—‘.v-u“.c-a. A STUDY QFT-HE REM‘RONSW - BETWEEN TASK? Pmmxarvemm mm {mm cm mam TRANSFER ‘ Thesis far the; Degree of Ed. ,D._ MICH GAN STATE UNIVERSITY ‘ CURTIS VAN VOORHEES ' 1958* . .. ’hl" , a». . p\. -‘ “V111 L I B R A R Y Michigan State University iiiNilHillliliiliiiiHiliillmiii\Zliislii 3 1293 10402 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK PERFORMANCE AND INNER CITY TEACHER TRANSFER presented by C URTIS VAN VOORHEES has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Educational _E_d°L__ degree in Administration gm Major professor Date March 29. 1968 0-169 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK PERFORMANCE AND INNER CITY TEACHER TRANSFER by Curtis Van Voorhees Statement of the Problem It was the purpose of this study to investigate the relationship between inner city teacher transfer and teacher task performance. It was theorized that the ability of inner city teachers to perform teaching tasks in a manner acceptable to their peers and supervisors was related to job satisfaction; and job satisfaction was believed to be related to teacher transfer. By investigating the relationship between task per- formance and transfer it was believed that clues to better teacher placement in inner city elementary schools might be found. Procedure and Methodology Henderson and Ward1 found differences between inner city and non—inner city teachers' responses to teaching situations and teacher actions, suggesting a possible relationship between task performance and teacher transfer. An instrument was designed utilizing twenty—two of the most discriminating teaching situ- ation/teacher action descriptions from Henderson and Ward’s study. The instrument was administered to all transfer request- ing, stable (three or more years in one school), and new teachers and their principals in thirteen Flint, Michigan C. Van Voorhees inner city elementary schools. The teachers and principals were asked if the teaching situations occurred in their classrooms and whether the teacher action was acceptable. Eighteen hypotheses, comparing responses of various groups. were tested using chi—square or a similar statistical test. Findings The responses of stable and transfer teachers to task performances differ. And it seems likely that instruments could be developed, based on task performances in the inner city school, that would aid in better assignment of teachers to inner city teaching positions. This study could not deter— mine whether managerial tasks or tasks involving structured responses offer better clues to teacher turnover. Indications varied with the group sampled; further investigation is needed. Disagreement between principals and teachers over task performances probably has little serious effect on teacher turnover, except as teachers perceive disagreement. While teachers and principals disagree over acceptable task performance nearly one—third of the time, neither teacher group is in greater disagreement than the other. And principals themselves agree on task performances, so turnover seems to be unaffected by the principals' views of task performance. Yet since transfer teachers perceive greater disagreement with principals over task performance than stable teachers, the principals’ abilities C. Van Voorhees to communicate their views of task performance to their staff may be an important variable. The responses of all groups to teaching situations are, in many respects, more interesting than their responses to teacher actions. The two groups of new teachers view teaching situations in much the same way; yet stable and transfer teachers disagree on the frequency with which all situations as a group occur. Conceivably teachers who request transfer have developed a poor attitude toward inner city teaching, so that difficult or ridic- ulous situations seem to occur more often than they actually do. Perhaps teachers become frustrated over inner city teaching situations and tend to exaggerate their frequency. The principal groups disagreed on the occurrence of several teaching situations, yet agreed on the frequency with which situations occurred; and transfer teachers from high turnover schools were most apt to agree with their principals about the occurrence of teaching situations. The theory that new teachers must adjust to a dual system in high turnover schools was supported concerning teaching situations but not teacher actions; for the turnover teachers in high turnover schools viewed the occurrence of teaching situations more like their principals than did the stable teachers. Thus, turnover may result from mutual frustration or from an unrealistic view of inner city teaching situations. lJudith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward, Teaching 13 3E3 Inner City, Identification gf Educational Practices 91 Competent Elementary Teachers of Culturally Disadvantaged Youth, (East Lansing, I966). '_- iilil’liilllljll A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TASK PERFORMANCE AND INNER CITY TEACHER TRANSFER By Curtis Van Voorhees A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION The College of Education 1968 7: 6KZ‘K/ 47%;?4“ 4M4 é‘“ /, TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Purpose Need for the Study. Flint Inner City Elementary School Staff Stability Study. . Summary of Need Underlying Theory Theory Summarized Hypotheses. Definition of Terms Summary and Overview. II. A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction. . . . . . . . Review of Teacher Turnover Studies. Early Studies-~1920 to 1941 Studies from 19u1 to the Early 1950’s Current Studies--Early 1950’s to the Present. Review of the LSI Study Summary ii PAGE 10 ll 21 22 25 26 27 27 27 32 34 H2 H7 CHAPTER III. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY. Design of the Study Selecting the Sample Schools. Selecting the Teachers and Principals to be Sampled. Instrumentation Statistical Hypotheses. Statistical Methodology IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Hypotheses la-lf Hypotheses 2a-2f . . Hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c. Hypotheses H, 5 and 6 Summary V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. Summary Conclusions Implications for Further Research . BIBLIOGRAPHY. APPENDICES iii PAGE H9 H9 50 58 SH 70 71 71 Sb .100 107 118 125 125 12b 131 133 138 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1.1 Average percentage of yearly turnover in inner city and selected non—inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan . . . 7 1.2 Average percentage of transfers each year from inner city and selected non-inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.3 Average percentage of drOpouts each year from inner city and selected non—inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan . . . 9 3.1 Significant difference between inner city teachers requesting transfer and inner city teachers not requesting transfer by number of years experience teaching in Flint inner city schools during the period September 1, 1966 to April 7, 1967. . . . . EU 3.2 Number of teachers drOpping out or trans- ferring after Y years of experience in a Flint inner city school . . . . . . . . . 5H 3.3 Significant difference between high and low teacher turnover schools in Flint’s inner city during the current principal’s tenure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 iv TABLE 3.” Number of instruments sent and returned by school and group. Chi-square analysis of the responses of stable teachers and transfer teachers to question 1 in rank order. Median chi~square analysis of the response to the frequency of situation occurrence question by stable and transfer teachers in rank order . . . . . . . . Chi—square analysis of the total scores above and below the median for transfer and stable teachers on the frequency of situation occurrence question Chi-square analysis of the responses of stable teachers and transfer teachers to question 2 in rank order. Chi—square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was expected in rank order Chi-square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was not expected in rank order PAGE 63 72 76 77 80 82 8'4 TABLE PAGE 9.7 Chi—square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions classified as managerial in rank order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 4.8 Chi-square analysis of the responses of non-transfer first year teachers and transfer first year teachers to question 1 in rank order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 9.9 Median chi-square analysis of the responses to the frequency of situation occurrence question by first year non—transfer and first year transfer teachers in rank order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 H.10 Chi-square analysis of the total scores above and below the median for first year transfer teachers and first year non~ transfer teachers on the frequency of situation occurrence question . . . . . . . 91 H.11 Chi—square analysis of the responses of first year non-transfer teachers and first year transfer teachers to question 2 in rank order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 vi TABLE PAGE ”.12 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was expected in rank order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 ”.13 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was not expected in rank order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 ”.1” Chi-square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions classified as managerial in rank order. . . . . . . . . . 99 ”.15 Analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to question 1 using the Fisher exact method . . . . . . . . . . 101 ”.16 Chi—square analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to question 1 by approving judgment group sums. . . . . . 102 ”.17 Analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to the frequency of occurrence question, using the median Fisher Exact Method . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 vii TABLE ”.18 ”.19 ”.20 ”.21 ”.22 PAGE Median chi-square analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to the frequency of occurrence question by approving judgment group sums . . . . . . . 105 Analysis of the response of high and low turnover principals to question 2 using the Fisher Exact Method . . . . . . . . . . 106 Chi-square analysis of the response of high and low turnover principals to question 2 by approving judgment group sums. . . . . . 107 Chi-square analysis of the agreement/dis— agreement between transfer teachers and their building principals in high turnover schools compared to the agreement/dis- agreement between the stable teachers and their building principals in high turnover schools on question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chi—square analysis of the agreement/dis- agreement between the responses of transfer teachers and their building principals in low turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement between the responses of stable teachers and their building principals in low turnover schools on question 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 viii TABLE PAGE ”.26 Chi—square analysis of the agreement/dis— agreement between transfer teachers and their building principals in high and low turnover schools compared to the agreement/ disagreement of stable teachers and their building principals in high and low turn- over schools with regard to question 2. . . 115 ”.27 Chi-square analysis of the agreement/dis— agreement between teachers and principals in high turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement between teachers and principals in low turnover schools with regard to question 2 . . . . . . . . . 116 ”.28 Chi-square analysis of the perceived agree- ment/disagreement between transfer teachers and their building principals in high and low turnover schools compared to perceived agreement/disagreement between stable teachers and their principals in high and low turnover schools on judgments of teacher action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PURPOSE Although many aspects of the inner city school require investigation, this study seeks to improve the assignment of teachers in inner city elementary schools, particularly in reference to the problem of intra-district teacher transfer. It will attempt to determine whether the way teachers judge task performance in inner city elementary classrooms is correlated with whether or not they request transfer. If these are related, it should then be possible to develOp an instrument based on inner city task performance which would help increase the average tenure of teachers in inner city elementary school positions. NEED FOR THE STUDY The enactment of Title I of the Elementary Secondary Educa— tion Act bears witness to an increased national concern with the education of our disadvantaged youth most of whom receive their only formal education in the inner city classroom. And recent riots in Watts, Newark, Detroit and other areas offer painfully visible evidence of the work that lies ahead for American educa- tors. But while most agree that education can help alleviate some of the problems of our inner cities, the question remains of how educators should set out to improve the education of inner city youth? 2 While we ought to know more about the educational programs currently employed in inner cities or the financial problems of educational institutions in large cities we must not forget that the keystone to any educational program is the teacher. The most crucial element on which success of educational programs ultimately depends is the school staff, the individuals who do the job. Even the most clearly articulated goals and the most carefully delineated programs are not self-actuating. These may be developed in large part by the community and its educational leaders, but their implementation depends upon the work of teachers. Thus classroom teachers and their associates who daily face the chal— lenge of guiding the young toward a better life become the center of attention in urban schools. Schueler indicates that a knowledge of the student and his environment is necessary for teaching the youth of the inner city.2 And several modern teacher preparation programs recognize this need. Hunter college, for example, trains students specifi- cally for inner city schools and involves the students in commun— ity orientation prior to the teaching experience. In the Hunter College approach "The major aim is the establishment of a program 3 that would lead to a stable staff in multiproblem schools." 1Matthew J. Pillard, "Teachers for Urban Schools", In B. J. Chandler, John I.Kitarng and Lindky J. Stiles, Eds., Education 12 Urban Society (New York, 1962), p. 19”. 2Herbert Schueler, "The Teacher of the Disadvantaged", Harry N. Rivlin, Ed., The Journal 9f Teacher Education, XVI (June, 1965), p. 178. 3Frank Riessman, The Culturally Deprived Child, (New York, 1962), p. 119. Italics mine. 3 While the small town or rural teacher is often a long—term, well-known resident of a community, the inner city teacher is most often a transient. They[:the inner city teacher] may not know or understand the communities they serve and may never come to know two children of the same family or the parents of their pupils. In short, city teachers are likely to be strangers to their communities, the parents of their pupils, and in many respects. . .the pupils themselves. But knowledge of the community in which the student resides is not all the teacher of inner city youth should know. "A second requisite for teaching [the disadvantaged:]is the know— ledge of ways to order and guide the learning of the disadvantaged child."5 Authorities indicate that effective teaching methods in inner city situations may well differ from non—inner city situations. The teacher with a typical middle class orientation may have to alter many beliefs and teaching behaviors before he can become successful in an inner city teaching assignment. Schueler states: A teacher to be effective in human relations must know, understand, come to terms with, and alter, if needed and possible, his own feelings and prejudices toward the student people he is dealing with.6 To improve education for inner city youth to any degree re- quires that we find those teachers who will remain in inner city LiPillard, p. 19”. 5 Schueler, p. 178. 6Ibid., p. 179. q, assignments long enough to understand the community and the stu- dents. The necessity of a stable staff is pointed out by Riessman: High teacher turnover is related to a problem of considerable importance to the underprivileged child; namely teacher continuity. . . .The fact that the child changes teachers all the time, together with the fact that he moves so often, contribqtes to a lack of rootedness in the school. Assignments should be based on how well a teacher can adapt his teaching behavior to the requirements of the job situation and also on how long he is expected to remain in the position. At best the assignment of teachers remains a bewildering task. Spears believes that "the teacher’s placement for probable success calls for as much supervisory ingenuity as does the teacher's development in the eventual assignment."8 As Ryans suggests: The actuarial nature of predictions in every area of human behavior must be kept in mind when teacher assignment is considered. When teachers are assigned to situations where they can be of greatest use, predictions are being made~-pre— dictions that sometimes are fairly accurate .and sometimes miss completely. They cannot be right for each individual teacher, but for teachers as a group, more ”hits" (successful assignments in the sense that the teachers’ capabilities do fit the demands of the teaching situation) than "misses" can be anticipated. If not, the assignment system needs improvement. 7Riessman, p. 120. 8 . Harold Spears, Improyipg the Supervision pf Instruction, (New York, 1953), p. ”0”. 9 David G. Ryans, "The Teacher Characteristic Study", In Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellena, Eds., Contemporary Research pp Teacher Effectiveness, (New York, 196”), p. 97. 5 By these standards, the process of assigning teachers to inner city schools certainly needs improvement. At present, teachers are typically assigned to inner city schools; and as soon as possible they apply for transfer. Conant recognized this clearly: Within the large cities the probleml:of teacher assignment] is complicated by the fact that the turnover rate of teachers in slum schools is yery_high. Teachers who have achieved some seniority rights often apply for transfer to schools away from slum neighborhoods, where working conditions are at best difficult. The result is that slum schools are often staffed by either newly hired or substitute and emergency teachers. (italics mine) Up to this point our discussion of the need for this study has rested on statistically unsupported assumptions by several authors. But rather than simply to assume that high inner city teacher turnover was universal, teacher turnover should first be surveyed. And since Flint, Michigan, had been tentatively selected for the present study, the author preceded the present study by his own overview of the dimensions of inner city teacher turnover in Flint. The results of that preliminary study appear on the following pages. Flint Inner City Elementary School Staff Stability Study (here— after Flint Study) A study of teacher turnover in thirteen Flint, Michigan, inner city elementary schools and five non—inner city elementary schools was employed to test the severity of this problem in 10 James Bryant Conant, Slums and Suburbs, (New York, 1961), p. 68. 6 the inner city schools. Using past issues of the Personnel Directoryn—Flint Community Schools11 as a reference, the staff of each school was traced from the 1960-61 school year to the 1966-67 school year. Teachers who left the Flint Public School System were termed dpgppgtg; those who transferred to other schools or administrative posts within the Flint system were termed transfers. The levels of significance in the Flint Study were found using the following formula: t = pl - p2 ' 210—le + pzn—pz) n1 — 1 n2 - l Where: n1 = total number of non—inner city teachers who taught in the school(s) during the period of the study. n2 = total number of inner city teachers who taught in the school(s) during the period of the study. p1 = percentage of non—inner city teachers in the school(s) represented in the study who trans— ferred or dropped out during the period of the study. p2 = percentage of inner city teachers in the school(s) represented in the study who trans- ferred or dropped out during the period of the study. The average yearly turnover in the inner city schools in Flint over the past seven years was found to be 30.8% with ex— tremes of 20.2% and 50.0%, this in contrast with an average in non—inner city schools of 15.1% with extremes of 8.8% and 2”.2% 1 ”Personnel Directory"-—Flint Community Schools, compiled & edited annually by the staff of the Computer Center, Flint Community Schools, Flint, Michigan. 7 (Table 1.1). Each of these three contrasts was significant at the .01 level or greater, and that of the means at the .001 level. Though not indicated in Table 1.1, the difference between the turnover of the lowest inner city school and the highest non- inner city school (t = .6”) was not significant. Table 1.1 Average percentage of yearly turnover in inner city and selected non—inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan Percentage Total Level of __ of Turnover N t Significance Lowest Inner City School 20.2 163 2.81 .005 Lowest Non—Inner City School 8.8 12” Mean of Inner City Schools 30.8 1705 7.69 .001 Mean of Non—Inner City Schools 15.1 ”35 Highest Inner City School 50.1 3” 2.53 .01 Highest Non—Inner City School 2”.2 66 .—‘ .. -.._ . ._ -117 7. . . _ A division of the total turnover percentages into transfer (Table 1.2) and dropout (Table 1.3) found the mean percentage difference still significant at the .001 level for transfers and the .01 level for drOpouts. Comparisons not listed in Tables 1.2 or 1.3 indicate that the lowest inner city school transfer percentage inner city parison of difference Table 1.2 8 was not significantly different from the highest non— school transfer percentage (t = .18). A similar com- drqpout percentages, however, shows a significant (t = l.”1) at the .1 level. Average percentage of transfers each year from inner city and selected non—inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan Percentage Total Level of of transfer N t Significance Lowest Inner City School 5.5 163 1.8” .05 Lowest Non-Inner City School 1.7 12” Mean of Inner City Schools 12.3 1705 6.26 .001 Mean of Non~Inner City Schools ”.” ”35 Highest Inner City School 18.2 127 1.53 .1 Highest Non—Inner City School 6.7 15 Three times as great a percentage of teachers transfer from the Flint inner city schools to other positions in the system as transfer out of the non—inner city schools studied. Approximately one of every eight teachers may be expected to transfer from inner city elementary schools in Flint each year. Those teachers who transfer together with the teachers who drop out of the 9 Flint system constitute an annual turnover of nearly one of every three teachers in Flint’s inner city elementary schools. The data indicates that the transfer and dropout percentages in Flint's inner city and non—inner city elementary schools differ significantly. When inner city schools show an average annual turnover of 30.8 percent compared to 15.1 percent in non— inner city schools (Table 1.1), there is cause for concern centering on the need for more stable staffs in our inner city schools. Table 1.3 Average percentage of drOpouts each year from inner city and selected non—inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan Percentage Total Level of of Dropout N t Significance Lowest Inner City School 10.5 180 .9”1 .25 Lowest Non—Inner City School 7.1 85 Mean of Inner City Schools 18.6 1705 ”.3” .01 Mean of Non~Inner City Schools 10.8 ”35 Highest Inner City School 32.” 3” 1.52 .1 Highest Non—Inner City School 18.0 66 10 Summary _£ Need Looking, then, at the preceding Flint Study along with the authorities cited, it is clear we must soon find ways of select— ing teachers for inner city schools who will remain over a period of years, who working together may develop better means of educa— ting the inner city child. While we may finally be unable to reduce teacher dropout significantly, certainly we are justified in seeking ways of reducing teacher turnover in inner city schools by reducing transfers. The central need, to improve the educational Opportunities of inner city youth, Schueler summarizes quite lucidly: While it may sound like a cliche to affirm the ideal of equal opportunity for all, the unden— iable fact is emerging at last to those with responsible social consciences that deprivation is breeding further deprivation and the rate is increasing, particularly among the young; and this in a society of unparalleled and evidently growing wealth. This is our greatest national debt, our shame, whigh, unless checked, may prove to be our undoing. 12Herbert Schueler, ”The Teacher of the Disadvantaged," Harry N. Rivlin, ed., The Journal pf Teacher Education, XVI (June, 1965), p. 17”. 11 UNDERLYING THEORY Having preposed that high teacher turnover has a detri— mental effect on the educational experiences of inner city youth and indicated the need for a study of inner city teacher transfer, what follows attempts to develop a theory on which to build a credible method for studying our focal problem, high inner city teacher transfer. A study recently completed by Henderson and Ward13 suggests that inner city and non-inner city teachers sometime disagree over the appropriateness of teacher actions to teaching situa- tions, 8 reasonable suggestion seeing that the two groups teach in relatively different environments. For presumably the inner city teacher serves a population different from that served by the non-inner city teacher, and thus differences of opinion con- cerning teacher action might be expected. Turner also found these differences, and suggested that we can expect that super- visor's evaluation of teachers in inner city schools will often reflect task performance, the very item over which teachers so often disagree: 13Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward. Teaching in the Inner Cityr—Identification of Educational Practices of Competent Elementary Teachers of Culturally Disadvantaged Youth. (East Lansing, 1966). 12 The emphasis on task performance in systems with many working class students suggested that the role of "task specialist" held a superordinate position among the criteria employed by super- visory personnel in these systems, while the emphasis on personal-social relationships in systems with many middle class students suggest that the role of "social-specialist" held a superordinate position among the criteria em- ployed by supervisory personnel in these systems. ” If opinions differ between inner city and non—inner city teachers as to the appropriateness of teacher action we might expect differences among the inner city or non—inner city teacher groups as well. After all. teaching in a similar environment does not prevent teachers from responding differently to teaching situations. Every teacher has had different experi— ences and has performed different tasks over his life span. Nor is teaching itself so inflexible as to require identical responses to similar situations. The personal—social orientation of the individual teacher is probably well established by the time he enters teaching, a notion substantiated by Turner as follows: Unlike the performance of the work tasks of teaching the personal—social characteristics which enter into the personal context generated by the teacher may be viewed as relatively stable. While these characteristics are probably acquired by each individual teacher, their acquisition may be viewed as approaching completion by the time the teacher enters the profession. Within the present conceptualiza— tion, then, the personal—social characteristics uRichard L. Turner, Problem Solving Proficienpy Among Elementary School Teachers, (Bloomington, 196”), p. 99. 13 through which the personal context aspect of teaching is generated are viewed as distinctly less modifiable by either teacher preparation or teaching experience than is task performance. The problem. therefore. is not to determine how much personal characteristics change, but rather to determine the relationships these characteristics hold to task performance.1 Seldom. therefore, does teaching experience alone determine the way a teacher will perform occupational tasks. Previous teaching experience, for example, may or may not be important to the development of a personal orientation. a belief or value system. which is compatible with the tasks of inner city teach- ing. We may well assume that all previous task experience influences each person’s development of the personal—social characteristics important to task performance, as Breer and Locke state: "in working on a task an individual develops certain be— liefs, values and preferences specific to the task itself which 16 If this is over time are generalized to other areas of life." the case, then quite likely some teachers have had experiences that would make their adjustment to the expected pattern of teacher behavior in the inner city difficult if not impossible. Yet teachers working together in similar institutional contexts need to define task performance and expectation so as to legitimize to some degree any teacher's actions in a similar situation. Breer and Locke explain the logic of this as follows: 15Ibid., pp. 3—u. Paul E. Breer and Edwin A. Locke. Task Experience §_.fl Source pf.Attitudes, (Homewood, 111., 1965), p. 11. 14 Where two or more individuals are engaged in the same task, it will be to the advantage of all concerned to legitimize those behaviors which are perceived to be instrumental to task success in which members have some cathectic investment. To legitimize is to define as appropriate or desirable. Behavior so defined can be right- fully expected of the members involved.l7 Generally, for each teaching situation there are several alter- native teacher actions which could produce differing degrees of success: certain responses to teaching situations will be more successful than others in achieving the outcomes desired. Over a period of time, then, successful teacher actions would become acceptable teacher actions, and might thus become somewhat generalized in corresponding teaching situations. As Breer and Locke state: In the process of engaging the task, it is also to be expected that the individual will develop positive attachments to those forms of behavior which have been rewarded while rejecting those for which he was punished, or, better perhaps, those which failed to yield desired results the patterns of behavior most likely to be gratifying are those which contribute most effectively to getting the task accomplished, i.e., those which are instrumental in achieving desired outcomes.18 Rewards and punishments, praise and blame in inner city teaching derive from several sources. While success or reward can often be measured by whether desired outcomes have been realized within the classroom, the teacher responds as well to evaluation of his work by his principal, his students and his l71bid., p. 12. 18Ibid. 15 peers. And the task to be completed often defines the reward of punishment cues, stated or implied, which the teacher may receive from others: We assume simply in most cases that some behaviors are more likely to be rewarded than others. Tasks obviously, vary in their reinforcing properties. What is rewarded in one way may be punished in another. In any situation, the task plays an important role in determining the specific matrix of rewards and punishments to which the indi— vidual can be expected to respond.19 The success of any individual teacher is further dependent upon his personal orientation and the institutional context in which he teaches. Turner believes that "teachers with very similar characteristics but teaching in different types of setting may find themselves at roughly opposite ends of the success continuum as defined by supervisory appraisals."20 And the criteria for success will most likely be established by those people, the principals and teachers, who previously defined "successful and acceptable" task performance in the institution in which the teacher teaches. For, as Turner further states: as an occupation, teaching goes on in a definite environment or institutional context. While both the work tasks of the teacher and the personally generated context within which these work tasks are performed may be distin- guished from the institutional context, they clearly cannot be treated as independent of it. The authority structure in the school system in which a teacher teaches controls lgIbid., p. 11 20Turner, p. 98. 16 many of the sanctions teachers receive and therefore has an effective means of controlling the behavior of the teacher.21 A relationship between the teacher's performance of the tasks required in the inner city and his success, as measured by the acceptance of supervisors and peers, soon emerges. And Turner indicates, "When a large proportion of the students (approximately 50%) are of working class origin, the work task performance of the teacher appears as a controlling factor in success."22 80 success in a teaching situation seems in part, at least, to vary with the ability of the teacher to perform the tasks of the occupation in a manner acceptable both to him- self and to those with whom he works. And the way a teacher performs the tasks of the occupation is likely dependent on the teacher's personal orientation which is, to a great degree, determined before he begins teaching. The teacher who has been judged successful by his super— visors and peers would also be more apt to find satisfaction in his present position. possibly a major factor in teacher trans— fer. Plant, for example, indicates that "job satisfaction appears to be related to. . . [the teacher's:lchoice of remain— ing in a district, school system or transferring next year." 2111131., p. 11. 22 Ibid., pp. 98—99. Ralph Ernest Plant, Jr., "An Investigation of Some Corre— lates of Teacher Job Satisfaction," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1966). 17 Similarly Charters, in a study of the causes of teacher turn- over, states: It [the theoretical model that furnished the predictions:]held simply that, except for involuntary or temporary departures, separa— tion from a school system is a product of the dissatisfactions generated by the immed- iate workASituation in which a person finds himself.‘q (italics mine) It is difficult to isolate all the underlying causes of teacher transfer. While static factors such as sex, age, and race may afford means of discriminating between the dropout prone and the stable teachers, other levels of analyses seem to offer more fruitful approaches to the melioration of high intra— district teacher transfer. Excuses offered for wanting a trans— fer, such as a marriage or change of residence. may conceal under unimpeachable wraps a genuine reason that is simply not easily defined or defended. At least, it seems reasonable that a teacher’s ability or inability to perform in a manner accept— able to others in the same institutional context may influence that success which determines job satisfaction. And if job satisfaction is further related to turnover, then perhaps task performance is also related to turnover. It would seem reasonable, then, that placing teachers in job situations where they were likely to respond to tasks in ways the others in the institution could accept would achieve satisfactory placements. The problem remains to develop some 2L*w. w. Charters, Jr. "What Causes Teacher Turnover?" The School Review, LXIV (September, 1956), p. 168. 18 basis from which to judge teachers’ probable and actual task performances and to relate the two to facilitate placing like teachers in like situations. In this connection, Henderson and Ward25 compared how referent groups of competent inner city teachers and competent non-inner city teachers felt about cer- tain teacher actions (task performances), and found sharp dis— agreements. They did not consider the strong possibility that teachers who remain in the inner city school over a long period of time generally respond to task performances in the manner of the competent inner city referent group, a possibility suggested by our previous statements relating task performance and success with job satisfaction and turnover: the stable teachers have remained in the inner city because they have been judged success~ ful in their task performance by their supervisors and peers. Similarly the teachers who have requested transfers from inner city schools may have responded to task performances differently than the inner city referent group (and the stable teacher group); and if the transfer requesting teachers are dissatisfied, it may be from having been judged unsuccessful in their task performances by their supervisors and peers. Beyond the notion that a teacher’s ability to judge teacher task performances the same way stable teachers and supervisors do correlates with proneness to transfer, turnover percentages in various inner city schools may be more directly influenced by the respective judgments of teacher task performances by the 25Henderson and Ward, Teaching in the Inner City, 19 principals in those schools. The principal of any given school may agree or disagree with successful inner city task performance as judged by classroom teachers. And when disagreements arise between principal and teacher, of course the teacher is more likely to modify his position than the principal. New teachers face uniform expectations of task performance in inner city schools where the stable staff and the principal agree concerning teaching techniques and expectations; the new teacher will either adjust to the single "system" or transfer. But in inner city schools where the principal opposes task per— formances which stable teachers judge acceptable, new teachers face opposition: should they accept the principal's point of View or their peersW’ In these schools transfer requests may be high because no new teacher can achieve acceptance in the eyes of both principal and peers. In those inner city schools with the highest turnover, one would guess that principals are apt to disagree with task per— formances acceptable to inner city teachers; and similarly the principals in low turnover schools would very likely agree with how inner city teachers view task performances. We would expect, therefore, disagreement over task performance acceptable to principals with high turnover and those acceptable to principals with low turnover. When principals and stable teachers do not agree on task performances three choices exist for the new teachers. They may accept the principal’s point of view, their peers’ point of View, or they may be unable to or choose not to adjust to the task 20 performances either their principals or peers accept. Those who cannot, or will not, adjust to either point of view might be expected to transfer, but when new teachers must choose be— tween task performances acceptable to their principals or to their peers with whom will they agree? They cannot adjust to both. It has previously been theorized that transfer teachers will disagree with stable teachers thus, in high turnover schools agreement between transfer teacher and principal might be ex- pected. Teachers who have to choose between task performance acceptable to their peers or their principal will probably transfer if they choose to agree with their principal for, as previously discussed, they will be in disagreement with their stable peers. But in low turnover schools it seems doubtful that either teacher group would disagree with the principal to a greater extent than the other: the principal is expected to accept competent inner city teachers’ judgments of task performance. Perceived agreement or disagreement between principal and teacher on task performance may also play an important role in teacher transfer. What the principal actually believes may be less important than what the teacher thinks he believes with regard to task performance. Disagreements on task performances may or may not exist between principals and teachers but if the teachers believe they exist it will likely affect their job satisfaction which in turn will affect their decision to trans— fer. Some teachers may think they disagree with their principals on task performance yet be unable to find acceptance from their 21 peers and though disagreement may not actually exist, the per- ceived disagreement will likely lead to dissatisfaction and transfer. Theory,Summarized 26 found that differences existed between Henderson and Ward inner city and non—inner city teachers over: 1. what situations teachers believed occurred in their classrooms, 2. how frequently certain situations occurred in their classrooms, 3. what teacher actions (task performances) were accept— able, 9. which teaching functions required structured responses, and 5. how managerial teaching dutues should be handled. By statistically comparing the responses of inner city turnover teachers, stable teachers, and principals with high and low turnover it should be possible to test the theory developed in the previous text, namely: 1. That the ability to perform the tasks of inner city teaching in an acceptable manner depends on the teacher’s personal orientation. 26Ibid. 22 2. That success and satisfaction in a teaching assignment depends upon the teacher's ability or willingness to perform in a manner which has been judged acceptable and effective by those working in the same institutional context. 3. That teacher transfers correlate with job satisfaction. u. That it should be possible to distinguish between potential transfer teachers and stable teachers, or schools with high and low turnover, by statistically comparing the responses of stable teachers, transfer teachers and principals to descriptions of teaching situations and teacher actions (task performances) after the method employed by Henderson and Ward.27 If the theory proves valid, it should be possible to develop instruments based on task performance descriptions that would aid in better placement of teachers in inner city schools. HYPOTHESES 1. Differences will be found between the responses of inner city teachers who have requested transfer and stable inner city teachers to questions concerning: a. the occurrence of teaching situations that take place in the classroom, b. the frequency with which certain teaching situations arise, 2712.13- 23 the acceptability of teacher action or task performance, the acceptability of teacher actions in which a struc- tured response is expected, the acceptability of teacher actions in which a struc— tured response is not expected, and the acceptability of teacher actions classified as managerial functions. Differences will be found between the responses of inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school and inner city teachers not requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school to questions concerning: a. the occurrence of teaching situations that take place in the classroom, the frequency with which certain teaching situations arise, the acceptability of teacher action or task performance, the acceptability of teacher actions in which a struc- tured response is expected, the acceptability of teacher actions in which a struc- tured response is not expected, and the acceptability of teacher actions classified as managerial functions. Differences will be found between the responses of inner city principals with the highest percentage of average yearly 24 teacher transfer and inner city principals with the lowest percentage of average yearly teacher transfer to questions concerning: a. the occurrence of teaching situations in the typical classroom, b. the frequency with which typical classroom situations take place, and c. the acceptability of teacher action or task performance. Inner city principals with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree more often with inner city teachers in high turnover schools who have requested transfer than with stable inner city teachers concerning the occurrence of certain teaching situations in the classroom. Inner city principals with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree more often with inner city teachers in high turnover schools who have requested transfer than with stable inner city teachers concerning the accept- ability of particular teacher actions or task performances. The views which inner city teachers from high turnover schools who have requested transfer ascribe to their princi— pals regarding appropriate teacher action will differ from the views they themselves hold more often than a similar comparison between stable teachers and their principals. 25 DEFINITION OF TERMS Inner City Elementary School: A school in what the Flint Board of Education designates as an educationally depressed area, and which participates in one or both of the following programs: a. Title I programs under the Elementary Secondary Educa— tion Act, and b. Better Tomorrows for Urban Youth (BTU). Teacher: Any nonwadministrative person whose prime res» ponsibility is in classroom teaching at one of the particular schools identified in this study. Assignment and Placement shall be used synonymously. Teacher Turnover: Collectively, the teachers leaving a school or school system thus necessitating the employment of other teachers to fill the vacated positions. Transfer: A teacher’s moving from a teaching assignment in one school to a similar assignment in another school in the same district. Dropout: A teacher's leaving a teaching assignment in a school district and not returning to that district. LSI Study: Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward’s study entitled Teachggglin the Inner City—~Identification 9f Eduggtign— El Practices of Competent Elementary Teachers_g£ Culturally 20 Disadvantaged Youth. prepared at the Learning Systems Institute of Michigan State University. Flint Study: An information gathering study entitled Flint Inner City Elementary School Staff Stability Study and reported for the first time in this dissertation. SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW Chapter I has introduced the proposed study, which seeks in general to improve long—range teacher assignment in inner city elementary schools by attempting to discover how task per— formance relates to teacher turnover. The need for a study of this type has been defended from authoritative writing in the field. particularly from a survey of teacher turnover in the Flint Public Schools. The author has developed a theory which links personal orientation task performance, success, job satis— faction and teacher transfer in a manner suggesting that how teachers judge task performance may offer clues to teacher trans— fer. Several hypotheses were suggested which lend themselves to statistical analysis. Chapter II will discuss some of the pertinent aspects of the study as they appear in the literature in the field. Chapter III presents the design of the study, instrumentation, scoring procedures, and sample selection. Chapter IV will contain an analysis of the results of the study and relate these results to the hypotheses. And Chapter V will contain a summary and con— clusions, as well as implications for further study. CHAPTER II _A_REVIEW_Q£ RELATED LITERATURE INTRODUCTION This review of related studies of teacher turnover gives particular emphasis to those studies treating the inner city. Since the research under discussion was based on previous findings of the staff of the Learning Systems Institute (LSI) at Michigan State University, particularly regarding the develop— ment of an instrument. this review devotes special attention to an analysis of the Institute‘s work. So the following review should familiarize the reader with previous research on teacher turnover, and the review of the LSI Study in particular should promote a better understanding of the research and methodology reported in subsequent chapters. REVIEW OF TEACHER TURNOVER STUDIES Studies of teacher turnover from the 1920's to the present are reported in three natural groupings, chronological periods reflecting changing teacher status and national involvement. The first period beginning in 1920 and ending with the start of World War II, a period that includes the depression, saw little demand for teachers, then in ample supply. In the second period, from the advent of World War II through the early 1950's, a sharp increase in student population reached the public schools. The third period began in the early 1950's and con— tinues to the present. 27 28 Early Studies—-1920 £9 lgul Allen sets the tone for many early turnover studies with an interesting and amusing statement: "Turnover has been, and always will be with us, at least so long as teachers die or marry."l Like so many of the early researchers, Allen assumed that external factors were the basic cause of teacher turnover and that, if the external factors were controlled, turnover could be reduced. Underlying causes of teacher turnover re— ceived little attention; most early studies dealt only with what teachers did when they left a teaching position. Allen himself investigated several "causes" of teacher turnover. Recognizing that voluntarily leaving the profession was a basic cause of high teacher turnover, he believed little could be done to control the problem.2 But fluidity, or teacher mobility as it would be called today, was one "cause" of turnover which Allen believed could and should be controlled. He wrote: . there is no doubt that considerable change [:turnoverJ among teachers is the result of poor placement and of restlessness caused by the con— stant flaunting of that "better pasture" by those who are interested in teaching turnover [The placement agencies] because of the commer— cial gain attached.3 lHollis P. Allen, "Teacher Turnover & the Placement Problems," American School Board Journal, 70 (May, 1925). p. H5. 2 Allen, p. HS. 3Ibid. 29 During the 1920's and for several years thereafter an ample supply of teachers appeared on the public school market. Boards of education refused to renew the contracts of many teachers, knowing they would have little difficulty hiring replacements. Forrest found that one of every three teachers who left teaching positions in Los Angeles County in 1928 had had their contracts terminated by the school board:u generally we may consider dismissal a major source of teacher turnover in the 1920's and 1930's. In 1925, White identified the four major causes of teacher turnover as (1) failure as a teacher, (2) quitting the teaching profession, (3) seeking further education, and (9) accepting a better position.5 White reported no attempt to determine the causes of failure or the reasons teachers quit the profession. With many others, he accepted the symptoms of failure or leaving as themselves causes of turnover, and left the matter there. But Elsbree, in the most exhaustive of the early turnover studies, identified the reasons given most often for leaving a teaching position. He found the reasons most often proffered for termination of a contract were (I) resignation to accept a better position (22.96%), (2) marriage (21.31%), and uWilliam B. Forrest, "Teacher Turnover Can Be Reduced,” The Nation's Schools, LIV (October, 1959), pp. 58—59. 5Wendell White, "Rate and Causes of Turnover of Iowa Teachers," School Board Journal, LX (December. 1925), p. 52. 3O (3) dismissal (10.39%); maternity appeared as a cause in only 1.26 percent of the cases studied.6 In their longitudinal study, Scott and Reed revealed an inverse relationship between salary and turnover studying the turnover and salary patterns of Nebraska schools during the periods 1925—1928. 1930-1933, and 1935—1938. Since they felt they had insufficient data, however, no positive causal relation- ship between salary and turnover was claimed.7 But then Shannon and Kittle's study of teacher turnover in Indiana during the period 1929-1930 apparently contradicted, in part, the findings of Scott and Reed. Shannon and Kittle found that salaries and turnover both dropped during the period 1929-4939,8 findings which in fact seem more consistent with the national situation during the depression. In one of the more sophisticated studies of teacher turn~ over during the 1930’s, Hedge explored the relationship between school board politics and teacher turnover. He found that where trustees (comparable to school board members) changed in an election, teacher turnover increased markedly the following year. Hedge found turnover minimized when incumbent trustees 6Willard S. Elsbree, Teacher Turnover la the Cities and Villages 9f New York State, (Columbia University, New York, 1928). 7 Cecil Winfield Scott and Calvin H. Reed, "Salaries and Turnover," The School Executive, LVIII (August, 1939), pp. 26-27. 8 . . J. R. Shannon and Marian A. Klttle, "Teacher Turnover in Indiana During the Ten Years of the Depression," The Teacher College Journal, 15 (September, 1993), pp. 1—6. 31 were re—elected, and greatest following the election of new trustees whose political orientation differed from that of the previous trustees. When Williams asked teachers in a 1932 study to indicate the factors which lead them to leave their teaching position, they listed in decreasing order of importance: (1) professional, (2) economic, (3) geographic, (9) political, (5) individual, (6) social, (7) refusal of the board to reappoint. and (8) mis— cellaneous. School administrators in the same study, however, placed "refusal of the board to reappoint" in third place10 which seems more in line with Forrest's findings.ll The information unearthed by early studies of teacher turn— over has little relevance to modern teacher turnover problems: research indicating that teachers were mobile, sought better positions, married and left teaching, were fired, and became pregnant offers little practical assistance in reducing teacher turnover. But researchers who inferred possible causal relation~ ships between turnover and such factors as salary, board politics, and social interference may have laid the groundwork for later research into the underlying causes of teacher turn— OVEI‘ . 9Melvin 0. Hedge, "Turnover Among Teachers in Township Schools of Indiana for 1939-35," (master's thesis Indiana State Teachers College, 1936) as reported in Cecil W. Scott’s, "Teacher Tenure," Reyiew gf Educational Research. X (June, 1990), pp. 235— 239. 10 Lewis W. Williams, "Turnover Among High School Teachers in Illinois," The School Review, XL (June, 1932), pp. 916—928. llForrest. Teacher Turnover, pp. 58—59. 32 Studies from 1991 to the Early_l950's World War II markedly influenced teacher turnover, and the studies of teacher turnover as well. In particular, the stabil- ity of teachers was sometimes artificially controlled. For example, during the war years certain agencies of the Federal Government could remove teachers from or freeze teachers in their teaching positions. Regional Manpower Officials were empowered to issue work stabilization orders requiring essential employees to obtain a release from their employer or the U. S. Employment Service before they could accept new employment.12 But as we would expect, males left teaching positions in droves during the early 1990’s. A study reported in "Education for Victory" indicated that 50 percent of the males who left teach- ing during the first year of the war left to join the armed forces; those who did not enlist entered defense plants or accepted better paying teaching positions. And females left teaching positions during the first year of the war to take jobs in other systems or to get married.13 As teacher turnover and teacher supply aroused deep concern, the Federal Government considered freezing teachers in their positions or even exempting young male teachers from service in the armed forces.lu Waller voiced this Concern over the 12"Freezing Teacher Employment—~What Is the Situation?" School and Community, 29 (March, 1993). 13Education for Victory, 1 (January, 1993), pp. 19—15. "Freezing Teacher Employment," 9p, cit. 33 national teacher shortage, implying that only changes in pre— vious attitudes toward teachers and teaching could produce the necessary supply of teachers for the classrooms of the nation. He said, "There never was any sense to the ban on married "15 Yet the ban on married female teachers [female] teachers . was considered a cause of teacher turnover by 19 percent of the superintendents questioned in a 1999 survey, who listed other major factors as (1) low salaries. (2) better opportunities, (3) insecurity, (9) restrictions on social habits, and (5) poor living conditions.16 Waller recommended four steps necessary to improve the teacher turnover situation: (1) higher salaries, (2) employment of married females, (3) exemption of young males from the draft, and (9) leaving teachers free to lead their own lives.17 Pylman, incidentally, found evidence to support Waller's con- tention that interference in the lives of teachers was a major cause of teacher turnover. He indicated that "community con— flicts" were listed most often (33.2%) as an administrative 1 . 5Willard Waller, "Revolt in the Classroom," The Saturday Reyiew, 26 (September 18, 1993), pp. 9-6. 16”Why Teachers Leave," The Nation's Schools, 39 (September, 1999), p. 32. l7Waller, Revolt, pp. 9-6. 3L; reason for the release of a teacher, and "social and personal problems" were listed most often (95.8%)by teachers as a cause of turnover. The depression and World War II, along with the "period of adjustment" following both these times of intense national in— volvement, seriously limit the pertinence of the studies com— pleted during these years to current problems of teacher turnover. So we shift to studies more applicable to current turnover problems. Current Studies—~Early 1950’s tp_the Present Recent studies of teacher turnover generally concentrate either on (1) symptoms or on (2) causes of turnover. In symp— tomatic studies the researcher has sought primarily to identify factors that distinguish between teacher groups prone to trans- fer and stable teacher groups. In causal studies the researcher seeks to identify the underlying causes of teacher turnover. It is interesting to note nearly every researcher into teacher turnover claiming to have found one or more causes for turnover when, in actuality, most have only identified the symptom. Studies Identifying Symptoms of Turnover A study by Greer illustrates the tendency of researchers to study symptoms and then profess to have found causes: 18 Jay L. Pylman, "How Stable Is the Teaching Profession?" The Nations Schools, 35 (February, 1995), pp. 30—31. 35 The general causes of turnover in order of their importance, regardless of the number of years of experience, were: Withdrawal (from the profes- sion), Resignation, Dismissal, Promotion and Other Causes.lg While withdrawal, resignation, dismissal and promotion indicate that a teacher has left a profession they certainly cannot be considered causes of turnover; they only show something went wrong. Whitener studied teacher turnover in schools of differ- ing size and locatiort comparing the teachers' age, marital status, teaching level, prior teaching experience, and sex with turnover, and found one significant relationship between the probability of survival in a position and the length of prior service (up to age 59).20 In a study of teacher retention in an Ohio county, Thomas found that administrators responsible for professional personnel believed (1) pregnancy, (2) moving, (3) marriage, and (9) non—retention (dismissal) were the major reasons for teacher turnover.21 Charters found that large numbers of female teachers left teaching (66%) between the ages of 20 and 29 while male teachers changed school systems during 19George Elwin Greene, "The Extent and Causes of Turnover Among Secondary School Teachers in the Central Schools of New York State for the Year 1961—62." (unpublished doctoral disser— tation, Cornell University, 1969). 20 Joy Eugene Whitener, "An Actuarial Approach to Teacher Turnover," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1965). 21Warren Felty Thomas, "A Study of Factors Associated with the Retention of Teachers in Selected Public School Systems in Cuyahoga County, Ohio," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1969). fullle. {II-lull II I." 1.1 11!. 36 the same ages. By the age of fifty, however, few males remained in teaching, while women had returned and proved virtually immovable until retirement.22 Charters found an inverse rela— tionship between turnover and staff size, and also that district wealth and pupil load made no significant difference in teacher turnover. Studies Identifying Causes of Teacher Turnover None of the preceding studies seemingly penetrated beneath the mere fact of teachers leaving their jobs to the personal and social forces which their leaving reflected; all of the follow~ ing, I believe, tried to. Bruce identified nine major causes of teacher dropout as (1) preference for other work, (2) marriage, (3) low salaries, (9) further education, (5) discharge, (6) retirement, (7) poor health, (8) leave of absence, and (9) lack of success in teach— ing; the incentives to change which teachers cited included (1) higher salaries, (2) change of family residence, (3) dis— charge, (9) professional advancement, (5) discontinuance of a position, and (6) greater security.2u Many of the "causes" identified by Bruce are, in reality, symptoms. However, such 2 2Werrett W. Charters, Jr., Teacher Perceptions pf Adminis~ trator Behavior, U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project #929, p. 172. 3 Werrett W. Charters, Jr., "What Causes Teacher Turnover?" The Sphool Review, (September, 1956), p. 295. 29 Imon E. Bruce, "Teacher Turnover in Arkansas’ Public Schools," School and Society, 77 (June 27, 1953), pp. 910—913. 37 factors as low salary and preference for other work could be properly considered causes of turnover. Difficulties with school officials, low salary, and heavy teaching load were listed as reasons for leaving the profession by 81 percent of the teachers involved in a study by Phillips and Bonk, who also found that teachers moving from one state to another, or from one position to another, listed better salaries, better facil- ities, and difficulties with administrators as the primary causes of their move.25 Dunn used an exit interview to deter— mine local reasons for teacher turnover, and found that problems with ppe administrator or ppe supervisor, and poor board commun— ication, were the primary reasons given for leaving a position.26 White studied how teacher stability relates to career in— volvement, and found indications that the degree of females' commitment to teaching was a significant factor in the turnover rate. In White’s study, 193 female first and second grade teachers were given a career involvement scale which success- fully differentiated between the leaving and remaining teachers at the .01 level of significance. While White made no claims to prescience, he did suggest that "career involvement is a relevant variable to consider in future analyses of the teaching 25Beeman N. Phillips, Edward Bonk, and J. R. Mitchell, "Can We Reduce Teacher Turnover?" Phi Delta Kappan, XXXVIII (March, 1957), pp. 272—279. 26 Kenneth Dunn, "Do You Know Why Your Teachers Resign?" depyiew, 2 (June, 1961), p. 32. 38 behavior of female teachers."27 A study by Gourley and Pourchot mentioned morale as a prime reason for teachers leaving the pro— fession, in addition to home responsibilities of the female, low salaries in early years, and lack of opportunity for advancement. According to Gourley and Pourchot Some factors associated with low teacher morale are: working conditions, physical conditions, supervisory and administrative problems, com— munity problems, security, hostile attitudes, lack of acceptance and unmet social needs.28 While Barnett did not specifically identify morale as a factor contributing to resignation, he did point to (l) unpleasant physical working conditions, (2) poor student attitude, (3) over~ crowded classrooms, (9) feeling of alienation from community or school system, (5) questionable transfer policies, (6) sparse promotional opportunities and (7) lack of communication, all as reasons behind teacher resignations,29 a list with obvious simi— larity to the factors listed under the heading of morale by Gourley and Pourchot. Both studies indicate that his morale may influence a teacher's decision regarding termination or exten— sion of employment. Barnett found that a lack of confidence in 27Kinnard White, "The Relation of Career Involvement to Persistence in the Teaching Profession Among Beginning Female Elementary Teachers," The Journal pj;Educationa1 Research, 60 (October, 1966), pp. 51—53. 28Robert H. Gourley and Leonard L. Pourchot, "Teacher Drop— outs," Illinois Education, 53 (February, 1965), p. 262. 29Earl Bryan Barnett, "Organizational Factors in Losses of Secondary Teaching Personnel," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965). 39 support from administrators over disciplinary matters and poor leadership from administrators, both of which relate to teacher morale, also contributed to a teacher’s decision to resign.30 Charters also indicated the probability of a relationship be— tween turnover and morale, although he felt that morale was affected by other variables: The relationship between morale and separation from the school system, however, is importantly affected by two outside variables—~length of service in the school and amount of teaching experience. (These two variables, of course, are correlated; they are also correlated with another variable, age, which is known to have an effect on mobility.) Consider length of service in the system. Teachers who separated were found to have had substantially shorter service at the time of their departure than the bulk of teachers who remained. Sixty percent of the teachers who left had been in the system three years or less at the time they departed. Not only were the new teachers most mobile, they also had the lowest levels of identification with the school system, accord~ ing to other analyses we had conducted.31 Little had been done to identify individual teachers who were prone to transfer until Nyman found that the "Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory" and Hilton's "Ego—Involvement Index" differentiated between the beginning teachers who remained in teaching and those who left teaching, respectively, at the .05 and .01 level of significance. The most discriminating items involved (1) approving attitudes toward schools, curriculum and teaching; (2) a positive attitude toward students; (3) mental BOIbid. 31Charters, Teacher Perceptions, pp. 166—167. 9O hygiene; (9) teacher's role; and (5) control over students.32 While analyzing his population Nyman found reason to conclude that his method might identify individual teachers rather than groups of teachers who were transfer prone. Plant, in a study of one hundred teachers most satisfied and one hundred teachers least satisfied with their jobs, found a relationship between job satisfaction and choosing to remain in a district or school system another year. The teacher who was satisfied with his job was less apt to transfer than the dissatisfied teacher.33 March and Simon state: The perceived desirability of movement [out of. an organization:]is a function of both the individual's satisfaction with his present job and his perception of alternatives that do not involve leaving the organization. For the teacher who is dissatisfied with his job, alternatives may include changes in assignment, administration, classroom, textbook or any of a number of petty annoyances which have a negative effect on morale. Lingel believes dissatisfaction in 32Ernest Leslie Nyman, "A Study of Drop—Outs Among Beginning Teachers," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965). 33Ralph Ernest Plant, Jr., "An Investigation of Some Correlates of Teacher Job Satisfaction," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1966). 3”James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organization, (New York, 1958), p. 111. 91 the single area of how the contract is thought of may be so . 35 important as to cause turnover. Whether dissatisfaction with the organization leads to withdrawal depends on whether the participant perceives the "employment contract" as given [bnalterable:]or as subject to change. Where the contract is viewed as unchangeable the only Options are "accept" or "reject." Where the contract can be changed, participa— tion by no means precludes internal conflict and bargaining. Internal bargaining as an alternative to movement is a factor in several types of organizational participation.36 Job satisfaction may, in part, depend on previous orienta— tion. Youngberg gave booklets, describing and discussing a difficult job, to insurance salesmen, hypothesizing that people who had been realistically oriented would have a better chance of adjusting to a new and difficult job. Youngberg found that: Salesmen with realistic job expectation and realistic self expectations.Ehad previous orientation] had better survival, and were more frequently "satisfied" with one impor- tant aspect of the job, than were those who scored low on the realism measures[:had no orientation]. While Youngberg studied insurance salesmen and not teachers, an important point was made: turnover may be affected by whether 35John Jarvis Lingel, "Organizational Factors in Losses of Elementary Teaching Personnel," (unpublished doctoral disser— tation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965). 36March, p. 111. 37Charles Francis Youngberg, "An Experimental Study of 'Job Satisfaction’ and Turnover in Relation to Job Expectations and Self Expectations," (unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University, 1963). 92 the teacher has a realistic orientation toward the position and the situation in which he is expected to teach. The need for further study of this point was confirmed by the Bureau of Educa— tional Research at the University of Illinois. who recommend the examination of the proposition that "teachers with differing orientations to their jobs are turnover prone. ."38 REVIEW OF THE LSI STUDY In addition to related studies of teacher turnover, this research also necessitated a review of the study on which its instrumentation was based, a study which also provided an impor— tant foundation for the theory developed in Chapter I. Recently the Learning Systems Institute at Michigan State University undertook a study of teaching in the inner city under the direction of Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward. The basic objectives of that LSI Study were: 1) to describe instructional behaviors of elemen— tary teachers who have shown particular aptitude with the culturally deprived child, and 2) to identify behaviors "peculiar" to competent elementary teaching in the culturally deprived environments. The first step, obtaining descriptions of teaching acts as they occur in the classroom of competent inner city teachers, 38Werrett W. Charters, "What Causes," p. 298. 39Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward, Teachipg 12.392 Inner City, Identification pi Educational Practices pf Competent Elementary Teachers pf Culturally Disadvantaged Youth, (East Lansing, 1966), p. l. 93 employed a technique known as the "Focused Observation"”0 which: required that an observer be present in a class- room and while observing make a written descrip- tion of the observable elements of a moment of teacher behavior. The observer’s responses were structured in that he was directed to record data on three aspects of a selected teaching moment: 1) the situation~—requiring a brief (one to five sentences) description of the rele~ vant elements present in the immediate environ- ment (e.g., "The children in a reading group have been reading silently the story of ’David and Goliath’. When the teacher joins this group, she describes the two characters, talking about their physical appearances and character- istics. She then asks the tallest boy in the group to read aloud the part of Goliath. He reads, but in a quiet and shy manner."); 2) the action—~describing a particular teacher act within or moving immediately from the des— cribed situation (e.g., "The teacher stops him and says, ’You don't sound like a huge, nine— foot—tall Goliath.’"); 3) the consequence—~ entailing a brief description of the observable consequences that immediately followed and seem related to the teacher act and its impact upon the situation (e.g., "The boy smiles, starts over, an reads with a louder, more forceful voice.") This technique also requires the teacher observed to complete a self~report form, thus verifying the observer’s report and often augmenting it with important information not available to the 92 observer. A total of fourteen "competent" inner city teachers, grades K~6, were randomly selected, out of the most stereotypic inner quudith Henderson, The Focused Observation_p£ Teaching Behaviors, Papers of the Institute #29, (East Lansing, 1966). ulHenderson and Ward, Teaching ip the Inner City, p. 9. 92 Ibid., p. 5. 99 city schools of Detroit (7). Grand Rapids (9) and Flint (3), Michigan, from a highly selective list provided by the adminis— trative and supervisory personnel in the school systems of the “3 Each of the fourteen selected teachers was three cities. observed twice per hour for two full days. At the completion of each day’s observations a conference was held between the teacher and the observer to record the information required of the teacher.Dru Two of the questions asked of the teacher at that time provided a check on the reliability of the observations made during the day; in every case the teachers confirmed the observer’s report.”5 From these focused observations, a total of 277 descriptions of teaching behaviors were compiled and then referred to a two— part judgment panel for evaluation of the appropriateness of the teacher behavior identified. The first part of the judgment panel was comprised of the fourteen teachers in whose classrooms the observations took place, collectively identified in the LSI Study as "Referent Group A" representing the competent inner city teacher.”6 The second half of the judgment panel consisted of fourteen intern consultants who worked with the Elementary u31bid. L”twig. ”511231-99- 6- ”fiibid., p. 8. HS Intern Program at Michigan State University, identified in the LSI Study as "Referent Group B? representing the competent non— inner city teacher. Each member of Referent Group A [and Referent Group 3] received a one—page typed copy of each description—~the situation, teacher action, and observed consequence. All knowledge of origin of each description (teacher, city, school, etc.,) was unknown to the referent group members except, of course, where they [Referent Group A:lmight have recognized those that were recorded in their own rooms. On each of the 277 descriptions, each judge responded to two questions: 1. Does a situation similar to the one described here occur in your classroom? yes/no If yes, about how often? hourly daily weekly monthly yearly 2. Is the teacher action appropriate as you see good teaching? yes/no Next the judgments of the individual members of each referent group were compiled for each instance of described teacher be— havior. And whenever group consensus found a particular des— cription "good" and "representative" at the .05 level of significance, that description was then taken to constitute a part of the model of teaching for the larger teaching body represented by the referent group.”7 Referent Group A identified 230 descriptions of teacher behavior as both ”good" and "representative", descriptions which then became a partial model of inner city teaching as determined ”71bid. 46 by competent inner city teachers. Referent Group B identified 189 descriptions of teacher behavior taken from inner city schools as ”good" and "representative” in a non—inner city school. These two models (A & B) were then compared. Henderson and Ward state: This procedure was a relatively unSOphisticated final process for identifying the behaviors peculiar to inner city [teachers]. Inspection, listing, and comparison identified those behav— iors that were common to both models and fac~ tored out those that were peculiar to each. One hundred seventy—eight behaviors were found to be in common; 52 were found only in Model A and ll only in Model B. The procedure can be described as a comparison of intersecting sets. A generalized paradigm illustrates the procedure with its numeric results. a: 52 A 230 c: 178 B 189 b: 11 A: Model of Inner City Teaching Behaviors B: Model of Non-Inner City Teaching Behaviors a: Behaviors peculiar to A set b: Behaviors peculiar to B set c: Behaviors common to both sets (Note: There were originally 277 descriptions, but 36 were rejected in common as "model" behaviors by both groups.) H7 Following this model development, the individual behaviors were classified according to function as (1) academic, (2) social (3) managerial, or (H) psychological50 in an attempt to find what differences existed between the two models. Without reporting the total findings of the LSI Study, we may note simply that the differences indicated that the inner city teacher was more in— volved in the managerial and less in the academic functions, a pattern opposite that of the non—inner city teacher.51 SUMMARY This chapter reviewed studies of teacher turnover covering the period 1920 to the present. The depression of 1929, World War I and the significant increase in student population in the early 1950‘s each dominated contemporary studies relating to teacher turnover, limiting their applicability to conditions today. Studies of turnover appeared to fall into two groups: (1) studies of the symptoms and (2) studies of the causes of teacher turnover; early studies of teacher turnover dealt pri— marily with symptoms, while current studies look more for causes. Symptoms oriented studies discover merely that teachers tend to turnover because they (1) withdraw from the profession, (2) are dismissed, (3) are mobile, (u) are young, (5) are new to the profession, or (6) are female. But research into the causes of SOIbid., p. 16. 511bid., pp. l7—18. H8 teacher turnover reveals its relation to such factors as (l) morale, (2) job satisfaction, (3) salaries, (4) relationships with administrators, (5) job orientation, and (6) working con— ditions. None of the studies reviewed had focused on intra—district, inner city teacher transfer. Researchers were primarily interest- ed in the administrative problems involved in maintaining or employing a stable staff in a school district, although none of them initially started out to investigate how continuity of classroom experience hinges on stability of school staff. A study by Henderson and Ward,52 which found apparent differences between the responses of inner city teachers and non—inner city teachers to descriptions of teaching situations and teacher actions, received special attention because of its integral influence on the instrumentation of this study. Pointing the direction turnover research should take, Charters summarizes the purpose of the research reported herein with the following comment: "If educators are to understand the causes of turnover, they must seek the meaning of teacher's behavior as the meaning of any human behavior is sought—~in terms of the individual’s aspirations and goals in life, of his view of the reality which faces him and of his dominant interests and innovations."53 521bid., p. 17. 53lpgg , p. 17. CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY DESIGN OF THE STUDY This attack on the problem of intra—district teacher trans— fer from inner city elementary schools employed a behavioral model of inner city teaching as developed by the Learning Systems Institute at Michigan State University.1 The sample population included teachers and principals from the Flint, Michigan Public School System. SELECTING THE SAMPLE SCHOOLS ‘ What constitutes an inner city school varies from one authority to another. In Flint, the city selected for this study, the Board of Education had selected fourteen elementary schools for inclusion in programs under Tithe I of the Elemen— tary—Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and for the Better Tomorrows for Urban Youth (BTU) programs. The fourteen schools identified by the board for ESEA or BTU programs, or both, shared in part the problems of low student achievement, racial imbalance, a predominantly low income population, and the space limitations typical in schools located in a large urban area. The fourteen schools were repeatedly identified as typical inner city l The Learning Systems Institute Study is outlined in detail in Chapter II. 49 50 elementary schools in studies initiated by the Research Depart— ment~~Flint Board of Education. Since one of the fourteen schools was to have its student population reduced approximately 50 percent in the next school year, thus artificially inducing teacher transfer requests, the school was subsequently dropped from the sample: the remaining thirteen schools were selected for study. The composition of Flint-~population of approximately 200,000, negro population constituting 30-90 percent of the total, basically an industrial city-~and the ways the thirteen schools represent many of the problems typical of inner city schools, suggested that any con— clusions drawn from this study could probably be applied to other inner city school situations. SELECTING THE TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS TO BE SAMPLED General To adequately test the hypotheses posed in Chapter I necessitated the identification of three distinct groups of teachers and the elementary principals in the schools selected for study, all in terms of the Flint Inner City Elementary School Staff Stability Study (see Chapter I, p. S). The staff history of each school in the Flint Study was traced from November of 1960 through November of 1966. Teachers were identified as transfers or dropouts from examination of the alphabetical listing in the Flint Community School Personnel Directory. Females who married between the publication of Sl directories were considered dropouts and therefore did not figure in the study.2 Only teachers who taught full—time school were included. Tracing the staff history of each of the thirteen schools in the Flint Study involved the following steps: I. The staff of the schools for the school year 1900-61 were listed. 2. Using the directory for the year l961-62: a. Teachers who remained from the previous year were identified. b. All new teachers were listed. c. Teachers who had transferred or drOpped out were identified. 3. Steps 2a ~ 2c were repeated for each year through l966—67. The method outlined above made it possible to determine the teacher turnover in all thirteen schools for a period of seven years, the tenure of individual teachers in every school. and the percentage of transfer each year in each school involved. The per— centage of transfer figures served to identify princi- pals from high and low transfer schools. discussed more thoroughly later in this chapter. 2Because personnel files were not opened to the researcher. there was no adequate method for determining the surname of recently married females on the Flint Public School Staff. But since this research is directed toward the study of teacher transfer, treating recently married females as dropouts should not significantly influence the data, only reduce the sample. 52 Transfer Teachers Identified (Group Al and A2) It was necessary to identify teachers who had requested a transfer from an inner city elementary school for the school year 1967-68. No attempt was made to identify teachers who were transferred for administrative reasons; only those teachers were identified who had initiated a transfer request. The Master Teacher Contract, which covers all Flint Public School teachers. provides that: Teachers shall be given an opportunity to apply, without giving reasons, for transfers to be effective the next school year if their applica- tion is made by April 7; provided, that if the application is made after April 7, the teacher shall state the reasons for the transfer request or if the request is for transfer to a particular school, the teacher shall be obligated to state the specific reasons for the choice of schools. The Director of Staff Personnel Services for the Flint system prepared a complete list of transfer requests made under this contractual provision, identifying thirty teachers who had re- quested transfer prior to April 7, 1967. Of the thirty teachers, fourteen were teaching their first year in the school from which they had requested transfer; the remaining sixteen had taught more than one year in their respective schools. Teachers com— pleting their first year in a particular school, who had request~ ed transfer, were identified as group (A2) and non—first year teachers who had requested transfer were identified as group Master Teacher Contract: Between the Board of Education of the City of Flint, Michigan and the Flint Education Assoc— iation. (September 1, 1966——August 31, 1969), p. 12. 53 (Al)‘ Group (Al) plus group (A2) composed the total group of teachers who had requested transfer from Flint inner city elemen- tary schools by April 7, 1967, for the school year 1967—68. Stable Teachers Identified (Group B) 9 5 Although many authorities (Whitener, Greene. and others) indicate that teachers are most turnover prone in their first three years of teaching, most of these studies dealt primarily with a cross-section of teachers and not specifically with the inner city teacher. So it was necessary to re—examine the Flint Study in order to determine how long teachers should have taught in a particular inner city school before they could be considered stable. A cross~sectional comparison of the teachers who had re- quested transfer between September 1, 1966, and April 7, 1967 (Group Al + A2) with all teachers who had not requested transfer as of April 7, 1967, indicated that teachers in their fourth year or more of teaching were significantly less likely to re~ quest transfer. (Table 3.1). uJoy Eugene Whitener, Ag Actuarial Approach £9_Teacher Turnover, (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1965). SGeorge Elwin Greene, "The Extent and Causes of Turnover Among Secondary School Teachers in the Central Schools of New York State for the year 1961-1962," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University. 1964). 59 Table 3.1 Significant difference between inner city teachers requesting transfer and inner city teachers not requesting transfer by number of years experience teaching in Flint inner city schools during the period September 1, 1966 to April 7. 1967. Number of Years Experience in Current Total Number Position, Including Group Requesting Level of Current Year Size Transfer X2 Significance l 101 19 2 61 5 1.02 .30 l + 2 162 19 .11 .80 3 51 7 1 + 2 + 3 213 26 H or more 131 5 5.9 .02 A longitudinal comparison from the Flint Study indicates leveling off in the number of dropouts and transfers beginning in the third full year of teaching (Table 3.2). Table 3.2 Number of teachers drOpping out or transferring after Y years of experience in a Flint Inner City School. — _ J —- Number of Complete Years of Experience When Transfer or Dropout Occurred (Y) Dropouts Transfers Total 1 139 87 226 2 H6 15 61 3 10 6 16 H 10 5 15 55 Based on information in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. then. teachers with three or more full years'teaching experience in one particular Flint inner city school were selected to represent the stable teacher. and were identified as Group B. Non-transfer Teachers ip Their First Year Identified (Group C) The third teacher group was composed of teachers in their first year in the sample schools who had not requested transfer. The Flint Study had served to identify all first year teachers in the studied schools. Group (C) was identified by deleting teachers who had requested transfer from the total list of teachers who were new to their respective schools. Principals with High and Low Teacher Transfer Identified (Group D) The principals of all the Flint inner city elementary school comprised Group (D). The staff transfer for each year of the current school principal’s tenure was determined from the Flint Study and, together with the transfer requests for 1967-68, became the basis for the identification of principals with high and low transfer percentages. In that the sixth and seventh ranked (according to average transfer percentage) schools in the study had an identical teacher transfer percentage and there was a 2.56% difference between the seventh and eighth ranked schools,the division of principals into high and low transfer groups was made between the seventh and eighth ranked schools. The high and low transfer groups were found to have transfer levels significantly different at the .005 level 56 (Table 3.3). A chi—square test of the tenure of the principals in the high and low groups proved non-significant at the .5 level. Therefore the principal in schools 1, 2, u. 5, 7, 8, and 10 were classified as principals with a low transfer per- centage and principals in schools 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 13 were classified as principals with a high transfer percentage. 57 Table 3.3 Significant difference between high and low teacher turnover schools in Flint’s inner city during the current principal's tenure Rank School Principal’s # Teacher Total Percent low— I.D. Tenure Years Teacher Teacher high Number in Years Represented Transfer Transfer 1 5 7 189 12 6.52 2 9 3 93 3 6.97 3 1 3 108 8 7.91 9 10 3 53 9 7.51 5 8 7 111 10 9.01 6 2 1 99 9 9 09 7 7 1 22 2 9 09 Total 565 93 8 3 5 103 12 11.65 9 6 7 207 25 12.07 10 11 7 135 17 12.59 11 9 3 119 15 12.60 12 12 7 196 25 17.12 13 13 2 53 11 20.75 Total 763 105 Total Low Turnover Schools 565 93 X2 = 10.0 Total High Turnover Schools 763 105 Level of Significance = .005 58 INSTRUMENTATION The instruments developed to test the hypotheses were based on the methods and findings of Henderson and Ward as reported in the LSI Study. By using the focused observation technique, Henderson and Ward described 277 inner city teaching situations and subsequent teacher actions.6 Fourteen competent inner city teachers and twelve competent non—inner city teachers were em— paneled to judge these descriptions of situations and actions. Teaching situations were judged as either representative or not representative; and the situations judged to be representative required an estimate of the frequency of occurrence of situations similar to the one described. Teacher actions were judged as appropriate or inappropriate according to the respondent’s view of good teaching. Both groups of judges in the LSI Study were identified as "competent" by administrative and supervisory personnel. Henderson and Ward recognized the problem of selecting competent teachers by administrative opinion, but justified their method as follows: 6Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward, Teaching in the Inner City, Identification p£_Educationa1 Practices 9: Compatent Elementary Teachers pf Culturally Disadvantaged Youth, (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966), p. 10. 7Ibid., p. 8. 59 While the researchers recognize that there is some rationale for doubting the reliability and validity of administrative and supervisory judg- ments concerning who is and who is not a competent teacher, we find the method not only expedient but certainly well supported by both traditional and current practice. To our knowledge, this is by far the most common procedure for selection of personnel who assume the major role in assisting, training, and evaluating the behaviors of stu- dents in the clinical (field experience) phases of teacher education today. The process outlined in the preceding paragraphs served to identify eleven descriptions of teacher behavior which the com- petent non—inner city teachers alone considered appropriate and fifty—two descriptions peculiar to the competent inner city teachers. The eleven descriptions of teacher behavior peculiar to non-inner city teachers, plus the eleven most discriminating descriptions peculiar to inner city teachers formed the basis for the development of two instruments (see Appendix D). Teacher Instrument. The teachers, Groups Al, A2. B, and C, were asked to answer the following questions for each description of a teaching situation and teacher action: 1. Does a situation similar to the one described here occur in your classroom? yes/no (circle one) If yes, about how often (check the appropriate line) hourly daily weekly monthly yearly Ibid., p. 7. 60 2. Is the teacher action appropriate as you see good teaching? yes/no (circle one) 3. Do you feel your building principal would judge the teacher action appropriate? yes/no (circle one) These three questions, together with the situation/action des- criptions, made up the teacher instrument. Principal Instrument. The principals (Group D) were asked to respond to the following questions: 1. Does a situation similar to the one described here occur in the typical classroom in your building? yes/no (circle one) If yes, about how often? (Check the appropriate line) hourly daily weekly monthly yearly 2. Is the teacher action appropriate as you see good teaching? These two questions, together with the situation/action des- cription, made up the principal instrument. For both the teacher instrument and the principal instrument: The twenty—two situation/action descriptions and corresponding questions were printed, one situation/action with appropriate questions per page. The twenty-two pages were then collated in a previously determined random sequence and stapled together. 61 Information Collection Initially, since information was to be gathered from both principals and teachers, pre—addressed envelopes were prepared for both groups. The envelopes were addressed in such a way that the address could be torn off and the return address exposed. Three items were enclosed in the teachers’ envelopes. First, a letter from the President of the Flint Education Association (FEA) assured the teacher his privacy and asked for c00peration in the study (see Appendix A for copy of the letter). Second an information and instruction sheet introduced the study, further certified the privacy of the teacher, and gave instruc- tions for completion and return of the instrument (see Appendix B for c0py of information and instruction sheet). Third, the teacher instrument, provided with a tear—off identification tab with the teacher’s name and school attached to the upper left- hand corner of the instrument, completed the package. The principals’ envelopes contained an information and instruction sheet (see Appendix C) and a copy of the principal’s instrument with a tear-off identification tab bearing the principal’s name and school on the upper left—hand corner of the instrument. Principals’ envelopes were delivered directly to all principals concerned and were returned to the Research Office in the Flint Public Schools Administration Building via school mail- Teachers’ envelopes were delivered to the FEA Building Representatives for distribution and collection and were 62 returned to the FEA office by building representatives or via school mail. One week after the date set for the return of all instruments, a follow-up phone call was made to all FEA Building Representatives and to all principals from whom completed instruments had not been received. One week after the phone call a personal contact was made with all teachers and princi- pals who had not returned a completed instrument. All teachers and principals involved in the study were contacted on a weekly basis by phone or personal contact until the completed instru— ment was returned or it became apparent that no instrument would be returned. 63 Table 3.9 Number of instruments sent and returned by school and group Group Al A2 B C D School Re- Re— Re- Re- Re— ID # Sent turned Sent turned Sent turned Sent turned Sent turned 1 0 0 2 2 10 9 8 3 l l 2 2 2 l 1 7 3 16 3 1 l 3 1 1 0 0 6 9 3 3 1 l 9 0 0 2 2 5 3 2 2 1 1 5 2 2 0 0 15 8 3 2 l l 6 l l 2 2 19 9 3 3 l l 7 1 1 l l 0 0 9 3 1 l 8 O O 1 1 8 5 5 1 l l 9 5 5 0 0 l2 3 9 2 l l 10 0 0 2 2 7 9 5 2 l 1 ll 0 0 0 O 7 2 9 2 1 l 12 0 0 l 1 10 3 5 2 1 l 13 9 3 2 l 5 1 6 2 1 l Totals 16 15 19 13 106 99 78 30 13 13 Percentage Returned 93.8% 92.9% 96.2% 38.5% 100% Return. The final return is shown in Table 3.9. Presumably teachers who did not plan to return to the system might be less likely to return the instruments. Groups D, Al and A were 2 expected to show a high percentage of return because the groups f) 9 were composed totally of individuals planning to return to the Flint system. While no one knew whether individual teachers in Groups B and C planned to return to the system. teachers with three or more years in a school (Group B) might be less likely to "drop-out" of the Flint system than teachers new to a school (Group C). Whether the reasoning behind these assumptions was valid cannot be determined. But the percentage of returns for each group was considered sufficient to test the hypotheses. STATISTICAL HYPOTHESES The following hypotheses are stated first as research hypotheses in literary form and then as research (H1) and null or test (H0) hypotheses in operational form. Hypothesis 1p: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will differ from stable inner city teachers in their judgments of which situations occur in their class- rooms. Hl Jt # JS HO Jt = JS Legend: Jt = judgments of teachers requesting transfer; J = judgments of stable teachers. Hypothesis 19; Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will differ from stable inner city teachers in their judgments of the frequency of the occurrence of classroom situations. .1..." lullll [.1 iiilll ular Hypothesis lg: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will differ from stable inner city teachers in their judgments of good teacher action. H- Jti'SJS Hypothesis 1d: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions in which the teacher expects a structured response as appropriate less frequently than stable inner city teachers. H1: Jt < JS HO: Jt 3 JS Hypothesis lg; Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions in which the teacher does not expect a structured response as appropriate more frequently than stable inner city teachers. H : Jt_‘>» JS Hypothesis If; Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions which are classified as managerial functions as appropriate less frequently than stable inner city teachers. H : J <( J 1 t 8 HO: Jt 2: JS 6t) Hypothesis Egg lnncr city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will differ from first year inner city teachers not re— questing transfer in their judgments of which situations occur in their classrooms. H : Jtl # J81 l H : J 1 = J l o t 8 Legend: Jtl = judgments of inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school J81 = judgments of inner city teachers not re— questing transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school Hypothesis gp; Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will differ from first year inner city teachers not re- questing transfer in their judgments of the frequency of the occurrence of classroom situations. H : J 1 # J 1 1 t S Hypothesis 22; Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will differ from first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer in their judgments of good teacher actions. : l 1 H1 Jt # JS H : J l = J 1 o t s 67 Hypothesis 2d: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions, in which the teacher expects a structured response, as appropriate less frequently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. H l: Jtl .< J81 H : J l .> J l O t " s Hypothesis 23: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions, in which the teacher does not expect a structured response, as appropriate more frequently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. Hl: Jtl >- Jsl HO: Jtl 5; J81 Hypothesis 2i: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching in their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions which are classified as manager- ial functions as apprOpriate less frequently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. Hl: Jtl <_ Jsl H:J1 2J1 0 t s Hypothesis 3p: Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will differ from inner city principals with low transfer in their judgments of which situations occur in the typical classroom. l h 1 HO Jh = J1 Legend: Jh = judgments of principals with high turnover J1 = judgments of principals with low turnover Hypothesis 32; Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will differ from inner city principals with low turnover in their judgments of the frequency of occurrence of typical classroom situations. H : J # J 1 h 1 Hypothesis 3p: Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will differ from inner city principals with low turnover in their judgments of good teacher action. H1: Jh # Jl Hypothesis 9: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer from schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree with their building principals more often than will the stable teachers in the same schools with regard to their judgments of which situations occur in their (the typical) classroom. H: Apt > Aps 1 HO: Apt (— Aps 69 Legend: Apt agreement between principal and teachers requesting transfer agreement between principal and stable teacher Aps Hypothesis 5: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer from schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree with their building principals more often than will stable teachers in the same schools with regard to their judgments of teacher action. Hl: Apt > Aps H0: Apt 5; Aps Hypothesis 6: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer from schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will perceive themselves as agreeing less often with their building principal than will stable teachers from the same schools on judgments of teacher action. H1: PApt .< PAps H0: PApt a. PAps Legend: PApt perceived agreement between principal and teachers requesting transfer PAps ’ perceived agreement between principal and stable teachers. 70 STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY Hypotheses la, 1c. 1d, 1e, 1f, 2a. 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 9, 5, and 6 will be investigated using the chi-square method. The median test using chi—square will be applied to hypotheses lb and 2b. Hypotheses 3a and 3c will be analyzed using the Fisher exact method, and hypothesis 3b will be examined by the median test using the Fisher exact method. CHAPTER IV ANALYSI_S_ p}; THE DATA The problem of investigating how well intra—district teacher transfer correlated with responses to descriptions of teaching situations and teacher actions was specified in eighteen hypotheses. The data relating to each of the eighteen hypotheses were separately analyzed and are reported in this chapter. All hypotheses have been stated as null or test hypotheses for purposes of statistical testing. All cases were tested using chi-square or a variation of chi-square (e.g. median chi—square of Fisher test). HYPOTHESES la-lf In hypotheses 1a-lf the responses of first year transfer (Group A2) and non—first year transfer teachers (Group Al) were grouped together and compared with the responses of stable teachers (Group B), groupings based on the criteria discussed in Chapter III. Hypothesis l§_ H : Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will 0 not differ from stable inner city teachers in their judg- ments of which situations occur in their classrooms. Twenty—two "teaching situations" were described (see Appendix) and the teachers were asked to respond to the question: "Does a situation similar to the one described here occur in 71 72 your classroom?" Analysis of the data suggests that nearly always transfer and stable teachers agree over the occurrence of teaching situations in their classrooms. (Table 9.1) Table 9.1 Chi-square analysis of the responses of stable teachers and transfer teachers to question 1 in rank order Rank Situationl Transfer Stable X2 Level of Teachers Teachers Significance yes IN) ,yes no 1 22* 20 7 92 5 9.1823 .05 2 9* 22 5 99 9 2.7990 NS 3 13 17 10 20 28 2.3912 NS 9 17 10 17 9 38 2.0199 NS 5 19* 20 7 28 19 1.5939 NS 6 11* 12 15 13 33 1.3259 NS 7 6* 29 3 36 12 1.3057 NS 8 18 16 ll 21 27 1.1002 NS 9 20 22 5 91 6 1.0181 NS 10 5 20 7 28 19 1.0096 N3 11 8* 18 9 25 22 0.7855 NS 12 19 19 ll 29 18 0.5213 NS 13 12* 21 5 33 19 0.9981 NS 19 10 20 5 90 8 0.9569 NS 15 2 8 19 10 38 0.3300 NS 1An asterisk (*) following the situation or action indicates a situation or action which was previously judged acceptable by competent inner city teachers but not judged acceptable by compe- tent non-inner city teachers. 73 Table 9.1 (continued) Rank Situationl Transfer Stable X2 Level of Teachers Teachers Significance yes no yes no 16 9* 15 12 27 20 0.1619 NS 17 7* 20 6 37 11 0.0930 NS 18 l 15 ll 29 23 0.0892 NS 19 16* 29 3 39 7 0.0196 NS 20 3* 23 9 90 9 0.0056 NS 21 15 15 12 25 22 0.0021 N3 22 21 25 2 93 5 0.0002 NS Though the teacher groups disagreed significantly in situation 22 (Rank 1), the majority of both groups indicated the situation did occur, so we could not assume a basic dis— agreement concerning the occurrence of situation 22. But a greater percentage of the stable teachers did indicate the occurrence of situation 22, which concurred with the judgment panel of competent inner city teachers. Teaching Situation 22: A group of primary children is learning how to use the new verb "handed," by carrying out the action of handing an eraser to each other. They are also gaining assurance in speaking complete sentences as they describe this action. The teacher has begun by asking a girl to give her an eraser. Then she says, "Pam handed the eraser to me." The teacher gives the eraser to another child and asks him to tell what she did, using a whole sentence. This child responds correctly, and so do others as they repeat the action. However, one child used only the phrase, "Handed it to Robert." 79 While the difference remained insignificant. teacher groups tended to disagree over situations 13 (Rank 3) and 18 (Rank 8). (Table 9.1): the majority of transfer teachers indicated the situation did occur, and the majority of stable teachers indi- cated that it did not. Both situations 13 and 18 were previously accepted by competent non—inner cipy teachers. Teacher Situation 13: The teacher in a kindergarten class reviews with the children the ingredients needed for making a dough clay. While they make the dough, some of the children begin to eat it. Teaching Situation 18: During free play time in a kindergarten class. the children are choosing the activity they wish to participate in. Some choose painting, climbing the jungle gym, etc. One boy ties his rest towel around his neck, like a cape, and says he wants to play Batman. This "game" has been played before and has been somewhat wild and out of control. While no major differences distinguished the transfer and stable teachers’ responses to teaching situations, what disagree- ment appeared showed, in general, that: 1. The stable teacher responds more like the competent inner city teacher, and 2. The transfer teacher responds more like the competent non—inner city teacher. But for the most part, stable and transfer inner city elementary teachers disagreed very little about which situations occurred in their classrooms. The null hypothesis was rejected only in situation 22. Hyppthesis 1p H : Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will 0 not differ from stable inner city teachers in their judg— ments of the frequency of the occurrence of classroom situations. Stable and transfer teachers who indicated that a particu- lar teaching situation did occur in their classroom were asked to indicate, on a five point scale, the frequency with which the situation occurred. A median chi-square was computed for each teaching situation. No significant difference was found between teacher groups on any of the twenty—two individual situations. (Table 9.2). Close examination of the scores in the "above" and "below" columns (Table 9.2) for each teacher group suggested, however, that the stable teachers believed most situations occurred less frequently than did the transfer teacher. A chi-square compar- ison of column totals was computed with the resultant difference found to be significant at the .001 level. (Table 9.3). 76 Table 9.2 Median chi-square analysis of the responses to the frequency of situation occurrence question by stable and transfer teachers in rank order. Rank Situ— Transfer Stable 2 2 Level of ation Teachers Teachers X Significance Above Below Above Below Median Median Median Median l 2 3 5 7 3 .9953 NS 2 8* 12 5 10 13 .91066 NS 3 20 19 7 17 21 .8032 NS 9 13 11 6 8 12 .3651 NS 5 l7 7 3 3 6 .2959 NS 6 9* l9 8 19 23 .2899 NS 7 19 9 9 12 15 .2821 NS 8 15 10 5 ll 19 .1299 NS 9 3* l9 9 17 22 .1059 NS 10 22* 12 7 19 22 .8739 NS 11 16* 19 9 18 21 .7399 NS 12 10 9 ll 21 19 .6713 NS 13 11* 11 6 8 12 .6713 NS 19 l 7 8 13 11 .6169 NS 15 6* 19 10 17 19 .3369 NS 16 18 10 6 B 10 11 .3213 NS 17 19* 7 3 B 3 6 .1656 NS .1 2.... _ An "above" indication implies that the specific group feels the situation occurs more often than the median of the total group-~below, less often. 77 Table 9.2 (continued) Rank Situ- Transfer Stable 2 Level of ation Teachers Teachers2 X Significance Above Below Above Below Median Median Median Median 18 9* 8 7 B 11 15 0.1273 NS 19 21 13 11 B 20 21 0.0262 NS 20 12* ll 10 B 16 16 0.0123 NS 21 7* ll 10 B 18 18 0.0102 NS 22 5 ll 9 B 19 13 0.0066 NS Table 9.3 Chi—square analysis of the total scores above and below the median for transfer and stable teachers on the frequency of situation occurrence question. T 2 Level of Above Below X Significance Transfer Teachers 232 159 15.99 .001 Stable Teachers 292 333 So although the null hypothesis could not be rejected in any of the twenty—two individual situations, when applied to the total scores for all twenty-two situations the null hypothesis could be rejected at the .001 level. Hypothesis lg HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will not differ from stable inner city teachers in their judg— ments of good teacher action. 78 Following the description of the teaching situation and the related questions. the action taken by the teacher in response to the situation was described. Teachers were asked, "Is the teacher action appropriate as you see good teaching?" Chi- square analysis was used to test the null hypothesis in each of the twenty-two descriptions of teacher action. The null hypothesis could be rejected in four of the twenty-two cases (Table 9.9). The greatest level of significance (.005) was indicated in action description 9(Rank 1); previously accepted by the judgment panel of competent inner city teachers. action 9 appeared significantly more acceptable to the transfer teachers. Teaching Situation 9: It is free time in a kindergarten classroom. The children are all busy playing at various activities in the room. To indicate the end of free playtime, the teacher plays a chord on the piano. A few of the children respond by raising their hands to show they have heard and are ready for the next activity, but most of the children continue playing. Teacher Action 9: The teacher plays the chord several more times until all are indicating they have heard. With the other three cases where the null hypothesis could be rejected, in actions 11, 1, and 13 (Ranks 2, 3, 8 9), the majority of transfer teachers responded in accord with the competent non—inner city judgment panel. that is the majority judged the teacher action "not good" in action 11 and "good" in actions 1 and 13. The majority of stable teachers responded to 79 all three actions like the competent inne£_city teacher, judging action 11 "good" and actions 1 and 13 "not good." Teaching Situation 11: A fourth-grade class comprised of children with widely divergent reading abilities is preparing to dramatize a story from a reading book. Each child usually reads in a group with other children who have approximately the same reading competence, but for this activity the class is together as a group. The story selected is one which none of the children has read. It is a difficult story-~ the reading vocabulary being most appropriate for the better readers in the class but the content highly interesting to all children of this age. The teacher selects a cast that is composed of five of the best readers in the class. Each of the five children has a book, but the shortage of books makes it necessary that the children in the audience sit together, each two sharing a book. While the first cast dramatizes the story, the audience is somewhat restless. Teacher Action 11: The teacher chooses five less able readers to do the parts in a second reading. Teaching Situation 1: During a spelling period in a fourth—grade class- room the children are working on assignments in their spelling books. Several children have for- gotten to bring their books. Teacher Action 1: The teacher assigns these children a page of words from their English books which are to be arranged in alphabetical order. Teaching Situation 13: The teacher in a kindergarten class reviews with the children the ingredients needed for making dough clay. Teacher Action 13: The teacher allows all the children to taste the dough before they continue their activity. 80 Table 9.9 Chi-square analysis of the responses of stable teachers and transfer teachers to Question 2 in rank order. Rank Action1 Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 9* 26 0 39 16 8.7012 .005 2 11* 9 16 28 16 6.0709 .025 3 l 19 6 22 29 9.1777 .05 9 13 17 10 17 30 3.9365 .05 5 20 9 18 29 23 2.9585 NS 6 2 9 22 13 35 2.0992 NS 7 5 20 6 90 6 2.0397 NS 8 21 26 l 98 1 1.3973 NS 9 6* 29 2 38 9 0.9383 NS 10 12* 15 11 28 16 0.5591 NS 11 10 19 6 31 17 0.5392 NS 12 22* 29 2 99 3 0.9892 NS 13 3* 25 2 95 3 0.9557 NS 19 15 23 9 35 11 0.3953 NS 15 7* 7 18 9 39 0.3702 NS 16 16* 19 13 20 27 0.2813 NS 17 18 21 5 37 8 0.2218 NS 18 19* 5 22 9 36 0.2128 NS 19 9* 9 17 13 35 0.1683 NS 20 17 17 8 27 17 0.0895 NS 21 8* 20 9 38 8 0.0669 NS 22 19 18 7 32 16 0.0900 NS Hypothesis 1g HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions, in which the teacher expects a structured response, as appropriate equally as often or more frequently than stable inner city teachers. The rationale for this hypothesis, and the following two. stems from the work of Henderson and Ward who classified teacher actions according to function (see Chapter II, p. 93).3 Actions 3, 9, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 22 were classified as teacher actions in which a structured response was expected. All seven actions had previously been accepted by competent inner city teachers. Henderson and Ward stated: The [pompetent inner citytheacher was much more often. . . expectingya structured response from the pupils as Opposed to exgecting a free and diversified response. . . . (italics mine) The teacher response, together with chi—square analysis. are shown in Table 9.5. The test hypothesis was rejected in Action 11 (Rank 2) but in no other case. While Action 9 (Rank 1) showed a significant difference, it was the transfer teachers who accepted the teacher action significantly more often (26 to 0) than the stable teachers (39 to 16); and the test hypothesis could not be rejected. 3Judith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward, Teaching ip_tpg Inner Cipy, Identification pi Educational Practices pi Competent Elementary Teachers pf_Culturally Disadvantaged Youth. (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966), pp. 15-17. uIbid., p. 18. 82 Teaching Situation 11: A fourth-grade class comprised of children with widely divergent reading abilities is preparing to dramatize a story from a reading book. Each child usually reads in a group with other children who have approximately the same reading competence. but for this activity the class is together as a group. The story selected is one which none of the children has read. It is a difficult story—- the reading vocabulary being most apprOpriate for the better readers in the class but the content highly interesting to all children of this age. The teacher selects a cast that is composed of five of the best readers in the class. Each of the five children has a book, but the shortage of books makes it necessary that the children in the audience sit together each two sharing a book. While the first cast dramatized the story. the audience is somewhat restless. Teacher Action 11: The teacher chooses five less able readers to do the part in a second reading. Table 9.5 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was expected in rank order , 1 Rank Action Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 9* 26 0 39 16 8.7012 .005 2 11* 9 16 28 16 6.0709 .025 3 6* 29 2 38 9 0.9383 NS 9 22* 29 2 99 3 0.9892 NS 5 3* 25 2 95 3 0.9557 NS 6 7* 7 18 9 39 0 3702 NS 7 9* 9 17 13 35 0.1683 NS Totals 129 57 211 121 1.0595 NS S3 Hyppthesisilg HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions in which a teacher does not expect a structured response as appropriate equally as often or less frequently than stable inner city teachers. In actions 1 and 13 (Ranks 1 and 2), both acceptable to competent inner city teachers, the test hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level. No significant difference was found in any of the other items or in the total. (Table 9.6) On both actions 1 and 13 the transfer teachers were more accepting when compared with the stable teachers, thus responding more in accord with the judgment of competent non-inner city teachers. Teaching Situation 1: During spelling period in a fourth-grade classroom the children are working on assignments in their spelling books. Several children have forgotten to bring their books. Teacher Action 1: The teacher assigns these children a page of words from their English books which are to be arranged in alphabetical order. Teaching Situation 13: The teacher in a kindergarten class reviews with the children the ingredients needed for making a dough clay. While they make the dough, some of the children begin to eat it. Teacher Action 13: The teacher allows all the children to taste the dough before they continue their activity. 89 Table 9.6 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was not expected in rank order. Rank Actionl Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 l 19 6 22 29 9.1777 .05 2 13 17 10 17 30 3.9365 .05 3 20 9 18 29 23 2.9585 NS 9 2 9 22 13 35 2.0992 NS 5 5 20 6 90 6 2.0397 NS 6 21 26 1 98 1 1.3973 NS 7 12* 15 ll 28 16 0.5591 NS 8 10 19 6 31 17 0.5392 NS 9 15 23 9 35 11 0.3953 NS 10 16* 19 13 20 27 0.2813 NS 11 18 21 5 37 8 0.2218 NS 12 19* 5 22 9 36 0.2128 NS 13 17 17 8 27 17 0.0895 NS 19 8* 20 9 38 8 0.0669 NS 15 19 18 7 32 16 0.0900 NS Totals 297 193 921 275 0.7929 NS 85 Hypothesis If HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer will judge teacher actions which are classified as managerial functions as appropriate equally as often or more frequently than stable inner city teachers. Hypothesis lf was also based on the findings of Henderson and Ward who classified actions 3, 9, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 15 as managerial functions and stated: Inspection of the verbal descriptions of behavior suggested that much of inner city teaching. was given tg_managerial. . . functions. that allowed for quite an orderly and efficient atmosphere.S (italics mine) The test hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the individual actions nor could it be rejected for the total of the actions classified as managerial functions. For action 9 (Rank 1) and for the total, a significant difference indicated that transfer teachers judge managerial functions appropriate more frequently than stable teachers. (Table 9.7) Ibid., p. 18. ‘3 (I 6 Table 9.7 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of stable teachers and transfer teachers to teacher actions classified as managerial in rank order Rank Actionl Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 9* 26 0 39 16 .7012 .005 2 6* 29 2 38 9 .9383 NS 3 10 19 6 31 17 .5392 NS 9 3* 25 2 95 3 .9557 NS 5 15 23 9 35 11 .3953 NS 6 7* 7 18 9 39 .3702 NS 7 9* 9 l7 13 35 .1683 NS Total 133 99 205 130 .3566 .01 HYPOTHESES 2a-2f In hypotheses 2a-2f, the responses of teachers teaching their first year in a particular school who requested transfer (Group A2) were compared to the responses of teachers teaching their first year in a particular school who did not request transfer (Group C). Hypothesis-2g H0: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will not differ from first year inner city teachers not re- questing transfer in their judgments of which situations occur in their classrooms. 87 As in hypothesis 1a. twenty-two "teaching situations" were described and the teachers were asked to respond to the question: "Does a situation similar to the one described here occur in your classroom?" Significant difference was found in situation 9 (Rank 1) alone (Table 9.8) which non-transfer teachers accept- ed significantly more readily than the transfer teachers; the non-transfer teachers were thus more apt to agree with the inner city teacher judgment panel. A majority of both teacher groups, however, indicated the situation did occur. Teacher Situation 9: The teacher is working with a first grade reading group while the rest of the class is doing seat- work. One boy in this group is not working. Although the teacher has asked him to settle down and leave the others alone, he continues bothering the children around him. The others doing seatwork and the reading group are also aware of the boy. Situations 13 (Rank 7) and 18 (Rank 18), as in hypothesis la, indicated a potential difference of opinion between teacher groups. Situations l3 and 18, previously accepted by non- inner city teachers, were accepted as occurring by a majority of the transfer teachers, and not accepted by the majority of the non—transfer teachers. But the null hypothesis could be rejected for situation 9 alone. U Q ('1‘, Table 9.8 Chi-square analysis of the responses of non—transfer first year teachers and transfer first year teachers to question 1 in rank order Rank Situ-l Transfer Non-Transfer 2 Level of ation Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 9* 7 1+ 25 3 5.9895 .05 2 22* 7 9 22 5 2.5912 NS 3 7* ll 0 20 7 1.9839 NS 9 20 9 2 25 3 1.3953 NS 5 2 2 9 8 19 1.2835 NS 6 15 6 5 18 9 1.1518 NS 7 13 7 9 10 16 1.0890 NS 8 9* 9 7 13 19 1.0950 NS 9 5 9 2 17 11 0.7755 NS 10 3* 8 3 22 6 0.6599 NS 11 12* 10 1 20 7 0.5123 NS 12 10 9 2 18 10 0.9651 NS 13 11* 2 9 5 23 0.1939 NS 19 l 9 7 10 18 0.1896 NS 15 8* 8 3 17 11 0.1107 NS 16 21 10 l 22 5 0.0539 NS 17 6* 9 2 22 6 0.0960 NS 18 18 6 5 12 15 0.0930 NS 19 19* 9 7 9 18 0.0393 NS 20 16* 10 l 23 5 0.0359 NS 21 19 9 7 9 19 0.0158 NS 22 17 2 9 3 25 0.0091 NS 89 Hypothesis 2Q HO: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will not differ from first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer in their judgments of the frequency of the occurrence of classroom situations. As with hypothesis 1b, no significant difference was found in any of the twenty-two situations. A median chi-square analy- sis of the twenty-two individual situations (Table 9.9) and of the total for all situations (Table 9.10) revealed no case where the null hypothesis could be rejected. Hypothesis'gg HO: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will not differ from first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer in their judgments of good teacher action. After the description of the "teaching situation" a "teacher action" was described and respondents were asked: "Is the teacher action appropriate as you see good teaching?" Chi—square analysis was used to test the responses to each of twenty—two action descriptions. Significant difference was found in actions 9, 10. 12, and 3 (Ranks 1, 2, 3, and 9). (Table 9.11) The only action in which the null hypothesis could be rejected for hypothesis 2c as well as hypothesis lc was action 9, in which transfer 90 Table 9.9 Median chi-square analysis of the responses to the frequency of situation occurrence question by first year non-transfer and first year transfer teachers in rank order Rank Situ- Transfer Non-Transfer 2 Level of ation Teachers Teachers X Significance above below above below A 1 11* 1 1 9 1 2.9575 NS 2 16* 9 6 12 10 2.9000 NS 3 2 1 1 6 3 1.9697 NS 9 20 3 5 19 11 1.7362 NS 5 17 1 1 2 1 1.7013 NS 6 13 3 9 6 9 1.9175 NS 7 19* 2 2 6 3 1.9105 NS 8 6* 9 5 13 9 1.3026 NS 9 12* 7 3 19 9 0.8296 NS 10 21 9 5 12 10 0.8221 NS 11 7* 5 6 11 9 0.7821 NS 12 9* 3 9 13 12 0.7319 NS 13 19 2 2 5 9 0.6211 NS 19 8* 5 2 8 9 0.9075 NS 15 3* 9 9 12 10 0.9025 NS 16 ~ 1 2 2 5 5 0.3500 NS 17 5 5 9 9 8 0.0819 NS 18 10 5 9 9 8 0.0819 NS 19 9* 3 1 7 6 0.0291 NS 91 Table 9.9 (continued) Rank Situ- Transfer Stable Level of ation Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 20 18 9 2 6 6 0.0281 NS 21 22* 9 3 11 11 0.0109 NS 22 15 9 2 9 8 0.0108 NS Total 76 69 199 152 Table 9.10 Chi-square analysis of the total scores above and below the median for first year transfer teachers and first year non—transfer teachers on the fre- quency of situation occurrence question Above Below X2 Level of Significance Transfer Teachers 76 69 0.5523 NS Non—Trans. Teachers 199 152 teachers were significantly more accepting (.02 level). Action 9 had been previously accepted by the competent inner city judgment panel. (Table 9.11) Teaching Situation 9: It is free play time in a kindergarten classroom. The children are busy playing at various activities in the room. To indicate the end of free playtime, the teacher plays a chord on the piano. A few of the children respond by raising their hands to show they have heard and are ready for the next activity, but most of the children continue playing. 92 Teacher Action 9: The teacher plays the chord several more times until all are indicating they have heard. Action 10 (Rank 2), an action previously accepted by the competent non—inner city judgment panel, was significantly more acceptable to the non—transfer first year teacher, although a majority of both teacher groups accepted the action taken. (Table 9.11) Teaching Situation 10: It is time for lunch dismissal. The students are ready to leave the room and get their coats when the bell rings. Teacher Action 10: The teacher lets the students leave the room as a group. Teacher action 12 (Rank 3) was accepted by a majority of the first year transfer teachers and rejected by a majority of first year non-transfers, a difference significant at the .05 level. Teacher action 12 was previously accepted by the competent inner city judgment panel. (Table 9.11) Teaching Situation 12: In a sixth-grade class, a recent spelling lesson presented the use of double consonants when "ee" is added to the root word. The class is now having English, and the children are suggesting suitable modifiers of the noun "barn," a word that is written on the board. A student suggests "raggity” as a way of describing a barn. Teacher Action 12: Ignoring the mispronunciation of the word, the teacher accepts the adjective and asks the student to spell "ragged.” 93 Table 9.11 Chi-square analysis of responses of first year non- transfer teachers and first year transfer teachers to question 2 in rank order Rank Actionl Transfer Non—Transfer Level of Teachers Teachers X2 Significance ,yes no yes no 1 9* ll 0 19 12 5.5552 .02 2 10 7 9 29 3 5.2098 .05 3 12* 9 2 10 18 5.003 .05 9 3* 9 2 27 1 9.8776 .05 5 2 1 10 7 19 2.6935 NS 6 15 ll 0 17 7 2.3996 NS 7 9* 2 9 10 18 2.1112 NS 8 11* 3 8 11 19 1.7909 NS 9 17 5 6 16 10 1.6018 NS 10 20 3 8 ll 15 1.5196 NS 11 8* 8 3 22 5 1.0795 NS 12 16* 9 7 5 23 0.6599 NS 13 19 6 5 19 10 0.3392 NS 19 6* 9 2 23 5 0.2375 NS 15 1 7 9 l7 9 0.2288 NS 16 13 6 5 10 15 0.1980 NS 17 21 10 1 25 3 0.1901 NS 18 5 8 3 16 11 0.1679 NS 19 19* 5 22 3 23 0.1061 NS 20 22* 10 l 23 5 0.0359 NS 21 18 8 3 18 8 0.0326 NS 22 7* 3 8 6 21 0.0078 NS 99 Action 3 (Rank 9) was the only action of the four display- ing a significant difference in which the non-transfer teacher responded like the competent inner city judgment panel; in the other three, the transfer teacher was more likely to respond like the competent inner city judgment panel. (Table 9.11) Teacher Situation 3: As the children in a third-grade class work out arithmetic problems in their notebooks, the teacher circulates around the room checking their work. She has consistently stressed the fact that the children should use pencils when doing their arithmetic so that they can erase their mistakes and keep their notebooks neat and easy to read. As she moves from desk to desk, she notices that one boy has been doing his work with a pen. Teacher Action 3: The teacher tells the boy to put away the pen and take out a pencil. The null hypothesis was rejected in actions 9, 10, 12, and 3 but in no others. Hypothesis 2d HO: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions, in which the teacher expects a structured response, as appropriate equally as often or more frequently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. As with hypotheses 1d~lf, the work of Henderson and Ward provides the rationale for hypotheses 2d—2f. Actions 3, 9, 6, 7, 9, 95 11 and 22 were classified as teacher actions in which a structured response was expected. An item and total chi-square analysis of these seven actions is shown in Table 9.12. Table 9.12 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was expected in rank order l Rank Action Transfer Non-Transfer Level of Teachers Teachers X2 Significance ,1 yes no yes no 1 9* ll 0 19 12 5.5552 .02 2 3* 9 2 27 1 9.8776 .05 3 9* 2 9 10 18 2.1112 NS 9 11* 3 8 11 19 1.7909 NS 5 6* 9 2 23 5 0.2375 NS 6 22* 10 l 23 5 0.0359 NS 7 7* 3 8 6 21 0.0078 NS Total 97 30 119 76 NS The test hypothesis was rejected for teacher action 3 (Rank 2), previously judged acceptable by the competent inner gi£y_teacher judgment panel. Teaching Situation 3: As the children in a third—grade class work out arithmetic problems in their notebooks, the teacher circulates around the room checking their work. She has consistently stressed the fact that the children should use pencils when doing their arithmetic so that they can erase their mistakes and keep their notebooks neat and easy to read. As she moves from desk to desk, she notices that one boy has been doing his work with a pen. 96 Teacher Action 3: The teacher tells the boy to put away the pen and take out a pencil. Though a significant difference was found in teacher action 9 (Rank 1), the transfer teachers judged the action appropriate more frequently than the non-transfer teachers, and therefore the test hypothesis could not be rejected. The test hypothesis was rejected for action 3 but could not be rejected for actions 9, 6, 7, 9, 11 or 22, nor could it be rejected for the total of the seven items. Hypothesis 23 HO: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions, in which the teacher does not expect a structured response, as appropriate equally as often or less frequently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. First year transfer teachers were significantly more accepting of teacher action 12 than were first year non—transfer teachers. (Table 9.13) The test hypothesis was rejected for teacher action 12, but for no other single item or for the total of all items combined. Since the non—transfer teachers were significantly mggg accepting of action 10 than the transfer teachers, the hypothesis could not be rejected for action 10. 97 Teaching Situation 12: In a sixth-grade class, a recent spelling lesson presented the use of double consonants when "ee" is added to the root word. The class is now having English, and the children are suggesting suitable modifiers of the noun "barn," a word that is written on the board. A student suggests "raggity" as a way of describing a barn. Teacher Action 12: Ignoring the mispronunciation of the word, the teacher accepts the adjective and asks the student to spell "ragged.” Hypothesis 21; HO: Inner city teachers requesting transfer who are teaching their first year in a particular school will judge teacher actions which are classified as managerial functions as appropriate equally as often or more fre- quently than first year inner city teachers not requesting transfer. The rationale for hypothesis 2f is similar to that previous- ly mentioned for hypothesis 1f, with teacher actions 3, 9, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15 identified as managerial functions by Henderson and Ward.6 A chi-square analysis of the seven items indicated significant difference in the direction hypothesized on items 10 and 3 (Ranks 2 and 3), in which the non-transfer teachers were more accepting of the teacher action than the transfer teachers. (Table 9.19) Thus the test hypothesis was rejected for actions 10 and 3. 6Henderson, p. 18. Table 9.13 Chi—square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions in which a structured response was not expected in rank order 1 Rank Action Transfer Non—Transfer 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no Ayes no 1 10 7 9 29 3 5.2098 .05 2 12* 9 2 10 18 5.0003 .05 3 2 1 10 7 19 2.6935 NS 9 15 11 0 l7 7 2.3996 NS 5 l7 5 6 16 10 1.6018 NS 6 20 3 8 ll 15 1.5196 NS 7 8* 8 3 22 5 1.0795 NS 8 16* 9 7 5 23 0.6599 NS 9 19 6 5 19 10 0.3392 NS 10 1 7 9 17 9 0.2289 NS 11 13 6 5 10 15 0.1980 NS 12 21 10 l 25 3 0.1901 NS 13 5 8 3 16 11 0.1679 NS 19 19* 5 22 3 23 0.1061 NS 15 18 8 3 18 8 0.0326 NS Totals 98 83 215 179 0.0392 NS Teaching Situation 10: It is time for lunch dismissal. The students are ready to leave the room and get their coats when the bell rings. Teacher Action 10: The teacher lets the students leave the room as a group. 99 Teaching Situation 3: As the children in a third-grade class work out arithmetic problems in their notebooks, the teacher circulates around the room checking their work. She has consistently stressed the fact that the children should use pencils when doing their arithmetic so that they can erase their mistakes and keep their notebooks neat and easy to read. As she moves from desk to desk. she notices that one boy has been doing his work with a pen. Teacher Action 3: The teacher tells the boy to put away the pen and take out a pencil. The significant difference found in action 9 indicated that transfer teachers were more accepting of the action than non-transfer teachers; the test hypothesis could not be rejected for items 9, 15, 9, 6, and 7 (Ranks 1, 9, 5, 6, and 7). Table 9.19 Chi-square analysis of the judgments of first year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers to teacher actions classified as managerial--in rank order Rank Actionl Transfer Non—Transfer 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance yes no yes no 1 9* 11 0 19 12 5.5552 .02 2 10 7 9 29 3 5.2098 .05 3 3* 9 2 27 1 9.8776 .05 9 15 11 0 17 7 2.3996 NS 5 9* 2 9 10 18 2.1112 NS 6 6* 9 2 23 5 0.2375 NS 7 7* 3 8 6 21 0.0078 NS Total 52 25 121 67 0.1226 NS 100 HYPOTHESES 3a, 3b and 3c Hypotheses 3a-3c deal with the responses of the principals, in the thirteen inner city elementary schools sampled, to des- criptions of teaching situations and teacher actions. The principals in the thirteen schools were divided into two groups representing principals with high teacher turnover and princi- pals with low teacher turnover (Chapter 111). Because of the relatively small sample size, analyses found to be at the .07 level are mentioned. Hypothesis_3g HO: Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will not differ from inner city principals with low transfer in their judg- ments of which situations occur in the typical classroom. While the number of principals questioned in each category (high and low turnover) was so small as to require a nearly perfect inverse relationship for significance at the .05 level, some comparisons could be made. The principal groups differed significantly at the .07 level with regard to independent situations 2, 5, 7, and 19: in each situation the majority of the high turnover principals indicated that the teaching situation did take place in the typical classroom and the major- ity of the low turnover principals indicated that the situation did not take place. (Table 9.15) So the null hypothesis could be rejected at the .07 level for situations 2, 5, 7, and 19. 101 Table 9.15 Analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to question 1 using the Fisher Exact Method Situationl High Turnover Low Turnover Level of yes no yes no Significance 1 3 3 3 9 NS 2 5 l 2 5 .07 3* 6 0 9 3 NS 9* 9 2 2 5 NS 5 5 1 2 5 .07 6* 6 0 6 1 NS 7* 5 l 2 5 .07 8* 6 0 9 2 NS 9* 6 0 7 0 NS 10 9 2 9 3 NS 11* 3 2 3 9 NS 12* 5 l 9 2 NS 13 9 2 9 2 NS 19* 9 2 l 5 NS 15 2 9 3 9 NS 16* 6 0 6 1 NS 17 1 5 9 3 NS 18 3 3 5 2 NS 19 5 l 2 5 .07 20 6 0 6 1 NS 21 6 0 7 0 NS 22* 6 0 7 0 NS 102 An interesting comparison of the two principal groups, related to this hypothesis, is illustrated in Table 9.16. The twenty—two teaching situations were divided according to previ- ous acceptance by the two judgment panels (Chapter II). The responses of both principal groups were summed up for both categories and for the total, and a significant difference was found between the responses of the principal groups to teaching situations previously judged acceptable by competent inner city teachers (.001 level) and to the total of all situations (.005 level). In both cases the principals with high teacher turnover were significantly more likely to indicate that the situation did take place in the typical classroom. No significant difference was found between principal groups in their summed responses to the situations previously judged acceptable by competent non-inner city teachers. CTable 9.16) Table 9.16 Chi-square analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to question 1 by approving judgment group sums Approving Judgment High Turnover Low Turnover 2 Level of Group ,yes no ,yes no X Significance Inner City 57 8 96 28 11.7520 .001 ‘Non—Inner City 99 22 92 39 2.2305 NS Total 101 30 88 62 10.7881 .005 103 Hypothesis 3 — HO: Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will not differ from inner city principals with low transfer in their judgments of the frequency of occurrence of typical classroom situations. The null hypothesis could not be rejected in any of the twenty-two individual situations. (Table 9.17) The number of principals responding was so small as to require a perfect in— verse response in order to reject the null hypothesis. Even so, an inverse "trend" appeared only in situations 9. 12, 17 and 18. Table 9.17 Analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to the frequency of occurrence question, using the median Fisher Exact Method Situationl High Turnover Low Turnover Level of above below above below Sigpificance l 1 2 2 1 NS 2 2 2 l 1 NS 3* 3 3 3 1 NS 9* 2 2 2 0 NS .5 9 l l 0 NS 6* 3 2 3 2 NS 7* 3 2 1 1 NS 8* . 9 2 2 2 NS 9* 5 1 3 9 NS It 1‘]! 11f. 1" 109 Table 9.17 (continued) Situationl High Turnover Low Turnover Level of above below above below Significance 10 2 2 3 1 NS 11* 2 2 3 2 NS 12* 9 1 l 3 NS 13 2 2 9 1 NS 19* 2 2 l 0 NS 15 2 0 2 1 NS 16* 3 l 9 2 NS 17 0 1 2 0 NS 18 2 l l 2 NS 19 2 3 l 0 NS 20 3 3 9 1 NS 21 9 2 3 3 NS 22* 9 2 3 3 NS A comparison of the sum of the responses of the situations previously identified by the inner city or the non—inner city judgment panels indicates no significant difference, either. So the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for either group of situations, nor can it be rejected for the total of all the situations (Table 9.18). 105 Table 9.18 Median chi—square analysis of the responses of high and low turnover principals to the frequency of occurrence question by approving judgment group sums Approving Judgment HighTurnover2 Low Turnover2 2 Level of Group above below above below X Significance Inner City 35 20 26 20 .5300 NS Non-Inner City 29 20 29 11 1.6089 NS Totals 59 90 50 31 .0860 NS Hypothesis 3g HO: Inner city principals with high percentages of average yearly teacher transfer will not differ from inner city principals with low transfer in their judgments of good teach er action. The null hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the twenty-two individual teacher actions (Table 9.19), nor could it be rejected for any of the approving group sums or total (Table 9.20). Though a nearly perfect inverse response was necessary for significance because of the small number of principals queStioned, a few actions specifically 9 and 8, show a moderate though insignificant trend toward inversion. (Table 9.3-9) 106 Table 9.19 Analysis of the response of high and low turnover principals to question 2 using the Fisher Exact Method Actionl High Turnover Low Turnover Level of yes no yes no Significance 1 1 9 l 5 NS 2 l 5 0 6 NS 3* 5 1 7 0 NS 9* 3 2 2 5 NS 5 5 1 5 1 NS 6* 5 1 6 1 NS 7* 9 0 7 0 NS 8* 3 1 3 9 NS 9* 2 9 0 7 NS 10 3 1 9 3 NS 11* 2 2 2 5 NS 12* 9 l 6 1 NS 13 9 2 9 3 NS 19* 9 0 7 0 NS 15 9 0 9 1 NS 16* 2 3 9 3 NS 17 2 l 5 2 NS 18 5 0 6 0 NS 19 9 1 9 3 NS 20 9 2 3 9 NS 21 6 0 7 0 NS 22* 6 0 6 1 NS 107 Table 9.20 Chi-square analyses of the response of high and low turnover principals to question 2 by approving judgment group sums Approving Judgment High Turnover Low Turnover Level of Group, yes no yes no X Significance Inner City 90 15 50 27 .8979 NS Non—Inner City 39 17 93 28 1.1280 NS Totals 79 32 93 55 1.9795 NS HYPOTHESES 9, 5, and 6 Hypotheses 9, 5 and 6 deal primarily with the relationships between responses of turnover teachers and of principals in high turnover schools. The responses of stable teachers were compared with their principals' in high turnover schools, however, in order to establish a referent control group. To facilitate additional statistical analysis, response comparisons were also completed for low turnover schools. These three hypotheses, 9, 5 and 6, were based on the notion that teachers who disagreed with their principal would be prone to transfer. Agreement or disagreement between teacher and principal was determined by comparing each teacher’s respon- ses to the twenty—two teaching situations or teacher actions with the corresponding responses of his building principal. If, for example, four teachers in a given building responded "yes" 108 to a question and two responded "no" when the principal responded "yes," the question would be scored four "agree" and two "disagree." Hypothesis 9 HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer fnam schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree with their building principals equally as often or less frequently than the stable teachers in the same schools with regard to their judgments of which situations occur in their (the typical) classroom. The test hypothesis could be rejected for situation 19 but for none of the other individual teaching situations. (Table 9.21) Teaching Situation 19: A third—grade class has been doing a great deal of work with folk tales and songs of the U. S. They have listened to many folk songs and have learned the words of several. During music today the teacher is playing folk—song records and the children are singing along with the records. It is almost the end of the music. Period. The teacher tells the class that she has a new album of folk songs from different countries. A chi—square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between teacher groups and building principals was completed for low turnover schools. (Table 9.22) In no case were the transfer teachers in significantly greater agreement with their principals than were the stable teachers. Table 9.21 109 Chi—square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between transfer teachers and their building princi- pals in high turnover schools compared to the agree- ment/disagreement between the stable teachers and their building principals in high turnover schools on question 1 Situationl Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree 1 9 9 22 13 .0050 NS 2 6 7 12 23 .1758 NS 3* ll 2 28 8 .0151 NS 9* 10 2 19 15 .8119 NS 5 8 5 19 15 .0009 NS 6* 12 1 25 10 .3066 NS 7* 10 2 29 11 .3762 NS 8* 8 5 21 19 .0553 NS 9* 12 1 30 5 .0150 NS 10 8 3 29 6 .3792 NS 11* 8 3 10 13 .5160 NS 12* 7 6 22 12 .0913 NS 13 8 5 15 20 .6826 NS 19* 9 9 l8 16 .9631 NS 15 7 6 23 12 885 NS 16* 11 2 25 9 .1796 NS 17 8 5 26 9 .9902 NS 18 7 6 15 20 .1296 NS 19 10 2 l8 17 .9952 .05 20 10 3 29 5 .0620 NS 110 Table 9.21 (continued) Situationl Transfer Stable Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree 21 11 2 31 9 0.7389 NS 22* 9 9 28 6 1.9 89 NS Table 9.22 Chi—square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between the responses of transfer teachers and their building principals in low turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement between the responses of stable teachers and their building principals in low turnover schools on question 1 Situationl Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree 1 5 8 18 22 0.5906 NS 2 9 5 25 15 0.0909 NS 3* 10 9 26 15 0.0979 NS 9* 6 8 20 20 0.5995 NS 5 9 10 18 23 1.7606 NS 6* 10 9 28 13 0.0108 NS 7* 9 10 19 26 2.0671 NS 8* 6 6 21 13 1.1078 NS 9* 10 9 39 2 8.7129 NS 10 5 9 29 17 3.1925 NS 11* 9 10 29 16 5.9589 .02 12* 9 3 21 19 0.3923 NS 13 7 6 18 15 0.1380 NS 111 Table 9.22 (continued) Situationl Transfer Stable Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disggree agree disagree 19* 7 6 23 10 1.8998 NS 15 8 6 18 21 0.1551 NS 16* 11 3 36 3 3.5962 NS 17 5 9 15 25 0.1991 NS 18 7 7 21 19 0.2226 NS 19 7 . 6 20 20 0.0061 NS 20 10 9 29 5 2.3270 NS 21 19 0 29 5 0.9929 NS 22* 11 2 31 3 1.3956 NS In order to further investigate the agreement/disagreement relationships between building principals and transfer and stable teachers in high and low turnover schools as to the occurrence of classroom situations, a chi—square analysis of group totals was completed for each of six possible comparisons. No signifi- cant difference was found between (1) transfer teachers in low turnover schools and stable teachers in low turnover schools (Table 9.23), (2) stable teachers in low turnover schools and stable teachers in high turnover schools (Table 9.29), or (3) transfer teachers from both high and low turnover schools com- pared to stable teachers from both high and low turnover schools (Table 9.23). 112 Table 9.23 Chi-square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between transfer teachers and their building princi- pals in high and low turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement of stable teachers and their building principals in high and low turnover schools with regard to question 1 Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree High Turnover Schools 199 80 989 263 5.0786 .025 Low Turnover Schools 169 130 518 322 2.9385 NS Total 368 210 1007 585 0.0952 NS But, (9) transfer teachers from high turnover schools were found to be in significantly greater agreement with their princi- pals than transfer teachers from low turnover schools concerning the occurrence of classroom situations. (Table 9.29) And similarly, (5) transfer teachers from high turnover schools were found to be in significantly greater agreement with their build- ing principals than the stable teachers from high turnover schools. (Table 9.23) Significantly greater agreement was found between all teachers and their building principals in high turnover schools than all teachers and their building principals in low turnover schools concerning which situations occurred in their (the typical) classroom. (Table 9.29) 113 Table 9.29 Chi-square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between teachers and principals in high turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement between teachers and principals in low turnover schools with regard to question 1 High Turnover Low Turnover 2 Level of School School X Significance agree disagree agree disagree Transfer Teachers 199 80 169 130 13.6797 .001 Stable Teachers 989 263 518 322 1.9271 NS Total 688 393 687 952 9.5990 .005 Hypothesis 5 HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer from schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will agree with their building principals equally as often or less frequently than stable teachers in the same schools with regard to their judgments of teacher action. The test hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the individual actions or for the total of the twenty—two teacher actions. (Table 9.25) Significant difference was found between groups on action 3, but the difference was in a direction oppo- site to that hypothesized. 119 Table 9.25 Chi—square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between transfer teachers and their building princi— pals in high turnover schools compared to the agree- ment/disagreement between stable teachers and their building principals in high turnover schools on question 2 Actionl Transfer Stable Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree pgree disagree 1 7 9 12 19 0.3753 NS 2 9 9 19 17 0.9907 NS 3* 9 9 32 3 5.7933 .02 9* 8 l 18 15 2.2303 NS 5 9 2 23 10 0.1527 NS 6* 8 5 23 10 0.7757 NS 7* 5 2 16 3 1.6756 NS 8* 3 8 15 19 3.0910 NS 9* 8 9 19 16 0.1683 NS 10 9 3 20 10 0.8370 NS 11* 3 9 7 12 0.0305 NS 12* 9 5 19 13 1.3865 NS 13 5 6 17 16 0.9898 NS 19* 7 0 l6 9 0.9907 NS 15 5 2 15 6 0.2333 NS 16* 9 7 12 10 1.6672 NS 17 6 1 11 9 0.9872 NS 18 7 1 29 7 0.0191 NS 19 6 2 15 7 0.0059 NS 20 9 8 18 16 2.2653 NS 115 Table 9.25 (continued) Actionl Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree 21 13 0 33 2 0.0095 NS 22* 12 0 29 9 0.9505 NS Totals 196 73 919 219 0.1153 NS A comparison of the total agreement/disagreement responses for the various teacher groups in high and low turnover schools indicated that no significant difference existed between teacher groups or school classifications. Table 9.26 (Tables 9.26 and 9.27) Chi—square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between transfer teachers and their building princi— pals in high and low turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement of stable teachers and their building principals in high and low turnover schools with regard to question 2 Transfer Stable Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disggree agree disagree High Turnover Schools 196 919 219 0.1153 NS Low Turnover Schools 169 538 317 1.8089 NS Total 315 952 536 0.6393 NS 116 Table 9.27 Chi-square analysis of the agreement/disagreement between teachers and principals in high turnover schools compared to the agreement/disagreement between teachers and principals in low turnover schools with regard to question 2 High Turnover Low Turnover Level of Schools Schools X Significance agree disagree agree disagree Transfer Teachers 196 73 169 120 3.5969 NS Stable Teachers 919 219 538 317 0.9697 NS Totals 560 292 707 937 3.2982 NS Hypothesis 2 HO: Inner city teachers who have requested transfer from schools with a high percentage of average yearly teacher transfer will perceive themselves as agreeing equally as often or more often with their building principal than will stable teachers from the same schools on judgments of teacher action. Following a description of an action taken by the classroom teacher as a result of a teaching situation in the classroom the responding teachers were asked, "Is the teacher action appro- priate as you see good teaching?" They were then asked, "Do you feel your building principal would judge the teacher action apprOpriate?" The two questions made it possible to determine the agreement or disagreement between teacher and principal as perceived by the teacher. 117 As hypothesis 5 revealed, the agreement/disagreement be- tween teacher and principal on teacher actions was not signifi- cantly different for any teacher group or school classification. But curiously a significant difference was found in the pgr— ceived agreement/disagreement between teacher groups in 19! turnover schools, and for the total of both teacher groups. In both cases the transfer teacher perceived greater disagree- ment between themselves and the principal than did the stable teacher. (Table 9.28) But the test hypothesis could not be rejected as no significant difference was found between teacher groups in the high turnover schools. No significant difference appeared in the perceived agree- ment/disagreement between transfer teachers in high and transfer teachers in low turnover schools or between stable teachers in high and stable teachers in low turnover schools, just as no significant difference appeared in the perceived agreement/ disagreement between transfer teachers and stable teachers in high turnover schools. 118 Table 9.28 Chi-square analysis of the perceived agreement/ disagreement between transfer teachers and their building principals in high and low turnover schools compared to perceived agreement/disagreement between stable teachers and their principals in high and low turnover schools on judgments of teacher action Transfer Stable 2 Level of Teachers Teachers X Significance agree disagree agree disagree High Turnover Schools 297 33 933 29 3.6977 NS Low Turnover Schools 255 31 558 36 6.2670 .02 Totals 552 69 991 65 9.7969 .005 SUMMARY In Chapter IV the hypotheses originally posed in Chapter I have been expanded and analyzed. Here they are restated in question form and answered on the basis of the data, (teaching situations are referred to only by number in the interest of brevity). Hypotheses la-lf Hypotheses la-lf examined comparisons between the responses of transfer teachers (Groups Al and A2) and the responses of stable teachers (Group B) to teaching situations and teacher actions. Question la: Do the teacher groups differ with regard to which situations they believe occur in their classrooms? 119 The two teacher groups were in basic agreement concerning the occurrence, in their classrooms, of teaching situations similar to the ones described. The only exception was teaching situation 22 which the stable teachers more often believed occurred than did the transfer teachers. Question lb: Does one teacher group think the teaching situation(s) occur more frequently than the other teacher group? No significant difference was found between teacher groups in their judgments of the frequency with which any of the twenty- two individual teaching situations occur. But, for the total of all situations, the transfer teacher believed the situations occurred significantly more often than did the stable teachers. Question 1c: Do the teacher groups differ in their judgments of good teacher action? The responses of the teacher groups were significantly different on four of the twenty-two teacher actions (1, 9, 11 and 13). The majority of the transfer teachers responded to actions 1, 11 and 13 like the competent non—inner city teacher judgment panel, and the majority of the stable teachers responded like the competent inner city teacher judgment panel. Question 1d and 1e: Is one teacher group more likely to accept teacher actions in which a structured response is expected? Teacher action 11 was the only one of the actions classified as conditioning a structured response in which the transfer teachers were found to be significantly less accepting than the stable teachers. The transfer teachers were significantly more 120 accepting of teacher action 9; and no significant difference between the responses of teacher groups was found in the remain— ing actions where a structured response was expected (actions 3, 6, 7, 9 and 22). The transfer teachers were found to be significantly more accepting than stable teachers of actions 1 and 13; neither of these were classified as actions in which a structured response was expected, although both had previously been accepted by the competent non-inner city teacher judgment panel. Question 1f: Is either teacher group more likely to accept or reject teacher actions classified as managerial? No significant difference was found between teacher groups in their judgments of teacher action on any of the seven actions (3, 9, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 15) classified as managerial. Nor were any differences found in the total responses to actions classi- fied as managerial. Hypotheses 2a-2f Hypotheses 2a-2f examined the response relationships be- tween first year teachers who requested transfer (Group A2) and first year teachers who did not request transfer (Group C). Question 2a: Do the teacher groups differ with regard to which situations they believe occur in their classrooms? With the exception of teaching situation 9, in which a greater percentage of the non~transfer teachers agreed with the competent inner city teacher judgment panel, no significant difference was found between the two teacher groups. 121 Question 2b: Does one teacher group think the teaching situation(s) occur more frequently in their classrooms? First year transfer and first year non-transfer teachers are in seeming agreement as to the frequency with which the teaching situations occur in their classrooms. Question 2c: Do the teacher groups differ in their judgments of good teacher action? Significant difference between teacher groups was found in four (3, 9, 10 and 12) of twenty—two teacher actions, in three of which (all but 3) the transfer teachers agreed more with the competent inner city judgment panel. Question 2d and 2e: Is either teacher group more apt to accept teacher actions in which a structured response is expected? Significant difference was found between teacher groups in teacher actions 3 and 9. But, since one group was more accepting of one of the actions and the other of another, there seems to be little difference between the groups in their reactions to those actions suggesting a structured response. Question 2f: Is either teacher group more likely to accept teacher actions classified as managerial? The non-transfer first year teachers were significantly more accepting of teacher actions 3 and 10 previously classified as managerial than were the first year transfer teachers. No significant difference was found in the other managerial items, 9, 6, 7, 9 and 15. 122 Hypotheses 33.,gp. and 33 Hypotheses 3a-3c deal with response relationships between principals in schools with high average teacher turnover each year and principals in schools with low average turnover. Question 33: Do principal groups differ over which situations they believe occur in the typical classroom in their school? Significant difference was found between principal groups in their responses to situations previously accepted by the competent inner city judgment panel. The principal with high turnover was more likely to indicate that the situation did occur. Question 3b: Does one principal group view the teaching situation(s) as occurring more frequently than does the other group? No significant difference was found for any of the individual situations or for the total. Question 3c: Do the principal groups differ in their judgments of good teacher action? No significant difference was found between principal groups on any of the individual teacher actions. Hypotheses 9, H, and 6 These last hypotheses examine the response relationships among principals (Group D) and teachers Groups Al+A2 and B- stable) in high and low turnover schools. 123 Question 9: Do transfer teachers in high turnover schools agree with their building principals more often than stable teachers in high turnover schools as to the occurrence of the described teaching situations? Generally. yes; that is, transfer teachers in high turnover schools seem to agree more with their principals on the occur— rence of teaching situations than stable teachers in the same schools. The greatest disagreement appeared between principals and transfer teachers in low turnover schools. and the greatest agreement between principals and transfer teachers in high turnover schools. Stable teachers from high turnover schools were found to disagree with their building principals about teaching situations approximately as often as stable teachers from low turnover schools. Question 5: Do transfer teachers in high turnover schools agree with their building principals more often than stable teachers in high turnover schools about the acceptability of teacher actions? No significant difference was found between building princi- pals and either stable or turnover teachers in high or low turn— over schools as to the acceptability of the described teacher actions. Question 6: Do transfer teachers in high turnover schools see themselves in disagreement with their building principals more often than stable teachers in high turnover schools do? Even though transfer teachers had been found to agree as often or more often with their building principals than did the stable teachers in those schools (see Question 9), the turnover 129 teachers in the low turnover schools perceived themselves as disagreeing with their principals significantly more often than did the stable teachers. Chapter V will discuss the results of the study under the headings of summary. conclusions, and implications for further study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS SUMMARY This study sought to improve teacher assignment in inner city elementary schools by investigating how task performance relates to teacher transfer. The need for a study of this type was defended both from the literature and from a comparative study of teacher turnover in inner city and non-inner city elementary schools in Flint, Michigan. A theory evolved which linked personal orientation, task performance, success, job satisfaction and teacher transfer, suggesting that the way teachers judge task performances may offer clues to better teacher assignment in the inner city schools. Previous studies of teacher turnover fell into two cate- gories: (1) studies of the symptoms and (2) studies of the causes of teacher turnover. But none of the studies reviewed had dealt with intra-district, inner city teacher transfer. Henderson and Ward1 found differences between inner city and non-inner city teachers’ responses to teaching situations and teacher actions which suggested a possible relationship between task performance and teacher transfer. An instrument designed on the basis of Henderson and Ward’s findings was lJudith E. Henderson and Ted W. Ward. Teaching in the Inner City, Identification of Educational Practices *of Competent Elementary Teachers of Culturally Disadvantaged Youth, (East Lansing, 1966). 125 126 administered to all transfer requesting. stable, and new teachers, and to their building principals, in thirteen Flint inner city schools. Eighteen hypotheses were tested using the chi-square or a similar statistical test: a summary of the results was presented in Chapter IV. CONCLUSIONS A brief statement of the conclusions this study reached on each hypothesis or group of hypotheses follows. Hypotheses _l_a_ 111g 12: Stable and transfer teachers apparently experience similar kinds of teaching situations in their classrooms; they differed on only one situation examined. And they seem to agree on the frequency with which individual teaching situations occur. But when all situations are examined together, the teacher groups disagree: the transfer teachers believe the situations as a whole occur more often than do the stable teachers. Hypothes§§_lg-1L: Stable and transfer teachers disagree over the acceptability of teacher actions employed in certain teaching situations. In most cases where a difference exists, the stable teachers respond like the competent inner city referent group and the transfer teachers like the non—inner city group. Little difference appeared between teacher groups over teacher actions where a structured response is expected, but some indications suggest that transfer teachers accept actions involving non— 127 structured responses more readily. Both groups seemingly agree in their acceptance of teacher actions involving managerial teaching functions. Hypotheses 2§_and gp: Both transfer and non-transfer teachers who are new to a school agree on the occurrence of teaching situations in their classrooms, as well as on the frequency with which teaching situations occur, whether taken individually or collectively. Hypotheses gg—gL: The transfer and non-transfer teachers who are teaching their first year in a school disagree about the apprOpriateness of teacher actions in several situations. In most cases where a difference exists the transfer teachers respond like the competent inner city referent group and the non—transfer teachers like the competent non—inner city group. There is little indication, however. that a difference exists between new transfer and new non-transfer teachers concerning teacher actions in which a structured response is expected. But new non—transfer teachers are clearly more accepting of teacher actions which are managerial teaching functions. Hypotheses 3a-3c: Disagreement exists between principals in inner city schools with high teacher turnover and principals in schools with low turnover about the occurrence of teaching situations in typical classrooms in their buildings. Yet the principals who 128 believe the situation does take place agree on the frequency with which situations occur. The total group of principals agree on the teacher actions taken following the situation. Hypothesis,fl: Transfer teachers in high turnover schools are in greater agreement with their principals about the occurrence of class— room situations than either the stable teachers in high or low turnover schools or the transfer teachers in low turnover schools. And all the teachers, both stable and transfer, in schools with high turnover are in greater agreement with their principals than their counterparts in low turnover schools. General Discussion: The data, in part, supported the theory developed in Chapter I: the theory is repeated here in summary for the convenience of the reader. 1. The ability to perform the tasks of inner city teaching in an acceptable manner depends on the teacher's personal orientation. 2. Success and satisfaction in a teaching assignment depends upon the teacher’s ability or willingness to perform in a manner which has been judged acceptable and effective by those working in the same institutional context. 3. Teacher transfers correlate with job satisfaction. 129 9. It should be possible to distinguish between potential transfer teachers and stable teachers, or schools with high and low turnover. by statistically comparing the responses of stable teachers, transfer teachers and their principals to descriptions of teaching situations and teacher actions (task performances) after the method employed by Henderson and Ward.2 The responses of stable and transfer teachers to task performances differ. And it seems likely that instruments could be developed, based on task performances in the inner city school, that would aid in better assignment of teachers to inner city teaching positions. This study could not deter- mine whether managerial tasks or tasks involving structured responses offer better clues to teacher turnover. Indications varied with the group sampled; further investigation is needed. Disagreement between principals and teachers over task performances probably has little serious effect on teacher turnover, except as teachers perceive disagreement. While teachers and principals disagree over acceptable task perform- ance nearly one—third of the time, neither teacher group is in greater disagreement than the other. And principals themselves agree on task performances, so turnover seems to be unaffected by the principals' views of task performance. Yet since transfer teachers perceive greater disagreement with principals over task performance than stable teachers, the principals' abilities \ lege- 130 to communicate their views of task performance to their staff may be an important variable. The responses of all groups to teaching situations are, in many respects, more interesting than their responses to teacher actions. The two groups of new teachers view teaching situations in much the same way; yet stable and transfer teachers disagree on the frequency with which all situations as a group occur. Conceivably teachers who request transfer have developed a poor attitude toward inner city teaching, so that difficult or ridiculous situations seem seem to occur more often than they actually do. Perhaps teachers become frustrated over inner city teaching situations and tend to exaggerate their frequency. The principal groups disagreed on the occurrence of several teaching situations, yet agreed on the frequency with which situations occurred; and transfer teachers from high turnover schools were most apt to agree with their principals about the occurrence of teaching situations. The theory develOped in Chapter I, that new teachers must adjust to a dual system in high turnover schools, was supported concerning teaching situ— ations but not teacher actions; for the turnover teachers in high turnover schools viewed the occurrence of teaching situ- ations more like their principals than did the stable teachers. Thus, turnover may result from mutual frustration or from an unrealistic view of inner city teaching situations. 131 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Of course this research could never provide the final answer to improving teacher assignment in inner city elementary schools; it has, however, attempted to determine whether a teacher‘s ability to perform tasks in a manner acceptable to others working in the same institutional context related to teacher transfer. At this point the data seem to lend support to the theory; but further research is needed. A first step might be observing and selecting a number of teaching tasks that are truly representative of the differences between inner city and non-inner city teaching situations, tasks selected and screened for the primary purpose of identify- ing the differentials between task performance in inner city and in non-inner city schools, and between tasks acceptable to stable inner city teachers and to teachers who are dissatisfied with inner city teaching. Connected with the selection of task performances is the need for a reliable method of presentation to study participants. For example, the merits of video—taped presentations over printed descriptions should be investigated, and a method selected which best conveys the meaning of the situation and the tasks performed. After selecting tasks and developing a method of presenta- tion, we could finally conduct a longitudinal study relating task performance to teacher turnover. The sample population should include new teachers, stable teachers, and principals; statistical analysis might follow a pattern much like that 132 presented in this study. Possible comparisons should focus on the following questions: 1. Can teacher tenure in inner city schools be predicted by the teacher’s responses to descriptions of task performances taken from inner city schools? 2. Can principals who will improve the stability of the staffs of inner city schools be selected on the basis of their responses to task performances? 3. Do differences of opinion between principals and stable teachers about task performance cause teacher transfer? 9. Is task performance related to teacher transfer? 5. Can teacher tenure in inner city schools be improved through pre—testing teachers on their responses to the tasks of the inner city teacher prior to assignment? The data reported in this study suggest that all the above questions might be answered in the affirmative. But the theory must now be further tested before drawing final conclusions. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Hollis P. "Teacher Turnover and the Placement Problems." American School Board Journal, 70 (May. 1925), pp. 95-96. Barnett, Earl Bryan. "Organization Factors in Losses of Secondary Teaching Personnel." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965. Breer, Paul E., and Locke, Edwin A. Task Experience A§_A_Source Q£_Attitudes. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press. 1965. Bruce, Imon E. "Teacher Turnover in Arkansas' Public Schools." School and Society, LXXVII (June, 1953), pp. 910~l3. Charters, Werrett W., Jr. "What Causes Teacher Turnover?" The School Review, LXIV (September, 1956), pp. 299-99. Teacher Perceptions 91 Administrator Behavior. U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project #929. 1969. Conant, James Bryant; Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw— Hill Book Company, Inc., 1961. Dunn, Kenneth. "Do You Know Why Your Teachers Resign?" Overview, II (June, 1961), p. 32. Education for Victory, 1 (January, 1993), pp. 19-15. Elsbree, Willard S- Teacher Turnover ip_the Cities and Villages pi New York State. Teacher's College--Columbia University, New York, 1928. Forrest, William B. "Teacher Turnover Can Be Reduced." The Nation's Sehools, LIV (October, 1959), pp. 58-59. "Freezing Teacher Employment-~What Is the Situation?" Sppppl and Community, XXIX (March, 1993), pp. 105-6. Gourley, Robert H., and Pourchot, Leonard L. "Teacher Dropouts," Illinois Education, LIII (February, 1965), pp. 259-62. Greene, George Elwin. "The Extent and Causes of Turnover Among Secondary School Teachers in the Central Schools of New York State for the Year 1961-62." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1969. 139 135 Hedge, Melvin O. "Turnover Among Teachers in Township Schools of Indiana for 1939-35." Master’s thesis, Indiana State Teachers College. 1936. As reported in Cecil W. Scott's "Teacher Tenure." Review pi Educational Research, X (June. 1990), pp. 235—39. Henderson, Judith. 1H3 Focused Observation pi Teaching Behaviors. Papers of the Institute #29, East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State University: Learning Systems Institute. 1966. , and Ward. Ted W. Teaching in the Inner City--Identifi- cation Lf Educational Practices Lf Comp_tent Elementary Teachers *Lf Culturally Disadvantaged Youth East Lansing, Michigan, 1966. Lingel, John Jarvis. "Organizational Factors in Losses of Elementary Teaching Personnel." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California. Los Angeles, 1965. March, James G., and Simon. Herbert A. Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, pp. 262. Master Teacher Contract: Between the Board Lf Education Lf the City Lf Flint, Michigan and the Flint Education Association. Flint, Michigan, September 1, 1966- August 31, 1969. Nyman, Ernest Leslie. "A Study of DrOp-Outs Among Beginning Teachers." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1965. Phillips, Beeman N., Bonk, Edward, and Mitchell, J. R. "Can We Reduce Teacher Turnover?" Phi Delta Kappan. XXXVIII (March, 1957), pp. 272-79. Pillard, Matthew J. "Teachers for Urban Schools." Education ip Hrp§p_Society. Edited by B. J. Chandler, John I. Kitsuse. and Lindley J. Stiles. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.. 1962. Plant, Ralph Ernest, Jr. "An Investigation of Some Correlates of Teacher Job Satisfaction." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1966. Pylman, Jay L. "How Stable Is the Teaching Profession?" The Nations Schools, XXXV (February, 1995L pp. 30-31. Riessman, Frank. The Culturally Deprived Child- New York: Harper & Row, 1962. 136 Ryans, David G. "The Teacher Characteristic Study." Edited by Bruce J. Biddle, and William J. Ellena. Contemporary Heseargh pp Teacher Effectiveness. New York, 1969. Schueler, Herbert. "The Teacher of the Disadvantaged." The gpgrpgl_pj_Teacher Education. Edited by Harry N. Rivlin. Vol. XVI, (June, 1965), pp. 135-86. Scott, Cecil Winfield, and Reed, Calvin H. "Salaries and Turnover." The School Executive, LVIII (August, 1939), pp. 26-27. Shannon, J. R., and Kittle, Marion A. "Teacher Turnover in Indiana During the Ten Years of the Depression." The Teacher College Journal, XV (September, 1993), pp. 1-6. Spears, Harold. Improving the Supervision pi_lnstruction. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953. Thomas, Warren Felty. "A Study of Factors Associated with the Retention of Teachers in Selected Public School Systems in Cuyahoga County, Ohio." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Reserve University, 1969. Turner, Richard L. Problem Solvipngroficienpy Among Elementary School Teeehers. Cooperative Research Project #1262. Bloomington Indiana: Institute of Educational Research, Indiana University, 1969. Waller, Willard. "Revolt in the Classroom." The Saturday Review, XXVI (September, 1993), pp. 9—6. White, Kinnard. "The Relation of Career Involvement to Persis— tence in the Teaching Profession Among Beginning Female Elementary Teachers." The Journal pf_Educationa1 Regearch, LX (October, 1966), pp. 51—53. White, Wendell. "Rate and Causes of Turnover of Iowa Teachers." School Board Journal. LX (December, 1925), pp. 52-59. Whitener, Joy Eugene. "An Actuarial Approach to Teacher Turn- over." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University. 1965. "Why Teachers Leave." The Nation’s Schoolg. XXXIV (September, 1999), p. 32. Williams, Lewis W. "Turnover Among High School Teachers in Illinois." The Schogl_Review, XL (June. 1932), pp. 916-928. 137 Youngberg, Charles Francis. "An Experimental Study of 'Job Satisfaction’ and Turnover in Relation to Job Expecta- tions and Self Expectations." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. 1963. APPENDIX A .7101! 63mm {ion Association. 314 AVON $TR£ET FLINT. HICH'GAN AFVILIAYID wl'm Dlmucv 0! “1| NATIONAL IDUCAYION AIIOCIATION MICHIGAN IDUCATION AllOCIATION May 9, 1967 Dear Colleague: Mr. Curtis Van Voorhees has requested FEA cooperation in carrying out what we consider to be a significant and worthwhile project. The study being undertaken by Mr. Van Voorhees concerns the improvement of placement procedures in inner-city elemen- tary schools. You were selected, at random, to respond to a questionnaire consisting of twenty-two situation/action and four questions about each. It is hoped that this study will become the basis for further research in this area. We urge your cooperation. Your identity will be protected at all times. Returned questionnaires will be directed to the FEA office, and any identification will be removed there. No one in Flint administration or teaching staff will be permitted to learn who responded or what they said. If you choose to cooperate, you will hand your questionnaire in a sealed envelope to your FEA Building Representative, who will return it to the FEA office. We believe the Board of Education needs to know why it is difficult to get teachers to teach in these schools, and to keep them there. Only when this is understood will there be action to change adverse conditions. (To the benefit of all concerned.) Sincerely, Mr. Anth Presiden Flint Education Association APD:mbb APPENDIX B APPENDIX B TEACHERSt COVER LETTER INFORMATION You have been randomly selected to participate in a study designed to be of long-term significance to teacher education. The materials contained in the enclosed questionnaire are part of a preliminary study recently completed by the Learning Systems Institute at Michigan State University in cooperation with the Office of Research, Flint Public Schools and other large city systems in Michigan. This study is one of several second-phase studies resulting from the preliminary study and will hopefully provide information for the future improvement of teacher education. You may be assured that ypg will 32.22.92X.P§ personally identiiied ip_thi§_§tpgy, The name and school identification tag attached to the questionnaire will be detached and destroyed as soon as the questionnaire is opened. However, for the sake of statistical grouping and recording receipt of the question- naire it is important that you gp_not remove the identification tag from the gpestionnaire. INSTRUCTIONS On the following pages you will find a description of 22 classroom situations and, following each situation, a brief account of an action taken by a teacher as a result of the situation. Following the description of the situation and action are questions. Please respond to the 22 situation/action descriptions by expressing your professional opinion on the questions asked. While many of the situations are quite specific (e.g. refer to a kindergarten classroom) please try to picture the situation in a general way as you respond. Do not reject items simply because the situation took place in a second grade classroom and you happen to teach third grade. Rather, try to take into account the general description as you respond. The entire questionnaire should take 30-95 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the questionnaire please: 1. place the completed questionnaire, including the identification tag, in the envelOpe provided 2. seal the envelope 3. tear your address from the front of the envelope 191 192 9. give the envelOpe to your FEA Building Representa- tive* by Friday, May 12:.1967' If you have any questions or concerns in regard to this study please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. Curtis Van Voorhees G3398 Flushing Rd. Flint, Michigan Phone: 767-7136 *If you do not wish to return your questionnaire to the Flint Education Association Office via the Building Representative you may take it there yourself or call me and I will arrange to pick it up: APPENDIX C APPENDIX C PRINCIPALS‘ COVER LETTER INFORMATION You have been randomly selected to participate in a study designed to be of long—term significance to teacher education. The materials contained in the enclosed questionnaire are part of a preliminary study recently completed by the Learning Systems Institute at Michigan State University in cooperation with the Office of Research, Flint Public Schools and other large city systems in Michigan. This study is one of several second—phase studies resulting from the preliminary study and will hOpefully provide information for the future improvement of teacher education. You may be assured that ypp_wi11 ip_pp'ggy pg personally identified 19 this study, The name and school identification tag attached to the questionnaire will be detached and destroyed as soon as the questionnaire is Opened. However, for the sake of statistical grouping and recording receipt of the question- naires it is important that you g2 not remove the identification tag from the questionnaire. INSTRUCTIONS On the following pages you will find a description of 22 classroom eituations and, following each situation, a brief account of an action taken by a teacher as a result of the situation. Following the description of the situation and action are questions. Please respond to the 22 situation/action descriptions by expressing your professional opinion on the questions asked. While many of the situations are quite specific (e.g. refer to a kindergarten classroom) please try to picture the situation in a general way as you respond. Try to think of the typical classroom situation in your building as you respond to the questions. The entire questionnaire should take 30-95 minutes to complete. Upon completion of the questionnaire please: 1. place the completed questionnaire, includiqg_tHg identification tag, in the envelope provided 2. seal the envelope 3. tear your address from the front of the envelope 19if 195 9. return the envelope, via inter-school mail, to the Office of Research, Flint Public Schools - attn. Curtis Van Voorhees*- by Friday, ng $2; 1967. If you have any questions or concerns in regard to this study please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this study. Curtis Van Voorhees G3398 Flushing Rd. Flint, Michigan Phone: 767-7136 *If you do not wish to return your questionnaire to the Office of Research please call me and I will arrange to pick it up. APPEND IX D APPENDIX D INSTRUMEHT SITUATION AND ACTION SUMMARY TEACHING SITUATION l: During spelling period in a fourth-grade classroom the children are working on assignments in their spelling books. Several children have forgotten to bring their books. TEACHER ACTION 1: (following the situation above) The teacher assigns these children a page Of words from their English books which are to be arranged in alphabetical order. TEACHING SITUATION 3: As time approaches for opening exercises, the children sit in their seats and wait to begin. The teacher is out in the hall. The class proceeds with the exercises; one boy leads the pledge to the flag and the singing Of "Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory." TEACHER ACTION 2; The teacher remains in the hall while the class‘s morning procedure continues. TEACHING SITUATION g: As the children in a third-grade class work out arithmetic problems in their notebooks, the teacher circulates around the room checking their work. She has consistently stressed the fact that the children should use pencils when doing their arithmetic so that they can erase their mistakes and keep their notebooks neat and easy to read. As she moves from desk to desk, she notices that one boy has been doing his work with a pen. TEACHER ACTION ;: The teacher tells the boy to put away the pen and take out a pencil. 197 19E TEACHING SITUATION H: It is free play time in a kindergarten classroom. The children are all busy playing at various activities in the room. TO indicate the end Of free playtime, the teacher plays a chord on the piano. A few Of the children respond by raising their hands to show they have heard and are ready for the next activity, but most of the children continue playing. TEACHER ACTION 3: The teacher plays the chord several more times until all are indicating they have heard. TEACHING SITUATION é: It is arithmetic period in a fourth—grade class. Several children are working problems at the board while the remainder of the children are working at their desks. The teacher is dictating problems of increasing difficulty. TEACHER ACTION é: As the children raise their hands indicating they have finished, the teacher goes to each child and corrects the problems. TEACHING SITUATION Q: At the conclusion of an arithmetic lesson, the children pass their papers to the front Of the room. As the teacher collects the papers, some Of the children leave their seats and wander around the room. One girl borrows some paper and a boy goes to the pencil sharpener. The teacher tells the children to sit down quickly. TEACHER ACTION g: The teacher reminds the children that they should always have their materials ready for use at the beginning Of the day so that no time is wasted getting pencils sharpened and borrowing paper. TEACHING SITUATION Z: It is time for the morning break in a kindergarten classroom. This room is not a self—contained unit, and it is necessary for the children to leave the room and go to the other side of the building to use the lavatories. At a signal from the teacher, the boys and girls line up at the door, boys on one side and girls on the other. 199 TEACHER ACTION 1: The teacher dismisses the kindergarteners to a group of upper grade boys and girls who escort the children to the lavatories. TEACHING SITUATION g; The first—grade class is just getting settled for their story period when a girl raises her hand and tells the teacher that "the new girl" has called her a "black nigger." The teacher goes to the girls and asks if they were angry and/or fighting. They say "no." TEACHER ACTION g: In a normal voice the teacher then asks them their right names. She tells them and the class that in this room people are called only by their right names. If not, the child cannot stay in the room. TEACHING SITUATION g: The teacher is working with a first-grade reading group while the rest Of the class is doing seatwork. One boy in this group is not working. Although the teacher has asked him to settle down and leave the others alone, he continues bothering the children around him. The others doing seatwork and the reading group are also aware of the boy. TEACHER ACTION 2: The teacher picks up the boy bodily, sets him on the floor away from the group, and tells him to get busy. TEACHING SITUATION lg: It is time for lunch dismissal. The students are ready to leave the room and get their coats when the bell rings. TEACHER ACTION L9: The teacher lets the students leave the room as a group. TEACHING SITUATION LL: A fourth-grade class comprised of children with widely divergent reading abilities is preparing to dramatize a story from a read- ing book. Each child usually reads in a group with other children who have approximately the same reading competence, but for this activity the class is together as a group. The story selected is one which none Of the children has read. It is a difficult story-—the reading vocabulary being most appro- priate for the better readers in the class but the content highly interesting to all children Of this age. The teacher selects a cast that is composed Of five of the best readers in the class. Each of the five children has a book, but the shortage of books makes it necessary that the children in the audience sit together, each two sharing a book. While the first cast drama- tizes the story, the audience is somewhat restless. TEACHER ACTION ii: The teacher chooses five less able readers to do the parts in a second reading. TEACHING SITUATION Lg: In a sixth-grade class, a recent spelling lesson presented the use Of double consonants when "ed" is added to the root word. The class is now having English, and the children are suggesting suitable modifiers Of the noun "barn," a word that is written on the board. A student suggests "raggity" as a way Of describ- ing a barn. TEACHER ACTION Lg: Ignoring the mispronunciation Of the word, the teacher accepts the adjective and asks the student to spell "ragged." TEACHING_§ITUATION,L3: The teacher in a kindergarten class reviews with the children the ingredients needed for making a dough clay. While they make the dough, some Of the children begin to eat it. TEACHER ACTION £1: The teacher allows all the children to taste the dough before they continue their activity. 151 TEACHING SITUATION LE: The children in a kindergarten have just finished making play dough. Because this activity took longer than expected, the teacher omits the rest period and goes directly to story time. She plays a chord on the piano. 3 signal for the children to gather near the piano for the story. Some children come over; others continue to play with their dough and talk. The teacher picks up a gourd and shakes it. One boy bangs on the piano. TEACHER ACTION 13: The teacher ignores the banging on the piano and continues to shake the gourd. TEACHING SITUATION £5: It is rest period in a kindergarten class and the children are placing their rugs on the floor. Several children complain they are cold and would like to put on their coats. TEACHER ACTION 1g; The teacher lets those who want to get their coats and wear them while they rest. TEACHING SITUATION Lg: After going over a spelling lesson orally with the teacher, the children begin a similar exercise in their notebooks while the teacher circulates around the room checking individual progress. The children have reading and spelling difficulties, and the work is progressing slowly. TEACHER ACTION 19: After five or six minutes, the teacher stOps the children’s work and has them take a break, telling them they may go to the restroom or visit with their friends awhile. TEACHING SITUATION £1: The teacher is working with a group Of children during arithmetic period. The rest Of the class is divided into "pupil and teacher" pairs. The teacher leaves her group tO check on the pairs, helping the children to work together. A girl who has been having problems because Of race has refused to work with a partner assigned to her. TEACHER ACTION 1;: The teacher talks to the girl alone at the front of the room. TEACHING SITUATION 18: During free play time in a kindergarten class, the children are choosing the activity they wish to participate in. Some choose painting, climbing the jungle gym, etc. One boy ties his rest towel around his neck, like a cape, and says he wants to play Batman. This "game" has been played before and has been some— what wild and out of control. TEACHER ACTION 1H; The teacher allows the children to play Batman, first establish— ing rules of the game which restrict the area in which they can play and forbid running. TEACHING SITUATION i2: A third-grade class has been doing a great deal Of work with folk tales and songs Of the U. S. They have listened to many folk songs and have learned the words Of several. During music today the teacher is playing folk—song records and the children are singing along with the records. It is almost the end of the music period. The teacher tells the class that she has a new album of folk songs from different countries. TEACHER ACTION 12: The teacher plays a selection from Haiti. TEACHING SITUATION HQ: During an arithmetic lesson the teacher asks the class to think Of number combinations that make 10. The teacher writes their answers on the board. After all the number combinations are found, a few children continue to raise their hands to Offer more answers. TEACHER ACTION 29; The teacher recognizes them, hears their answers (wrong combina- tions) and states, "NO, you are not thinking of new combinations for 10. We have them all now." TEACHING SITUATION 2L: The children in a second-grade class have just returned from recess. They are quite excited; many complain that they are warm. Some are looking out the windows and talking. It is noisy in the room and the teacher has asked them to take their seats and be quiet. TEACHEH ACTION g1: The teacher tells the children to put their heads on their desks and rest for a few minutes. TEACHING SITUATION g_2_: A group of primary children is learning how tO use the new verb. "handed," by carrying out the action Of handing an eraser to each other. They are also gaining assurance in speaking com— plete sentences as they describe this action. The teacher has begun by asking a girl to give her an eraser. Then she says, "Pam handed the eraser to me." The teacher gives the eraser to another child and asks him to tell what she did, using a whole sentence. This child responds correctly, and so do others as they repeat the action. However, one child uses only the phrase, "Handed it to Robert." TEACHER ACTION 2; : The teacher stops the game and asks, "WHQ handed it to Robert."