res onse The survey population was characterized as being teachers who were transferred from one full-time teaching position in general education to a different full-time teaching position in Special Education during the 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985 school years. Eighteen local educational agencies in a three county area were surveyed in an effort to answer the five basic research questions. Responses were received from 50% of the teacher survey population. Twenty-two of the 44 teachers in the survey 35 36 population returned completed Background Information Surveys and Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaires. The method selected for distribution of the surveys and questionnaires was one that requested the teacher's supervisors to distribute the information to the target teacher population. Follow-up contact was made, to supervisors by phone, in an effort to encourage a greater return rate of the defined population. All responses were coded and did not allow the examiner to contact the respondents individually. Responses were received from 47.7% of the supervisor survey population. 21 of the 44 teacher supervisors returned completed Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales. Follow-up phone contact was initiated with the survey population supervisors in an attempt to enlarge the response rate of the survey population. Demographic Information The survey population of teachers was asked to complete a Background Information questionnaire (see Appendix C). This questionnaire consisted of 15 questions with a possibility of 37 responses being required. Completion time of the survey was approximately 10-12 minutes. Tables 4.1, and 4.2 present demographic data reported by the respondents. 37 Table 4.1 GENDER OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS FEMALES (N-l4) MALES (N-8) AGES 31-43 44-60 31-43 44-60 1 FEMALE GAVE NO RESPONSE MEAN AGE OF TEACHERS SURVEYED: 43.9 As can be seen in Table 4.1, while there were considerably more females in the survey population than males, 63.6% to 36.4% respectively, the total number of respondents in the age grouping of 31 to 43 years is nearly equal to that of the 44 to 60 year grouping, with 11 respondents in the 31-43 age and 10 respondents in the 44-60 age group. The larger numbers of female teachers responding is also indicative of the fact that there generally are more female teachers in our public school systems than male teachers, particularly in the elementary schools. 38 Table 4.2 CURRENT TENURE OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS YEARS OF RESPONSE PERCENT TENURE RATE RESPONSE 1 TO 2 YEARS 8 38.1 3 YEARS 6 28.6 4 TO 5 YEARS 7 33.3 MEAN TENURE IN POSITION: 2.95 YEARS Table 4.2 displays information relative to the number of years the transferred teachers have held their current positions. Those teachers reporting the fewest number of years in position evidence the largest percentage of response, 38% (see Appendix Table D.l). Included in the Background Information survey was a question relating to the date the respondent originally acquired an initial teaching certification. Table 4.3 displays the response information which has been gleaned from raw data presented in the Demographic Data Table D.l in Appendix D. 39 Table 4.3 DATES OF ORIGINAL TEACHING CERTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS DATE OF RESPONSE PERCENT CERTIFICATION RATE RESPONSE 1980 1 4.545 1977 1 4.545 1975 1 4.545 1974 3 13.636 1973 3 13.636 1971 5 22.727 1970 2 9.090 1966 1 4.545 1965 2 9.090 1963 1 4.545 1949 1 4.545 NO ANSWER 1 4.545 As can be seen in Table 4.3, responses indicated that 20 respondents had acquired their original teaching certificates a minimum of 4 years prior to transfer into a special education position in 1981. Additionally, at least 54% had the benefit of 10 years of teaching experience prior to 1981. 40 Table 4.4 DATES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSEMENT OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS DATE OF RESPONSE PERCENT CERTIFICATE RATE RESPONSE 1963 1 4.545 1966 2 9.090 1970 2 9.090 1971 1 4.545 1979 1 4.545 (TIME SPAN SURVEYED REPORTED BELOW) 1981 1 4.545 1982 5 22.727 1983 5 22.727 1984 2 i 9.090 1985 1 4.545 NO ANSWER 1 4.545 Data from Table 4.4 clearly demonstrate that only 7 of the respondents acquired their Special Education endorsement at least 4 years prior to a transfer in position. It is not known why these endorsed teachers did no teaching in special education prior to their current transfer. 41 Only 4 of the transferred teachers reported acquiring their original teaching certificate and their Special Education endorsement during the same years. Information regarding original teacher certification and special education endorsement is presented in Table D.2 in Appendix D. Of the 22 respondents being transferred from general education positionsinto special education positions, 45% of the teachers had taught previously in a special education setting. Their experiences ranged from teaching the Learning Disabled, Educable Mentally Impaired, Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, Speech and Language Impaired, to teaching Emotionally Impaired students. Table 4.5 displays data indicating the method by which teachers were notified of their impending transfer from general education to a special education position. 42 Table 4.5 METHOD OF TRANSFER NOTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS METHOD OF RESPONSE PERCENT NOTIFICATION RATE RESPONSE PHONE CALL ONLY 0 13.666 LETTER ONLY 1 4.545 PERSONAL INTERVIEW ONLY 7 31.818 STAFF MEETING ONLY 1 4.545 PHONE CALL AND LETTER 2 9.090 PERSONAL INTERVIEW AND 3 13.636 LETTER PHONE CALL, LETTER AND 3 13.636 PERSONAL INTERVIEW NO RESPONSE 2 9.090 It is interesting to note that no face-to-face, personal contact was made in 31% of the cases. Information not accessible to this researcher included: which administrator made the contact with the transferee; and the time of year the notification of transfer was transmitted to the teacher, be it the close of one school year, during summer vacation or the beginning of the school year for which the transfer would be effective. The preceeding information was summarized from data provided in the Background Information Survey. 43 A frequency count of all respondents indicates only 13% of the transferred teachers received a pay raise as a result of their transfer in position. 86% of the population answered negatively when queried in regards to a pay raise and their position transfer (see Appendix D, Table D.l). In an effort to secure information regarding the teacher's willingness to accept a position transfer the following data were collected (see Appendix D, Table D.l). Table 4.6 RESPONDENT WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT A POSITION TRANSFER FROM A GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITION TO A SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITION WILLING TO RESPONSE PERCENT BE TRANSFERRED RATE RESPONSE YES 18 81.818 NO 3 13.636 NO ANSWER 1 4.545 Of the 21 teachers electing to respond to the question posed regarding preference to be or not to be transferred, 66% of those responding in a positive manner, indicated that while they preferred to be transferred, they were accepting the transfer in position to avoid a lay-off from their teaching jobs. Teacher preparation for reassignment was explored through questions relating to local educational agency efforts and through self-initiated effort. Table 4.7 displays data collected in relationship to local efforts. 44 Table 4.7 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY RETRAINING EFFORTS FOR RESPONDENTS WHO WERE TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TYPE OF RESPONSE PERCENT RETRAINING RATE RESPONSE STAFF MEETINGS ONLY 1 4.545 INSERVICE SESSIONS ONLY 0 0 CONFERENCES ONLY 2 9.090 FORMALIZED COURSES ONLY 0 0 STAFF MEETINGS AND 2 9.090 CONFERENCES INSERVICE AND CONFERENCES 1 5.545 STAFF MEETINGS AND 1 4.545 INSERVICE STAFF MEETINGS, INSERVICE 3 13.636 AND CONFERENCES NONE 12 54.545 Table 4.7 clearly demonstrates that for 54% of the respondents, no efforts were made on the part of the local educational agency to prepare the teachers being transferred for their new teaching assignments. (see Appendix D Table D.3) In Table 4.8 self-initiated retraining efforts are reported. 45 Table 4.8 SELF-INITIATED RETRAINING EFFORTS OF RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED FROM GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TO SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHING POSITIONS TYPE OF RESPONSE PERCENT RETRAINING RATES RESPONSE INSERVICE SESSIONS ONLY 1 4.545 CONFERENCES ONLY 0 0 FORMALIZED COURSES ONLY 9 40.909 CONFERENCES AND FORMAL 3 13.636 COURSES INSERVICE, CONFERENCES 1 4.545 AND FORMAL COURSES CONFERENCES, FORMAL 1 4.545 COURSES AND OTHER INSERVICE, CONFERENCES, 1 4.545 FORMAL COURSES AND OTHER NONE 6 27.272 It is interesting to note that at least 72% of the teachers being transferred did initiate some type of retraining in an effort to prepare themselves for their impending transfer. 68% of the survey population enrolled themselves in formal coursework in preparation for their impending re-assignment. Additional questions relating to the number of absences from the work place and the number of grievances filed by the transferred teachers will be discussed following the reporting of the results of the tests of hypotheses. 46 Results of Hypotheses Testing Job satisfaction of the transferred teachers focused on a five year span. For purposes of analysis, the sample population was grouped as follows: Group 1 contained teachers who were transferred in 1981 and 1982. Group 2 contained teachers who were transferred in 1983. Group 3 contained teachers who were transferred in 1984 and 1985. The general attitude, prevailing in the literature regarding teacher transfer, is that anxiety and stress may be evidenced by those teachers being transferred. This stress and anxiety may develop into dissatisfaction in the work place. It was speculated that the longer a teacher was in a position, the more satisfied that teacher would become. The first basic research question is restated here as the first hypothesis in the null form. H.1 There is no significant difference in perceived job satisfaction among transferred special education endorsed teachers during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. The findings of the test of H.1 are presented in Table 4.9. 47 Table 4.9 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRANSFERRED TEACHERS'PERCEIVED JOB SATISFACTION OVER A FIVE YEAR SPAN DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 190.5536 1.5854 .2322 WITHIN GROUPS 18 1081.732 The results indicate there are no significant differences in perceived job satisfaction among the teachers who were transferred over the five years surveyed. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is accepted. One indicator of possible job dissatisfaction is that of absenteeism from the work place. With that indicator in mind, it was speculated that the more satisfied a teacher was in his/her position, the fewer absences that teacher would demonstrate. The second basic research question is restated here as the second null hypothesis. H.2 There is no significant difference among transferred special education endorsed teachers in the absences from the work place during the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. The findings of the test of H.2 are presented in Table 4.10. 48 Table 4.10 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRANSFERRED TEACHERS' RATE OF ABSENTEEISM OVER A FIVE YEAR SPAN DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 3.4912 .2223 .8031 WITHIN GROUPS l6 125.6667 The results indicate there are no significant differences in the rate of absenteeism among the teachers who were transferred over the five year span. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is accepted. An additional indicator of possible job satisfaction is that of grievances filed by teachers. It was speculated that the more satisfied a teacher was in their current teaching assignment, the fewer number of grievances that teacher would initiate. The third basic research question is restated here as the third hypothesis in the null form. H.3 There is no significant difference among transferred special education endorsed teachers in the number of grievances filed during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. Investigation of the question indicated no grievances were filed by the transferred teachers, therefore no analyses of the data were possible and Hypothesis 3 is accepted. Satisfactoriness of the transferred teacher, as rated by their immediate supervisor brought an added dimension to this 49 research. In addition to examining job satisfaction as perceived by the teacher, it was felt that the perspective of their immediate supervisor might act as confirmation to the teachers' perceptions. The fourth basic research question is restated here as the fourth hypothesis in the null form. H.4 There is no significant difference among transferred special education endorsed teachers who were assessed by their Special Education Directors for their satisfactoriness in position during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. The findings of the test of H.4 are presented in Table 4.13. Table 4.11 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF TRANSFERRED TEACHERS' SATISFACTORINESS AS RATED BY THEIR SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTORS OVER A FIVE YEAR SPAN DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 332.9000 .9668 .4081 WITHIN GROUPS l2 2066.0333 The results indicate there are no significant differences in teacher satisfactoriness as rated by their Special Education Director over the five year span. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is accepted. Following an examination of perceived teacher satisfaction and satisfactoriness ratings given by the Directors of Special 50 Education of the transferred teachers, the question was posited as to whether there would be a correlation between the two sets of scores. The fifth basic research question is restated here as the fifth hypothesis in the null form. H.5 There is no significant difference among the perceived job satisfaction of the transferred special education endorsed teachers and the satisfactoriness rating given by the transferred special education teachers' immediate supervisor during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. Table 4.12 PEARSON'S CORRELATION TEST OF TRANSFERRED TEACHERS' SATISFACTION AND THE TRANSFERRED TEACHERS' SATISFACTORINESS AS RATED BY THEIR SPECIAL EDUCATION DIRECTOR OVER A FIVE YEAR SPAN NUMBER SATISFACTION SATISFACTORINESS l TAIL GROUPS OF CASES SCALE RANKING PROB. 1 5 -.3701 1.0 .270 2 6 .6623 1.0 .076* 3 4 .7450 1.0 .128 TOTAL 15 .4463 1.0 .048* GROUPS *significant at the alpha level .10 The findings for the test of Hypothesis 5 indicate there is a significant difference at alpha level .10 for Group 2, teachers who were transferred in 1983, as well as a significant difference for the groups as a whole. 51 Group 1 demonstrates a negative correlation between teachers' perceived job satisfaction and the satisfactoriness rating of their immediate supervisor. This group is comprised of teachers transferred in 1981/1982. Groups 2 and 3 constitute teachers who were transferred in 1983 and 1984/1985 respectively. Both Groups 2 and 3 show a positive correlation between the teachers' perceived job satisfaction and immediate supervisors satisfactoriness ratings. The total group of 15 respondents similarly display a positive correlation. These results indicate that Hypothesis 5 should be rejected. Results of Additional Data Analysis and Teacher Intepyiews All teacher respondents were asked questions regarding their feelings following transfer relative to: New peer relationships Relationships with administration Familiarity with job assignment Materials/supplies to be used in the new job assignment Relationships with new students Relationships with parents of new students They were requested to respond by indicating that they were 1) very satisfied, 2) satisfied, 3) neutral, 4) dissatisfied, or 5) very dissatisfied. One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to examine differences between the female and male respondents and the questions regarding feelings following transfer. The findings of the tests are presented in Tables 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15. 52 Table 4.13 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN FEMALE/MALE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADMINISTRATION DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 1 2.6447 4.8749 .0397* WITHIN GROUPS 19 10.3077 *significant at the alpha level .05 Table 4.14 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN FEMALE/MALE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING MATERIALS/SUPPLIES TO BE USED IN THE NEW JOB ASSIGNMENT DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 1 5.1447 3.5152 .0763* WITHIN GROUPS 19 27.8077 *significant at the alpha level .10 53 Table 4.15 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN FEMALE/MALE RESPONDENTS AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH NEW STUDENTS DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 1 .8864 3.4211 .0800* WITHIN GROUPS 19 4.9231 *significant at the alpha level .10 Tables 4.13, 4.14, and 4.15 demonstrate a significant difference between female and male transferred teachers relative to their feeling of satisfaction with 1) relationships with administration, significant at alpha level .05, 2) materials and supplies to be used in the new job assignment, significant at alpha level .10, and 3) relationships with new students in their current position, significant at alpha level .10. The male teachers displayed greater satisfaction than did their female counterparts. No significant difference was indicated between females and males regarding their level of satisfaction with new peer relationships, familiarity with the job assignment, or relationships with the parents of new students. One-Way Analysis of Variance was utilized to test for differences between teachers transferred in 1981 and 1982 (Group 1), 1983 (Group 2), and 1984 and 1985 (Group 3) and the questions 54 regarding feelings following transfer. Table 4.16, 4.17, and 4.18 display the findings of this test. Table 4.16 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED IN 1981-1982, 1983, AND 1984-1985 AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING NEW PEER RELATIONSHIPS DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 2.5333 2.8087 .0883* WITHIN GROUPS 17 7.6667 *significant at the alpha level .10 Table 4.17 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED IN 1981-1982, 1983, AND 1984-1985 AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADMINISTRATION DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 3.0917 3.0177 .0756* WITHIN GROUPS 17 8.7083 *significant at the alpha level .10 55 Table 4.18 TEST OF ONE-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS TRANSFERRED IN 1981-1982, 1983, AND 1984-1985 AND THEIR FEELINGS REGARDING RELATIONSHIPS WITH PARENTS OF NEW STUDENTS DEGREES OF SUM OF F SOURCE FREEDOM SQUARES RATIO SIGNIFICANCE BETWEEN GROUPS 2 1.2833 2.9750 .0780* WITHIN GROUPS 17 3.6667 *significant at the alpha level .10 In examining the data, it was found that Group 2 teachers transferred in 1983 demonstrated a higher mean score and appeared slightly more satisfied relative to new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with parents of new students than were teachers of Group 1 or Group 3. Significant difference at the alpha level .10, was noted between the groups indicating that there may be a relationship between transferred teachers and new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with parents of new students. The three groups demonstrated no significant differences when queried about familiarity with job assignment, materials/supplies to be used in the new assignment, or relationships with new students. 56 With permission given by their Directors of Special Education, two of the transferred teachers were contacted for interview. One teacher, who had scored very low on the Job Satisfaction Survey and whose supervisor had scored equally as low on the Satisfactoriness Scale, was interviewed by phone. The interview revealed that the teacher's satisfaction level was low, basically due to poor working conditions. Issues discussed centered around 1) an overload of handicapped students assigned to the teacher's caseload, 2) a lack of support from administration in making the necessary alterations to reduce the caseload to legally allowed maximums, 3) inappropriate programming for students' needs, 4) concern for the growing number of handicapped students dropping out of school, and 5) the need for curricular changes in order to meet the handicapped students potential. This interviewee expressed very adamantly that the next step to be taken would be that of teacher union intervention through the grievance process. The situation described seemed so negative to this teacher, the possibility of transferring back into general education was an alternative being strongly considered. The second interviewee, whose satisfaction level scored slightly above the mean for all respondents and whose supervisor scored her slightly above the mean satisfactoriness rating for 57 all respondents, reported having had an interest in Special Education prior to her transfer. The interviewee relayed feelings of satisfaction relative to l) administrative support for innovative ideas to be used in the classroom, 2) recent changes within the school district bringing their programming into stricter compliance with Special Education Rules/Regulations, and 3) excellent relationships with students in her classroom. It should be noted that in both interview situations, there had been a change of immediate supervisor within the past 2 school years. The interviews served to verify information gleaned from the Minnesota Satisfaction Survey and Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale, as well as the Background Information Survey. Eipdings In an effort to gain demographic and other data regarding job satisfaction of the research respondents, a Background Information Survey was developed. The survey information allowed for comparisons of males and females in two major age groupings and showed that older females seem less satisfied with their transfer in teaching position than did younger males. Additional demographic information provided insight into: the mean tenure in current position of 2.95 years; dates of original teaching certification of respondents transferred from general education teaching positions to special education 58 teaching positions, with at least 90% of the teachers having acquired their certification a minimum of 4 years prior to transfer; dates of special education endorsement of transferred teachers, with only 31% reporting that they acquired their special education endorsement at least 4 years prior to a transfer in position; the method of transfer notification utilized with the respondents, with only 31% being contacted in a face-to-face, personal manner; the respondents willingness to be transferred was clearly demonstrated by 81% of transferees but 66% of those did so to avoid a lay-off from their teaching position; and local educational agency efforts relative to retraining of transferees were only at the 46% level, while self- initiated retraining efforts were at the 72% level. Five hypotheses were developed to investigate the effects of transfer in position relative to teacher satisfaction following the transfer. A five year span was under scrutiny. Findings from tests of the hypotheses are listed for examination. 1. There was no significant difference in perceived job satisfaction between transferred special education approved teachers during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. 2. There was no significant difference between transferred special education approved teachers in the absences from the work place during the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years in position. 59 3. There was no significant difference between transferred special education approved teachers in the number of grievances filed during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. 4. There was no significant difference between transferred special education approved teachers who were assessed by their Special Education Directors for their satisfactoriness in position during their first, second, third, fourth, or fifth years in position. 5. There was a significant difference among the perceived job satisfaction of the transferred special education approved teachers and the satisfactoriness rating given by the transferred special education teachers' immediate supervisor during their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years in position. The findings indicated a correlation between the teachers' self- ranking of job satisfaction following transfer and their immediate supervisors' satisfactoriness rating of the transferred teachers' performance in position. Additional data analysis indicated significant difference between females and males relative to their feelings of satisfaction with relationships with administration, materials and supplies to be used in the new job assignment, and relationships with new students in their current position. It was also found that there may be a relationship between transfer and new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with parents of new students. 60 Personal interviews of 2 of the respondents seemed to validate literature reviews relative to the importance of administrative support when transfers in position do occur. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The organization of Chapter V is presented as follows: summary, discussion, conclusions and recommendations. The summary contains comments regarding the problem, methodology, and analysis and the findings of the data analysis. The discussion section integrates the implications of the analysis with previous research and compares test results with the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. The third section states conclusions. The fourth section of Chapter V offers recommendations to a variety of audiences dealing with teachers in general, and Special Education teachers specifically. Summary One effect of decline in student enrollment, over the past decade and a half, is a reduction in the numbers of teachers needed to educate the school-age population. Equally critical as a consideration is that of potential teacher shortage. This has come to be of great importance as the student enrollment decline has begun to taper off. Either of the above situations can create instances where teaching staff may be transferred from existing positions into positions that are relatively unfamiliar to those educators being transferred. 61 62 Transfers of this type may effect those educators being transferred in a myriad of ways. Stress between the transferee and their immediate supervisors or stress between transferee and their new peer group may develop. Discomfort with their new teaching assignment or lack of familiarity with materials and supplies utilized in the new assignment may emerge. Additionally, the transferred personnel, while approved to teach in their new position, may have lost touch with current curriculum developed in the area of their new assignment. When placed in a transfer situation, the affected personnel may develop a change in their satisfaction level. This study sought to examine several factors associated with the effects of transfer: 1) perceived job satisfaction, 2) absences from the work place, 3) grievances filed and 4) satisfactoriness in position. During the winter of 1987, teachers, who had transferred from general education teaching positions to special education teaching positions over a 5 year span, were surveyed using the Minnesota Satisfaction Scale and a Background Survey. Supervisors of the target population which were located in the central Michigan counties of Genesee, Ingham, and Livingston, were surveyed, using the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale. Demographic data provided information for evaluation of gender and age of respondents, current tenure in position of the transferred personnel, dates of teacher certification and special education endorsement, method of transfer notification, 63 willingness of respondents to accept the transfer in position, retraining efforts of the local educational agency and self retraining efforts. Three hypotheses speculated on differences between transferred special education approved teachers during their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years in position and their perceived job satisfaction, number of their absences from the work place, and number of grievances they filed. Differences between transferred special education teachers during their first, second, third, fourth, and fifth years in position and the satisfactoriness rating given by their immediate supervisor and differences between perceived job satisfaction and the satisfactoriness ranking given by the immediate supervisor of the transferred personnel were under speculation in hypotheses four and five. These hypotheses utilized information gleaned from the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale, and Background Information Survey. Additional questions were examined regarding feelings associated with the position transfer, using information extracted from the Background Information Survey. And finally, two of the transferred personnel were individually interviewed in order to gain a deeper awareness of their perceptions relative to the change in teaching assignment. The demographic data regarding gender, age, tenure in current position, dates of original teaching certification and special education approval, method of transfer notification, 64 willingness to be transferred, local educational agency and self- initiated retraining efforts were analyzed using frequency counts and percentage of response calculations. One-Way Analysis of Variance was used to test data obtained pertaining to the three hypotheses speculating on significant differences between transferred special education endorsed teachers and their perceived job satisfaction, numbers of absences from the work place and numbers of grievances filed and the hypothesis regarding satisfactoriness ratings given by the transferred personnel's immediate supervisor. Data relative to comparison between teachers' perceived job satisfaction and the supervisors' satisfactoriness ratings were analyzed using Pearsons Correlation Test. Questions regarding teachers' feelings associated with the position transfer were analyzed utilizing One-Way Analysis of Variance and the personal interview responses were effected utilizing a general reporting style. Findings of the demographic data indicated that there were more female respondents than males in the survey population; there were a larger number of male than female respondents in the 31-43 age group; there were a larger number of female than male respondents in the 44-60 age group; a greater number of teachers reported being in their current position for a shorter period of time; at least 54% of the respondents had 10 years of teaching experience prior to their potential transfer in 1981; only 7 of the 22 respondents acquired their endorsement to teach 65 special education at least 4 years prior to transfer; method of transfer was varied with 31% of the respondents having no face- to-face, personal contact with the person notifying them of their impending transfer; only 13% of the respondents received a pay raise as a result of their transfer; of the 18 respondents indicating a willingness to be transferred, 12 of those teachers were opting to transfer to avoid lay-off; and for 54% of those transferred, no retraining efforts were made by the local educational agency, while 72% of the teachers made efforts toward self-retraining for the position reassignment. Of the five hypotheses tested, four were accepted indicating no significant difference between the transferred teachers during their first, second, third, fourth or fifth years in position as regards job satisfaction number of absences from the work place, number of grievances filed and the satisfactoriness rating of their immediate supervisor. The final hypothesis was tested and rejected when a correlation was found to exist between the supervisors satisfactoriness rating and the teachers perceived job satisfaction. Significant differences were found between female and male respondents in regards to job satisfaction and relationships with administration, materials and supplies to be used in the new position, and relationships with new students, with males indicating a higher degree of satisfaction. 66 Significant differences were found with teachers having an average amount of experience in their current position indicating a higher degree of satisfaction relative to new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with parents of new students. The personal interview responses were basically a verification of the information extracted from the Minnesota Satisfaction Survey, the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale and the Background Information Survey, specifically where administrative support was concerned. Di§CUSS ion One of the most often cited effects of teacher reassignment or transfer is that of stress. Morsink (1982), Anderson and Watson (1982), Collins and Masley (l980),-Saville (1981), Chickon and Koff (1979), Catteron (1979), Mazer and Griffin (1980), Potter (1982), and Mager, Myers, Maresca, Rupp and Armstrong (1986) report results of research supporting the effect that stress plays in the transferred teachers professional life. In their results they also speak to the fact that administrative support for the teacher in transition is critical in the dimension of teacher satisfaction. Oliver (1984) found that there is little or no organized effort on the part of management to help teachers in preparing for job mobility. In examining the responses of the Background Survey, it is evident that the teachers involved in transfer were given little 67 support by administration. For 54.5% of the respondents, no retraining was initiated by the local educational agency. It is also evident that those teachers being transferred felt a need to be retrained with 72.7% of those responding self-initiating retraining effort. This finding compares favorably with the reporting in the literature. It would be interesting to question educators who might feel that less direction from their immediate supervisors could lead to greater independence and a greater degree of creativity in their roles within the field of education. When considering the stress factor and teacher transfer, one might speculate that teachers who have had considerable experience in the field of education would feel more satisfied than would teachers who have taught for shorter periods of time. However, the findings of the data analysis did not support this notion. When the transferred groups were evaluated there were no significant differences among teachers who were in position for 1 and 2 years versus 3 years versus 4 and 5 years. The majority of the respondents had acquired their original teaching certification at least 4 years prior to the transfer with 54.6% having acquired 10 years of teaching experience prior to 1981. One of the factors noted by Porter and Steers (1973) as being indicative of job satisfaction is that of attendance in the work place. Virtually all major reviews of the literature substantiated significant relationships between job satisfaction and absenteeism (Lock, 1969) 68 While no significant differences were demonstrated between the research groups relative to absenteeism and tenure in position, it would be interesting to investigate what effect the local educational agency policies for giving each employee a predetermined number of sick days and personal business days has on the absence rate and precisely why the teacher was utilizing the allotted days of absence. Such an investigation would lead to a clearer understanding of satisfaction on the job that utilizing a frequency count methodology. One unexpected finding of the research indicated that none of the respondents, regardless of their rate of satisfaction in their position, filed a grievance over the five year span being evaluated. While rates of satisfaction, as reported by the teachers, varied from a low of 48 to a high of 78, on a scale of 1-100, with a mean score of 63.045%, not one of the respondents was apparently dissatisfied to such a degree as to file a grievance. (see Appendix D Table D. 1) Complaints and grievances are by definition a response to (perceived) dissatisfaction with some aspect of the work situation. (Locke,1969) One can only speculate on the level of dissatisfaction with the survey respondents and conclude that the transferred teachers may have felt that the situation was unchangeable and therefore filing a grievance would accomplish nothing. It is interesting to note, however, that one of the transferees, reported in interview that, the situation he was in was so negative that a grievance would indeed be the next 69 alternative he would pursue in order to effect change within the situation. When rated by their immediate supervisors relative to satisfactoriness in position, no significant differences were indicated over the five year span. This would seem to indicate that the supervisors were equally as satisfied with the job performance of teachers who had been transferred in 1981 and 1982 as those transferred in 1983 or 1984 and 1985. It is not known how differently the satisfactoriness rating might have been had the satisfactoriness scale been completed by a building principal who could compare the transferred teachers job performance with general education professionals. When comparing the teachers job satisfaction scores with the satisfactoriness ratings issued by their supervisors there were significant differences indicated. While the teachers transferred in 1981 and 1982 demonstrated a lower degree of satisfaction with their position, their supervisors rated them more highly in satisfactoriness indicating a negative correlation. For teachers transferred in 1983 or 1984 and 1985 there was a positive correlation between their job satisfaction score and the satisfactoriness rating given to them. This indication would lead one to question what other factors might be influencing the more tenured teachers perceptions. When isolating specific areas in regards to job satisfaction, it was noted that the teachers with average tenure 70 in position, those transferred in 1983 had a slightly higher rate of satisfaction with new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with the parents of the new students in their charge. It was speculated earlier that, the longer a teacher held a position, the more satisfied they would be with aspects of their new job. Again, the analysis did not verify a relationship existing between the more tenured transferred teachers and new peer relationships, relationships with administration, and relationships with the parents of the new students. In keeping with more traditional approaches for evaluating research data, an examination was conducted which compared the female respondents with the male respondents. Significant differences were found with male teachers reporting a higher degree of satisfaction with relationships with administration, with materials and supplies provided, and relationships with students in the new position. It could be speculated that the more experienced teachers had different expectations in the job arena than did their younger, male counterparts. Of the eight males responding to the survey, 2 reflected a negative preference to being transferred. Of the 14 females responding to the survey, only 1 registered a negative response when queried in regards to preference for being transferred and 1 female elected not to respond to that particular question. It could be speculated that with 25% of the male population preferring not to be transferred and only 7% of the females preferring not to be transferred, other aspects of the job 71 situation may have been influencing the female respondents in the area of job satisfaction. When comparing the respondents of this research with normative data compiled by the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation done by the Work Adjustment Project Industrial Relations Center of the University of Minnesota, it was found that the teachers surveyed in this research differed by nearly 20 points on their General Satisfaction score. The table below presents the comparisons. Table 5 . l COMPARISON OF GENERAL JOB SATISFACTION SCORES OF THE MINNESOTA STUDIES IN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSED TEACHERS AS IT RELATES TO OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION MINNESOTA STUDIES (N-191) EFFECTS OF TRANSFER (N-22) MEAN STANDARD MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION DEVIATION 82.14 7.82 63.045 7.865 As can be seen in Table 5.1, the teachers surveyed in this research scored at a lower rate in overall job satisfaction than did the teachers studied by the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. With a scale of 75 or higher equalling a. high degree of satisfaction, 26 to 74 equalling an average degree of satisfaction and 25 or below equalling a low level of satisfaction, the teachers in the current survey demonstrated 72 average satisfaction with their current positions. One could consider the difference as possibly being due to the smaller sample size being less indicative of the general teaching population. One might also speculate that the difference is due to the specific nature of special education and the pressures inherent in that teaching assignment as opposed to general education teaching positions. Special education has many rules and regulations governing the organization and delivery of services to students, whereas general education is far less restrictive in its regulations and mandates. Additional verification of these factors might be inherent in the different populations polled. The Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation utilized a population comprised of elementary school teachers from kindergarten through grade six, whereas, this research utilized special education teachers from kindergarten through grade twelve. When comparing normative data compiled relative to the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale, it was found that differences continued to occur, but not with as large a discrepancy as demonstrated in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 displays data comparing the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale score gathered in this research project and the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation. 73 Table 5 . 2 COMPARISON OF SATISFACTORINESS SCORES OF THE MINNESOTA STUDIES IN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND A STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFER OF SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSED TEACHERS AS IT RELATES TO OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION MINNESOTA STUDIES (N-384) EFFECTS OF TRANSFER (N-22) STANDARD STANDARD MEAN DEVIATION MEAN DEVIATION 66.30 10.33 59.476 11.940 When using the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale scores of 25 and below they may be considered unsatisfactory, scores of 26 through 49 may be considered somewhat satisfactory, scores of 50 through 74 may be considered satisfactory and scores of 75 and above are considered very satisfactory. The mean scores of the normative population are within the satisfactory range, as are the scores of this research project. The original norming population scored at a somewhat higher rate of satisfactoriness than did the research population. Again, one might surmise that, due to the nature of Special Education and its many complexities, the research group scored a lower rate when their immediate supervisors ranked their satisfactoriness in position. It might also be interpreted that the transfer in position was the predominant factor in the survey population scoring lower in both areas of job satisfaction and job satisfactoriness. If 74 this assumption is accurate, the premise of the research project is validated. It is interesting to note that the normative population most closely associated with teaching, reported by the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, were the professional, technical and managerial group. There were no teacher groups reported for norming by the Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation relative to the Job Satisfactoriness Scale. A final comment on the relatively low response rate should be made. It is possible that the 50% of eligible respondents who elected not to return completed instruments, could have influenced the study results. However, certain conclusions and recommendations, based on the responses can be made. They are presented in the following sections. mm Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions seem warranted: 1. The local educational agencies appear to lack in planning for the retraining of transferred personnel. 2. Presence or absence of formal grievences does not appear to be an indicator of teacher job satisfaction. 3. Gender and age differences tend to be predictors of teacher job satisfaction. 4. Time in position tends to be predictive of teacher job satisfaction. 75 Regopmepdatfpps Based on the conclusions stated above, the following recommendations for boards of education, local educational agency administrations, education associations representing teachers, and teacher training institutions seem warranted: Local boards of education need to develop policies and procedures to be utilized by those persons involved with personnel development within their school districts. As a minimum, building principals and immediate supervisors of general education, as well as, specialized staff, need to become familiar with staff retraining needs in order to assist transferred educators in making easier adjustments to the change at hand. The boards of education may wish to provide for teacher assistance teams, comprised of the transferred teacher's peers. Such teams could serve to support the transferee and could defuse the potential of fear that the newly transferred teacher's inadequacies might be utilized by administration, in a negative manner, through the evaluation process. Procedures could be established for monitoring the types of grievances filed by the educators. This monitoring activity could be utilized by both personnel departments and principals, who supervise these teachers. Such information would be invaluable in assisting administration in developing intervention strategies for dealing with said teachers with a goal towards staving off a drop in teacher job satisfaction. As more teachers approach retirement age and the teaching profession integrates the younger professionals into it‘s ranks, 76 local boards of education will need to be cognizant of changes in attitudes among their younger staff. They will need to provide direction to their central office administration, who will in turn advise their building principals in regards to in-service training relative to the changing needs of their staff. As more men enter the teaching profession, especially at the elementary level, the supervision of staff and the leadership of the professionals becomes paramount when one considers harmony among teachers and their satisfaction in their chosen field. Of equal concern, are the needs of those teachers approaching retirement, which will need to be addressed by the school boards. In-service education relative to retirement benefits and changing life styles may assist those nearing the conclusion of their teaching careers and may pave the way for their easier transition into retirement. Research could be undertaken by state and national school board associations to investigate policies concerning the teacher transfer issue. Model policies which might result from such reasearch could be developed to assist the local school boards and pave the way for resolution of teacher transfer difficulties. Educational associations, representing teachers, need to become more vitally involved with the issues affecting teachers who are in the transfer process, as well as teachers who are approaching retirement. With their access to the teachers being virtually limitless, further research with large teacher populations is well within their reach. By looking at issues including perceived teacher job satisfaction, teacher transfer, 77 and differences between gender and age of teachers, their findings would greatly add to the current body of knowledge available to all concerned. Teacher training institutions could become involved in research surrounding the changing needs of the future teachers in their charge. Their input could serve as a backbone for the local educational agency development of policies and procedures. Additionally, their research findings could be utilized when preparing future educators for taking their place in our nation's delivery of educational services, with the very real benefit affecting our nation's school age population. APPENDICES APPENDIX A January 21, 1987 Vocational Psychology Research 406 Elliott Hall University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Dear Sir/Madam: As a doctoral student at Michigan State University, I am proposing to use the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire in my research. On January 29, 1987, I will be meeting with my committee for acceptance of my proposal. How quickly would I be able to receive 125 copies of each questionnaire following acceptance of my proposal? Also, I will need a copy of the new MSQ manual and scoring procedures. What would be the total cost of the above? My research will be looking at job satisfaction and satisfactoriness of teachers who have been transferred from one teaching position to a different teaching position during the five year period including 1981-82 through 1985-86. My degree will be in Special Education Administration, with a target date for completion in June 1987. The name of my chairperson is Dr. Donald Burke, Professor in Special Education at Michigan State University. Other committee members include Dr. Louis Romano, Professor in Higher Education, and Dr. Stanley Bryan, retired Professor from the College of Business from Michigan State University. Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. As you can see, my time frame is somewhat abbreviated. Sincerely, 78 79 February 3, 1987 Title of dissertation: A Study of the Effects of Transfer of Special Education Approved Teachers as it Relates to Overall Job Satisfaction The purpose of this study is to examine several factors: 1) perceived job satisfaction, 2) number of absences from the work place, and 3) number of grievances filed by the transferred personnel who were teaching in gen- eral education positions and are currently assigned to teach in special education positions. Additionally, an examination will be made of the effectiveness in position as determined by a satisfactoriness ranking to be complet- ed by the Special Education Director, who immediately sup- ervises the transferred personnel. I]; Student signature: ”152.54,“; flu, (445:7, I 'f‘fl n .- -, Committee Chairman signature: 1977/1/L/ Ql/l//,é:~, [IL 80 . l TMUNIVERSITYOFMINNESOTAE DepartmentofPsychology f‘v-r l. , TWIN CITIES Elliott Hall S 75 East River Road , . Minneapolis. Minnesota 55455 February 9, 1987 Marcia A. Pullen 12444 Pine Ridge Drive Perry, Michigan 48872 Dear Ms. Pullen: We are pleased to grant permission for your use of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scales in your Doctoral Dissertation research. We acknowledge receipt of payment for 100 copies of the MSQ (1967 edition), 100 copies of the M88, one copy of the MSQ Manual, one copy of the M88 Manual, and Fourth Class postage and handling fees. We would appreciate receiving a copy of any publications that result from your use of the MSQ and M88. We attempt to maintain an archive and bibliography of research related to Vocational Psychology Research instruments, and we would value your contribution to our collection. Good luck with your research. If you have any questions, or if we can be of additional assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, ///Z; n )2. '2): L(’ (’13,.(5) Allan M. Due Assistant Director Vocational Psychology Research AMDzmcs enclosures APPENDIX B Marcia A. Pullen 12444 Pine Ridge Perry. Michigan 49978 Dear Collegue: Enclosed are materials being used in a study related to teacher transfer. Schools and special education teachers in Genesee, Ingham, and Livingston counties have been selected to be part of this study. We are asking you, as Special Education Directors, to be involved in three activities. Activity 1. Please distribute the enclosed Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and Background Information Survey to all special education teachers who have transferred from general education teaching positions into special education teaching positions from the years ISBI~BE through 1985-86. Q stamped, return envelope is provided for geach teacher transferee. Activity 2. Please complete a Minnesota Satisfactoriness Scale for each teacher that receives a Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire and Background Information Survey. A stamped, return envelope is provided for your completed forms. Aciivity 3. Please match your response form with the information given to the teacher(s). Example 3 to 3a, 10 to 10a. etc. Enclosed is a form for easy record keeping. Also, retain the record keeping form, as you may be contacted by me in the near future to request permission to interview one of your teachers. The information you and your teachers provide will be held in the strictest of confidence. Return of all information by March 15th would be greatly apprec i a ted . Thank you for your assistance with this project. Coridally, Marcia A. Fifll£N1 ;€ZZ%“C;L/ /¢:;1;2£éé%fiL// Academic Advisor sly/V 4 81 82 RECORD KEEPING FORM SUPERVISOR TEACHER TEACHER SCALE SURVEY NAME APPENDIX C 83 minnesota satisfactoriness scales Vocational Psychology Research UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Copyright 1977 84 Employee Name Job Rated by Date Please check the best answer for each question Be sure to answer all questions Compared to others in his/her work group, how well does the employee. . . Follow company policies and practices? ......................... Accept the direction of his/her supervisor? ...................... Follow standard work rules and procedures? .................... Accept the responsibility of his/her job? ......................... Adapt to changes in procedures or methods? .................... Respect the authority of his/her supervisor? ..................... Work as a member of a team? .................................. Get along with his/her supervisors? ............................. 9QN¢9¥PNf Perform repetitive tasks? ....................................... d .0 Get along with his/her co-workers? ............................. d A . Perform tasks requiring variety and change in methods? ......... Compared to others in his/her work group . . . 12. How good is the quality of his/her work? ........................ 13. How good is the quantity of his/her work? ....................... If you could make the decision, would you. . . 14. Give him/her a pay raise? ....................................... 15. Transfer him/her to a job at a higher level? ...................... 16. Promote him/her to a position of more responsibility? ............ not about as the well same Cl C] C] C] D DDDDDDDDDD I] not about as the good same Cl [3 C] D no t yes sure D C] [I] C] D E] better E] UDDDDDDDDD better no DC] 85 Please check the best answer for each question Be sure to answer all questions about Compared to others in his/her work group, how the often does the employee . . . less same more 17. Come late for work? .................... . ....................... E] Cl C] 18. Become overexcited? .......................................... E] E] El 19. Become upset and unhappy? ................................... E] El El 20. Need disciplinary action? ....................................... [I] D E] 21. Stay absent from work? ........................................ E] Cl C] 22. Seem bothered by something? .................................. El [3 El 23. Complain about physical ailments? ............................. E] E] El 24. Say ‘odd’ things? .............................................. Cl E] El 25. Seem to tire easily? ............................................ D D E] 26. Act as if he/she is not listening when spoken to? ................ [I] D D 27. Wander from subject to subject when talking? ................... E] D [I] 28. Now will you please consider this worker with respect to overall competence, the effective- ness of job performance. proficiency. and general overall value. Take into account all the elements of successful job performance, such as knowledge of the job and functions per- formed, quantity and quality of output, relations with other people (subordinates, equals, superiors), ability to get the work done, intelligence. interest. response to training. and the like. In other words. how closely does he/she approximate the ideal, the kind of worker you want more of? With all these factors in mind, where would you rank this worker as compared with the other people whom you now have doing the same work? (or, if he/she is the only one. how does he/she compare with those who have done the same work in the past?) In the top 1A: ....................................................................... El In the top half but not among the top 1/4 ............................................ Cl In the bottom half but not among the lowest 1/4 ...................................... D In the lowest 1/4 .................................................................... Cl APPENDIX D Marcia A. Pullen 18444 Pine Ridge Perry, Michigan 48878 Dear Special Education Teacher: Your Special Education Director is distributing survey forms being used in a Teacher Tranafer Study. Your r.oasis:tanco with this project will be greatly appreciated. Enclosnd you will find a stamped. addroacod envelope for your responsno. All information will be mailed directly to me and will be held in the strictest of confidence. Pormiaoion for this study hag been granted by your immediate Gupervifior. Return of your forms by March 15th will be greatly appreciated. Thanl: you for your participation.‘ Cordially, Marcia A. Pullen WWW Academic Advisor 86 In a 'w'. -- A 87 BHCHGROUND I NFORMGT 1 UN mum Why“; 8. Female Male .. .... .... .- .-- ...- — ...- ...- ...... n-u up. .... -.. 1.7111" 1“ 1:31 11:. 17-c- .1. 1‘: 1 1'11'1 ( 3;: i t 163 ) ....- p... .... _. ..- ...- --. —-. —- ecl- —~ o-m —. a. can -.— — u..- -.. — -- .. -.. ... .— ..-. u.- —— ...- .... a... a... ...... .-.: 1'13 2:3 :1. ‘3; “1 1:71" ‘2. 1:; 11:11: 1:; r .‘-.'.31'1€‘3'1"€.=1‘1" ( ti 1: 163' ) s _ .- ...- --. _ ...- -— _ ..- ..u _o. —o.. ——. ... .0- c." -..- ...u o-.- .-.. .-. _— u-h ...- .. .. 'l 1" 2'21 13‘: 11‘s“: 1‘! 1.. r-‘rv ( 12143:: I: (11:15.3 ) : 19‘E353W___ 1 C913“--- 1 98-3....” 1 9 35') .. 1 9'8 1 -.--.-. Ill 1 I. 1 '51:":'.::‘;‘"1‘-:-.31"1"{2'32"} , y o 1-1 unsure-.3 ( cl‘1c3c: |:: on (3) : N i 1 1 ing to b 1'3 tran31r11odmflm, Fro1orred not to be trangferrod --.—..— 1 ‘11:: cal;- l‘<.:d .221 'b:" 33.1 13317631“ in 1:11“ Lie-31" to .:3 vo id at 1aymo1"f‘_____yces;5m__.__1"1o fiparial Education Appromil acquisition (fill in date): ('1 .. 1:21 I; :3 riu 1‘ 1111' i ..1 1.11.3.1 1.7-1: .21 ch 1111;; (rt-:31" 1.: if i c.3133” 17.: .. If .111 1 . 1'11 3" 3.2.1:): 3:: .1 c 1 631-1 1..1 1:: a t ion 6.11;) p 1" o ya 1 *-~.—..-— I_--I~~.~--.--O---olu--—o-- ...-—o—--—----—-——--.——~—~”..-...-~’----.~-- l”-"1' 11;), 735.21. '1 (.111 ‘1'~ 1 1"1-‘-3."::'.3 '1g_;1’1"1111e?1‘1l; (51 . l 1' '- r; .1. 111.11-: :.'.: a 1‘ 1. (:1 na 1 agent: y 1'01: 1" a i 1'11. mg 631' ' 1 o r 1:. 23 you L'~l€lél"f? , 21": H.- Fo } 1 1:11»; i ng yo 1.1. 1'“ 111:1 t: i ‘ii' i cat ion of 1' (33-1353; .1 g1'1mo‘1'11‘; 'l ‘: III..l1'l‘1l.'1C-‘.-"l"' o1 sate-11' 1’ meet i1'1gss___ ;_._________ -_--_-._..-_-_ ”___,” .1 f l'-Ir1:nl::12f31“ o '1’ :1 1"1-':-'-.1‘.-.31"v .1. 1:163 5635 33 i. o 1'15; 12'- ! l‘l1_1v11l;1-:-'31‘ of‘ t‘:c:11'11e:"1"c-.311c:of: __ ........-......--.-------.-----__---.-----_--.-__--.. "1 ‘1 I"l:11'1'1l1l-t-;31“' 1711 I"1 ('1 1-11“ <33 ('1 1" 11‘- ‘11 ma 1 .1 '.'-.'.t CI C1:‘11...‘11'r3' ’1? 1H I"1£."l" “(1:1 1131315133 51.13:... C; .1. 1 y)__ ,.-_..... _ .....- - _ ________~____._;___. I . .. 1;...1 ... 1 11 '1. :1 ..‘3 1.1311 63‘ ".1 .13. .1 1'1 :1 111:1 (a t Fi‘.cr1';..3m;-1i11.1.2'31| I'. (31111131! I '1' 11. 1111!:1 :31" o". i1"1€:'r.-.11"‘.."Lit-:3 51:35:31 1::111:3__ 51?? 1121-1111t'1zg31" of" (..--11111231' 13111.:13'3: ___ --._..- _--.-.-.-.._--.. R3 Number o1 houro of 1o1:ma1izod inurncw _. W “'1 .3 l"Il".‘.‘l 11:31" 931:? 1 1""51 1‘1 1. 1. i a I: (331.1 1" e 1.1" .2. '1 ‘1"1 .1. 11;] a". 17:: ‘L i‘v l I; 1 e33: ... .... —- ..- _- a --. ...- ..." ...— —-.- u-u. —.. ...... -.u -_. .... ~~. u... ... . - ...... ... o—- ...-o. -... --. -- ...” .... .— —— ..-. ...... . ..-. ..-. .-- .. ..... .. . ..-. --. u... n... .-.. ... . n... —-.. -—. n... .— n. _. —_. .- --. .a- .... -.. '4‘ a -- -. .... ..... ”... ... -... -... ...- _. --- --- ...- . .. .... .. 11:11 111.111! (.1? l.‘1“';:-'.1~:::; 11:31“ 111- ii 1" ice-«121111 1'51 . l-"l'i (.1 111:3 (.-.-._____ '10 lg! . l- 3.'-’.-‘ 1.. ' 1; 1" yon-2111:: ...,. ... . .... . ..-. --. ~— ...-— .-- (I? . 1:271 <:".a:.;»1‘1.'3. ]. :1 1‘1 1:17-31 v .1. 1231-1 yet-€33_m___g_____no -.. ...- -.- ..." our- "'1..l1r31 oi" 3:333:.o'1'1CLE33; for the-:- 1‘?E3§3~E}é1 school yc=-3.-‘.-11‘_ Hrmboy of u ioyuncoa Tiled for the 1983- school your 13 1'1. ('1 ,1 1:1 1 lif‘lf.‘ 1 1. 1:23 .71 1.1.3: y 1" .31 '1 5:01 .3135 a 1' casul 1'; o ‘1’ yo L11“ 1.: r .31 1133 f' :1" 1. 1'1 1:. 1.1 ,i‘: r“-':.: :1 5.3. I F: in 11;: .3 t .1. {:1 1‘1 ( 1:: h G31“: l:: o no ) _._.___’____ye:3 -----.-.“- 111:1 . (.5111- 1 1 .1 :11' 1722-1214121" i 1;:-:‘1"‘1t.; {-3 PF“ 1 OF 1' 1: r'1 1‘. ht»? (111‘ 1 63111.: pt- 13;: 1: ion (7“. . E 7: 1:.‘2! 1:: t..- {yr-.111" ':3 'L: c3 .; 1 Ii 1 1';1(1 i. 11 151.361 - :1. .221 1 31.11.11..- .13 1.‘ 51. (.111 l. ‘ l".1'tl:..1:"i..2113.l1'23 ll 311-43] 1 Imp a '1. reclw __ I" " l" 1111:: l; 1 1:.11'1‘21] ] y 11115153 .1. 1“‘1‘3r.l__ -.--....-.-..-- __ __.____.. -'F 3‘ l 5'3 ' 3‘31 ”ll-El 1‘ ’3 £36313 1 WI-- -....__ ----.-.---_-.... "1 3 l l1 3.31 '1 1113 .l m 1:) a i 1" E‘t‘l _ -._-_._,-.___-.._.-.--....._ “___. .-----.---- "___, 3? “ finally Impaired ...._ u-o- ...- —_ --. u... —. ... ... — ... —u -..- -.- a... .... u... .— ——~ -... .-.. n... .. 1 5; Uhhpr p1n1'n specify) —- —.. .-- ..- ... —- -—- ..- ...». .-.. -.. .... --- ...— _v. -... -... u... 88 Humhor of yearg teaching in general education 'I Elomontary 5chool__”m~”__-_u___fl*_numumnm PHchfilo/JLWWLH“ Higr1smflwoo1 H19N1eyfl1ool__ -——u——--—-—- -.----....c-—-.—-.—uu.-- _.-—.ouu~-no.u—-——*—-._-—-.c-o..-——--un-—u.—.-..u-u—g-pn.—n Vol 3 o w 1: 111.1 111“ .211'1'231' e111" 5 how d 1. 1:1 you 11:31:11 :11) o u 1; : (c: 11"c163 o 1163 i. n ‘2/ '71 1 <:': -onI. diofiat. neutral satigfied very oatisfied V. 2:} 13:1 3"?"- 1 1:: '1 1 .1211 .1 i=3 /' 2:11-11:11; l 1 1.2133 to be? L1 3391:! in the new j o 1.1 51:32:; 'fih nrwa fl through F) 1111(11‘ 1'11] 31% 11311331111353 .1onoh1p3 with adminigtration 13:31. digaat. neutral satisfied very Batiofied .1ar1ty wifh job assignment fooat. dioaat. neutral satisfied vorv oatisfiod H“ gnment . diogat. neutral satiafied vary fiatisfiod 1onw|d1v3 wi1l.1umw Sthkmwts “ 2": :11: .. 1:1 '1 37233.21. 1.: . 111-311-1111“ .21 1 561 1'; '1 of .1 6321.1 ve‘3 r y 5.3.11: 1 3:1" .1 ed 1, 111121.11 "1.1.12; [-11 1:11 1::1311‘1231‘11'23 of new 531:1.1de31'11.33 I" «wry Nixon?" d1o§at. neutral gatia1led yory 5at151iod minnesota satisfaction questionnaire 1967 Revision Vocational Psychology Research UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA © Copytight, 1967 90 minnesota satisfaction questionnaire Directions The purpose of this questionnaire is to give you a chance to tell how you feel about your present iob, what things you are satisfied with and what things you are not satisfied with. On the basis at your answers and those of peOple like you, we hope to get a better understanding of the things people like and dislike about their jobs. On the following pages you will find statements about certain aspects of your present iob. 0 Read each statement carefully. - Decide how you feel about the aspect of your iob described by the statement. —Circle 1 it you are not satisfied (if that aspect is much poorer than you would like it to be). —Circle 2 it you are only slightly satisfied (if that aspect is not quite what you would like it to be). —Circle 3 it you are satisfied (if that aspect is what you would like it to be). —Circle 4 it you are very satisfied (if that aspect is even better than you expected it to be). -Circle 5 it you are extremely satisfied (if that aspect is much better than you hoped it could be). 0 Be sure to keep the statement in mind when deciding how you feel about that aspect of your fob. 0 Do this for all statements. Answer every item. 0 Do not turn back to previous statements. Be frank. Give a true picture of your feelings about your present lob. Ask 91 yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job? I means I am not satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much poorer than I would like it to be). 2 means I am only slightly satisfied (this aspect of my job is not quite what I would like it to be). 3 means I am satisfied (this aspect of my job is what I would like it to be). 4 means I am very satisfied (this aspect of my iob is even better than I expected it to be). 5 means I am extremely satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much better than I hoped it could be). On I. NMNNNN-‘dd—l—I—I—Od—I—o uewwdppwfiewewN-rQ sensesnesaso For each statement my present job, this is how I feel about . . . CW, 0 numb,“ The chance to be of service to others. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to try out some of my own ideas. I 2 3 4 5 Being able to do the iob without feeling it is morally wrong. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to work by myself. 7 I 2 3 4 5 The variety in my work. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to have other workers look to me for direction. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to do the kind of work that I do best. I 2 3 4 5 The social position in the community that goes with the iob. I 2 3 4 5 The policies and practices toward employees of this company. I 2 3 4 5 The way my supervisor and I understand each other. I 2 3 4 5 . My iob security. . a I 2 3 4 5 The amount of pay for the work I do. _ . I 2 3 4 5 The working conditions (heating, lighting, ventilation, etc.) on this iob. I 2 3 4 5 The opportunities for advancement on this job. _ . I 2 3 4 5 The technical ”know-how” of my supervisor. , I 2 3 4 5 The spirit of cooperation among my co-workers. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to be responsible for planning my work. I 2 3 4 5 The way I am noticed when I do a good iob. . . . I 2 3 4 5 Being able to see the results of the work I do. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to be active much of the time. I 2 3 4 5 . The chance to be of service to people. . I 2 3 4 5 . The chance to do new and original things on my own. I 2 3 4 5 . Being able to do things that don’t go against my religious beliefs. I 2 3 4 5 . The chance to work alone on the iob. I 2 3 4 5 . The chance to do different things from time to time. I 2 3 4 5 92 Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job? I means am not satisfied (this aspect of my job is much poorer than I would like it to be). I means I am only slightly satisfied (this aspect of my iob is not quite what I would like it to be). means I am satisfied (this aspect of my iob is what I would like it to be). I l medns am very satisfied (this aspect of my iob is even better than I expected it to be). am extremely satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much better than I haped it could be). (Itwa means For each statement On my present job, this is how I feel about . . . circle a number. 26. The chance to tell other workers how to do things. 2 3 27. The chance to do work that is well suited to my abilities. 28. The chance to be ”somebody” in the community. 29. Company policies and the way in which they are administered. 30. The way my boss handles his/ her employees. 31. The way my iob provides for a secure future. 32. The chance to make as much money as my friends. 33. The physical surroundings where I work. 34. The chances of getting ahead on this job. 35. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions. 36. The chance to develop close friendships with my co-workers. 37. The chance to make decisions on my own. 38. The way I get full credit for the work I do. dddddddddd 39. Being able to take pride in a iob well done. d 40. Being able to do something much of the time. 41. The chance to help people. 42. The chance to try something different. 43. Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience. 44. The chance to be alone on the iob. 45. The routine in my work. 46. The chance to supervise other people. 47. The chance to make use of my best abilities. 4B. The chance to ”rub elbows” with important people. 49. The way employees are informed about company policies. MMNNMNNNNNNNMMNNNNNNMMNN &&#&&&&&#b&¥bbb&b&&b&bb¥b UIU’IUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIMUIMUIUUIUUUIUIUIUIUI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 dddddddddd 50. The way my boss backs up his/ her employees (with top management). Ask 93 yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job? I means I am not satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much poorer than I would like it to be). 2 means I am only slightly satisfied (this aspect of my iob is not quite what I would like it to be). 3 means I am satisfied (this aspect of my job is what I would like it to be). 4 means I am very satisfied (this aspect of my job is even better than I expected it to be). 5 means I am extremely satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much better than I hoped it could be). On 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 7i . 72. 73. 74. 75. For each statement my present job, this is how i feel about . . . circle a number. The way my iob provides for steady employment. . I 2 3 4 5 How my pay compares with that for similar iobs in other companies. I 2 3 4 5 The pleasantness of the working conditions. ,. .. I 2 3 4 5 The way promotions are given out on this iob. . s . I 2 3 4 5 The way my boss delegates work to others. I 2 3 4 5 The friendliness of my co-workers. . , I 2 3 4 5 The chance to be responsible for the work of others. , I 2 3 4 5 The recognition I get for the work I do. . I 2 3 4 5 Being able to do something worthwhile. .. I 2 3 4 5 Being able to stay busy. . . I 2 3 4 5 The chance to do things for other people. 1 2 3 4 5 The chance to deveIOp new and better ways to do the iob. 'l 2 3 4 5 The chance to do things that don’t har’m other people. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to work independently of others. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to do something different every day. . I 2 3 4 5 The chance to tell peeple what to do. . . 't 2 3 4 5 The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities. I 2 3 4 5 The chance to be important in the eyes of others. _ '| 2 3 4 5 The way company policies are put into practice. I 2 3 4 5 The way my boss takes care of the complaints of his/ her employees. 1 2 3 4 5 How steady my job is. . . . ,. . ,. . . 1 2 3 4 5 My pay and the amount of work I do. ‘I 2 3 4 5 The physical working conditions of the iob. I 2 3 4 5 The chances for advancement on this iob. I 2 3 4 5 The way my boss provides help on hard problems. . 1 2 3 4 5 94 Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my iob? I means I am not satisfied (this aspect of my job is much poorer than I would like it to be). 93. The working conditions. 94. My chances for advancement. 95. The way my boss trains his/ her employees. 96. The way my co-workers get along with each other. 97. The responsibility of my iob. 98. The praise I get for doing a good iob. 99. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the iob. 2 means I am only slightly satisfied (this aspect of my job is not quite what I would like it to be). 3 means I am satisfied (this aspect of my iab is what I would like it to be). 4 means I am very satisfied (this aspect of my iob is even better than I expected it to be). 5 means I am extremely satisfied (this aspect of my iob is much better than I hoped it could be). On my present job, this is how i feel about . . . Pitt-'3: 33.13252 76. The way my co-workers are easy to make friends with. I 2 3 4 5 77. The freedom to use my own judgment. . I 2 3 4 5 78. The way they usually tell me when I do my job well. I 2 3 4 5 79. The chance to do my best at all times. I 2 3 4 5 80. The chance to be ”on the go” all the time. I 2 3 4 5 Bl. The chance to be of some small service to other people. I 2 3 4 5 82. The chance to try my own methods of doing the iob. I 2 3 4 5 83. The chance to do the iob without feeling I am cheating anyone. I 2 3 4 5 84. The chance to work away from others. I 2 3 4 5 85. The chance to do many different things on the iob. I 2 3 4 5 86. The chance to tell others what to do. I 2 3 4 5 87. The chance to make use of my abilities and skills. I 2 3 4 5 88. The chance to have a definite place in the community. I 2 3 4 5 89. The way the company treats its employees. I 2 3 4 5 90. The personal relationship between my boss and his/ her employees. I 2 3 4 5 9I. The way layoffs and transfers are avoided in my iob. I 2 3 4 5 92. How my pay compares with that of other workers. . I 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 l 5 2 3 4 5 dddddddd IOO. Being able to keep busy all the time. APPENDIX D Table 0.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA TEACHER JOB SEX AGE YEARS IN PREFERENCE PAY ABSENCES SATISFAC- POSITION FOR RAISE TION SCORE TRANSFER 1 52 46 5 NO NO 0 2 67 47 l -- NO 5 3 68 M 43 5 NO NO - 4 68 M 38 4 YES YES 6 5 72 M 43 1 YES -- 6 6 48 38 2 YES NO - 7 51 37 2 YES NO 7 8 68 -- 1 YES NO 5 9 69 M 36 3 YES YES 3 10 67 45 3 YES NO 3 11 78 40 3 YES NO 0 12 66 4S 3 YES NO 6 13 58 M 37 1 YES NO 2 14 55 46 4 YES YES 10 95 Table D.1, continued 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 59 74 70 60 58 58 59 62 34 54 39 50+ 38 60 55 51 YES YES NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO 97 Table D.2 DATES OF ORIGINAL TEACHER CERTIFICATION AND SPECIAL EDUCATION ENDORSEMENT GENERAL EDUCATION SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CERTIFICATION DATE ENDORSEMENT DATE 1 1970 1970 2 ---- ---- ‘5 3 1966 1966 ~ 4 1971 1983 5 1965 1970 6 1970 1984 7 1971 1984 b 8 5 1977 1985 9 1973 1983 10 1973 1973 11 1973 1983 12 1965 1979 13 1971 1971 14 1980 1982 15 1975 1981 16 1974 1982 17 1974 1983 18 1974 1982 19 1971 1983 20 1949 1966 21 1971 1982 22 1963 1963 98 Table D.3 RETRAINING EFFORTS INITIATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES (LEA) AND SELF-INITIATED (SID) STAFF INSERVICE CONFERENCES FORMAL OTHER TEACHER MEETINGS SESSIONS ATTENDED COURSES 1 - - - - - 2 - SID - - - 3 - - LEA - - 4 LEA - LEA/SID SID SID 5 - - - - - 6 LEA - - SID - 7 LEA LEA/SID LEA/SID SID SID 8 - - - SID - 9 - - - SID - 10 - - - SID - 11 - LEA LEA SID - 12 LEA LEA SID SID - 13 - - - - - 14 - SID SID SID - 15 - - - SID - 16 - - - SID - 17 LEA LEA LEA/SID SID - 18 LEA LEA SID SID - 19 - - LEA SID 20 - - - SID - 21 - - - - - 22 LEA - LEA - - REFERENCES REFERENCES Albanese, R. & Van Fleet, D. (1983). Organizatigggl bghgvjor; A managemeng viegpoint. New York: College Publishing, 243. Anderson, C. & Watson, H. (1982). Establishing climate for reduction of tension between administrators and teachers. Atchinson, T.J. & Lefferts, E.A. (1972). The prediction of turnover using Herzberg's job satisfaction technique. Bersonnel zsyghology. (pp. 25, 53-54). Brayfield, A.H. & Crockett, W.H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. ngchologiggl fiulletin. 52, 396-424. Betz, E., Weiss, D.J., Dawis, V., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1966). Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire: The theory of work adjustment. University of Minnesota, MINN. Catteron, B.L. Teacher stress events inventory: Portland study of teachers. American Federation of Teachers Research Report. Washington, D.C. Collins, J.J. & Masley, B.A. (1980). Stress/burnout report: Worchester public schools, Worchester,MA. Share and Exchange. A Newsletter for Teachers. 48(4). Cooke, R.A., Kornbluh, H., & Abramis, D.J. (1982). Phi Delta Kappag 63(9), 636-637. Cruickshank, D.R. (1981). What we know about teachers' problems. Educggional Leggezship. 402-405. Education Research Service. (1983). Implications of current school age populations. fipgggggm. 1, 11-14. Gartner, S. (1982). The status of the american public school teacher. Phi Qelgg Kappgn. 63(9), 579. Gay, 6., Dembowski, F.L., & McLennan, R.L. (1984). Preserving quality of education during enrollment declines. Eh; Delta Kappag. 62(9), 654-657. Gibson, D.L., Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., & Lofquist, L.H. (1970). Minnesota satisfactoriness scale. University of Minnesota, MINN. 99 100 Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school. New York: He Craw- Hill. 180. Hannay, L.M. & Chism, N. (1985). Involuntary teacher transfer: An intervention strategy for professional development. Report presented at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Toronto,CAN. Hecker-Ignatovitch (1981). Michigan public K-12 pupil enrollment by grade level. Michigan State University. Lansing,MI. Herzberg, F., Mausner, E., Peterson, R.O., & Capwell, D.F. (1957). Job attitudes: Review of research and opinion. 5 Pittsburgh: Psychological Service of Pittsburgh, PA. 5 Johnson, S.M. (1982). Seniority and schools. Phi Delta happen. 64(4), 259—264. Kriess (1983). The relationship between job satisfaction and needs fulfillment among urban high school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Quebec, CAN. 1-39. ,ff; 1, ‘5 . I Kraut, A.I. (1970). The prediction of employee turnover by employee attitudes. American Psychological Association. Washington, D.C. Locke (1969). Nature and causes of job satisfaction. (pp.1297- 1349). University of Maryland, MD. Mager, G.M, Myers, 8., Maresca, N., Rupp, L., & Armstrong, L. (1986). Changes in teachers‘ work lives. The Elementary School Jgughal. 86(3), 350-353. Mazer, I.R. Griffin, M. (1980). Perceived and experienced stress of teachers in a medium-sized local school district. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Educational Research Association. Boston, MA. 7-11. Michigan Education Abstracts (1973-1983). Michigan Education Association. Lansing, MI. Michigan Education Report (1986) Michigan Department of Education. Lansing, MI. Miller (1984). On needed support for staff development. Michigan School hoard Jghzhgl. 31(2), 10-12. Morsink, C.V. (1982). Changes in the role of special educators: Public perceptions and demands. Exceptional Educagion Quartegly. 2. 15-86. 101 Muchinsky, P. (1977). A review of the literature. Journal of W- PP- 10. 316-340. National Center for Educational Statistics. (1983). Projections of educational statistics to 1990-91. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. Oliver, R.L. (1984). Teacher lateral mobility. Report to Northwestern Oklahoma University, Department of Education. OKLA. Plant, R.E.,Jr. (1966). An investigation of some correlates of teacher job satisfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cornell University. Porter, L.W. & Steers, R.M. (1973) Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. WW. so. 151-176. Potter, B. (1982). Reassigned teacher's project. Oakland Public Schools. Pontiac, MI. 28-31. Quinn, R.P. & Staines, G.L.(1979). American workers evaluate the quality of their jobs. Mohghly tho; Revigw. 3-12. Runkel, P.E. (1986). Michigan Education Report. Michigan Department of Education. Lansing, MI. 3. Saville (1981). Teacher stress is a problem for many in suburban Nevada. Phi Deltg Kappan. 676. Schuch, A.J. (1967). The predictability of employee tenure: A review of the literature. Begsonnel Egyghglggy. 20. 133-152. Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., & Rulin, G.L. (1969). Job descriptive index. t ct o w and :etirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally & Company. Staines, G.L. & Quinn, R.P. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Institute for Social Research. Survey Research Center. Ann Arbor, MI. Taylor, K.E. & Weiss, D.J. (1972). Predictions of individual job termination from measured job satisfaction and biographical data. Jghzhgl 9f Vgghtighal hehavior. 2. 123- 132. Vroom, V.H. (1970). Industrial social psychology. hanagement hnd Motivation. Baltimore: Penguin. 91-106. Waters, L.K. & Roach, D. (1971). Relationship between job attitudes and two forms of withdrawal from the work situation. WW- 55- 92-94. ' "'r C’ "1&ng ”Ruin-l.“ :‘O .1 an -' n’I ‘.\ l.’ 102 Waters, L.K. & Roach D. (1973). Job attitudes as predictors of termination and absenteeism: Consistency over time and across organizational units. Jpprngl pi Applied Psychology. 57. 341-342. Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., England, G.W., Lofquist, L.H. (1967). Monograph. Work Adjustment Project. Industrial Relations Center. University of Minnesota, MINN. Wexley, K. & Yuki, G.A. (1984). Organizational behavior pnd pepgonnel psyphplpgy. Homeward, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 45-65.