“"2233” A COMPARATTVE STUDY or- THE EXPECTATIONS . ' WHICH TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL. BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS‘OF THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS mm: or ' THE TEACHER‘S ROLE IN 5cm AND COMMUNITY Dimitation for Ibo Dogma of Ed. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Rex Beach SmIII’I ‘ I960 ' ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIZIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII N 310457 5794 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A.CGMPIBAIIVE.STUDY OF'THE EXPECTATIONS WHICH TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL BO£RDNMEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF' THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE 0? TE TEACHER'S ROLE IN SCHOOL AND CWUNITY presented by REX BEACH SMITH has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor 91' Wdegree Inmonal Adminis- tration Date W 0-169 / niversity )VlESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from .a-lnzjllll. .your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EXPECTATIONS WHICH TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE OF THE TEACHER'S ROLE IN SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY An Abstract of a Dissertation Presented-to the Faculty of the School for Advanced Graduate Studies Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, Department of Administrative and Educational Services In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Rex Beach Smith August 1960 H Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to identify the role eXpectations which teachers, public-school administrators, school board members and citizens of three different commu- nities have of the teacher's role in school and community, and to compare these expectancies, noting the areas and degree of conflict and agreement between teachers' eXpecta- tions of themselves and others' expectations of the teacher's role; and, further, to compare the three communities as to liberalism or restrictiveness of viewpoint toward the teacher's role, to compare.results of this study with a 19%1 study, and to test several variables for effect on peOple's attitudes- Procedure Teachers, school administrators, school board members and citizens in three communities were interviewed, using a check-list involving ninety-seven acts relating mostly to the teacher's role in the community and to some extent in the school. Teachers were asked to indicate their own beliefs regarding the actions. School administrators, school board members and citizens were asked to indicate their beliefs regarding the actions. Many comparisons were then made with the resulting data. Condensed Summary of the Findings Differences of opinion were found among teachers, ad- ministrators,.board members and citizens concerning certain items of teacher behavior and agreement among them on other items. The order of liberality-to-restrictiveness among the major groups was found to be: secondary teachers, most liberal; elementary teachers, next; citizens, a very close third; administrators,.close to fifth; and board members, most restrictive. A similar order among citizens was found to be: metrOpolitan suburban citizens, most liberal; town-rural citizens, next; and village-rural citizens, most restrictive. Using a different approach on the teacher and citizen groups, a slightly different order of listing was develOped: secondary teachers, most liberal; citizens, very close to most restrictive; and elementary teachers, most restrictive. For the metropolitan suburb only, the order was: secondary teachers, most liberal; then citizens; then ele- mentary teachers, most restrictive. For the town-rural district only, the order was: secondary and elementary teachers, tied for most liberal; citizens, most restrictive. For the village-rural district, the pattern was: secondary teachers, citizens, then elementary teachers. From comparisons between types of districts these rankings were develOped: 1. For elementary teachers: town-rural, most liberal; metropolitan suburb, next; village-rural, most restrictive. 2. For secondary teachers: village-rural, most lib- eral; metropolitan suburb, next; town-rural, most restrictive- 3. For citizens: metrOpolitan suburb most liberal; town-rural, next; village-rural, most restrictive. Thirty-seven items of conflict were found, falling into twenty general categories. Thirty-three items were identified as being approved by all groups and seventeen items as being disapproved by all groups. Comparisons with a l9hl study showed that the teachers and board members in this 1959 study were far more liberal in attitude toward teacher behavior than were those in the l9hl nation-wide study. Sixteen variables tested gave evidence of producing varying degrees of differences in attitude, while one variable tested yielded no differences. Some implications for teachers are given, including a list of items of behavior approved by all groups, a list of restrictions held by all groups,.and a list of conflict items which might well be avoided by teachers in similar types of districts. Implications are also offered for administrators, board members, citizens, colleges, universities and teacher place- ment bureaus. Recommendations for future studies and effort complete the final chapter of the dissertation. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE EXPECTATIONS WHICH TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE OF THE TEACHER'S ROLE' IN SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the School for Advanced Graduate Studies Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, Department of Administrative and Educational Services In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by Rex Beach Smith August 1960 ii ACKI‘IO'VJLEDGEILEIITS Many people have contributed toward the preparation of this study; The writer wishes to thank Dr. Clyde N. Campbell, committee chairman, and other committee members, Dr. Wilbur E. Brookover, Dr. William H. Roe, Dr. Francis hillard (deceased) and short-time committee members Dr. Troy L. Stearns and Dr. Leland w. Dean, for their interest and many helpful suggestions; Dr. John Patterson for his help on statistical problems; school superintendents Paul A. Schalm of Clawson, R. A. Ambrose of Oxford and Donald G. McAlvey of Almont (at the time of the study), board members, teachers and citizens of the three communities for their fine c00peration as the subjects of the study; and finally wife Geraldine and daughter Sandra for their services as typists. REX BEACH SMITH TABLE or CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . Introductory Statement . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . Role expectation . . . . . . Basic hypothesis . . . . . . The teacher role as viewed by Images and stereotypes . . . Importance of the Study . . . . Teacher failureS' . . . . . . Conflicts and tensions . . . Significant others; . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . - . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . Background for the Study . . . Role theory . . . . . . . . . Related Studies . . . . . . . . Social role and personality . Social maladjustment . . . . Special code of behavior . . Recent liberalization . . . . Student loyalty conflict . . Conformists and rebels . . . PAGE \0 \O \l 4-" .F'Ud DJ H |'-' no In A) I4 F4 I4 F3 P4 I4 F4 I4 e4 I4 03 \n t' u) (n O\ 4? -r s' n) no I4 I4 {\D (I) CHAPTER Role conflict . . . . . Self-involvement and self-image . Restrictedness . . . . . Unsolved status . . . . Community pressures . . Convergence and divergence . . . . Teacher images and stereotypes . . The stranger . . . . . . Changing patterns and confusion . III. SOURCES OF DATA AND METHODS OF PROCEDURE Scape and Limitations . . Procedures and Techniques Used . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR BASIC COMPARISONS Presentation of the Data . Classifications used . . Questions used . . . . . Indexes of opinion . . . Rankings.of questions by and others . . . . . . teachers Detailed Analysis of Opinion Indexes Car ownership . . . . . Residence requirements . Clothes and grooming . . Personality traits and attitudes . Hiring of teachers . . . iv PAGE 30 32 31+ 36 37 55‘s?» 58 58 61 6h 66 71 79 87 88 88 89 89 91 CHAPTER V. Supplemental work . . . . . . . . . . . . . Supplemental school activities . . . . . . Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Church responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . General behavior out in the community . . . Dating . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bowling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smoking . . . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . Card-playing. Playing pool or billiards . . . . . . . . . Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swearing and joking . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Liberality and Restriction . . . Patterns among groups . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns among citizens . . . . . . . . . . Patterns among teachers and citizens . . . Comparisons among major groups- . . . . . . Comparisons among elementary and secondary teachers and citizens . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons among types of districts . . . Areas of disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DATA AND MORE COMPARISONS . Comparisons with a 19Hl Study . . . . . . . . Comparisons by Variables Tested . . . . . . . PAGE 92 92 92 9h 95 98 98 99 99 101 101 102 10% 105 105 105 109 113 131 1H6 161 169 169 181 CHAPTER Newcomer teachers vs. non-stranger teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beginning teachers vs. career teachers . Experience in few districts vs. experience in several . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future plans aS'a variable . . . . . . . Occupations of citizens as a variable . . Teacher relatives or friends as a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Citizen newcomers vs. citizen non-strangers . . . . . . . . . . . . . Membership in Parent-Teacher Associations as a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education aS'a variable . . . . . . . . . Family income as a variable . . . . . . . Marital status as a variable . . . . . . Parental status as a variable . . . . . . Children in school as a variable . . . . Age as a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . Church attendance as a variable . . . . . Church membership as a variable . . . . . Sex as a variable . . . . . . . . . . . . Cases of Dismissal Remembered . . . . . . . vi PAGE 181 183 183 186 186 189 191 191 191 19 5 l9 5 198 198 201 201 20h 20k 207 CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings from the Study . . . . . . . . . . . Differences among major groups- . . . . . . Differences among citizens . . . . . . . . Differences among elementary and secondary teachers and citizens . . . . . . . . . . Differences among types of districts . . . Areas of disagreement . . . . . . . . . . . Comparisons with a 19h1 study . . . . . . . Variables tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cases of dismissal remembered . . . . . . . ImplicationS' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for teachers . . . . . . . . . Implications for administrators . . . . . . Implications for board memberS* . . . . . . Implications for citizens . . . . . . . . . Implications for colleges, universities and teacher placement bureaus . . . . . . Recommendations:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. Questionnaire Schedule Used . . . . . . APPENDIX B. Questions in Brief Form . . . . . . . . APPENDIX C- Original Data Tables . . . . . . . . . vii PAGE 211 211 211 212 213 21h 21% 215 215 217 218 218 222 223 22% 225 226 228 235 2M7 252 Ill- l I. I I'll 1 II I I TABLE II. III. IV. V. LIST OF TABLES Classification of Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members and Citizens According to Type of District . . . . . . . . . . . . . Classification of Teachers According to Years of Local Experience, Years of Total Exper- ience, Number of School Systems Worked in and Years of EXpected Future Service . . . . Classification of Citizens According to Occupation, Teacher Relatives or Friends, Years of Residence in the District, P.T.A. Membership, Last Grade of Schooling Com- pleted and Amount of Family Income . . . . . Classification of All Groups Combined (Teachers, Administrators, Board Members and Citizens) According to Marital Status, Parental Status, Children in School or Not, Age, Church Attendance, Church Membership and Sex . . . . Responses of Teachers, Administrators, Board Members and Citizens of Three Districts Indicating Opinions Restrictive and Non- restrictive on Teacher Freedom of Action According to Those Categories and Using Indexes of Net Approval and Disapproval or Restriction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii PAGE 66 67 68 7O 73 TABLE VI. VII. VIII. IX. ix PAGE Rankings on Ninety-seven Items Indicating Opinions Restrictive and Non-restrictive on Teacher Freedom of Action, According to Teacher, Administrator, Board Member and Citizen Opinions ... . . . . . . . . . . 81 Ranking of Patters of Indexes of Restriction by Frequency of Occurrence, Comparing Com- posite Indexes for Teachers, Administrators, Board Members and Citizens . . . . . . . . . 106 Ranking of Patterns of Indexes of Restriction A. B. C. D. E. by Frequency of Occurrence, Comparing Citi- zens of Three School Districts . . . . . . . 108 Ranking of Patterns of Indexes of Restric- tion by Frequency of Occurrence, Comparing Elementary and Secondary Teachers and Citi- zens in the Same:District with Normally Expected FrequencieS' . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Rearrangement and Consolidation of Data Above . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 MetrOpolitan Suburb Patterns of Restric— tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Townprural Patterns of Restriction . . . . 111 Village-rural Patterns of Restriction . . . 111 TABLE X. X.A. XI A.. XII.. XII A. PAGE Significant Differences between Teacher- Administrator-School Board-Citizen Group Opinion Indexes on Items by Categories and by Increasing Degree of Restriction within Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11h- Summary of Data in Table X, Showing Com- parison Patterns, Significant Differences and Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Significant Differences between Teacher- Citizen Group Opinion Indexes within School Districts on Ninety-seven Items by Categor- ies and by Increasing Degree of Restriction within Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Summary of Data in Table XI--Comparisons of Teacher-Citizen Group Opinions within School Districts .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IRS Significant Differences between Teacher-Citizen Group Opinion Indexes Comparing Types of School Districts on.Ninety-seven Items by Categories and by Increasing Degree of Res- triction within Categories . . . . . . . . . 1R7 Summary of Data in Table XII--Comparisons of Teacher-Citizen Group Opinions by Type of School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 TABLE XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. xi PAGE Ranking of Sub-Group Indexes of Restriction on Ninety-seven Items According to Range of Disagreement and Classification According to Approval or Restriction . . . . . . . . . . 162 Comparison of 1959 Approval-Disapproval Study of Restrictions on Teacher Behavior with the 1941 Study by Greenhoe . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Newcomer Teacheps vs. Non-Stranger Teachezs . . . . . 182 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Beginning Tgaghers vs. Cages; Teachers . . . . . . . . 18% Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Teachers Egg 531?. Wozked ig__0_n_g 9_r_ 2313 Systems vs. Teacher§ W_I_1_9_ HaggNorked 1.3; Three 92 111.922 Sygtems . . 18‘} Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Teaghgps Egg gap 39. Tm Leg; th__a_n_ §_i_x_ More Years vs. Tagghegs W_h_g_ 2131; pg Teach _S_i_x 91; More gig;- tiona1_Y_e_a_I._r.§................ 187 TABLE XIX. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. xii PAGE Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty , Selected Questions, Comparing m in Profegsional, Proorietary apg.Managerigl Oggupations vs. Aii_0thers . . . . . . . . . 188 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing 93m pith Tegchg; Relatives 9; Friends vs. Citizens £1311 m Teaghe; Relatives 9;; Friendg . . .4 . 190 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Citizen Newcomers vs. Citizen Non-StrgpgerS‘ . . . . 192 Patternsof Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Citizen P,T,A, Mgmbezg vs. Non-Mempers . . . . . . . . . . 193 Patterns of Cemparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Citizen Non-High School Graduates vs. High School Graduateg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19% Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Citigens Eigh Income m £6,000 vs. Citizens with Ingome ggpé,000gnqgv_e_g............. 196 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Se- lected Questions, Comparing Single Pepsong vs. Non-Singie Pepsons . . . . . . . . . . . 197 TABLE XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXXII. XXXIII. xiii PAGE Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Persong High Enghildren vs. Persons yiih;0hildren . . . 199 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Persons High E9_Children ig_School vs. Pezsong ELEQ Children in School . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Pegsons 2;;{09 Bereaiégevs. magma; - - . . 202 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Church I Attendegs vs. Non-Attenderg . . . . . . . . 203 Patterns of Comparison of'Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing Church Members vs” Noanembers . . . . . . . . . . 2C5 Patterns of Comparison of Responses to Forty Selected Questions, Comparing fl§i§§_vs. Egmaigs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 Cases Remembered Where Teachers were Dismissed Because of Unsatisfactory Behavior in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Car Ownership . . . . . . . 253 TABLE XXXIV. XXXV. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XLII. XLIII. Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with.Residence Requirements . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Clothes and Grooming . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Personality Traits and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Hiring of Teachers . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Supplemental Work on Other Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Expected Participation in Supplemental School Activities . . . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on ItemS' Concerned with Politics . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Church.Responsibilities . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with General Behavior Out in the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Patterns of Restrictive Opinions on Items Concerned with Dating . . . . . . . . . . xiv PAGE 251+ 256 258 261 26k 265 267 272 271:- 278 TABLE XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. L. Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Patterns of Concerned Restrictive Opinions on Items with Bowling . . . . . . . . Restrictive Opinions on Items with Dancing . . . . . . . . Restrictive Opinions on Items with Smoking . . . . . . . . Restrictive Opinions on Items With Gard-play1ng o o o o o o Restrictive Opinions on ItemS‘ with Playing Pool or Billiards Restrictive Opinions on Items with Drinking . . . . . . . . Restrictive Opinions on Items with Swearing and Joking . . PAGE 279 280 282 286 288 290 [\3 \O \n CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM I. Introductory Statement The rationale of this study of the teacher's role in school and community derives from certain traditional con- flicts between the teacher's behavior and the behavior expected by the community in its image of the teacher. The severity of these conflicts undoubtedly varies from genera- tion to generation and from community to community. In days gone by, teachers have been discharged from their positions because they did not conform to community codes of conduct. Sometimes the infraction was the use of lip- stick and rouge, or the style of dress, or cigaret-smoking, or dating someone unacceptable to key people in the power structure of the community. Who can guess how many excel- lent teachers have been driven from the profession because of such conflict? Frequently community standards have been violated unwittingly, at other times purposefully in rebel- lion against unreasonable restrictions and bigotry. Still a third type of unfortunate situation results when teachers .have lived restricted and frustrated lives in fear of violating imaginary community expectations, only to be rewarded with the inevitable label of "square", "stick-in- the-mud", "old fogey", or "old maid school teacher." / In the current era of criticism of schools, bulging school enrolments and increasing community demands for more services from the schools, the shortage of qualified teachers magnifies the importance of attempts to induce more young peOple to enter the teaching profession as well as other attempts to keep from losing good teachers from the pro- fession. Questions frequently asked by teachers and prospec- tive teachers are: What do peOple expect of me outside of school? Am I expected to act like the teachers they had in school? Do they expect me always to set a good example for everyone or should I act like any normal human being with some faults of my own? How do school administrators, board members, and parents visualize the teacher's role? Are these expectations different from those of other teachers? If there are differences in expectations, are they really important or of minor significance? Every teacher has an image in his mind as to what is expected of him by others. The significant others for the teacher include other teachers, school administrators, board members, and parents. Areas of no conflict in expectations should be identifiable, so that teachers can stOp worrying about them. Areas of conflict, when identified, might lend themselves to reconciliation or arbitration when brought into the Open and understood. II. Statement of the Problem Rg;§_§zp§gta$ign, Every teacher defines his role in the community and the school as he sees it. The various groups in the community also define his role, probably in several different ways. The purpose of this study was to identify the role expectations which teachers, school administrators, school board members, and citizens have of certain acts associated with the teacher's life, in three communities, mostly outside the classroom; to compare the teachers' expectations with those of the significant others, noting areas of conflict and agreement, relative mostly to social role; and to compare the three communities as to their respective liberalism or restrictiveness of viewpoint toward the teacher's role. From such comparisons might come suggested ways in which: (1) conflicts might be reduced, L’ (2) teachers' worries over areas of no conflict might be 1/ relieved, (3) communities with extraordinarily restrictive attitudes might be shown the harm suffered by their local schools as a reSult, (h) teacher;prestige and freedom of action in the community might be improved: (5) improvement in the private and social life of the teacher might improve the quality of teaching in the classroom, and (6) the continuous loss of good teachers from the profession because of community restrictions might be slowed or halted. Basic hypothesis. The basic hypothesis of this study 1+ is that teachers, public school administrators, school board members, and citizens have different and frequently conflict- ing role expectations of the public school teacher as he lives and participates in one community or another. The_teacheg zgie,a§_viewed by society. Roles in the American culture are determined by a multiplicity of forces, some headed in the same direction, others in varying or even opposite directions. The role of the teacher is especially difficult to define because nearly everyone in a community feels he can say, somewhat authoritatively, what he thinks the teacher's role should be. After all, nearly everyone in America has attended school, or has children attending school, or has a relative or friend who is a teacher, or has been a teacher himself. Most people have some quite definite ideas as to how a teacher should act in school and outside. Getting clear-cut agreement on specific items, however, is not easy. Just as peOple disagree on what the job of the school is in current times, so do they disagree on the role of the teacher. Some peOple want the teacher to be a model of behavior-—an example on a pedestal for young and old to admire, but at the same time probably a stuffy or snobbish bore, who would be a "wet blanket" at a party and hence is not invited to participate in much of the real social life of the community. Other peOple genuinely wish that teachers 5 would act like human beings and not be snobbish, overbearing or condescending, perhaps making others feel educationally deficient. The peOple of any community fall into various divi- sions as to social and economic class, with each level characteristically cherishing its own set of values, some of which overlap two or more classes while others are dis- tinctly typical of one class. Which set of values is the teacher supposed to hold important? If he tries to live by and teach upper class values, he finds neither his salary nor the general public favoring such action. If he sanctions 'certain lower class values in his personal life or his teaching, he soon finds himself in trouble.‘ His usual solution is to live by and teach middle class values, with which the average teacher is agreeable anyway. It appears then that the teacher has little hope of satisfying the role expectations of everyone in the community. No matter what he does or how he acts, he may expect criticism from some peOple. This brings up the very important point that criticism from certain peOple at the bottom of the power structure of the community probably isn't as harmful to the teacher as criticism from peOple high in the power structure of the community. If the teacher can't satisfy all of the citizenry, he obviously will probably offend some of them. If any are to be offended they might better be the 6 lower-class, non-influential or apathetic people rather than the middle- or upper-class people who are active and influ- ential in community and school affairs. Frequent and continued violation or flaunting of the mores, customs and values of the latter groups can result only in conflict, strife, unhappiness and possible eventual failure of the teacher in his position. The good teacher instinctively tries to conduct himself in such a way that most peOple will be either satisfied or, at least, not offended. His attempt to conduct himself in this way may disturb his peace of mind as he encounters the many diverse and sometimes contradictory expectations which various segments of the public hold of teachers.v In discussing peace of mind for the teacher, Havighurst describes the contradictory roles of the teacher: Many of the teacher's difficulties in achieving peace of mind are due to the diverse and often contradictory roles that a teacher is expected to play. . . . The person in authority versus the friend and counselor. . . . The participant in community affairs versus the stranger. . . . The sociological stranger versus the lonely human who needs to feel at home in the community. . . . The symbol of local mores versus the culturally cosmOpolitan person. . . . The neutral, colorless public servant versus the person of ideas, the seeker for truth. . . . The person on the move versus the person who desires to commit himself to the local community. . . . 1R. J. Havighurst, "Peace of Iind for the Teacher, " National Education Association Journal, H2: h92-3, Nov., 1953. To fulfill the expectations implied by such contra- dictory roles a teacher would have to be superhuman; yet the inexperienced college graduate is expected to bring his degree and certificate and fit himself into several sets of expectations held by many different peOple with preconceived images or stereotypes of his position as teacher—-images left by his predecessors or fashioned by others for him. Images and stereotypes. Closely allied to the concept of role is the concept of images or stereotypes. This was deveIOped as follows by Waller back in 1932: Those who follow certain occupations play out the roles which go with it rather consistently. Other persons come to think of these roles as characterizing the occupation, and when they think of the one they think of the other. Experience of persons playing those roles leaves residue in the form of imagined constructs relating to the appearance or behavior of persons falling within certain occupational categories. These imagined constructs are stereotypes. When a stereo- type has been organized out of the community experience of persons belonging to certain occupational groups and consistently playing out certain roles that go with it, the members of the community tend to organize all experience of the persons in such an occupation in terms of the existent stereotype; they have a low per- ceptual threshold for behavior conforming to the stereotype. . . . When a stereotype has once become current, it may be passed from one individual to another by social contagion, and it tends to distort the first naive experience of new members with persons belonging to the group included in the stereotype.2 In the case of the image or stereotype of the teacher there is divided Opinion as to its component parts. The 2Willard Waller The Sogiology of Teachin New York: John Wiley a Sons, Inc., 1932, "ff. 17.13. ’ image may be of a female elementary teacher or a male high school teacher; it may be of a teacher of forty years ago or of an up-to-date, modern acquaintance; it may be of a kindly, respected person associated with pleasant memories in school or of a mean, "battle-axe" type accompanied by unpleasant memories. Complicating the problem further is the fact that peOple tend to picture a particular person in a particular job within the profession when they are questioned concerning attitudes and beliefs about teacher roles. This is probably to be expected since there is no one stereotype which can cover the teaching field as it exists today. It is difficult to know just which image flashes into a person's mind, then, when he is asked, "Do you approve or disapprove of a teacher's smoking in public?" Is the image he sees that of the kindly, elderly, grand- motherly, kindergarten teacher who is herself shocked at the very thought of smoking a cigaret, or is it that of the beautiful young dramatics teacher? Is it the image of the cleanpliving idolized athletic coach or that of the widely- traveled band director who used to play with a famous dance orchestra? Not knowing for sure which image or stereotype is in the responder's mind at the moment, one should not delude oneself into expecting that very scientifically accurate results can be achieved. Hewever, certain patterns or 9 trends may be discovered which, taken in prOper perSpective, might be helpful in matching teachers and communities with similar degrees of liberalism or restrictiveness. Detection of such patterns might also help teachers fit into their reSpective communities' images of them. III. Importance of the Study Teacher failures. A teacher needs only to spend a few years in the profession to make his own collection of personal observations of cases where social maladjustment to the community has affected either directly or indirectly the opportunities available to the teacher for community par- ticipation. In 1938 Cook, Almack and Greenhoe wrote: "It is no exaggeration to say that 50% of teachers' failures find their direct cause in social maladjustment to the commu- nity".3 One could imagine role conflicts as the source of such social maladjustment. At that time communities expected behavior of teachers which was contrary to the teachers' patterns of beliefs. The importance of community maladjustment as a factor in first-year failures was described by Cook and Cook in 1950 in this way: We know that teaching is a way of life, as well as a 3Lloyd A. Cook, Ronald B. Almack and Florence Greenhoe, "Teacher and Community Relations,"American Sociologigal ngiew, 3:171, April, 1938. lO profession, that teachers live in communities, that their work is influenced in countless ways by their mode of living. These are significant facts, facts which are touched too lightly in teacher education. Placement officers, more than professors, have evi- dence to show that teaching success depends to a marked extent on a happy and satisfying out-of-school life. Some of their reports attribute up to a fourth of all first-yfiar failures in teaching to community maladjustment. - Later on in the same reference, the point was made that "While times are changing toward more liberal views, wherever teachers cannot fully exercise the freedoms of personal living and citizen participation accorded any other professional group, mental health and good teaching are impaired".5 While this picture may have improved even more sharply during the past decade, the teacher inevitably must still understand his role in the community and conduct himself in accordance with the expectations his significant others have of him in various situations. It is not even suffi- cient that he act as he "thinks" others expect him to, if his judgment of the others' expectations is in error to any great extent. Somehow he must be helped to know their expectations, lest he guess wrong and the resultant mis- understanding cause him trouble. hLloyd Allen Cook and Elaine Forsythe Cook, Sociological.Apnroach §9_Education, New York: McGrawsHill Book Co., Inc., 1950, p. 29. 5ibid., p. tug. ll Conflicts and tensions. How conflict and tensions may arise from thwarted expectations was described by Lewin: Society is characterized in part by sets of expecta- tions, which its members come to incorporate in their personalities. In fact, when an individual acts in accordance with, or in Opposition to, the expectations of some other person or social group, his behavior is social. As long as an individual's expectations are realized, life goes along smoothly, and he feels more or less secure. But when expectations begin to be thwarted in considerable numbers over a considerable period of time, individuals become uncertain. Their morale may drOp if the uncertainty continues, and this will lead to decrease of productive efforts. In addition, personal conflicts will increase, and social tensions of all sorgs will be brought to the surface of community life". Significant others. The significant others of the teacher are considered in this study to be school adminis- , trators, school board members, and citizens. It is the VI primary purpose of this study to compare the beliefs of teachers as to their social behavior in certain Specific situations with the expectations of the significant others; also to compare the expectations as expressed in three different communities of various sizes. Out of such comparisons may come some identification of types of social behavior teachers should avoid in partic- ipating in present-day community life; some areas of doubt- ful behavior may turn out to be purely imaginary in teachers' minds with no real restriction existing in the 6Kurt Lewin Resolvin So ' ' ‘ : , g eial Conflicts New YOrk. Harper and Bros., 19 , p.110. , 12 community in those areas; communities of various sizes may prove to hold some expectations in common and to vary con- siderably in others--their degrees of liberality or restric- tiveness may point to a pattern for study whereby teachers /’ and communities could choose each other so as to avoid incompatibility through contrary expectations. IV. Definitions Social roie: "An organized pattern of expectancies that relate to the tasks, demeanors, values, and recip- rocal relationships to be maintained by persons occupy- ing specific membership positions and fulfilling desir- able functions in any group".7 Teachey: A person employed in a public school with responsibility for instructing pupils anywhere in grades kindergarten through twelve. Exp ctation: Anticipation by one person of another person 3 action. Teacher Belief: Haw a teacher believes he should act in a situation. Image: "the recall or revival of the representation of the perception some time after the originaging stimulus for the perception has disappeared". V. Summary This chapter has been devoted first to a description of the background and rationale for the study. Then the 7E. L. Hartley, and R. E. Hartley, Fundamentals of Social Psychology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 19'5’2, p.186. 8Kimball YOung, Social Psychology: Ag Anal sis g; Socigi Behavior, New YOrk: F. S. Crofts & Co., 1935, pp. th-S. statement of the problem and the basic hypothesis were followed by a discussion of how society views the teacher's role in the community and how confused and complicated the situation has been in the past. The importance of the study was discussed, then concluding the chapter were the list of definitions and the chapter summary. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE I. Background for the Study Rgie,§hegyy. To understand the meaning of the word "role" as used in sociological research, one must narrow its common usage in connection with the word "status" down to a pattern of personal behavior of an individual or an "actOr" as he fulfills a certain position in society. Under inves— tigation in this study were the role expectations which certain groups in the school and community would hold for any actor assuming the position of teacher in grades kindergarten through twelve. The groups whose expectations were measured were public school teachers, school adminis- trators, school board members, and parents. The particular role under investigation was primarily the role of the teacher in the community, outside the classroom, with a few scattered questions overlapping into school activities and the classroom. Areas of conflict and agreement were identified and degrees of convergence and divergence noted between the teachers' definition of their role and the other groups' expectations of the teacher role in the community. The three communities were also compared as to relative liberal- ity or restrictiveness of attitude toward the teacher's role in the community. - For a general analysis and interpretation of role theory, some paraphrased material developed by Brookoverl is basic. 1. Members of any group have general role expecta— tions of any person in a position in the group. A group's expectations of anyone in any public school teaching position might represent the first level of status expectations. 2. The second level of expectations might be those that a group holds for any actor in a particular posi- tion such as history teacher in X school. A different set of Specific expectations might apply to the botany teacher in X school. 3. The third level of expectations would be those that a group holds for a particular actor in a particu- lar position, such as Mary Jones, history teacher in X school. H. Each actor brings to each situation his exper- iences, needs and perceptions. In each new situation the actor's behavior is different than in previous ones and will depend on the desired ends he anticipates. 5. As the actor projects himself into a particular role, he sees his self-image or self-improvement as important to the fulfillment of the expectations of the group or groups which seem important to him. As he performs in the role, he will be redefining the role constantly and changing his behavior to fit the expec- tations of his significant others. Of special interest to this study are Brookover's remarks on incompatible or conflicting role expectations of school positions:2 They (numerous people) find ways of mediating the incompatibilities in the expectations of two or more groups, as they occupy a particular situation. They lWilbur B. Brookover, "Research on Teacher and Administrative Roles," Journal 9;.Educational Sociology, 29:3, September, 1955. 2Ibid., p. 7. 16 may have little self-involvement in one or the other of the group expectations and so disregard this to some extent. Some actors may also define the apparent incompatibilities as compatible. In other situations, they may shift rapidly from one role expectation to another, so that they succeed in achieving behavior acceptable in both. In many such situations American society rewards those persons who are able to mediate in an acceptable manner apparently incompatible roles. This is charac- teristic of successful administrators and many teachers. This study was concerned with some incompatible roles which are probably the most elusive of definition and the most subjective and non-rational in character. It sought to compare as a composite the individual teacher's defini- tion of his own role in the community with the definitions his significant others hold for that role, specifically his school administrators, school board members, and citizens. Further it sought to compare three communities of different size to see if there are certain expectations held universally, certain others held in varying degrees, and still others deemed important in one community and not in \ another. II. Related Studies Social role and personality. One of the first studies of teacher roles involving relation to the community was completed in 1932 by Waller.3 Based mostly on the author's 3viiiard Walle ' g2 ' ' v r, The §QClOlO of Teaching New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l932,pp. 38E: 82. , - l7 observation and understanding of teachers, it was a general description of role expectations held by students and the community for any teacher in any position. Neither actor nor position was particularized. He concluded that the discernible characteristics of the teacher's personality were (1) inflexibility of personality; (2) reserve, incom- plete participation in the social situation; (3) detachment, i.e., isolation, resulting from the barriers to communica- tion which prevent others from making contact; (h) dignity, consisting of abnormal concern with a restricted role and a restricted though well-defined status; (5) didactic and authoritative manner in the discussion of any tOpic; and (6) conservatism, if not primness, in speech and dress. In a national study involving 356 school board members, 9,122 teachers, and 1,363 college students prepar- h ing to be teachers, Greenhoe compiled some interesting information about the teacher's social role in the community. College student judgment, in approving of twenty-three items of teacher behavior, was most liberal; teacher judgment ranked second; and school board members ranked last, or most conservative. Some attitudes were so far apart that job—seeking students would have to modify many of their 1+Florence Greenhoe, Community Contacts and Partici- pation 9§_Teachers, Washington, D. C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 19h1. 18 attitudes or endanger their chances for employment as teachers. At that time (l9hl) teachers were clearly re- stricted regarding dancing, not attending church (women more than men), playing cards for money, playing pool or billiards, smoking (in private, some restriction, and more in public; also women much more than men), making a polit- ical Speech, running for political office, and worst of all, drinking alcoholic liquors and dating a student. Of the items disapproved by board members, some had teacher agreement (dating a student, drinking, political activity, smoking in public, not attending church); and some found teachers disagreeing with board members (playing cards, dancing, smoking in private, single teachers living in apartment). College students were, in general, most liberal of the three groups, although they did agree with board members more than teachers on disapproval of playing cards for money, living outside the community, political activity, playing pool or billiards, and women teaching after marriage. Questions on teacher participation showed that average teachers took part in four activities, but teachers as a group showed no substantial leadership in any type of organized community life other than church work, parent- teacher associations, Boy Scouts and Campfire Girls. The teacher was IN the community but not OF it. He was a stranger, detached, objective, not in the "we group". 19 He was somehow better than ordinary persons, yet his prestige could readily be overestimated. About half of the teachers in the study indicated that they conformed to the codes of behavior expected by the community, a few rebelled against them, and some attempted to educate the community toward more liberal points of view. Social maladjustment. In a 1938 reference to teacher- community relationships,.Cook, Almack and Greenhoe said: "It is no exaggeration to say that 50% of teachers' failures find their direct cause in social maladjustment to the community".5 Some excerpts from a teacher's personal history, as quoted from Cook and Cook6, will serve to exemplify the types of things which plagued a young teacher's life in the community as recently as about 1950: And then, at the end of the year, my contract was not renewed. There was no criticism of my teaching. "It was," said the superintendent, "quite satisfactory." But my personal conduct had been "bad", and he told of several "distressing incidents." One or two will illustrate, for they all involved my community relations. Feeling the need for regular exercise, I persuaded a farmer to rent me a saddle horse once a week. It was a gentle horse and old, and had gone "galloping madly" through the town, even endangering little children. 5Lloyd A. Cook, Ronald B. Almack and Florence Greenhoe, "Teacher and Community Relations," American Sociologigal Review, 3:171, April, 1938. 6920 Cite, Pp. 1+3l-,+o 2O Worse than that, I had ridden astride instead of "lady- like" (sidesaddle). Now Elmhurst was very broad-minded, a "most liberal town, Kiss Brown," but my conduct "was unbecoming to a teacher." Worse still was a near scandal. Liking to dance, I took every Opportunity to dance at parties and to go to such dances as were given. None of my dates except one was a good dancer, and we began to keep fairly steady company. Within a month, the superintendent called he in to talk this over. Imagine my surprise to hear that this young man was a "disreputable character." I had disgraced myself by being seen with him and my morals were "questionable." From the moment you set foot in town as a new teacher, you are a public personage. Everything you say and do is an item of news and gossip. An example comes to mind. In this town, I had come for an interview and had been riding the bus most of the morning. It was noon and I was hungry. There was only one restaurant and it was a sight to behold. Dishes and food were dirty and I said as much to the waitress, who in turn told the pr0prietor. Believe me, I felt sheepish when he turned up in the principal's office as a member of the board! . . . Landladies everywhere check your comings and goings and regale the neighbors with gossip. One landlady was the prize of them all. She invented more tales about me than I care to remember. I met them coming back to me from all sides. . . . Things are changing, but, oh, so slowly. Nost small- town teachers are still courting trouble to rouge their cheeks, use bright fingernail polish, do their hair in stylish ways, or wear ultramodish dresses. My skirts must not be too short, my blouses too clingy or colorful, my stockings too sheer. I must be conventional in my personal habits and discreet in my associations. Each morning I must have a cheerful "good morning" to every— one I meet, regardless of how I feel, and each evening a cheerful "good evening." ,And should I fail, I am stuck up, or not interested in the community, or some queer kind of person. As for dating, I dare not be seen with the wrong person or at the wrong places. Hebig's, where the high school crowd goes, is a wrong place, and so is the local tavern. Once I went to an adjacent city to a dance and the whole town knew it by the next day. But to return to dating, I keep a kind of "approved list." In the second town where I taught, the eligibles numbered six. Two were young farmers, another was a widower looking 21 for a housekeeper, a fourth was a rising young merchant, the fifth was a new minister, and the sixth has dropped out of mind completely. There were two men teachers, but I do not count them; they bored me as much as I bored them. No dating was allowed with students, one board ruling that has complete justification. . . . That particular town was a nightmare. If I bought my clothes in a near-by city, where one could get some selection of garments, I was charged with taking money out of the community. Owing to the chainstore scare, everybody was touchy on the "trade-at-home" issue. A teacher friend of mine bought a lowepriced car in her home town and, for all I know, she is still talked about. . . . I think I spoke about the pleasure I have always found in reading. I know now that the magazines I buy from the stand and the books I check out of the public library are likely to be watched. I remember once there was a point I wanted to check in Darwin's Origin g; Snegieg and I got a cepy. Chancing to meet the minister that following Sunday, he asked me how I liked the book and then told me that it was an attack on the Christian religion. He did not approve its reading. Owning a car creates a problem, yet it provides an escape from many of the conditions I have named. Two years ago at summer school, I began to smoke. Now I return to my room at noon for a cigarette or else take a drive in my car. My belief is that this will lead to no good end, and I guess I continue it as a symbol of freedom. . . . The worst thing about teaching is its insecurity. Today I have a job, tomorrow I may be unemployed. I may be discharged without a hearing, or with a mock hearing that is worse than none. If I fail to pay my debt to some local merchant, if I make a mistake in my personal conduct, if some home-town girl wants my job, if I go against some local prejudice, if my principal is too friendly, if I should join a teachers' union (we have none), then my fate is sealed. This story is, I know, very biased. ky only claim is that it is true. So far as the work goes, I like teach- ing. I like it better, perhaps, than anything else I could do. But on the social side, teaching leaves much to be desired. Why must we be paragons of old-fashioned virtues? Why can't we be let alone to lead a private life which is comparable to that of other professional women? If we are not mature, responsible persons, why 22 are the young entrusted to us? I no longer worry about all Of this as I did the first year but still, the reasons for it are not clear. Teaching, which should be a satisfying pursuit for any man or woman, remains for me less than a full-size, self-respecting kind of job. Lest someone think that small-town teachers were alone in having their difficulties in the community, reference to Cook and Cook7 who have paraphrased from the ketrOpOlitan School Study Council, New York, l9h7, reveals this picture: Big-city teachers, in a small checkup study, gave fairly conclusive evidence that their troubles--and they were not inconsequential--were mainly with the "thought police", rather than on personal conduct, pressure groups and special interests, Opinionated parents, biased school-board members, and school patrons who object to this and plug for that and chOp Off heads for behaviors that teachers assume as their right and privilege. Membership in a teachers' union, identification with a political party, active support of a controversial cause illustrate some of the many sensitive Spots in an urban teacher's life. . . . A good way to study conduct problems in any teacher group is to present a series Of multiple roles, for example, teacher-voter, which teachers are then asked to check as tolerated by the community, approved disap- proved and uncertain. The role, teacher-politician, meaning one who campaigns for a nonschool cause or a political candidate, found about a fifth of a Detroit urban sample claiming community toleration, an Opinion supported in part by their personal experiences. Start— ing with the role teacher-dance-band-leader and coming on down the list to teacher-bartender, the reSponse was almost uniformly negative. . . . Since politics is mentioned frequently in any discus- sion of the teacher's role in the community, as though teachers were anxious to dabble into political affairs, 7Cook and Cook, on. cit., p. 435. #— 23 here is the other side Of the argument as stated by Bereday: The primary concern Of the teachers should be to elevate education to a position Of a beacon guiding men safely through the darkened paths Of uncertainty. Its dignified role can best be safeguarded through immunity from assult. Such immunity can be won if teachers re- frain from political action while continuing to define with force and conviction the honorable principles Of such action. . . . the teacgers cannot afford the luxury of a political controversy. In his discussion Of teacher roles in the community, Brookover presented a comprehensive analysis of the situation: The activities in which the teacher may Openly and approvedly engage are frequently limited to school func- tions, church affairs, and the work Of certain other acceptable organizations. He is not expected to func- tion in political life or to associate freely with the other citizens in such social affairs as dancing, vis- iting, or attending clubs. . . . In most localities, a teacher's activity in the local political party or similar organization would certainly be interpreted as a cause for dismissal. . . . many women teachers would enjoy the intimate associa— tion Of bridge, sewing, study, church ladies' aid and similar groups which form the basis Of community identi— fication for women; yet they are rarely invited into such groups. When they are included, a special role sets them apart from the others. The meetings Of such groups are Often the stage for a discussion Of the teacher's personality, a critical reaction toward her social activities, and an evaluation of her ability.. The barriers are probably not so rigid for men who enter the community as teachers, but male teachers are rarely included in the card games, lodge groups, or hunting and fishing trips of nonteachers. If they are invited, it is usually with the thought that they ought to be included. Others fear the teacher will not fit in and will destroy the easy camaraderie of the group. 8George Z. F. Bereday "The Role of Teachers in Pol- itics," School and Society, 80:150-1, November 13, 195%. 24 As this barrier exists between the community and the teacher, it is not surprising that the feeling develOps that the teacher is not a human being and cannot be one. . . . At times, the distance between the teacher and others may be interpreted as a mark Of respect, character- ized by the feeling that the teacher is somewhat superior to the average citizen. At other times, the difference may result in an identification of teachers as incompe- tents and dOpes. They teach "because they are unable to do anything else."9 Brookover then cited several statements which "support the contention that the teaching profession is no longer re-r spected and that the teacher isseldom, if ever, accepted as a citizen of importance in community activities."10 The gen- eral pattern of exclusion from social groups was summarized as follows: The average citizen may reapect the teacher but has little contact.with him outside the school. He never sees the teacher in other activities exhibiting abil- ities other than those associated with teaching. The teacher is known simply as a teacher and is rarely permitted to assume another role. . . . 1 Special gode 91,behavior. host of the WTitGTS'On teacher role seem to agree that communities eXpect teachers to live according to a special code of behavior, including standards different from those used to judge most peOple in the.community. Items mentioned most frequently in the various studies and resented most bitterly by the nonconforming rebels have to do with dancing, smoking, drinking, playing cards, and 9Wilbur B Brookover A Sociolo of Education . o .. x , _ Lew Yerk: American Book Co., 1955, pp. 233 +1. , lOIbid., p. 2M2. 25 being required to attend church. To the casual Observer these may seem to be trivial matters Of little importance to the SUCCESS‘Of a professional teacher. However Brookover points out that the "belief that ability as a teacher is judged in terms of the degree to which the teacher accepts the code for- mulated by the community is well established. A positive correlation of .70 was found between the teacher's attendance at church and the hiring Official's rating of the teacher's ability."12 Fbr more examples of individual reports.of how teach- ers were restricted in their personal lives and social activi- ties in the community, see the results of a survey by Fine.13 Several surveys have shown that women teachers are judged by a more rigid special code than are men teachers. Greenhoe's11+ study showed that conduct approved for men teachers was less approved for women teachers, and conduct disapproved for men was more strongly disapproved for women. Recentliberalizatiop. Many writers have speculated that communities have become more liberal in recent years-- that the Special codes are being eased somewhat. Lichliter15 12Ipid., p. 2M5. l3Benjamine Fine, "Teacher Shortage Imperils School System," New m Times, Feb. 10, 191W, p. 20. Reprinted in The,C isis in,AmeriQan Education, New York: ygngOrk Times, 19 7, p. 22. l”Florence Greenhoe, pp, cit., p. 51. lSMary Lichliter, "Social Restrictions Placed on WOmen Teachers," Sghool Review 5h:lh-23, Jan. l9h6: same condensed, Education Digest, ll:3h-7, Karch, l #6. 26 made a study Of women teachers, mostly single, in small towns, mostly under three thousand population, with a range Of teach- ing experience of one to five years. She found the situation varied from town to town in the 232 communities in thirty- four states. About one-third were expected to attend church, 10 per cent to attend Sunday School, 9 per cent to teach Sunday School, 10 per cent to take part in other church af- fairs, one-third to take part in community affairs, and 67 per cent to take part in extra-curricular activities. About 61 per cent of the communities expected nothing in the way of church or community activities. As to restrictions on per- sonal habits and activities, they were found to be not so universal or extensive as was currently thought in l9h5. There were almost no restrictions on the use Of cosmetics, dancing, card playing, and spending the week and away from the community. In some communities, wearing of slacks, ankle socks, shorts,.and leg make-up was forbidden to teachers at all times, and 11 per cent were forbidden by "taste" from wearing certain types of dress. Dating was wholly accepted, but 53 per cent were expressly forbidden to date with students and only 3 per cent of the teachers objected. As to drinking, 55 per cent were forbidden, with only 12 per cent objecting. Only 38 per cent were forbidden to smoke, with only 2% per cent objecting. In many cases, public use was forbidden, while private use was tolerated. Only 15 per cent were for- bidden to marry, with 76 per cent objecting. There was a 27 general lack of restriction in the West, Middle Atlantic, and East Central states; 27 per cent of the communities had no restrictions:and another 5 per cent had only the marriage restriction. Some forbade late hours and participation in politics, especially in a minority party. War had brought a slackening of restrictions, according to 3k per cent of the teachers. Most teachers felt colleges should have prepared them for small-town mores, for the gossip and interest that center in the teacher in a community, and for the constant demands made on the teacher. Only 20 per cent thought their .college training did provide adequate preparation. There was frequent assertion that the teacher's present community was "more liberal than many." Where there were considerable restrictions, resentment was somewhat bitter. The major emphasis of this l9h5 study concerned the dividing line between those communities where teachers are treated as "human beings, are allowed to live a normal life and to be judges of their own conduct, and are credited with good sense enough to govern their own lives",16 and those where teachers are set apart as different from the towns- people, individuals who must always be the main source of gossip for the townspeOple. Student loyalty conflict. The reason often given by 1612! . 28 peOple for expecting teachers to live by a Special code is that teachers should set a good example for their students. Then when the parents do not follow that code themselves, children are torn between two loyalties, their parents and their substitute parents--the teachers serving ig_logo parentis. Unless the parents are extremely lax in fulfill- ing their responsibilities and in their personal behavior, the teachers are the ones whom the students label as peculiar and unnatural. As to enforcement of the code, Brookover stated: The special codes for teachers are enforced by both formal and informal means. The former include such devices as contract terms, administrative advice, and reprimands of various degrees. The ultimate technique, dismissal, is used freely. The latter generally take the form of rumor and gossip. . . . School administra- tors frequently report that the teachers' inability or refusal to understand and to adjust to the community's code for teachers is a major cause for dismissal. 7 Conformists and rebels. Teacher reactions to these codes usually divide the local faculty into two camps, the conformists and the rebels. The conformists are either local residents or peOple devoted to teaching who have internalized the community codes as their codes, without conflict. The rebels, criticized by both community and their conformist colleagues, suffer conflict and develOp hostility. As Brookover says: 17Brookover, op. cit., p. 2M6. 29 They talk a great deal about freedom and the right to live their own lives. The rebels generally have short teaching careers. Other teachers may seethe within, but they adjust their behavior to give an exter- nal appearance of conformity. They may take a long-range view and rationalize their conformity until {gs most opportune time to make a change in the code. A further complication in the whole picture of spec- ial codes for teachers is the fact that some teachers can violate the code to a certain degree with apparent immunity. The home-town teacher, because of his other previous and continuing roles in the community, may be able to ignore parts of the teacher code. Certain other teachers may occupy special roles because of extra Opportunities to become known to larger segments of the community. Typical examples, de- pending on the individual, his personality and talents, might be the athletic coach, the band director, the agriculture teacher in a farming area, the industrial arts teacher in an industrial area, an English teacher who gives book reviews, or any teacher who makes speeches, sings, or plays a musical instrument in public.\ In such cases, better acquaintance among more of the public usually brings more recognition, quicker acceptance by the community, quicker admission to one or more social groups, and release from some of the restric- tions of the teacher code, without regard to evaluation as to classroom performance. For a more thorough discussion of l8Ibid., p. aha. 30 the typical roles of "Special" teachers, see Brookover.l9 Returning now to the Special code ascribed to teach- ers in general, here is paraphrased, in brief, Brookover's2C description of the teachers' dilemma: 1. Teachers tend to associate socially with other teachers, but 2. kany would prefer to find friends in other groups, put 3. Efforts to do so cause the teacher's colleagues to criticize him, because . He is more likely to be accepted into nonteacher groups if he disregards the taboos on smoking, drinking, dating, etc., . and 5. His teacher colleagues, perhaps, fear that such behavior will reflect on the entire group, and thus 6. Decrease their own chances of entering the out- side society to which they aspire, begapg 7. They accept the community's Special code for teachers, even though it is Oppressive. Eg;g_gonflict. An investigation by Getzels and L//, Guba21 focused on teacher role expectations, the extent of conflict among them, and the differential effect of such conflict on the teachers. Questions under investigation were: What are the general expectations typically held for the teacher role? How do these expectations accord with the expectatiOns of other roles the teacher occupies? Hore especially, in what ways are the several sets of expecta- tions inconsistent? What is the effect of such inconsistency lgfbid., pp. 251-3. 2OIbid., pp. 259-260. 21J. w. Getzels and E. G. Guba, "Bole, Role Conflict, and Effectiveness: An INpirical Study," American Socio- logigal Review, 19:16%-l75, 195%. 31 on the teacher? What kinds of teachers are most liable to the pressures induced by role conflict in the teaching situation? The three major areas of conflict identified by the interviews were: (1) The Socio-economic Role, (2) The Citizen Role, and (3) The Expert or Professional Role. Under the grouping of Citizen Role appeared such items as more vigorous participation in church affairs than others, less vigor in political matters, apprOpriate behavior for teachers at all times, in other words a sort of second class citizenship with restricted degrees of freedom as a citizen. The findings of this study were presented under two headings, Situational Aspects and Personalistic ASpects. Under situational aspects were listed: situationally;ipgg— pendent conflict where almoSt all teachers in all schools agreed that the conflict described existed in their situa- tion, situationally variant conflict where the described , conflicts existed in all teaching situations but were sharply aggravated or alleviated by current community conditions, and situationally specific conflict where the conflicts were not generally prevalent except in some particular school or community. Under personalistic aspects appeared such conclusions as: male teachers are more trou- bled by conflict than female teachers, probably because it is usually thought of as a woman's profession and women expect more constraints anyway; teachers with one dependent 32 experience more conflict than single teachers or teachers higher on the salary schedule with several dependents; teachers who feel restricted in their social lives, who do not identify with the community, who have few friends in the community experience conflict; and teachers who would not again enter the teaching profession experience more conflict than those who would again choose to teach. This type of study of role and role conflict contrasts to that of Waller and Greenhoe in approaching the definition of role through the actor's personality, influenced by his self-involvement. Selfrinvolvement apg,§§;§}imagg, Washburne22 did some role research using as basic concepts the actor's self-involvement and self-image. He analyzed the factors involved in building up stress in the teaching position. The conflicting expectations held by colleagues, the organization, and the community for the actor's behavior and their effect on the actor's personality were studied. One of the most basic viewpoints in his study was taken from the works of Weber.23 The analysis he made, 22Chandler Washburne, "Involvement as a Basis for Stress Analysis," Ph.D. thesis, kichigan State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1953. 231-iax Weber, Theory 9f Social and Economic Organiza- tion, Iew YOrk, l9h7. 33 using Weber's theory, was this:2h Increasingly the social structure in the West is becoming rationalized and based upon rational-legal authority, of which the bureaucracy is the tool. This process is spreading slowly into most areas of life. As it Spreads, it creates conflict with other bases for social organization. This kind of process is in some ways related to the distinction5made by Toennies between Gemeinschaft and Gezellschaft.2 As this process Spreads into new areas, it produces a certain amount of confusion in the social relationships of the peOple involved in this area. The values, the basic goals, the means of achieving them, the relation between stations, the normative expectancies, the relation between the performance of duties and reward and punish- ment are all apt to become unclear until a new stabil- ization is reached. This kind of situation is now occuring in the field of education. . . . A scale was develOped to indicate the feeling of personal restriction that the actor felt due to occupy- ing the station. It was found that scores on this scale were inversely correlated to the religion scores on the Allport-Vernon Study of Values, and directly associated with the theoretical scores. It would seem that a high religious value indicates a willingness to accept the traditional mores; and consequently, these actors do not experience a sense of restriction. It is possible that actor stress in relation to restriction could be pre- dicted, utilizing these two measures. Such a prediction could be of use in placing teachers. In deveIOping his analysis of stress, Washburne26 2’+Washburne, g9, §_i_1;., pp. 170-1. 25Ferdinand Toennies, Fundamental Concepts 9; Sogiolggy (Gemeinschaft gag Gezellschaft), translated by C. P. Loomis, New York: American Book Company, 19HO. pp. 225 and 2%? ff; and Charles P. Loomis, J. Allan Beagle, RuraéBSocia Systems, New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1950. pin 5:5- 26VJaShburne, £232.. Cite, LI). 76"8A'o A 3% showed how Weber'527 concepts of legitimacy and authority explain why a teacher feels he "should" act in certain ways because of tradition, or rational belief, or legal basis, and how teachers develop in teacher-training institutions belief in certain absolute values as the "moral obligations" to students, community or society. Then these beliefs, based on tradition conflict with other beliefs he holds, based on rational and legal bases. Restrictedness. Washburne's comments on restricted- ness tie the above paragraph in with the matter of stress in the teacher's social role:28 Restrictedness which arises in holding a given station is an index to certain actor-perceived relations to authority (or legitimate order). The feeling of being restricted can arise when one is compelled (or feels one is compelled) to behave in a manner not com- pletely acceptable to oneself. This would also include what he perceives as undesirable types of interpersonal relations with the community or larger society. Re- strictedness can be a measure of the stress involved for the actor in adjusting himself to what he perceives as the demands of the station upon him. . . . The connection between restriction and religious attitude was summarized as follows:29 The indication is that a feeling of restriction is inversely related to the degree of religious value. One explanation is that a higher religious score indi- cates a high degree of acceptance of traditional and 27Weber, pp, cit., pp. 12u—132. 28Washburne, 9p, cit., p. 99. 29Ibid., p. 1C7. 35 legal orders as legitimate and binding upon the actor. Therefore, the actor experiences less feeling of res- triction in occupying the station. The feeling of restriction thus seems related to the kind of values that the actor holds. The dilemma of the teacher was well-described by Washburne in terms of his analysis:3O . . .He is caught between the structural demands of bureaucratic organization, the traditional demands of the community, and a series of "ideal" demands associa- ted with the profession. This kind of confusing Situ- ation, "lack of a cognitively clear structure", can have at least four consequences: (1) random behavior, (2) rigid or routine behavior, (3) withdrawal from the situation physically or psychologically, (h) a wide discrepancy between verbal expression and action. A fifth response is to concentrate upon those things that are clear. Wages, hours, and conditions of labor are goals which are becoming clearer to teachers as are the means of achieving them. They are increasingly mobil- izing power to reach these goals and to clarify their position in this area. The important inverse relation between teacher stress and religious attitude mentioned above by Washburne agreed with Cook's3l prior report that teachers' membership in re- ligious groups stands out, with 80 per cent belonging to some religious group and holding offices, performing the previous role without much power or recognition. Another study dealing with teachers' conflicts, stresses and strains is the one Gordon32 did on teacher 301bid., p. 118. 31Lloyd Cook, "Community Contacts of 9,122 Teachers," Social Forces, 19:68, October, l9hO. 320. Wayne Gordon, "The Social System of a High School," Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Washington University, 36 roles within the social structure of the high school. This study was concerned entirely with teacher-student relations as affected by the formal organization, the system of extra- curricular activities, and the informal organization. Unsolved status. Teacher definition of the commu- nity's expectations of the occupational roles of the teacher were studied by Terrien,33 who found that the teachers' role was quite well established but that their status, or posi- tion with relation to the total of society, remained unsolved. He reported on the 1950 study as follows: The status of teachers is somewhere on a continuum. At one end they are the cultural surrogates, and as such, have "power" in the primitive sense of the word. They Operate in the realm of thought, where they cannot be controlled--hence they are to be suSpected and feared. At the other end of the continuum they are the housewives of the culture-~the ones concerned with main- tenance and continuity, and hence the conservators. They have the role often assigned in primitive societies to old men, the aged and the infirm--that of trainers of children. But most of all, they are sanctioning agents for the young the guardians of morals, Egg arbiterg of gondugt underlining not in the original], and it is in this status that they are remembered by all adults from their own childhood. In truth, teachers constitute a kind of conscience in societ [underlining not in the originali, and their status is that of the conscience-~recognized as fundamentally important, but neglected as much as possible. . . .teachers conceive of themselves as loyal, non- aggressive, somewhat martyred public servants. . . . 33Frederic W. Terrien, "The Behavior System and Occu- pational Type Associated with Teaching." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University Library, 1950. 37 they lack a really positive conception of self.31+ The underlined portions of the above quotation indi- cate the sorts of teacher roles which become involved in the teacher's social activities in the community and cause feel- ings of stress and restrictedness in his attempt to act like other ordinary citizens. Commenting on restrictedness experienced by teachers, Erinkman said: "Teachers, however, are restricted on the one hand by the community tabus and by limited income on the other".35 Analyzing reSponses of teachers who had changed posi- tions, Cook and Cook said:36 ". . .Less than a tenth reported an unsatisfactory community life as a direct cause of their change in teaching position, although at least half gave evidence that it was a factor in their better location." Commppity pyegsures. In a discussion of community pressures on teachers, Cook and Cook reported:37 In interviews and life-history materials, teachers made frequent references to "pressures" placed on them to join community clubs, support local causes, and 3nFrederic W. Terrien, "The Occupational Roles of Teachers " The Journal pf Educational Sociology 29:20 September, 1955. - ’ ’ 35A. R. Brinkman, "Why I hay Not Return to Teaching," Edugation Digest, 11 No. M:H7, December, l9h5. 36Cook and Cook, 2p. g;3., p. #39. 37Ibid., p. ##6. 38 refrain from taking part in various groups and movements. Of the 2,870 Ohio teachers canvassed on this point, 2h.9 per cent listed such controls over their out-of-school life. This percentage varied little for rural and urban areas, for sex or income, but age and grade appeared to be significant differentials. Younger teachers, espec— ially those under 25 years of age, reported pressures with greater frequency than those over 45, and high- school teachers with greater frequency than those in the grades. . . . ~For teacher reactions to community controls the same study of ten years ago reported:38 . . .The most significant fact is the high percentage of teachers who frankly report an acceptance of commun- ity control over their out-of-school conduct. Elemen- tary teachers are more inclined to accept such regula- tion than high-school teachers, women more than men. Knowing what this often means in concrete reality, one may hazard the conclusion that no other basic profession, except the ministry, is so beholden to traditional conceptions of role and function as are the nation's teachers. Convergence and divergence. In studying the adminis- trative role, Bidwell concentrated on defining teachers' role expectations and perceptions of administrative behavior as they are related to teacher security in the position.39 He found that convergence of teachers' role-expectations toward the administrator and their perceptions of his behavior was accompanied by teacher satisfaction with the teaching situation; divergence between them was accompanied 3819id., p. 4H8. 39Charles L. Bidwell, "The Administrative Role and Satisfaction in Teaching," Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1955. Also see Thngournal 9; Educational Sociol- ggy, 29:hl-#7, September, 1955. 39 by dissatisfaction; and the level of teacher satisfaction depends on convergence or divergence of expectations and perceptions and not on the nature of the expectations. In reviewing research on teacher roles Brookover observed:1+0 The assumption is commonly made that a divergence between teachers' behavior and the parents' and admin- istrators' expectations is related to teaching effec- tiveness. At least board members, administrators, and community groups frequently justify dismissal of teach- ers for failure to behave in the expected manner. Such teachers are no doubt ineffective in learning to behave as the others expect them to, but it may not follow that they are ineffective in teaching youth the accepted types of behavior. A recent study by Doyle”l sought to determine degrees and types of convergence and divergence in the professional role expectations of female elementary teachers. He identi- fied four combinations.of convergent and divergent patterns when cbmparing teacher beliefs with teacher definitions of \ others' expectations and with others' actual expectations. \ The teachers in the study seemed to be traditionally orien- ted, to desire security, not adventure,’and~to define their professional roles in a much narrower and more restricted way than did administrators, school board members, and parents, who were actually "willing for teachers to assume “0w. B. Brookover, "Research on Teacher and Adminis— trative Roles," 92, cit., pp. ll-l2. LEI-Louis A. Doyle, "A Study of the Expectations Which Elementary Teachers,.Administrators, School Board Members, and Parents Have of the Elementary Teachers“ Roles," Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1956. he more dynamic roles instead of the stereotyped traditional role.“+2 Among the unexpected findings listed by Doyle were two which may be pertinent to this study of social role: 1. Parents thought the teacher job could be limited to a definite number of hours per day, not usingcweek- ends for meetings and conferences. . . .teachers should have the same freedom others do in non-working hours. . . . 3. Parents and school board members thought teachers should assume a Egre active role in community-school _/relations. . . . Among Doyle's recommendations was one that teacher- training programs be modified "to prepare prospective teach- ers for problems involved in maintaining a pbsitive self— , image in the face of commonly held stereotypes, to adapt to conflicting,expectations, and still maintain acceptable personality traits."l+l+ This leads on to consideration of the research, opin- ions and writings on teacher images and stereotypes. Teacher imageg and stereotype . Brookover devoted a chapter to teacher roles and teacher personality in which he discussed images, stereotypes, the teacher personality type, stress in the teaching position and maladjustments among teachers.45 He cited-many research studies and writings, “231%., p. 158. ”3111141., pp. 158—9. “Albig,, p. 162.. 55w. B. Brookover, op. oit., Ch. l0. #1 some of which are especially germane to the study of the teacher's social role in the community. A few of the latter are quoted in the paragraphs following. A teacher in a small Middle West town, wrote in 1933, anonymously, told of the invisible wall of reserve which automatically rises between a new acquaintance and her when ' she confesses to being a teacher. "I am no longer a human being to you, a person who sees, hears, loves, hates, thinks, hopes, and fears. Instead I become a dull person, uninteresting person, a paragon of virtue, a member of the third sex; in short--a school teacher."1+6 An experienced.teacher-boarding house Operator com- piled a list of observations about office girls and female teachers for Brookover.“7 Among the observations about the teachers were: worked at home a great deal; made clothes last; very conservative dressers; very critical of others; only boy friends of refined status; accepted dates cautious- ly; had only teacher friends; used make—up very moderately; left town for amusements; did not discuss them. l~1cGrillh8 tested recognition of teacher stereotypes through photographs and found that teachers were believed to 1+6M Schoolteacher Talks Back," Aaszieen.fl2222£z, 35:286, 1933- ”7w. B. Brookover, on. gi§., pp. 26H—5. * “BKenneth McGill "The Schoolteacher Stereotypes," Journal Q§_Educational Sociology, 9:6h2-65l, 1931. 1+2 have stern, dignified, firm, reserved, determined, set, and stony facial expressions, as of three decades ago. In his discussion of role taking and personality develOpment, Brookover wrote: . . . .the definition of the teacher role grows out of the expectations of both the teacher and the other actors in the situation.e/Through interaction or commun— ication, the roles are defined in the minds of persons on both sides of the association. Such roles become stabilized forms of behavior and characterize both the teacher's self-image and the images which others have of him in this situation. This self-image and the other images of the person in turn affect his position 8r status in the group and its expectations of him.)+ .l ~ As an illustration of how a teacher's personality is affected by and emerges out of social interaction, here are some paraphrased excerpts from a fictional teacher's life history in a radio drama of l9h7:50 A woman teacher visits an old friend, her family doctor. She is delighted to be called 'Edith" and "child" again. She tells the doctor how her romance with Jack Crawford broke up ten years ago, during her first year of teaching. One evening in a coffee shop with Jack after a movie she feels restrained about smoking a cigarette in public. Jack finally coaxes her into smoking one. An older teacher, Mrs. Ross, comes past, criticizes Edith for smoking, tells her that parents of her students believe that a teacher should set an example that smoking is considered an undesir- able habit, and points out that "being out at all hours with young men.may not be the ideal way to prepare for the next day Spent with young, impressionable minds." Edith asks Jack to take her home despite his protests \\ \‘ “9w. B. Brookover, op, cit., p. 267. 5OSchoolteacher--l9h7, "The Portrait," mimeographed script of broadcast, American Broadcasting Company, Feb. 16, l9h7, pp. h-22, passim. Quoted in W. B. Brookover, 9p.‘g;§., 1+3 that Mrs. Ross is obviously mad. She accepted Mrs. Boss's standards and gave up smoking but continued to go out with Jack. Teasing remarks by others, sometimes serious, made her become increasingly tense. These remarks put her on guard-- made her feel guilty for behaving normally. One evening at a party Jack asks her to go dancing with a crowd at Nick's. She starts to accept when Ruth interrupts to urge Jack to hurry and belittles the idea of taking Edith along, suggests she probably has to go home and correct papers. Edith accepted the role of a teacher who might put a damper on festivities and Jack accepted dismissal from her. She was never invited to parties again. Her social activities became confined to general community functions. She accepted the commun- ity's view of her position. Jack tried to reason with her. She tried to explain. Neither one was successful. The doctor mentions her profession and she decries the teacher's lack of prestige, self-respect, and honor and tells him she is going to resign. She is afraid of what remaining a teacher will do to her. She wonders why teachers submit to being "old maids" or "tough battle-axes", or allow themselves to be pitied. She concludes that teaching is no longer an honorable pro- fession-it gives no reward either in the personal or the professional life. So she is getting out to stay. The above may be thought to be unscientific evidence since it is fictional. waever a radio drama of this nature probably reflects public images and stereotypes of the teacher. An experienced teacher reading the script can not help but visualize comparable situations in his or her own past, although the situation today may be improved. An attempt to determine an image of the typical l9h9 school teacher was conducted by Rogers.51 A list of twenty- one.adjectives was given to thirty-four elementary teachers 51Dorothy-Rogers, "Implications of Views Concerning the 'Typical' School Teacher," Journal g§_Educational Sociology, 23:h82-H87, April, 1950. MM and eighty-three college freshman future teachers. They were instructed to underline any of the adjectives that the public might use in describing the typical school teacher. Teachers and students agreed very closely in the first eight rankings that teachers are of average intelligence, conven- tional, self-reliant, bossy, cheerful, unselfish, dull, and dictatorial. They also agreed in the last five rankings that teachers are not very daring, brilliant, unconventional, cowardly or selfish. They also agreed on a mid-way ranking that teacherS-are humble. Interesting areas of disagreement showed up in the middle of the listings as teachers rated themselves more snobbish, more gloomy, more courageous, sadder (and lesshappy), less interesting, and less goody- goody than the college students did. Rogers' comments on this rather unflattering picture are paraphrased below: Average intelligence-~Average IQ is well above average. Conventional--By desire or restraint by the mores of the community? Cheerfulness--Part of stocks in trade, not very deep. Bossy, dictatorial--Unti1 recent years, associated with stern discipline. Egg cowardly or daring--Middle of the road type. Will the public vote for an ex-teacher to hold office? Frequently not because teachers are deemed more visionary than practical, more plodding than brilliant. Will the public pay school teachers in accord with their training? No, not as long as teachers are willing to give of their best for so little. Teachers are "un- selfish". Does a teacher's self-respect, as well as his pay check, suffer from the public's Opinion of him? Very likely. We tend to see ourselves as others see us. #5 Experience with and impressions of a group help form generalized Opinions. The brilliant individualist tends to shy away from teaching. The present stereotype adjusts to the humdrum colorless small-town life. A non-agressive personality is easier on children than a dominant type would be. Whether teachers should be changed depends on phil- OSOphy. The conventional, middle of the road individual is best to pass on the village mores, without internal conflict. If teachers are to be leaders of a dynamic civiliza- tion as some modern educational philOSOphers believe, a new type of teacher is needed, strong and fearless, with insight into evils and courage to attack them. If teachers are to treat students as individuals, they themselves must be treated as individuals and existing stereotypes in the public mind must be broken down. A considerably different Opinion is expressed by Evans52 concerning the teacher stereotype of 1951: Today, the caricatured teacher, hair stretched back, unbecoming glasses, long skirts, and a general air of "know it all" has disappeared from the scene to be re- placed by a well-dressed pleasant individual who has many broad interests and is ready to live. . . . Some support of a changing public attitude toward teachers may be reflected in a teacher survey conducted by Story53 in which 52.6% of the teachers agreed that "standards of behavior expected of teachers by administration should not be stricter than those expected by society of any average citizen" while only 26.h% felt that the school systems in which they taught agreed with this. 52Ernest1’ne Evans, "You DO What You Want t0 DO," Education, 72:93-7, October, 1951. 53M. L. Story, "Public Attitude is Changing Toward tn; Teacher's Personal Freedom," Nation'g Schools, h5:69-70, 19 O. M6 Concern over public attitude toward teachers was ex- pressed by Wilson5Lt in the following excerpts from a 195k magazine article: The first and most important step (to make teaching attractive to fine peOple with fine talents) is to raise the prestige of the profession. . . .A traveling teacher is overjoyed if no one guesses her to be a teacher! The "schoolma'am" of comic-valentine smear is the mental picture impressed in the national mind. Teaching is at its lowest ebb in our country. . . .YOu and I can raise it by honoring og;_teachers. Needs What YOu Can Do 1. Social . . .Have a tea. . . .Provide Recognition §ocia1 contacts for them. . . . Establish a Teachers' Day. 2. Public Honor Arrange for teachers to have special courtesies and privileges (and dis- counts). Wherever possible, give them.f1y§t,position in your town. Require children to stand when they enter a room. 3. Moral Backing Never criticize a teacher before a pupil. Befriend your present teacher. . . .They will work hard for further qualification if you show them reSpect. . . . Despite the above indications of improving public attitudes toward teachers and stereotypes of teachers, some .writers have felt that in the practical situation the educa- tional profession hasn't actually advanced very far. Ana- lyzing recruitment policy, Alilunas came to a 19H5 conclu- sion that there is a "widespread demand for teachers who (1) are cheap, (2) maintain discipline, (3) are submissive, 5hhargery Wilson, "Honor Our Teachers," Ladies' Home Journal, 71:56 October, 195%. 1+7 (H) are socially dull.“55 The study by Washburnes6 used the hypothesis that "the bureaucracy may very often demand and reward a different kind of station holder with different involvements than might be considered ideal by others." There was divided opinion as to where responsibility lies for undesirable community attitudes toward teachers, whether with teachers themselves or with communities. _Evans said: Communities differ in their attitude toward teachers. In some, the teachers are turned to for educated leader- ship, in others, the teachers are left outside the inner circle of community life. Blame for this should not be placed upon the community alone for often part of it is due to the teacher's attitude.5 The case for blaming agencies and groups other than teachers was stated as follows in 1950: The timidity, subservience, and seeming lack of interest in community affairs-~the public calls it snobbishness, aloofness, or not being "regular guys"-- is largely the result of actions of legislatures, boards of education, and community groups, which, through restrictive legislation and social and economic discrim- ination, ggve forced teachers to function as second class citizens. For a better understanding of the background behind these 55Leo Alilunas, "Needed Research in the Teaching of ieflgal Hygiene," Jouynal of Educational Research, 38: 356 9 56c. Washburne, 9g. 91 ., p. 119. 57Ernestine Evans, _p. cit. p. 96. 58% Wblig Relations_for America' s Schools, Twenty-eighth Yearbook, American Association— of School Administrators, Na- tional Education Association, Washington, D. C., 1950, p. 159. 1+8 two points of View, the reader is invited to review the role of the teacher as a "stranger” in the community. The gtranger. Many writers have expressed and reaf- firmed the point that the teacher is basically a stranger in the community—-that he is inithe local culture but not pf it. One example from the abundant sociological literature on "the stranger" is Wood's study published in 193h.59 Other professional peOple can come into a community as strangers and be accepted shortly as permanent residents, but the teacher is often thought of as a wanderer who will stay for a while and then move on to a better position or, in the case of a woman, to be with her husband when he locates elsewhere. Cook and Cook wrote in 1950: Not being a native, a "landowner," or bearer of local customs, he is detached from the values that bind others. He is, in sum, an individual without a known history. He is an outsider seeking group tolggation, acceptance, and perhaps intimate association. The effects of the stranger or wanderer aspect of the teach- ing profession may be diminishing in some communities as the general pOpulation becomes more mobile in its living habits. In other communities mobility of pOpulation is restricted to repeated turn-over in certain positions while the established power structure remains relatively stable; in such 59Margaret E. Wood. The Stran er: A Stud in Social Relationship, New York: Columb a. niversity ress, 193?. 60000}; and Cook, 93. git.., p. L+51. t9 communities, traditional attitudes toward teachers may remain unaffected by increasing pOpulation mobility trends. The reasons for community concern about teachers and the methods used in judging teachers even as recently as 1950 were described by Cook and Cook as follows: . . .They (teachers) differ in every conceivable way, a fact of great concern to the community in which they find employment. What makes this concern so compulsive is that teachers touch community life at its most sensi- tive point, its children, for if children are not proces- sed in the old ways then community existence is felt to be endangered. Knowing the teacher's potentials for influencing the young in varied directions, the community views its incoming school folk with mixed feelings. What kind of a person is this newcomer, this stranger in our midst? Where did he come from? What does he believe? Where is he heading? Is he a fit guide for our children? Faced with the task of judging a newcomer's worth, assessment is made, not on technical items as a bookish person might expect, but on practical matters, matters on which judges have had experience and feel competent to pass. Reasoning is simple. If a person can do so- and-so, if what he says makes sense, if he knows and believes what "common folk" believe, then it seems clear that he can teach school. He is a fit guide for children, a rightful candidate for membership in the adult commun- ity group. Even among SOphisticated peOple, this is still the crucial test set for an incoming school head or teacher, the way the public accords him the status, the faith, and confidgnce on which his success in the long run will depend. 1 The next to last sentence in the above quotation brings to mind again the basic dilemma facing teachers trying to act their expected social role, i. e., how to act like a normal adult in the community and, at the same time, be a fit guide for children, when many adults behave in ways 61000k and Cook, 9p, cit., pp. h51-2. 50 which they or other adults do not wish their children to imitate. Should a teacher be a "regular guy" and swear, joke, smoke, drink, and play poker with men of the community, or should he be a model for their children as he teaches them the evils of smoking, drinking, and gambling, as re- quired by law and/or custom in various states? If he tries to do both, his conscience suffers under the burden of such hypocrisy and he finds himself telling children they shouldn't do things which they observe their own parents doing. The children then find themselves torn between loyalty to parents and loyalty to teachers. Changing pgtterns and gonfugion. It is interesting to speculate on the extent to which this picture may have changed in recent years. Consider briefly, for example, how the mores and customs of the American people in general have changed during the past forty years. Cigarette-smoking by men increased tremendously during World War I, but was still forbidden to women and teen-agers. During the "Roaring Twenties" the cigarette was part of the stereotype of the flapper. It wasn't until sometime in the thirties or forties that magazine and newspaper ads became bold enough to picture women in cigarette ads, then women holding cigarettes and finally women actually smoking cigarettes. Laws are still on the books of most states forbidding the sale of cigarettes to teen-agers and most schools are still 51 fighting a seemingly hOpeless battle to keep teen-age smoking off school grounds and to teach, as required by state laws, the harmful effects of tobacco. A very similar change can be traced in the use and advertising of beer, wine and alcoholic liquors, except that the Prohibition Amendment made both illegal for all for several years, during which time many peOple ignored the law and supported "bootleggers" of illegal beverages. Now, it depends on which state, county, township or city a person is in, as to whether it is legal or prOper to drink an alcoholic beverage. Local option, however, does not solve the problem for the teacher, since he is judged and criti- cized by prohibitionists and teetotalers, conservatives and liberals, Catholics, Baptists, and Presbyterians, old— fashioned people and SOphisticated peOple. With which groups should the teacher identify himself and which groups can he risk offending? One can easily recall communities of varying degrees of conservativeness and liberality, as well as how some of them have changed over a period of years. As communities change, it is reasonable to expect that their attitudes toward teachers would change, too, although not as rapidly, since the teacher is still the "conscience" of the community and is expected, more or less, to "be an example" to the younger generation--out in public at least and probably justifiably so. The teacher's lot is bound to be a confusing and frustrating one until the 52 peOple in each community can make up their minds, collec- tively, as to what constitutes sin. huch of the teacher's social life seems to involve things which are or were at one time considered sinful by some percentage of the general populace. Some things have ceased being sinful in recent decades, such as the use of rouge and lipstick, bobbed hair, and sheer stockings. Others are taboo for most people, such as immorality, drunkenness, dope addiction, and large- scale gambling. Between these two extremes there is a wide area of indecision and doubt in peOple's minds concerning such things as social drinking, dancing, card-playing, small- scale gambling, smoking, and wearing of shorts. State laws make even bingo and turkey raffles illegal in kichigan while Nevada encourages everything from slot machines in groceries and drug stores to roulette, dice and cards for high stakes in luxurious gambling houses and hotels. Laws about drinking vary from state to state and city to city; in one place drinking must be done while seat- ed, in another, while standing; in some places drinking can be done only in private clubs and hotels, and in one state, drinking is illegal, yet the Federal government collects millions of dollars in tax revenue from illicit liquor sales there. Some churches approve dancing and raise much of their money for charitable work from bingo games, while other churches still consider these things sinful as well as school parties and even educational movies and television. 53 The sinfulness of card-playing seems to depend on a person's religion and whether money is involved, or even whether the bets are pennies, nickels and dimes, or dollars and five- dollar bets. When people, churches, cities and states can't agree on what constitutes acceptable behavior for peOple in general, how can teachers know what is expected of them? The same question probably applies to other strangers coming into a community as well as to teachers. Strangers have traditionally been looked upon with suspicion and doubt in most regions until they prove themselves acceptable to the community. This handicap on strangers may be expected to become less restrictive as higher percentages of the pOpu- lation become more mobile, and especially as suburban areas grow to accommodate increasing pOpulations. Perhaps some teachers, when confronted with such a confused situation of conglomerate expectations, prefer to withdraw somewhat and remain aloof from the community, associating only with others of their profession. It is widely believed that restrictions on teachers have been re- laxed by most communities during the decade of the "Fifties," perhaps to the point where they may now be no more demanding on teachers than on other professional and public peOple. Causative factors probably derive from World War II and the extreme shortage of teachers which has set school districts to bidding against each other for their services. 51+ To illustrate that a degree of confusion and conflict still existed between 1955 and 1960, some sample references are quoted next. From a study based on a limited sample of subjects representative of middle-class and upper-middle- class women citizens expressing their views as to women teachers' needs, Saltz62 reported in 1960: The picture that emerges is one of an ambitious, domineering, managing, fussy, tyrannical woman who has powers that enable her to see more of people's motives than they wish to reveal. She has few friends; she is not interested in people's problems; social mingling is not to her liking. When things go wrong, she rarely blames herself. ‘Set in her ways, bound up in routine, she hesitates to do the unconventional. . . . Such a domineering individual would quite likely be barred from such (social) activities lest her censure ruin the enjoyment of others. . . . True, this image exaggerated many needs the teachers actually had. But the picture was based on reality. As background for a study on teachers' social par- ticipation, Buck63 recalled that in the early days of our country the teacher was often the only one or one of the few in the community who possessed a good education. He was expected to lead, help, and participate in community matters. Now the teacher is only one of many educated people in the community. After seeking to determine if the teacher is 62J. W. Saltz, "Teacher Stereotype: Liability in Recruiting?" School Review, 68 No. 1:105-1ll, Spring, 1960. 63R. C. Buck, "Extent of Social Participation Among Public School Teachers," gpurnal QQIEducational Sociology, 33:311-319, April, 1960. 55 still expected to lead, and so forth, Buck reported in 1960 that: I . . . the public school teacher continues to be a person who is.expected to be active in the social life of the community beyond the school. . . . teacher remains a status position of significance in the value orientation of the community. . . . in only one instance, the very young in the profession, did the mean participation score fall below what might be considered to be expected of the local community leader. Reporting on a 1956 University of Oregon study of limited scope on restrictions on teacher behavior, Chilcotté,+ wrote that there has been much improvement during the past quarter-century, but restrictions still exist. In an Oregon town of twelve thousand population, thirty-one residents and twenty-five teachers were surveyed. A majority of residents expected teachers "to dress conservatively, attend church regularly, read more.than most other people, and be active in community youth groups such as the Boy Scouts. Teachers were not supposed to use profanity at any time, or tell 'risque' jokes." Other less rigid expectations were: no smoking around the school, use of alcoholic beverages, social dancing in "dives," participation in politics, or dating their stu- dents by unmarried teachers. There was some indication that 6%. H. Chilcott, "Community Restrictions on Teacher Behavior," Journal 9§_Educational Sociology, 33:336-338, March, 1960. 56 the behavior of the individual (resident) in the community dictated the expected behavior of the teacher. For the most part teachers expected the same behavior from their col- leagues as did the community. Teachers were especially incorrect in their perception of community expectations relating to smoking (community more permissive than ex- pected), drinking (community severely restrictive as to where teachers could drink), dancing (nobody in the commun- ity objected to teachers dancing), telling "risque" jokes (not approved by community), student-faculty dating (com- munity more permissive than expected), and participation in community youth groups (community eXpected more than teach- ers thought. Chilcott concluded finally: There is a growing tendency everywhere to treat the teacher as another normally acceptable citizen who has certain professional skills used in teaching. With the exception of a few communities a teacher no longer lives in a fishbowl. As long as a teacher manifests some fiiiciiiifidi‘; hi2 Sifiiiiv‘éfaffiiii‘iiiiiiiiofiiiivii’ié 3’5“ ’ o writings of others in the 1955 to 1960 period indi- cated a wide range of opinions on teacher role expectations and related topics. This study seeks to contribute useful data on Opinions of people in three Michigan communities to help determine if the picture has actually changed any in 6511mm ,’ p. 338. 57 recent years, as is suspected by many students of the subject. Chapter III follows, describing the scope, limitations and methods of procedure used. CHAPTER III SOURCES OF DATA AND METHODS OF PROCEDURE I. Sc0pe and Limitations This study attempted to identify the role expecta- tions which teachers, administrators, school board members and citizens have of the teacher's role in the community, mostly outside the classroom. The "teacher" was considered to refer to public school teachers of grades kindergarten through twelve. Comparisons were sought between groups and sub-groups and among three communities of varying size and type, both in the form of patterns of liberality and res- trictiveness and in the form of significant differences between groups in their reSponses to ninety-seven questions. Areas of conflict and agreement were to be identified and arranged by degree of seriousness and the ranking of the items in order of liberality-to-restrictiveness was to be compared with a similar study of l9hl. Certain variables were to be tested, such as length of service in the school system and total years of exper— ience for the teachers, occupation, education and family income for the citizens and, for all groups combined, age, sex, marital status, church attendance and others. The geographical areas covered were the three school districts centered around the southeastern Michigan communities of Clawson and Oxford in Oakland County and Almont in Lapeer County. The peOple of all three districts are predominantly Protestant and practically all-white, so the religion and race factors were almost non-existent as far as affecting the questions asked and the variables test- ed. All three districts were in the "poorer-than-average" category, having only $7,82h (Clawson), $8,H87 (Oxford) and $9,112 (AlmOnt), respectively, of state-equalized prOperty valuation behind each child in school, well below the average for the state, about $1H,OOO per child in 1959. The school district of the Clawson Public Schools coincides with the City of Clawson, a metrOpolitan suburb of Detroit, and covers an area of about two square miles. At the time of the survey in the spring of 1959 the general population was about lh,000 with about 3,087 children in the public schools and a faculty of 110 teachers and 10 admin- istrators, including all full-time and part-time principals. Some children attended parochial schools in or near Clawson. The adult citizens were mostly industrial and office workers living in modest-sized houses on small to medium sized city lots and working in auto plants, offices, factories and stores in Detroit and nearby suburban areas. The school district of Oxford Community Schools is a large consolidated district of about 8,500 residents with 75% of its pOpulation in the town of Oxford, 6% in the village of Leonard, 5% in the village of Thomas, M% in the 6O village of Lakeville and the remaining 11% scattered over a large rural farming area. At the time of the survey there were about 1,713 children in school with 60 teachers and 6 administrators. The adults comprised a heterogeneous group of farmers, merchants, professionals, industrial and office workers and other commuters working in Pontiac, Flint and the northern suburbs of metrOpolitan Detroit. The school district of Almont Community Schools is a large, consolidated rural district of forty-five square miles of area centered around the village of Almont in southern Lapeer County. About 50% of the population of the district is in the village and the remaining 50% is scattered over the countryside. Some fruit farming is done in the south- ern part of the district, muck farming in the north east and general and dairy farming in the rest of the district. The southern edge of the district is about 36 miles north of the center of Detroit, so some of the adults commute to work in industries in Pontiac, Flint, Mt. Clemens, and the northern suburbs of Detroit. There were about 770 children in the school system with 26 teachers and 2 administrators. The three districts were identified in the various tables in the study as Metropolitan Suburb (Clawson), Town- Rural (Oxford) and Village-Rural (Almont) for ease in generalizing findings and transfering implications to other districts of comparable types. Ninety-seven specific items of teacher behavior which 61 were believed to affect the teacher's role in the community and, to some extent, in school were studied- The items fell into categories such as residence requirements, supplemental school activities, politics, church responsibilities, dating, dancing,.smoking, drinking and other kinds of activities. The limitations within which the study was undertaken included the following: 1. Only three Michigan school districts were used, but they were chosen to represent three distinctively different sizes and types, a relatively small metrOpol- itan suburb of industrial and office workers a town- rural district of agricultural and industrial workers, and a village-rural agricultural district. Extreme care should be taken in any attempt to apply results and implications to other similar communities. 2. The sampling of citizens, although relatively small (150), was carefully chosen and was considered to be adequate for the purposes of the study. The admin- istrators and board members surveyed constituted total populations, while eighty-seven and one-half per cent of the teacher group were surveyed, almost all of that population. ' 3. The fact that all three districts were practically all-White and Protestant constitutes another limitation for purposes of adapting conclusions to other districts. H. The ninety-seven questions used were limited to items thought to be conflict items or sources of trouble for teachers, some questions where sex of the teacher might affect the answer, and some sets of questions covering a range from high to low degree of approval. 5. Use of a five-point scale of response was thought to yield sufficiently valid indexes of restriction and more nearly valid data than a simpler two- or three- point scale could have produced. With these limitations in mind, the next step is to describe the procedures and techniques used. II. Procedures and Techniques Used First the customary review of the literature was 62 carried out. The relatively small amount of previous research was studied as well as various articles expressing Opinions, thoughts and ideas related to the topic. The following steps were involved in the plan of the study: 1. Deve10p the check-list of items of teacher behav- ior in the community which might meet with a combination of approval and disapproval. 2. Test it on a group of teachers and administrators in a class for suggestions. 3. Revise it and test it on a sampling of teachers in a school system. h. Test it on a sampling of citizens in a nearby community. 5. Revise it. 6.. Administer the questionnaire to teachers in the population. 7. Administer the questionnaire to administrators in the population. 8. Administer the questionnaire to school board members in the population. 9. Interview a randomly-selected sample of parents in the pOpulation for completion of the questionnaire. 10. Compile the data. 11. Interpret the data. 12. Develop implications and recommendations. 13. Suggest areas for further possible research. The check-list used was developed over a period of several months of attendance in graduate courses and contact with numerous teachers and administrators. Items of teacher behavior believed to be almost universally approved by both teachers and the significant others were in general, omitted. Only items believed to be areas of possible disagreement were included and especially those involving local customs and mores which a cosmOpolitan-minded teacher might either unintentionally or deliberately offend. 63 The random sampling of fifty citizens per district was achieved in several ways. In the metropolitan suburb it was estimated that ninety-two per cent of the families had telephones, so the area telephone book was used to select, at random, forty-six citizens, half of them men and half women. Then two more men and two more women without tele— phones were found by driving around the district and search- ing for houses without telephone lead-indwires. In the town-rural and village-rural areas the pro- portions of population in various areas were estimated and a random selection obtained with the help of phone books in the town and villages and by random selection of sections, roads and houses in the rural areas. Rural sections were divided into numbered areas of one square mile each; numbered slips of paper drawn from a container determined the areas to be used. Roads and houses were chosen similarly. All fifteen board members in the three districts cooperated in completing the questionnaire and in approving of the use of their districts and the school employees in the study. It is hoped the reader will find parts of Chapters IV and V of more than passing interest, even though the analysis is somewhat technical and leans heavily on mathe- matical indexes and percentages. III II: I [II In I I CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA FOR BASIC COKPARISONS I. Presentation of the Data Three school districts of varying size and nature in Southeastern hichigan served as the source of data for the study. All teachers, male and female, of grades kindergar- ten through twelve were surveyed, as were all board members and all administrators. Random samplings of fifty citizens, half of them male and half female, were questioned in each of the three communities. It was hypothesized that, in the case of the teachers, some independent variables might be level of teaching (ele- mentary vs. secondary), years of local experience, years of total experience, number of systems worked in, and years expected to teach yet. In the case of the citizens, independent variables tested were occupation, teacher relatives or friends, length of residence, P.T.A. membership, education and size of family income. Independent variables tested for all groups combined were: marital status, parental status, children in school, age, church attendance, church membership and sex. The study was aimed Specifically at comparison of citizen, teacher, administrative and school board Opinions 65 as groups and at drawing comparisons of citizen Opinions among the three communities, as well as teacher Opinions similarly. The Opinions being compared were concerned with teacher role expectation as expressed by each group. Specific hypotheses to be tested were: 1. That teachers, administrators, board members and citizens have different Opinions on certain items Of teacher behavior, and similar Opinions on other items. 2. That the typical pattern Of restrictiveness is: board members, most restrictive; administrators, next; citizens, next and teachers, least restrictive. 3- That different communities have different Opinions on teacher behavior. h. That citizens and teachers in a metrOpolitan suburb tend to be more liberal (less restrictive) than those in a small town consolidated district, who, in turn, tend to be more liberal or less restrictive than those in a smaller village consolidated district. 5. That certain teacher behavior items are approved if done in private and disapproved (or approved to a lesser extent) if done in public. 6. That elementary teachers are more restrictive in attitude than secondary teachers. 7. That women are more restrictive than men. 8. That Older peOple are more restrictive than younger peOple. 9. That church members and/or attenders are more restrictive than non-church people. 10. That parents, particularly of children in school, are more restrictive than non-parents. 11. That higher-income peOple are less restrictive than lower-income people. 12. That P.T.A. members are less restrictive than non-members. 13. That better-educated people are less restrictive than less-educated people. 1%. That long-time residents are more restrictive than.newcomers. 15. That peOple with teacher relatives or friends are less restrictive than those not acquainted with teachers. 16. That teachers with longer experience are more restrictive than those with shorter experience. 17. That teachers with experience in several systems are less restrictive than those with experience in just i ll 4‘ I I'll '. ill llll Ill-I . one or two systems. 66 18. That teachers who expect to teach more years in the future are more restrictive than those who plan to cease teaching soon. Claspifications used. Table i shows the composition of the various groups questioned, teachers, administrators, school board members and citizens, in the three school districts surveyed. TABLE I CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL BOARD MENBEBS’AND CITIZENS ACCORDING TO TYPE OF DISTRICT Nb. Of 4N0. 6?; School School NO.'Of Type of Adminis- Board Citi- District NO. of Teachers trators Members zens Elem. Seg. Totals Metro. Suburb 6H + 3h = 98(56.3% 10 5 5C Town- Rural 29 + 2% = 53(3O.S%) 6 5 50 Village- Rural 1 +10 = 2 l .25) 2 _;5 C) 10+6=l7 ii? 15 lo (61%)+(39%)...(100%) a: The teachers who participated in the study (about 87%% Of that pOpulation) can be described as: 61% elemen- tary and 39% secondary; 56.3% metrOpOlitan suburban, 30.5% town-rural and 13.2% village-rural. All 18 administrators (including principals) and all 15 school board members were surveyed, along with a random sampling of 5C citizens from each school district. 67 It is shown in Table II that 58.5% or the teachers were relative newcomers to their school systems, having worked there only A years or less; 41.5% were non-strangers having worked locally 5 or more years. TABLE II CLASSIFICATION OF TEACHERS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE, YEARS OF TOTAL EXPERIENCE, NUMBER OF SCHOOL SYSTE-lS WORKED IN AND YEARS OF EXPECTED FUTURE SERVICE Years No. of Years No. Of NO. NO. Of Yrs. NO. of Local Tea- Total Tea- of Tea- Future Tea- $1222.13?” “Prev- 22;; Int—7- 3:25; i2?” O-A 1-2 103(60.3% 1-5 55(33-7%) fiéfi;_ 3+ 68(39.Z% 6+ 108(66.3%) o- tals 171(1oo% 170 (100% 171 (100% 163 (100%) As for years of total experience, 36.h% of the teach- ers were beginners with h years' experience or less, while .63.6% might be called career teachers with 5 years' or more experience. Division by number of school systems worked in showed that 6C.3% had worked in only one or two systems; the re ain- ing 39.7% had worked in three or more systems. Classification by years Of expected future service revealed that 33.7% expected to teach 5 more years or less; 66.3% expected to teach 6 or more additional years. Table III shows the classifications of the citizens by variables tested for that group. By occupation, 22% of TABLE III 68 CLASSIFICATION OF CITIZENS ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION, TEACHER RELATIVES OR FRIENDS, YEARS OF RESIDENCE IN THE DISTRICT, P.T.A- MEiBERSHIP, LAST GRADE 0F SCHOOLING COMPLETED AND AMOUNT OF FAUILY INCONE No. of Teacher No. of Yrs. of No. of Citi- Bel. or Citi- Resi— Citi— Occupation 4g§ps Friends zens 4ggpce zens Professional, Proprietary or 33 l or 91 C-h M2 Managerial (22%) more (61.9%) (28%) All others 117 None 56 5+ 108 (73%) (28.1%) (22%) Totals 150 lh7 150 (100%) (100%) (10o%) P.T.A. NO. of Last No. of No. of Member- Citi— Grade Citi- Family Citi- ship zens Completed zens Income zens Under Yes 32 h—ll 68 $6,000 82 (21-3%) (h5-3%) (SA-7%) No 118 12+ 82 Over 68 (78.7%) (5E.7% $6,000 (h5.3%) Totals 0 150 150 (100%) (100% (100%) 69 the citizens were in professional, prOprietary or managerial positions and 78% were grouped in the all others category. Citizens with teacher relatives or friends consti— stuted 61.9% as against 38.1% without teacher relatives or friends. When grouped by years of residence, 28% fell in the 0 to 4 years or new-comers group while 72% had lived in their district 5 or more years and could be called non- strangers. V Another variable used for citizens was Parent-Teacher Association membership, with 21.3% being members and 78.7% non-members. When classified according to education, there were H5.3% who had completed from H to 11 grades in school and 5H.7% who had graduated from high school or had gone beyond. Classification by family income showed 5h.7% with less than $6,000 income and h5.3% with over $6,000 income. Table IV shows the seven ways in which all groups combined were tested for patterns of differences. As to marital status, 13% were single compared to 87% in the non- single categories. Of those in the non-single groups, lh.5% had no children while 85.5% had one child or more. When the latter group was divided further, 37.6% of them had no children in school; 62.h% did have children in school. Division by age showed 51.5% between 21 and #0 years of age and h8.5% who were H1 or over. Next variable tested was regular church a tendance, TABLE IV 70 CLASSIFICATION OF ALL GROUPS COMBINED (TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS) ACCORDING TO MARITAL STATUS CHILDREN IN SCHOOL OR NOT, AGE, CHURCH ATTENDANCE, CHURCH MEMBERSHIP AND SEX PARENTAL STATUS, ' Marital Parental Children Spatus. NO. Status No. in school No. Single #1 No ##68 None 101 (13%) Children (1h.5%) (37.6%) Non- Children 270 1 or 16 Sin 1e (85.5 more (62.3%) TofgIs 316’ 270 (100%) (100%) Church Church fl '"' Attend- Member- éIEhO §nce Na. ship Ng, Sex NO. 1 es 2 3 Yes 2 3 Male 157 (68. %) (71.7%) ( %) H1+ NO ( 110 ) NO ( $00 Female(%27 3 . 2 . T0t31$ 3 3 3 3 3 (100%) (100%) F100%) g 71 68.9%, compared to non-attendance, 31.1%. Very similar in composition were the groups of church members, 71.7%, and non—members, 28.3%. Last variable used was sex, with MH% males and 56% females. The predominately female elementary teacher group was almost evenly balanced by the all-male school boards and the men in the administrative and secondary groups. The citizens were chosen in a fifty-fifty proportion of males and females. Qpestions peed, Listed in Appendix B are brief forms Of ninety-seven questions used in the study. In questions 1-53 and 91-97, all respondents were asked to indi- cate one out Of five answers showing strong approval, mild approval, indifference, mild disapproval or strong disap- proval. In questions 5h-90, which dealt with requirements, regulations, restrictions, things teachers should do or Should avoid doing, the responses requested fitted into a slightly different pattern Of definitely yes, probably yes, indifferent, probably no and definitely no. The scale of "freedom Of teacher action" to "restriction" is reversed in questions Sh-90, with a "yes" answer there indicating a restriction or requirement and a "no" answer indicating freedom from a restriction or requirement. These answers were reversed in Table V and all tables thereafter so that all positive indexes indicate approval of behavior items or 72 freedom from restriction or liberality while all negative indexes refer to disapproval Of behavior items, restrictive attitude or conservatism. The questions were developed over a period Of more than three years and were pre—tested in several graduate courses and on teachers and citizens in two school districts other than the three finally surveyed. They were designed to identify and explore Opinions in the "border" areas, the areas where teachers stumble unsuSpectingly into trouble, the areas Of conflicting Opinions between teachers and their emoloyers, i.e., the administrators, board members and citizens. The tOpics probed were concerned with politics (ac- tivity in and teaching Of), church, clothes, personality, general behavior in the community, leisure-time activities many of which used to or still do border on being sinful (drinking, smoking, card-playing), living and trading in the district, and others. Men teachers and women teachers were singled out for separate consideration only on those items which common sense or other studies or the pre-testing seemed to indi- cate might evoke different reSponses from peOple. Indexes 9; Opinion. Table V lists the questions in their original order, with answers converted to "net indexes of restrictive Opinion" so that the reSponses of the four 73 TABLE v RESPONSES OF TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF THREE DISTRICTS INDICATING OPINIONS RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE ON TEACHER FREEDOM OF ACTION, ACCORDING TO THOSE CATEGORIES AND USING INDEXES OF NET APPROVAL AND DISAPPROVAL OR RESTRICTION Net indexes range from 2.00C= strong freedom from restriction NET INDEXES GP to -2.000=strong restriction. RESTRICTIVE OPINION (Explanation at end Of table) Teach- Bd. Citi- BEHAVIOR ITEQS ers Admin. Nemb. zens l. Owning a car..... .......... 1.822 1.721 1.733 1.855 2. Owning a late-model Cadillac or Lincoln........ 0.392 0.333 -C.h66 0.213 3. Living outside the school district.. .............. ... 0.845 0.167 —0.200 0.613 M. Women, living in apart- ments without chaperones... 1.21% 1.000 0.267 1.007 5. Leaving the community most week-ends...... ..... ....... 0.775 0.056 -0.200 0.880 6. Buying groceries, gas etc. out-of—the—district........ 0.822 0.388 -0.h66 0.633 7. Men, wearing shorts when ‘ . others do........1......... 1.2%7 0.9Hh 1.000 1.260 8. WOmen, wearing shorts when others do.................. 1.270 0.833 0.HCO 1.1M? 9. WOmen, using apprOpriate make-up.................... 1.736 1.667 1.200 l.h93 10. Making a political speech ' at a Democratic or Repub- lican rally................ 0.289 0.222 -0.267 0.0h0 11. Running for a local polit- ical Office................ 0.397 0.389 -C.h00 -C.081 l2. Washing the family car on a Sunday afternoon......... 0.856 0.94% 1.067 0.933 13. Men, smoking at home or in private.................... 1.333 1.220 1.067 1.353 1%. WOmen, smoking at home or in private................. 1-207 1.221 0.93% 1.113 15. Athletic coaches, smoking at home or in private...... 1.10M 1.05% 0.533 0.8%? 16. hen, smoking in public..... 0.908 0.278 0.266 1.03% 17. Women, smoking in public... 0.122 -0.611 -1.000 0.020 18. Athletic coaches, smoking in public.......... ....... . 0.098 -0.611 -1.066 0.0h0 19. Men, smoking in a school's teachers' room............. 0.897 0.388 -0.067 0.208 TABLE V (continued) Net indexes range from 2.000: strong freedom from restriction to -2.000=strong restriction. 20. 21. 22. 33: 25. 26. 27 28. 29- 30. 31. 32. 33- 3%. 35. 36. 37- 38. 39. BEHAVIOR ITEl-fi Women, smoking in a school' 5 teachers' room.... Athletic coaches, smoking in a school 3 teachers‘ room 0 0 O 0 Dancing at a private party. Dancing at a public dance.. Dancing at a supper club or tavern.. ..... ...... Single teachers, dating local single peOple of good character.... Single teachers, dating local high school seniors.. Men, bowling....... ...... Women, bowling..... Playing cards for fun at home or at a party......... Men, playing cards for money at home or at a party Women, playing cards for money at home or at a party Men, playing pool or billiards in a friend's recreation room............ Women, playing pool or billiards in a friend's recreation room..... Men, playing pool or billiards in a public pool room or recreation place... Women, playing pool or billiards in a public pool room or recreation place... Man, swearing and telling off-color jokes when others in a group are... .. ....... Women, swearing and telling off-color jokes when others in a group are.... .... Man, drinking glass of beer at home........ ...... Woman, drinking glass of beer at home............... 000‘0000000000000000 0...... 00.... NET INDEXES OF 7% RESTRICTIVE OPINION Teach- Bd. _gps Admin. Memb. 0.76% 0.278 -0.067 0.621 0.278 .0.%66 1. 95 1.611 1.%00 1. 28 1.556 1.333 0.8%% 0-%%% 0.600 1.688 1.611 1.667 -1.69% -1.556 -1. 867 1.672 1.778 1. %67 1.626 1.778 1. %67 1.563 1.667 1.%67 0.310 0.555 0.133 1.%1% 1.611 1.%00 1.287 1.333 1.333 -o.218 -0.500 -o.867 -1.135 —1.333 -1.667 —0.8%7 -o.889 -1.000 —1.112 -1.%%% -1.%00 0.931 0.833 0.667 0.827 0.778 0.667 Citi- zens -0.06C -0.101 - 57 1. 36 0.510 1.765 -1.2%8 1.725 1.709 1.530 0.093 -o.081 1.%83 1.295 -0.15% -1.101 -1.1%1 -l.383 1.074 0.966 TABLE V (continued) Net indexes range from 2.000: strong freedom from restriction to -2.000=strong restriction. no. %1. %2. %3. %%. %5. %6. %7. %8. %9. 5o. 51. 52. 53~ BEHAVI OR I TESS; Man, drinking glass of beer at a party in someone's home... ........... Woman, drinking glass of beer at a party in some- omflshwmn.u.u.n.u.u Man, drinking glass of beer in a tavern................ W0man, drinking glass of beer in a tavern.. ...... .. Man, drinking cocktail at home....................... Woman, drinking cocktail at home.. ..... Man, drinking cocktail at a party in someone's home.... WOman, drinking cocktail at a party in someone's home-. Man, drinking cocktail in a tavern or night c1ub..... Woman, drinking cocktail in a tavern or night c1ub..... Man, drinking and acting silly at a party........... Woman, drinking and acting silly at a party........... Working summers at another job if income won't meet family expenses............ Working Saturdays or eve- nings at another job if income won't meet family expenses.... ......... ...... *FREEDOM FROM *There ought to be especial— ly strict regulations about rooming houses for women teachers.. ....... *Degree of friendliness affects degree of success.. *Teachers are usually too serious about their work... NET INDEXES OF RESTRICTIVE OPINION Teach- GI‘S 0.832 0.699 -0.081 -0.%7% 0.925 0.902 0.809 0.763 0.127 -0.098 -1.06% -l.202 1.773 1.5%7 Bd. Admin: Memb. 0.722 0.%00 0.722 o.%00 -0-778 -o.800 -0.9%% -1.067 0.889 0.600 0.889 0.600 0.667 0.533 0.667 0.533 -O.556 -0.667 -o.611 -0.733 -1.278 -1.%67 -1.389 -1.533 2.000 1.333 Citi- .22231. 0.885 0.785 -O.l76 —0.56% 0.987 0.980 0.872 0.832 0.000 -O.293 -1.307 -l.hl3 1.800 1.%%% 0.800 1.073 REVERSED IN 5%e90 SI GNS 0.778 -l.222 0.6%7 -0.%00 -0.120 “1 0 500 “00867 -1 0 500 0.035 0.111 -0.067 0.607 TABLE V (continued) Net indexes range from 2.000: strong freedom from restriction to -2.000=strong restriction. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6M. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. BEHAVI OR I TEE-IS *FREEDOM FROM *Teachers, in talking with citizens, use words too long and complicated....... *Teachers criticize them-— selves too much............ *Expect teachers to act like ministers in public........ *Teacher's children should be especially well-behaved.... *ken ought to wear neckties while teaching classes, except gym or similar c1asses.................... *Should be required to retire at a certain age........... *Important to pay debts to local merchants on time.... *Personal cleanliness and neatness important......... *Prefer teachers to have a warm, friendly personality. *All high school teachers should attend graduation exercises.................. *All teachers should attend practically all of their P.T.A. meetings............ *High school teacher should chaperone several school dances each year........... *Man, should be expected to join a service club such as Kiwanis or Lions........... *Woman, should be expected to join a community club such as Woman's Club....... *Should be active in pro- fessional committee work... *Should be eXpected to help with Boy or Girl Scouts.... *Should be eXpected to teach a Sunday School class...... NET INDEXES 0F 76 RESTRTEfififiiTlfifififijgg Teach- GI'S w 0.6%3 0.105 1.070 0.017 -0.018 -o.2%o -l.653 -l.936 -1.763 -1.052 -l.10% -0.%9% 0-393 0.586 -O.73% 1.178 1.213 0.722 0-333 0.556 -O.278 -l.167 -O.167 ~1.833 -2.000 -2.000 -1.389 -1.667 ~1.222 0.556 0.556 '1 0 278 0.833 1.111 Bd. Admin. Memb. 0.667 0.333 1.000 -0-333 "0 0867 "'0 0 667 -l-933 "10867 "'1 0 200 -0.933 -O.800 -O.2OO .00067 -O.8OC 0.467 0.933 Citi- zens REVERSED IN 5%-90 0.819 0.71M 1.20% -0.007 -0.%73 “O 0 L119 -1.53% -l.959 -1.851 -1.209 -1.007 -0.871 0.561 0.627 -0.238 0.365 0.866 TABLE V (continued) Net indexes range from 2.000: strong freedom from restriction to -2.000=strong restriction 74. 75. 760 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 8H. 85. 86. 87. Teach- BEHAVIOR ITEMS ers *FREEDOM FROM ~ *Men, should be expected to go to church regularly..... *wOmen, should be expected to go to church regularly.. *High school teacher should attend several football and basketball games during the school year................ *High school teacher should attend most public evening performances such as annual band concert, senior play, etc........................ *Prefer teachers to be quite reserved and aloof......... *Ought to avoid eating in some kinds of restaurants.. -0.703 *Should avoid being seen with or associating with certain . groups in the community.... -0.68H *Should avoid discussion of local political issues in the Classroomoooooooooooooo “00526 *Should avoid discussion of local political issues out in the community........... *Should avoid discussion of state-wide political issues in the c1assroom........... *Should avoid discussion of state-wide political issues out in the community....... *Should avoid discussion of national political issues in the classroom........... *Should avoid discussion of national political issues out in the community....... *Should avoid discussion of school board election candi- dates in the classroom..... -0.959 §IGPIS “'0 o 511 “'0 o 5'40 -0.672 -O.667 0.942 0.h10 0.596 0.750 0.865 0.92% Ad!“ in 0 NET INDEXES 0F RESTRICTIVE OPINION Citi- zens Bd. 11811113 0 77 REVERSED IN 51+-90 -O.167 ‘1 0 111 "l 0056 0.667 -00722 0.000 0.667 1.056 1.111 1-333 1.222 ‘1 o 222 -0 o 600 "'l o 000 0.267 -0.571 -0 o 600 ~0-333 0.667 0.600 1.067 1.267 -1 0 OOO ~0.676 ‘O o- 507 -0.633 0.9h7 -0.161 ‘O o L1'79 43.541. 0.27% 0.260 0.623 0.203 0.689 -0.810 78 TABLE V (continued) Net indexes range from 2.000: strong freedom from restriction NET INDEXES 0F to -2.000=strong restriction RESTRICTIVE OPINION Teach- Bd. Citi- BEHAVIOR ITEES ers Admin. Nemb. zens *FREEDOK FROM SIGNS REVERSED IN_5h-90_ 88. *Should avoid discussion of school board election candi- dates out in the community. -0.158 -0.889 -0.667 -0.2h5 89. *Should avoid discussion of §9h001_bond issue elections in the c1assroom........... 0.099 0.167 -0.067 -0.h05 90. *Should avoid discussion of school bond_;§sue elections , out in the community....... 0.78% 0.889 0.333 0.32% END OF REVERSED MEANINQg, END OF REVEB§ED SIGNS 91. Hiring a teacher with no previous experience........ 1.152 1.278 0.600 0.617 92. Hiring a divorced teacher.. 0.776 0.556 0.133 0.782 9 . Hiring a Jewish teacher.... 0.827 0.333 0.067 0.751 9 . Hiring a Catholic teacher.. 0.971 0.667 0.200 0.898 95. Hiring a Negro teacher..... 0.110 -0.778 -0.733 -0.426 96.. Hiring a Japanese teacher.. 0.H86 -0.111 -0.067 0.22% 97. Hiring a Mexican teacher... 0.Hh8 -0.222 -0.067 0.101 Explanation of Indexes: The original questionnaire responses were given values of 2 for strong approval, 1 for mild approval, 0 for indifferent, -1 for mild disapproval, and -2 for strong disapproval. Mathematical indexes or composite averages were then calculated on answers to each question for all groups combined, for each of the four major groups, and for the various sub-groups. In tables XXXIII to L in Appendix C the indexes were reclassified with narrower ranges for finer shades of meaning. lililll'l! 79 major groups can be compared roughly and the responses to closely related questions can be compared. A positive net index means approval or freedom from restriction; a negative net index, disapproval or restrictive attitude. Significant differences are usually indicated by a difference between indexes of at least 0.500 to 0.900 points. See tables K through XIV for accurate significant differences and pat- terns of differences. The indexes for questions 1 and 2 illustrate the differences in attitude toward owning a car and owning a late-model Cadillac or Lincoln--strong approval for the first as compared to near-indifference and almost disapproval (by board members) for the latter. The negatives show up more frequently in the board members' column and almost as frequently in the administra- tors' column. On many items the citizens collectively, are found in closer_agreement with the teachers, collectively, than either administrators or board members. Patterns of restriction and approval are readily apparent in groups of questions such as 32, 33, 34 and 35 on playing pool, 38 to 51 on drinking and 81 to 90 on politics and elections. Rankings 9£_guestions by_teachers and others. Table VI shows the questions listed according to approval-disap- proval ranking by teachers collectively, with index values 80 inserted occasionally to indicate degree of restriction or freedom from restriction. The three columns to the right show the order as ranked by the other three groups. The numbers at the heads of the columns show the rank of the first negative or restrictive group opinion and negative signs follow all negative index rankings. Board members' indexes changed from approval to restriction nineteen items before the teachers' indexes did. Of particular interest is the fact that, with few exceptions, there was close general agreement on the top thirteen items most strongly approved, and on the last, most restrictive thirteen rankings. Those rankings preceded by an asterisk were more than ten points away from the teacher ranking, hence indicated possible areas of conflict, in the case of a larger number, or possible areas of greater ap- proval,in the case of a smaller number. By this rough comparison device some patterns were detected which later proved to be important after closer analysis.“ For instance, administrators and board members appeared to be more restrictive than teachers or citizens on items such as smoking and drinking in public, and more liberal on discussing political issues; citizens seemed to be very close to the teachers on many items which adminis- trators and board members ranked higher or lower; some items showed close agreement, such as #23, Dancing at a public dance; others showed wide variation, such as #5, Leaving the 81 TABLE VI RANKINGS ON NINETY-SEVEN SELECTED ITEMS INDICATING OPINIONS RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE ON TEACHER FREEDOM OF ACTION, ACCORDING TO TEACHER, ADMINISTRATOR, BOARD MEMBER AND CITIZEN OPINIONS Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIVENESS ON TEACHER FREEDOI ranging from 2.000=strong (From l=least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to -2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction. Ranking Ranking, Ranking» Ranking (Rank of first negative or restrictive Opinion).(69).....(6 .5)...(50).....(61) l. Owning a car.......... 1 ..... ..... l ..... l 52- Working another job summers............... 2 9. Women, using make-up.. & 25. Dating, local peOple.. ..... 27. Men, bowling.......... g ..... 7 8 0000. l 0000. 9 .0000 OS 0.. 12 too... O... 2 .0... U“fl° ... h ..... .... 6.5 ... 280 Women, bOWling........ 22. Dancing, private.party 29. Playing cards for fun. 53. Saturday or evening jObOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 900... ll OOOOO*200000018 Index of 11500--- 23. Dancing, public dance. 10 ..... 10 ..... 9 ..... 10 32. Men, playing pool, privately............. ll ..... 8 ..... 6.5 ... 9 13. Men, smoking at home.. 12 ..... l7 ..... 1H ..... 11 33. Women, playing pool, \JICDMMODUI VO\\J'l-F'UJOOF\) privatelyOOOOOOOOOOOOC l 0.... 12 0.... 9 0.... 12 8. Women, wearing shorts. 1 .....*29 .....*35 ..... l5 7. Men, wearing shorts... l5 ..... 23.5 ... 16.5 ... 13 H. Women, living in apart- ments, without chaper- ones.................. 16 00000 22 ooooo*3905 00. 20 73. Freedom from teaching Sunday School......... 17 ..... 18.5 ... 19 .....*30 14. Women, smoking at home 18 ..... l6 ..... 18 ..... 16 72. Freedom from helping with Scouts........... 19 ..... 29 .....*33 .....*N7 *Denotes a ranking of more than ten points difference from the teacher ranking, hence a possible conflict area, if a larger number, or a possible area of greater approval, if a smaller number. 82 TABLE VI (continued) Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIVENESS ON TEACHER FREEDOM ranging from 2.000=strong (From l=least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to -2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction. Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking 91. Teaching without previous experience... 20 ..... l3 ..... 27 .....*H2 15. Coaches, smoking at home.....OOOOOCIOOOOO. 21.0... 21 .0... 31 .0... 31 59. Freedom from acting like ministers........ 22 .....*H2.5 ... 16.5 ... 1% Index of l-OOO---- 9%.. A Catholic teacher.... 23 .....*37 .....*h2 ..... 26 78. Freedom from being reserved, alOOfooooooo 2h ooooo*37 ooooo*3905 .00 2h 38. Man, glass of beer at h0m€.................. 25 00000 29 no... 2205 000 17 HR. Man, cocktail at home. 26 ..... 26 ..... 27 ..... 21 86. Freedom from avoiding national political ‘ issues in the community27 .....*15 .....*ll .....*38 16.. Nan, smoking in public 28 .....*55 .....*H1 ..... l9 #5. Woman, cocktail at home.................. 29 ..... 26 ..... 27 ..... 22 19. Men, smoking in teaCherS' roomoooooooo 30 ooooo*h905 ooo*50(“) 00*53 85. Freedom from avoiding national political issues in classroom... 31 .....*1h .....*l# .....*54 '12. Washing car Sunday afternoon............. 32 .0... 23.5...*11+ .0... 25 3. Living outside the diStriCtoooooooooooooo 33 ooooo*5805 000*55- 000. #3 2%. Dancing, supper club, tavern.....OOOOOOOOOOO 31+...OOO*1+6.5000 27 .....*L"6 #0.. Man, glass of beer at party................. 35 ..... 33 ..... 35 ..... 27 39. Woman, glass of beer at home............... 36.5 ... 31 .....*22. 5 ...*23 93. A Jewish teacher...... 36. 5 ...*52 ..... 45. 5 ... 36 6. Buying groceries, etc., outside the dis trict.. 38 .....*H9. 5 ...*6H- .... 39 M6. kan, cocktail at party 39 ..... 37 ..... 31 ..... 29 90. Freedom from avoiding school bond issue dis- cussion in community.. #0 .....*26 ..... 37.5 ... N8 5%. Women, freedom from strict rooming regulationSocooooooooo #1 00000 HO ooooo*6lo§"oo*66‘ 83 TABLE VICcontinued) Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIVENESS ON TEACHER FREEDOM ranging from 2.000=strong ‘(From l=least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to -2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction. Rankin Rankin Rankin Rankin 92. A divorced teacher.... E2 ....:_h2.5 ... 3. ... 3 5. Leaving community week-ends............. #3 .....*61 .....*55- ....*28 20. Women, smoking in teachers‘ room........ H4 .....*55 ..... 50(-) ..*62- #7. Woman, cocktail at partyOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1+5 0.... 37 ..OO.*31 .....*32 8%. Freedom from avoiding state political issues. in community.ooooooooo M6 ooooo*1805 000*27 0000. Al #1. Woman, glass of beer at partyOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 24‘7 OOOOO*33 OOOOO*35 OOOOO*31+ 57. Freedom from charge of using words too long and complicated....... N8 .....*33 .....*22.5 ...*33 21. Coaches, smoking in teaCherS' r00m........ 49 00000 55 ooooo*6u- 9000*65- 83. Freedom from avoiding state political issues in classroom.......... 50 .....*20 .....*22.5 ... 50 70. Woman, freedom from - joining a community Clflb.................. 51 00000 #205 00. SO(-) 00*EO Index of 0.500--—- 960 A Japanese teaCheroooo S2 OOOOO*63.5(-)Q SO(-) 00 51 970 A MGXican teaCherooooo S3 ooooo*67- 0000 SO(-) 00 55 82. Freedom from avoiding local political issues in community.......... 5% .....*37 ..... 59.5- .. H9 11.. Running for local Officeoooooooooooooooo 55 .0000 M8 0000. 6105- o. 6305- 69. Man, freedom from joining service club.. 56 .....*H2.5 ... 55- ....*N5 . Owning a late-model cadlllac.............. 57 00000 52 0.000 64- 00.0 52 30. Men, playing cards for monGYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 58 OOOOO*L+5 OOOOO*1+3.5 0.. 56 10. Making political rally . SpGGCh..........-..... 59 0.000 57 so... 58" 0000 5705 %8. Man, cocktail in tavern................ 60 ..... 70- ....*71- .... 60 17. Women, smoking in DUbliCoooooooooooooooo 61 ooooo*7205— or*8uos- o. 59 {‘0 8% .TABLE VI (continued) Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIVENESS ON TEACHER FREEDOM ranging from 2.000=strong (From l=least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to ~2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction. Ranking Ranking Ranking Ranking 31. Women, playing cards for m0ney............. 62 coo-0*h605 roo*h5¢5 no. 6305” 9Sr A Negro teaCheT....... 63 ooooo*7605- 00*7305- 00*75“ 58. Freedom from charge of criticizing selves too much.............. 64 .....*52 .....*37.5 ...*37 89. Freedom from avoiding school bond issue. discussion in class... 65 ..... 58.5 ...*50(-) ..*73- 18- Coaches, smoking in public................ 66 ..... 72.5- ..*87- .... 57.5 56. Freedom from charge of being too serious about WOTk............ 67 00000 60 ooooo*50(-) oo*h# 60. Freedom from keeping own children especial- ly WGll-behaved....... 68 00000 68’ 000. 5905- o. 61(‘) Index of 0.000---- 61. Men, freedom from wearing neckties in Classroom............. 69(“9‘oo*83"oooo*80-'oooo 76' 42. Man, glass of beer in tavern................ 70--.... 76.5- .. 76.5-—.. 69- N9. Woman, cocktail in tavernooooooooooooooor 71- 000. 7205- o. 7305- o. 72- 88. Freedom from avoiding school board candidate discussion in community............. 72“ 0000 7805- o. 71- 0000 71- 3%. Man, playing pool in _ pUDlicoo.............. 73.’oooo 69- 0000 80“.... 67- 02. Freedom from required retirement at some age 7h- .... 65.5- .. 71- .... 7%- N3. Woman, glass of beer _ in tavern............. 75' 00.0 80- 0000*88- 000. 80- 68. H. S- teachers, free- dom from chaperoning dances................ 76‘ 000. 8&05- so 76.5- to 85- Index of -O.500---- 7%. Jan, freedom from attending ChUTCh-ooooo 77"oooo*6505- o. 68“ 0.00 82- 81. Freedom from avoiding local political issues in classroom.......... 78- ....*62 ..... 68- .... 79- 85 TABLE VI (continued) Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIVENESS ON TEACHER FREEDOM ranging from 2.000=strong (From l=least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to -2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction. Ranking, Ranking» Ranking Ranking 75. Women, freedom from attending church...... 79- -...*63.5(-) *68- .... 83- 77. H- S- teachers, freedom from attending school _ concerts, plays, etc.. 80- 0000 81"0000 7605’ o. 81- 76. H. S- teachers, freedom from attending athletic games-....... 81- 0000 82-‘0000 8h.5- o. 78‘ 80. Freedom from avoiding certain community groups................ 82' 0.0. 75"oooo*66.‘oooo 77“ 79. Freedom from avoiding eating in certain restaurants........... 83- ....*72.5- ..*57- ....*68- 71. Freedom from acting on V professional committees8h- .... 86.5- -. 76.5- ..*70- 36- Men, swearing, off-~ COlOI jOk1ng.......... 85‘ 00.0 7805- to 8h05- o. 88- 87. Freedom from avoiding school board candidate diSCUSSion in Class... 86- 00.. Bugs- 0. ghoS‘ o. 84- Index of -1.000--- 66. H. 8. teachers, freedom from attending . graduation............ 87"000. 8905- 00 69' 0000 89- 50. Man, drinking, acting Silly.oooooooooooonooo 83- 0.0. 8605- o. 91-'oooo'9l- 67. Freedom from attending P.T.Aooooooooooooooooo 89- 0... 9h- .00. 82- noon 56- 37. Woman, swearing, off- 0010? jOKing.......... 90- 0000 91‘ 0000 90"0000 92- 35. Women, playing pool publiCly.............. 91‘ 0000 88- 0000 9305- 00 87' 51. Woman, drinking, acting SillYooooooooo-ooooooo 92' 0000 8905- 00 92- 0000 93- 55. Freedom from having friendliness affect SUCCESS............... 93' 0000 92- 0000*80- 00.. 9h- , Index of -1.500--- 63. Freedom from paying local debts on time... 9n- 00.0 95' 0000 9305- to 95- 26. Dating local seniors.. 95- .... 93- .... 95.5- .. 90- 86 TABLE VI (continued) Rankings of net indexes RESTRICTIV§§E8§_ON TEACHER FREEDOM ranging from 2.000=strong (From l-least restrictive to freedom from restriction 97=most restrictive) to -2.000=strong Teacher Admin. Sch. Bd. Citizen restriction Rgpking, Ranking Ranking Ranking 65. Freedom from having a warm, friendly persona11ty........... 96- 0.00 9605- 00 9505- to 96- 6%. Freedom from being neat and clean........ 97- .... 96.5— .. 97--.... 97- Index of -2.000---- lll'll'l'l'lll 87 community week-ends. This table (VI) was not analyzed further because, as will be seen later, there proved to be consistent and con- siderable differences of Opinion between elementary and secondary teachers and among the citizens of the three communities--differences which were hidden by the process of grouping them together. The validity of any extensive statistical study of Table VI under such circumstances could certainly have been questioned, so other approaches were employed. II. Detailed Analysis of Opinion Indexes Tables XXXIII through L in Appendix C group the questions in categories for easy comparison with each other through composite indexes of opinion of all 357 peOple. Directly after each composite index is indicated whether the index shows approval or disapproval, agreement or conflict of Opinion among the groups, the range of variation and the highest and lowest indexes among the sub-groups. The main body of data given for each question includes the index figures in columns under the headings of elementary teachers, secondary teachers, administrators, board members and citi- zens and in rows classified as metr0politan suburb, town- rural and village-rural school districts, composite indexes for the groups and one for all teachers combined. 88 Cg; ownezship. Table KKKIII in Appendix 3 deals with the two questions on car ownership. Question 1 on just own- ing a car rated strong approval by all groups and sub-groups. Question 2 on owning a late-model Cadillac or Lincoln pre- sented quite a different pattern of reSponse, with a compo- site index of 0.275, a range of 1.266 index points, from 0-800 (mild approval) among village-rural secondary teachers to -0.H66 (indifferent disapproval) among board members. Significance of differences is given in tables X through XII A. Groups showing the most conflict over this item were secondary teachers in the metr0politan suburb and the village; rural district versus their board members. The citizens of the three types of districts, while not significantly different from each other, did show a pattern which was repeated over and over on other items, namely, metropolitan suburb most liberal, town-rural district next, and village- rural most restrictive. Close to being significant was the difference between village-rural teachers and their citizen patrons. Residence requigpments. In Table XXXIV in Appendix C are grouped the four items having to do with residence re- quirements. Composite indexes were all on the approval side. In groups and sub-groups board members led in being most restrictive. Elementary teachers were, surprisingly, about even or slightly ahead of secondary teachers in liberality ii l‘.‘ll. It. 89 in most of the sub-groups- On the fourth item, No. 5% about strict regulations for women's rooming houses, quite a wide range of disagreement was apparent with at least four sub- groups of teachers much more liberal than citizens and board members. Clothes and grooming. Table XXXV in Appendix C includes the five items concerned with clothes and grooming. host highly approved of the groups was No. 9 on women's use of make-up. Next came the two items on wearing shorts, still generally approved, but with board members being least liberal and noticeably less liberal on women's wearing shorts than on men's wearing them. Item 61 shows that citizens and elementary teachers of the largest and smallest districts and board members and administrators were quite concerned that men teachers wear neckties in normal classroom situations. In the town-rural district this seemed not to be important, at least as far as teachers and citizens were concerned. Item 6% turned out to he the most restrictive of all the items in the questionnaire. Nearly everyone agreed that teachers should be neat and clean, personally. Personality traits and attitudes. In Table XXXVI in Appendix C the eight items dealing with personality traits and attitudes are grouped. Item 78 showed a pattern of general freedom from the idea that people prefer teachers 90 to be quite reserved and aloof. The three elementary teacher sub-groups tended to be more liberal on this item than the respective secondary teacher sub-groups. Board members appeared to be most restrictive again. Item 57 showed general approval of freedom from the idea that teachers use words that are too long and compli- cated in talking with citizens. An interesting pattern showed up in Item 58 where citizens in each sub-group declined most strongly to go along with the idea that teachers criticize themselves too much, hence were most liberal in attitude. Only the village- rural secondary teachers thought that teachers do criticize themselves too much, hence rated as most restrictive toward teachers on this item. Item 56 showed most groups quite indifferent to the idea that teachers are usually too serious about their work. Only in the village-rural groups was there conflict, with teachers thinking that teachers are too serious about their work and citizens granting freedom from the charge. On Item 62 most sub-groups were either indifferent or thought teachers should be required to retire at a certain age. Only the village-rural secondary teachers disagreed to any great extent. All groups seemed to lean toward wanting teachers to be active in professional committee work, according to the Item 71 patterns. Here was an item where teachers, 91 administrators and board members expected more from teachers than the citizens did, hence were more restrictive than the citizens. According to the Item 55 patterns, all sub-groups were generally agreed that a teacher's degree of friend- liness affects the degree of success in teaching. A close parallel, but even more strong, was the preference of all sub-groups in Item 65 for teachers to have warm, friendly personalities. This also agreed with the general preference in Item 78 for teachers not to be reserved and aloof. Hiring Q: teacherg. Table XXXVII in Appendix C has some interesting patterns, all on the approval side, as to the hiring of a beginning teacher, a Catholic, a divorced teacher and a Jewish teacher. Board members were most cautious or least liberal of the groups on these four items. Also an unusual pattern was evident in the town-rural groups where elementary teachers were strongly liberal and their secondary colleagues were least liberal or indifferent, with their citizen patrons in between. In the last three items, on a Japanese, a Mexican and a Negro teacher, this pattern was most common: elementary teachers, most liberal; then secondary, then citizens, then board members on the negative or restrictive side and last, administrators. Only on the Negro teacher were the indexes 92 importantly restrictive and there only among administrators, board members and, to some extent, citizens. Supplementgl pppk, Only two items are in Table XXXVIII in Appendix C, which is concerned with supplemental work on other jobs- Summer work at another job was strongly and widely approved, with Saturday or evening work somewhat less approved by each group. Board members were least liberal on both items. Supplemental school activities- Table XXXIX in Appendix C has five items on all of which there seemed to be no conflict- Everyone agreed, in general, that high school teachers ought to attend athletic games, plays, pro-> grams, dances, P.T.A. meetings and Graduation exercises. High school teachers would do well to accept this group of eXpectations and not entertain ideas of rebelling against them nor fret under their limitations. Politics. Opinions about politics as presented in Table XL in Appendix C may be of great help to teachers, especially those whose teaching involves social studies. All teachers might be well-advised to study the patterns inasmuch as more and more teachers, recently, are finding themselves in dilemmas resulting from frequent school bond issues, millage elections, campaigns for better teachers' salaries and exhortations by teachers' professional 93 organizations to become more active in politics and polit- ical issues. Some peOple think teachers should be active in elections while others think they should refrain from election activity in the community and the classroom. An overview Of Table XL items showed the progression from teacher freedom of activity to teacher restriction as seen by all groups combined: Index of Freedom(+) or Restriction(-) +0. National political issues in the community. +0.709 +0.618 +0-577 +0..t+83 +0~335 +0.16 +0.15 "O 0 251+ '00 513 -O.912 Extent of political disgussiong State-wide political issues in the community. National political issues in the classroom. School bond issue election in the community. State-wide political issues in the classroom. Local political issues in the community. Running for a local political office. Speech-making at a political rally. School bond issue election in the classroom. School board candidates in the community. Local political issues in the classroom. School board candidates in the classroom. That politics and elections.are touchy and contro- versial issues for the teacher can be seen by looking at the ranges of Opinion indexes. Only two items had ranges of below 1.000 index points; all the other ten items showed ranges of from 1.080 to 1.852 index points. Several patterns became apparent on close study: 1. Of the elementary teachers, the town-rural sub-- group was most liberal on discussion of political issues, etc. Among secondary teachers, the most common pattern 2. was village-rural, most liberal; metropolitan suburb, next; then town-rural least liberal. 3. On national and state political discussions, administrators were very liberal, with board members close behind and citizens tending to be least liberal I‘llilllllll‘luill 9N and by quite a wide margin of separation. 4. On discussion of a school bond issue election out in the community, all sub-groups agreed in general with approval; in the classroom, however, such dis- cussion rated the widest range of disagreement, from -O.769 among village-rural teachers to about -O.H05 among the citizens to +1.083 among town-rural secondary teachers. Town-rural teachers should definitely beware of this item. 5. On discussion of school board election candidates in the classroom (Item 87) all sub-groups were well in agreement that this should be restricted. They were not in agreement as to such discussion out in the community. Village-rural secondary teachers were especially vul- nerable if they opposed the restrictions expressed by citizens,board members and administrators. 6. On Items 10 and 11, making a political Speech and running for local political office, no one but the teachers was very concerned and they showed widely vary- ing Opinions among their Own sub-groups. 7. On local political issues out in the community (Item 82) most sub-groups were approving or indifferent except for board members. Bringing such discussions into the classroom, though, (Item 1), was frowned on by all sub-groups except the administrators, who were indifferent. In summary, the patterns evidenced in Table XL for political issues should serve as a good guide from which teachers in similar districts may judge as to how far they may go in political activities and discussions without bringing criticism upon themselves. Whether fair or unfair, or right or wrong, these were the patterns to which teachers were expected to adjust in these three communities. Church responsibilitieg. Church responsibilities of teachers are analyzed in Table XLI in Appendix C. Item 73 information made it clear that most people agreed that teachers should not be expected to teach a Sunday School class. They also agreed quite closely that teachers of both 95 sexes should go to church regularly. Least restrictive about this matter, actually indifferent, was an unusual combination of administrators and metropolitan suburban secondary teachers. This may have been a case of the men in the profession having a little less conscience about church- going than their female colleagues. Anyhow, there seemed to be little conflict in this general area. eregal behavigr out ip‘§h§_ppmmppi_yg Table XLII in Appendix C is a conglomerate collection of items which didn't seem to fit very well in any other category but still were worthy of consideration. Item 59 made it clear that the peOple in the study did not expect teachers to act about like ministers out in public. Least enthusiastic about granting this freedom but well on the approval side were administrators and village-rural elementary teachers. The next item (12) on washing the car on Sunday afternoon drew increased approval from administrators, board members and secondary teachers in the largest and smallest districts and decreased approval from all other sub-groups. Farthest apart from each other were elementary and secondary teachers in the largest and smallest districts, contrasted with complete agreement in the town-rural district. All sub-groups were on the approval side, though. Item 72 showed teachers and administrators strong in avoiding Scout work but citizens and board members less I I III I I'll I I 'l l ‘5 \. J 96 enthusiastic about letting this talent go to waste outside of working hours. Perhaps, with more citizens achieving shorter working hours and more leisure time, the time may be near when parents will be even more willing to asSume leadership with children of the neighborhood and cease entirely what probably used to be quite a strong expectation from teachers. On Item 6, buying groceries, gas, etc., out-of—the- district, only the board members felt restrictions were appropriate, perhaps because of being more tax-conscious or more interested in the welfare of local businesses. Citi- zens of the village and town districts were noticeably less approving Of this situation than the metrOpolitan suburban citizens, while administrators and town-rural secondary teachers agreed with them. NO great issue seemed to be involved in Items 70 and 69 on freedom from joining clubs, with most sub-groups either approving mildly or being indifferent. The frequent liberal-to-restrictive pattern was evident in the teacher columns in going from largest to smallest district, while just a slight reverse trend was seen among citizens. Board members and village-rural elementary teachers were most restrictive on both items. First item on the restrictive side was No. 60 about the teacher having his own children especially well-behaved. Actually, all sub-groups.were very close to complete 1 III. I) .1 Illllllllllllll lllll‘ 97 indifference, with board members and administrators slightly concerned. A mildly restrictive index showed up on Item 79 concerned with avoiding certain restaurants. The question purposely did not specify whether the type of restaurant in mind was of an undesirable nature or one that might be "too fancy" for teachers. In either case, citizens and board members were not as concerned about this as the elementary teachers and administrators. Of the three dise tricts, most concern was evident in the medium-sized one; this may have been a case of village-rural peOple not having many to choose from, metropolitan suburban peOple having many good and poor ones from which to choose within a short distance, but the town-rural people having several restaurants with one or more being known as "hang-outs" for undesirable elements of the community. Teachers might do well to avoid such establishments. Item 80 sought to determine if it might be important to avoid association with "certain groups", whether polit- ical, union, old guard, newcomers, cliques, or other. The index pattern may be interpreted as implying some restrictive importance, but not as much among citizens as among elemen- tary teachers. Village-rural secondary teachers were a little rebellious to the idea compared to the other sub- groups. All groups were in quite close agreement on Item 63 I lllIllllII-l’ll. I’ll‘- 98 that teachers should pay their local debts on time. This was a very strong restriction which teachers accepted gracefully and willingly. Dating. Patterns concerning dating, in Table XLIII in Appendix C, were very conclusive and without much conflict between sub-groups. Strong approval was accorded Item 25, single teachers, dating local single peOple of good charac- ter.. Strong restriction was expressed in Item 26, dating local high school seniors, although citizens in all three districts were.not as concerned as board members and teachers were. Bowling. Table XLIV in Appendix C shows patterns of strong approval by all sub-groups of the leisure-time activity of bowling for both men and women teachers. This probably reflects the tremendous improvement in recent years in facilities for bowling throughout the country-- bigger and better air-conditioned establishments at ground- floor level, attention to women bowlers and bowling as a family and in leagues, child-care facilities, free instruc-. tion, television shows on bowling with stars and prizes involved, and construction of restaurant facilities, club rooms, and small auditoriums serving as community centers in conjunction with bowling lanes. The industry has succeeded in eliminating pin-setting by child labor and is trying to complete the transmutation to complete 99 respectability by changing some of its vocabulary, such as substituting "lanes" for "alleys" and, very recently, the word "channels" for "gutters." Danging. Opinions on dancing, Table XLV in Appendix C, were very favorable as to Items 22 and 23, dancing at a private party and dancing at a public dance. Item 2%, dancing at a supper club or tavern, was given only mild approval with the largest difference in Opinion being between village-rural secondary teachers and citizens. No group appeared to be on the restrictive side. Smoking. Table XLVI in Appendix C on smoking reveals several patterns involving privacy vs. public surroundings, male vs. female, the athletic coach as a special model of behavior for students in training, and three groups of citi- zenry not sure as to how sinful or non-sinful the use of tobacco really is. A look at the nine items as a group 'showed this order from freedom to restriction: Index Smoking situation +1-325 Men, smoking at home. +1.15? WOmen, smoking at home. +0.969 Coaches, smoking at home. +0.902 Men, smoking in public. +0.5N2 Hen, smoking in a school's teachers' room. +0.360 Women, smoking in a school's teachers' room. +0.256 Coaches, smoking in a school's teachers' room. -0-006 Women, smoking in public. -0.0ll Coaches, smoking in public. While the composite indexes went from nearly strong approval to indifference, a closer look at sub-groups revealed some 'J". " lOO potential areas of conflict. Items 13 and 1%, smoking at home by men and women, were generally approved by all sub-groups. Athletic coaches, in Item 15, were given a little less freedom to smoke at home, in the minds of board members as a group and citizens Of the village-rural and town-rural districts. The question of men smoking in public, NO. 16, showed two distinct patterns. Among citizens, the metrOpolitan- liberal village-conservative pattern was clear. Among village-rural teachers, administrators and board members, approval was reduced almost to indifference. On Items 19 and 20, men and women, smoking in a school's teachers' room, strong conflict appeared between town and village secondary teachers (liberals) as Opposed to their respective citizens, village elementary teachers and board members. The same trend was continued in Item 20 for coaches, smoking in a school's teachers' room, with conflict evident in town and village districts and with board members. In Item 17, women, smoking in public, conflict between teachers and public disappeared with approval dimin- ishing to indifference in the large and medium districts. The small district agreed on indifference tending toward disapproval, while administrators and board members went to definite disapproval. Coaches, smoking in public, Item 18, showed the lOl widest range Of disagreement of all the items in the survey, followed closely by Item 20, woman, smoking in a school's teachers' room. In the metropolitan suburb the secondary teachers were close in opinion (approval) to the citizens but far from the elementary teachers (indifferent). The town-rural groups were quite close together (indifferent). The village-rural groups were also close together (disap- proval). Board members were clearly restrictive, with administrators not far behind. Depending on the exact circumstances, smoking was one of the most controversial issues. WOmen and coaches, es- pecially, should take warning from implications in the table. Cgpd-playing. Card-playing, Table XLVII in Appendix C, seemed to have come a long way from the sinful connotation once associated with it as a leisure-time activity. Item 29, card-playing for fun at home or at a party, received strong approval by nearly all sub-groups. Quite a different pattern appeared, though, when the card-playing was for money, even though at home or at a party. Fbr both men and women, Items 30 and 31, the pattern drOpped down to border indifference in both directions with significant conflict probable only between secondary teachers and citizens in town and village districts. Playing pool 9; pilliayds. Table XLVIII in Appendix C 102 treats with the activity of playing pool or billiards. Items 32 and 33 showed strong to mild approval of this activity by all sub-groups, if done in a friend's recrea- tion room, i.e., in partial privacy. Item 3%, men, play- ing pool or billiards in a public pool room or recreation place was a considerably different matter, with all sub- groups drOpping their Opinions to indifference or mild disapprOval, except for one sub-group, i.e., the village- rural secondary teachers who still stuck up for their rights to some extent. As to Item 35, women, playing pool in public, all sub-groups dropped to mild or strong disapproval, thus eliminating any conflict of opinions here. There have been indications lately that a move is afoot to gain respectability for the sport of playing pool or billiards, the same as has been done for bowling. The public image of the pool hall or billiards parlor with the accompanying smoking, card-playing, gambling, rowdyism, etc., is being attacked by the industry, as a starter, by putting pool on aS‘a television show, similar to the bowling shows. It will be interesting to watch the progress of this effort. Drinking. In Table XLIX in Appendix C there are arranged, in descending order of liberality (increasing order of restrictiveness) the patterns of response 103 to fourteen questions on drinking: Index Dyinking_situatlgp +0.975 Man, beer at home. +0.935 Man, cocktail at home. +0.921 Woman, cocktail at home. +0.876 Woman, beer at home. +0.83l Man, beer at a party. +0.81? Man, cocktail at a party. +0.777 WOman, cocktail at a party. +0.72 Woman, beer at a party. +0.006 Han, cocktail in a tavern -O.l86 Nan, beer in a tavern. -0.233 Woman, cocktail in a tavern. -0.561 Woman, beer in a tavern. -1.19h Nan, drinking and acting silly at a party. ~1.315 Woman, drinking and acting silly at a party. Composite indexes for the fourteen ranged from 0.975, mild approval, to -1.315, mild to strong disapproval. Patterns on the first four, Items 38, an, #5 and 39, having to do with drinking at home, were very similar to each other, with the widest areas of conflict being between secondary teachers in the largest and smallest districts versus their elementary colleagues and the board members; also between village-rural secondary teachers and their citizen patrons. Administrators, too, were only a little more liberal than board members. Very similar patterns continued through the next four, Items #0, #6, #7 and #1, dealing with drinking at a party. While the composite indexes kept decreasing slowly, they still indicated mild approval, with the same possible conflict areas as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. In only one sub-group did the index change to negative, namely, village-rural elementary teachers on the item of a woman 104 drinking a cocktail at a party. On all of the first eight items the metrOpolitan suburban citizens stayed more liberal than citizens of town and village districts, who stayed about even with each other. Disapproval and conflict appeared in earnest when the setting was moved to a tavern. The indexes fell consider- ably for Items #8 and #2 concerning men and considerably more for Items #9 and #3 concerning women. Most indexes, howeVer, were still in the indifferent to mild disapproval range. Secondary teachers continued to champion their rights against the less liberal, more restrictive citizen pinions, with the elementary teachers even more restric- tive, then administrators and most restrictive, the board members. The same patterns,.with a few exceptions, continued in Items 50 and 51 to the point where all sub-groups dis- approved Of both men and women teachers drinking and acting silly at a party. This would evidently be going too far in trying to "act human" or being like "one Of the crowd." In other words, if the local business man does it, it's funny, but if a teacher does it, it's in violation of the community's image of the teacher, as well as his colleagues' image of him. Swearing and joking. Table L shows how peOple felt about teachers' swearing and telling off-color jokes when 105 others in.a group were doing so. To be brief, peOple didn't like it. This again was going too far in the direction of "being one of the crowd." III. Patterns of Liberality and Restriction Eg$§§2p§,amgpg,gygpp§, Table VII shows that the patterns of the tables just analyzed were much more con- sistent than chance happening would have provided. Board members were most restrictive on 57.7% of the items, rather than the normally expected 25%. Teachers and citizens were most restrictive on only 7.2% and 11.3% of the items rather than the eXpected 25%. Only administrators were most res- trictive.near the expected percentage, 23.7% compared to 25%. Teachers and citizens were.about tied (37.1% and 35.1%, respectively) for being least restrictive, compared to the expected 25%. Administrators again were close to the expected value (21.6% compared to 25%). Board members, at 6.2%, were least restrictive only one-fourth as much as would be expected statistically, 25%. The individual items were listed so that a reader might check on those of interest to him. Patterns among pitizens. Table VIII provides evidence that supports the hypothesis that citizens in the metropol- itan suburb are most liberal and least restrictive, town- rural citizens next and village-rural citizens are most TABLE VII 106 RANKING OF PATTERNS OF INDEXES OF RESTRICTION BY FREQUENCY ’ ADMINISTRATORS, BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS OF OCCURRENCE, COMPARING COMPOSITE INDEXES FOR TEACHERS, Non-restrictive to restrictive patterns, in order of fre- quency of occurrence. Least Next to Next to Most Most Restrictive Least Rest. Restrictive Restrictive 1. 12. Citizens-Teachers-Administgatois-BgardBMemberfis Item Numbers: , l3, 1 , , 3 , 3 , 39, %E, %5, %6, 7, 70, 78, 92. Teachers-Citizens-Administrators-Board Members: Item Numbers: 3, %, 6, 8, 17, 18, %2, %3 % , %9, 60, 93, 9%. Teachers-Administrators-Citizens-Board Members: Item Numbers: 2, 9, 10, ll, 15, 19, 20, 21, 50, 51’ 53, 5h" Citizens-Teachers-Board Members-Administrators: Item Numbers: 87, 7, 25, 59, 63, 71, 76, 77, Administrators-Teachers-Citizens-Board Members: Item Numbers: 1%, 22, 29, 62, 81, 82, 8%. Administrators-Teachers-Board Members-Citizens: Item Numbers: 30, 31, 7%, 75, 89, 90, 91. Teachers-Citizens-Board Members-Administrators: Item Numbers: 37,.61, 65, 88, 95, 96, 97. Administrators-Citizens-Teachers-Board Members: Item Numbers: 23, 27, 28, 32, 52. Citizens-Administrators-Teachers-Board Members: Item Numbers: 26, %l, 56, 69. Citizens-Board Members-Administrators-Teachers: Item Numbers: 72, 73, 79, 58. Teachers-Board Members-Citizens-Administrators: Item Numbers: 2%, 66, 68. Administrators-Board Members-Teachers-Citizens: Item Numbers: 83, 85. 7 3 15 items. 13 items. 12 items. 9 items. 7 items. 7 items. 7 items. 5 items. % items. 3 0 5113911130 3 items. 2 items. TABLE VII (continued) Non-restrictive to restrictive patterns, in order of fre- quency of occurrence. Least Next to Next to Most Most Regtrictive Least Rest. Restrictive Restrictive 1%. Board Members-Administrators-Citizens-Teachers: 1.5items. Item Numbers: 12, 33. 14. Board Members~Teachers-Citizens-Administrators: 1.5items. Item Numbers: 55, 6%. 1%- Citizens-Administrators-Board Members-Teachers: 1.5items. Item Numbers: 57, 58. 17.5.Teachers-Administrators—Board Members-Citizens: 1 item. Item Number: 36. 17.5;Board Members-Citizens-Teachers—Administrators: 1 item. Item Number: 67. 17.5;Citizens-Board Members-Teachers-Administrators: 1 item. Item Number: 80. 17.5;Board Members-Administrators-Teachers-Citizens: 1 item. Item anber: 86. (Remaining patterns.omitted as unimportant) OCCURRENCE OF PATTERNS OF RESTRICTION COMPARED TO NORMALLY EXPECTED FREQUENCIES Least Most Restrictive Restrictive No. of .No. of Times: % Times TeacherSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3 37.1 7 7.20 (25%) (25%) Administrators......... 21 21.6% 23 23.7% (25%) (25%) Board Members.......... 6 6.2% 56 57.7% (25%) (25%) C-itizenSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 31+ 5.1% 11 11.37% __ 2 o __ (256,9) TOtaISo o o o o o o o o 97 100.0/0 97 lOOoO/O 107 l ‘1'" {I ‘I ,| III nl‘ III I I ‘1'. 108 TABLE VIII RANKING OF PATTERNS OF INDEXES OF RESTRICTION BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, COMPARING CITIZENS OF THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS Non-restrictive to restrictive patterns, in order of fre- quency of occurrence: (Least Restrictive) (Mid Rank) (Most Restrictive) 1. Metropolitan Suburb--Town-Rural--Village-RuraI: H2.5items. Item Numbers: 1, 2, 3, H, 5, 6, 10, 11, ' l6, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2%, 28, O, 31, 3h, 36, 37, Mo, #1, M2, #6, M7, 48, 9, 50, 51, ggr 83: 6H: 66: 67: Zér 77: 81: 83: 88: 91" , O 2. MetrOpolitan Suburb--Village-Rural--Town-Rural: 29.5items. Item Numbers: 8, 9, 12, 13, 1H, 15, 22, $3, 27, 29, 32, 3g. 38. 333, 1+3, 1+“, 1+5, 53, . 57, 72, 2.6.. 7 , 79. , 85, 86,- 92,~ 9 , 3. Village-Rural-Metr0politan.Suburb-Town-Rural: 9 items. It;? Numbers: 7, 35, 56, 58, 59, 62, 73, 74, H.5. Town-Rural--Village-Rural-Metr0politan Suburb: 6 items. Item Numbers: 26, 61, 63, 71, 89, 96. H.5- Town-Rural--Metr0politan Suburb-~Village-Rura1: 6 items. Item Numbers: 25, 52, 65, 68, 80, 87. 6. Village-Rural--Town-Rural--Metr0politan Suburb: 4 items. Item Numbers: 69, 70, 82, 90. OCCURRENCE OF PATTERNS OF RESTRICTION AMONG CITIZENS COMPARED TO NORMALLY EXPECTED FREQUENCIES Least Middle Most Restrictive Ranking Restrictive Type of No. of No. of No. of Citizeng' T‘mes Time ' o ' Times %L Metro. Suburb.... 72 7 .2% 1 1 . % 10.0 10.3% ‘ (33-3%) (33-3%) (33-3%) Town-Rural....... l2 12.N% N6.5 #8.0% 38.5 39.7% (33.3%) (33.3%) (33.3%) V111age-Rura1.... 13 13.h% 35.5 36.6% H8.5 50.0% .__ (33.3?) ) 5) Tetals 97 100 .0 97.30 100.0, 9700 lOOoO/b 109 restrictive. Village-rural citizens were most restrictive on five times as many items as metrOpolitan suburban citi- zens and town-rural citizens on four times as many as metrOpolitan suburb citizens. Also the metropolitan suburban citizens were least restrictive (most liberal) on about six times as many items as either of the other two groups of citizens. Patterns among_teacher§ and citizens. Table IX is a composite table showing first the six possible liberal-to- restrictive patterns, the frequencies of occurrence in each type of district and total frequencies; the second part of the table is a rearrangement and consolidation of the data to compare actual frequencies-with expected frequencies for the three sub-groupings of elementary teachers, secondary teachers and citizens. The last three parts of the table show the same type of comparison by types of district. Analysis of Part A showed the most frequent pattern to be Secondary (least restrictive)--E1ementary (mid-rank)- Citizens (most restrictive). This pattern occurred 22 times in the metrOpolitan suburb, 29 times in the town-rural dis- trict.and 28 times in the village-rural district (compared to the expected 16.1 for each) for a total of 79 times, instead of the eXpected H8.3 times. The second most fre- quent pattern was Secondary (least restrictive)--Citizens (mid-rank)--E1ementary (most restrictive). This pattern 110 TABLE IX A. RANKING OF PATTERNS OF INDEXES OF RESTRICTION BY FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, COMPARING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS AND CITIZENS IN THE SAME DISTRICT WITH NORMALLY EXPECTED FREQUENCIES Non-restrictive to restrictive patterns, in order of fre- quency of occurrence: (M = Metro. Suburb, T = Town-Rural, V = Village-Rural) *Least 30st Frequencies in Each TotEI Restrictive M;d-Rank Restrictive: T e of District Ezgg‘, l. Secondary-Elementary-Citizens: 2M+29.0T*2 .0 =79 (16.1)(16.1)(16.1)(h8. 3) 2. Secondary--Citizens---Elementary: 23M+13 3.0T+3 35.5V=Z%.5 (16.1)(16 1)(16 1)( 3) 3. Citizens--~Secondary--Elementary: 25M+ 8. OT+1N.W=H7.5 . (16.1)(16.1)(16.1)(h8.3) A. Elementary-Secondary--Citizens: 7M+2N.OT+ 9.0Vého (16.1)(16.1)(16.1)(h8.3) 5. Citizens---Elementary-Secondary: 13M+10.5T+ 6.0V=29. 5 (16.1)(16 1)(16.1)(38.3) 6. Elementary-Citizens---Secondary: 7M+12.5T+ h. .OV=Eg.5 (16 .1)(16. .1a(l6.l)( .3) 97M+97. O +97.0V:291 B. REARRANGEMENT AND CONSOLIDATION OF DATA ABOVE Least mag dost Restrictive Mgfl Restr:|.cti_vg No. of No. of No. of Time' Times- Time a Secondary 150.5 51.7% 87.5 30.1% 53 18.2% Teachers (33.3%) (33. 3%) (33.3%) Citizens 77 26 5% 95 32.6% 119 m.9% (33- 3%) (33- 3%) (33 3%) Elementary 63.5 21.8% 108.5 37.3% 119 h0.9% Teachers . ) (33.3 ) Totals 291.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 291.0 100.0 TABLE IX (continued) 111 --------'-------------—---.----—-- C. Secondary Teachers Citizens Elementary Teachers Totals Secondary Teachers. Citizens Elementary Teachers Totals Secondary Teachers Citizens Elementary TeacherS' METROPOLITAN SUBURB PATTERNS OF RESTRICTION Least Middle Most Restrictive Ranking Restrictive No. of No. of No. of Times a Times 0 Times a o 0 32 3300/9 20 20. [O (33*3%) (33.3%) (33° 3% 38 39.27 30 30.9% 29 29.97 (33~37) (33 37) (33.37) 11+ 11+..1+% 35 36 1% 48 L+9.5% (33. ) __, (33.37 o) . 5) 97 100.0 97 100. 0 97 100.0. """" 36161311136 1336335603 333615603 " " " ' " H2 H3 37 32 33 0% 23 23 7% (33 37) (33 37) (33 37) 18 5 l9 17 25 5 26 37 53 5% 77 (33.37) (33 37) (33 37) 36.5 (37.3%) 39.5 (:0. 7%) 21 21.6%) 97 100i07’ 97 100.‘0% 97 100:0; - - - VILLAGE-RURAL PATTERNS-OF RESTRICTION - - - - 63.5 65.5% 23.5 29.2% 10 10.3% (33. 3%) (33.37) (33.37) 20 5 21 1% 39 5 Ho 7% 37 38 2% ( 3 37) (33-37) (33 37) 13 l3 #7 37 35.17 50 51.57 (330 3%) r 9 o 66) 97 100.0% 97 100.07 97 100.0. Totals 112 happened a few more times than expected in the metropolitan suburb, a few less times than expected in the town-rural district and over twice as much as expected in the village- rural district. . In none of the six patterns did the actual frequencies match the expected frequencies in all three types of dis- tricts. This was considered to be definite evidence that there were differences in liberality of opinions among the three groups and among the three districts. In Part B of Table IX is shown evidence that second- ary teachers were least restrictive on 51.77 of the items compared to the expected 33.3% and most restrictive on only 18.27 of the items compared to the expected 33.3%. Second- teachers were definitely more liberal than elementary teachers or citizens. The citizens and elementary teachers were tied at h0.9% on being most restrictive while the citizens were least restrictive on a few more items than the elementary teachers. It may be said then that elementary teachers, as a group, were much closer in degree of liberal- ity to the citizens, as a group, than the secondary teachers, who were considerably more liberal. Treating with large groups, however, covered up some important sub-group patterns which became evident in Parts C, D and E of Table IX. In Part C of Table IX it appeared in the metropolitan suburb patterns that the citizens were fairly close to normally expected frequencies and in between secondary and ll3 elementary teachers in the least and most restrictive col- umns. Secondary teachers were least restrictive over three times as often as elementary teachers (M6.M% to lh.h%). In the most restrictive column elementary teachers appeared 2.5 times as often as secondary teachers (h9.57 to 20.67). A different pattern appeared in Part D of Table IX showing town-rural patterns of restriction. Here the citi- zens were most restrictive over twice as often as either teacher sub-group and least restrictive about half as often as either teacher sub-group. The two teacher groups were almost equally least restrictive as well as equally most restrictive, as compared to each other. In Part E of Table IX, village-rural patterns, the general pattern was similar to the metrOpolitan suburb pattern, only more exaggerated. Citizens were again in the middle, between elementary and secondary teachers, but the secondary teachers this time were least restrictive five times as frequently as their elementary colleagues and were most restrictive only one-fifth as often as the elementary teachers. Comparisons among major groups. In Table X compari- sons were drawn among teachers, administrators, board members and citizens, as groups, in all possible ways, indicating NS where the difference was not signigicant and giving the Chi-square value for one degree of freedom where 11% TABLE X SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TEACHER-ADMINISTRATOR- SCHOOL BOARD-CITIZEN GROUP OPINION INDEXES ON ITEMS BY CATEGORIES AND BY INCREASING DEGREE OF’RESTRICTION WITHIN CATEGORIES Chi-square value is given whenever it is significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom (above 3.8hl). Small letters indicate which groups are more liberal. The signs + and - indicate liberal and restrictive Opinions, respec— tively. The sign t means the first group in the column heading is liberal while the second is restrictive; ¥ means the opposite of 1. NS = Not significant PS = Probably significant PNS = Probably not significant _Tchrs. Z Tchrs. T‘Zhrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. V8. V5. V3. vs. vs. VS. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. _ Cit. Cit. CAR OWNERSHIP: l- Owning a car: NSt+ NSt+ NSc+ NSb+ NSc+ NSc+ 2. Owning a late-model Cadillac or Lincoln. RESIDENCE'REQUIREMENTS: H. Women, living in apartments without chaperones. NSt+ El,H.36t+ NSt+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ 5. Leaving the community most week-ends. NSt+ El,10-lltt. E1,NSt+ NSa: 5.25c+ 12.62C:F Sec,h.lOtt Sec,NSc+ 3- Living outside the district. NSt+ n.30t: NSt+ NSai NSc+ h.29c¥ 5h. Women,freedom from especially strict regulations about rooming houses. El,NSa+ E1,h.57tt El,7.78ti NSat NSai. NSc- Sec,NSt+ Sec,PStt Sec,35.lOti. 115 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit. Citl ._..._......__2.___._ CLOTHES AND GROOMING: 9. Women, using appropriate make-up, lipstick, etc. NSt+ NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ 7. Men wearing shorts when others do, golfing or gardening. NSt+ NSt+ El,NSc+ NSb+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ 8. women, wearing shorts when others do, golfing or garden- ing. NSt+ PSt+ NSt+— NSa+ NSc+ PSc+ 61. Men, freedom from being required to wear neckties while teaching classes. 11.69t- 3.92t- NSt- NSb- 5.71c- NSc- 6h. Freedom from importance of personal cleanliness and neatness. NSt- E1,NSt- El,NSt- NSb- NSC-v NSb- Sec,NSb- Sec,NSc- PERSONALITY TRAITS AND ATTITUDES: 78. Freedom from being reserved and aloof. NSt+ El,PSt+ El,NSt+ NSa+ NSc+ PNSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSc+ 57. Freedom from charge of using WOTdS‘tOO long and complicated. NSa+ E1,NSt+ NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSb+ 58. Freedom from charge of criticizing selves too much. NSa+ NSb+. NSc+ NS=+ NSc+ NSc+ 56. Freedom from charge of being too serious about work. NSa+ NStt NSc+ NSat. NSc+ NSC; 116 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit. Cit. 62. Freedom from required retirement at some age. El,NSa- NSt- NSt- NSa- NSa- NSc- Sec,NSt- 71. Freedom from acting on professional committees. NSt- NSt- NSc- NSb- 17.230- N30- 55. Freedom from having friendliness affect success. NSt-— NSb- NSt- NSb- NS=- NSb- 65. Freedom from having a warm friendly personality. HIRING OF TEACHERS: 91. One without previous experience. El,NSt+ NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSa+ 9%. A Catholic teacher. NSt+ NSt+ El,NSt+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSc+ 92. A divorced teacher. El,NSt+ NSt+ El,NSt+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSa+ Sec,NSc+ 93. A Jewish teacher. NSt+ NSt+ El,NSt+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSc+ 96. A Japanese teacher. NSt: NSt: NSt+ NSb- NSC; NSC; 97. A Mexican teacher. E1,h.h0ti NSt:_ NSt+ NSb- N86: N363 Sec,NSti, TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm, Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bdg, Cit. Cit. 95. A Negro teacher. NSt: NSt: NSt: NSb- NSc- NSc- SUPPLEMENTAL WORK: 52. Working another job summers. NSa+ NSt+ NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ 53. Saturday or evening job. NSt+ El,NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,PSt+ SUPPLEMENTAL SCHOOL ACTIVITIES: 76. H. S. teachers, freedom from attending athletic games. NSt- NSt- NSC- NSb- NSC- NSc- 77. H. S. teachers, freedom from attending school concerts, plays, etc. NSt- NSt- El,NSc- NSb- NSc- - NSc- Sec,NSt- 68. H. S. teachers, freedom from chaperoning dances. El,NSt- NSt- El,NSt- NSb- NSC- NSb- Sec,5.67t- Sec,7.06t- 67. Freedom from attending P.T.A. El,NSt- El,NSb- El,NSc- PSb- PSc- NSb- Sec,PSt- Sec,NSt- Sec,NSt- 66. H. S- teachers freedom from attending graduation. NSt- NSt- NSt- NSb- NSc- NSb- POLITICS: 86. Freedom from avoiding national political issues out in the community. NSa+ NSb+ NSt+ NSb+ NSa+ NSb+ 118 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds Cit. Cit. 83. Freedom from avoiding state political issues out in the community. NSa+ NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ 85. Freedom from avoiding national political issues in the classroom. NSa+ E1,NSb+ El NSt+ NSa+ 9.67a+ h.50b+ Sec,NSt+ Seé,13.73t+ 90. Freedom from avoiding school bond issues out in the community. E1,NSa+ El,NSt+ El, NSt+ NSa+ N.N2a+ NSb+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,PSt+ Sec ,13. 87t+ 83. Freedom from avoiding state political issues in the classroom. El,NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSt+ NSa+ PSa+ NSb+ Sec,NSa+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,PNSt+ 82. Freedom from avoiding local political issues out in the community. E1,NSa+ E1, NStt El,NSc+ 3.9Hat NSa+ NSC; Sec,NSt+ Sec,7. 94t1 Sec,NSt+ ll._ Running for local.office. El,NSa+ El,NSti. El, NStt. NSa: NSat NSc- Sec,NSt+ Sec,NStz, Sec ,8.78tt 10. Making political rally speech. El,NSa+ El, NSti. NSt+ NSa: NSa+ N301 Sec,NSt+ Sec, H. O5tt 89. Freedom from avoiding school bond issue in the classroom. El,NSa¥ El,NSb- El, NSt- NSai NSai NSb- Sec,NSt+ Sec,NStt Sec, 11.86tr 119 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. CitL Bds. Cit. Cit. Freedom from avoiding school board candidate discussion out in the community. El,NSt- El,NSt- El,NSc- NSb- NSc- NSC- Sec,6.56ti. Sec,NSti Sec,NSti 81. Freedom from avoiding local issues in the classroom. El,NSa- El,NSb- El,NSc- NSa-. NSa- NSC- Sec,NSa- Sec,NSt- Sec,NSt- 87. Freedom from avoiding school board candidate discus- sion in the classroom. El,NSt- El,NSb- El,NSc- NSb- NSC- NSc- Sec,NSt- Sec,NSt- Sec,NSt- CHURCH’RESPONSIBILITIES: 73. Freedom from teaching Sunday School. NSt+ NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSb+ 7%. Men, freedom from attending church. NSa- El,NSb- NSt- NSa- NSa- NSb- Sec,NSt- 75. women, freedom from attending church. El,NSa- El,NSb- NSt- NSa- 5.86a- NSb- Sec,NSa- Sec,NSt- GENERAL BEHAVIOR OUT IN THE COMMUNITY: 59. Freedom from acting like ministers. El,NSt+ El,NS=+ NSc+ NSb+ PSc+ NSc+ Sec,?t+ Sec,NSt+ l2. washing car on Sunday afternoon. El,NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSc+ NSb+ NSa+ NSb+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 120 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit. Cit. 72. Freedom from helping with Scouts. NSt+ PSt+ 27.92t+ NSa+ NSa+ NSb+ 6. Buying groceries, etc., outside the district. El,NSt+ E1,9.76t¢ NSt+ PSat NSc+ 11.88c¥ Sec,NSt+ Sec,7.3ht: 70. woman, freedom from joining a community club. NSt+ El,5.81ti NSc+ h.95ai NSc+ 7.36c¥ Sec,6. 251:: 69. Man, freedom from joining a community club. NSa+ El,PNSt1 NSc+ PSa: NSc+ 9.36c¥ Sec,8.06t: 60. Freedom from keeping own children especially well- behaved. NStt NSt: NSt: NSa- NSc- NSc- 79. Freedom from avoiding eating in certain restaurants. El,NSa- El,PSb-— El,l5.3lc- NSb- NSc- NSc- Sec,NSt- Sec,NSb- Sec,NSc- 80. Freedom from avoiding certain community groups. El,NSa- El,NSb- El,NSc- NSb- NSc- NBC- 63. Freedom from paying local debts on time. NSt- El,NSb- NSc- NSb- NSc- NSc- DATING: 25. Single teachers dating local people. El,NSt+ El,NSt+ NSc+ NSb+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSa+ Sec,NSb+ (II. '1 [I'lli'lil I I'll 121 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit. Cit, 26. Single teachers dating local seniors. NSa- NSt- NSc- NSa- NSc- PNSc- BOWLING: 27. Men teachers, bowling. NSa+ NSt+ NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ 28. Women teachers, bowling. NSa+ NSt+ NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ DANCING: 22. Dancing, private party. El,NSa+ NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ 23. Dancing, public dance. NSa+ NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ . Sec,NSt+ 2%. Dancing, supper club, tavern. El,NSt+ El,NSt+ El,NSt+ NSb+ (Sc+ NSb+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ SMOKING: 13. Men, smoking at home. NSt+ NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ 1%. women, smoking at home. El,NSa+ NSt+ E1,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 15. Athletic coaches, smoking at home. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,PNSt+ TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. vs. .l Adm. Bds. __________Cit- rm _Q.i..ic_-__ .913... 16. Men, smoking in public. E1,3.9Nt+ El ,NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ 9.06c+ 5.20c+ Sec,5.77t+ Sec, NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 19. Men, smoking in teachers' room. El.,NSt+ E1, NSt+ El, NSt+ NSat NSa+ NSb¥ Sec,6 .89t+ Sec,5. 6Htt. Sec, 10. O6t+ 20. Women, smoking in teachers' room. E1, NSt+ E1, NSt+ E1, NSti. NSat NSat NSC- Sec,6. Hlt+ Sec, PStt. Sec,9. 58t1. 21. Athletic coaches, smoking in teachers' room. El, NSt+ E1, 88 .42t+ E1, NSt: PNSai Nsai NSc- Sec,6. 60t+ Sec,8 .63ti. Sec,8 .45t1 17. Women, smoking in public. 7.15tz. 15.5Htt NSt+ NSa- NSc¥ lO.76c+ 18. Athletic coaches, smoking in public. El, NSt- El, NSt- El, NSc¥ NSa- NSC; 7.1%c1 Sec, 8 .Nhtt. Sec,9. 62ti Sec, NSt+ CARDuPLAYING: - - 29. Playing cards for fun at home or at a party. NSa+ NSt+ NSt+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ 30. Men, playing cards for money at home or at a party. El,NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSb+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+- Sec,NSt+ 31. women, playing cards for money at home or at a party. El,NSa¥' El,NSb¥ El,NSc- NSa+ NSat. 33b: Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSti 122 123 TABLE X (continued) Tchrs- Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. vs.- vs. VS. VS. V36 V50 Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit. Cit. PLAYING POOL OR BILLIARDS: 32. Men, playing pool.privately. NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 33. WOmen, playing pool privately. NSa+ NSb+ El,NSt+ NS=+ NSa+ NSb+ SecyNSc+ 3%. Men, playing pool in public. NSt-— El,NSt-— NSc-‘ NSa- NSC- NSC- Sec,5.38t- 35. Women, playing pool in public. NSt- El,PNSt- El,NSt- NSa- NSc- PNSC- 38. Man, drinking glass of beer at home. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Mk. Man, cocktail at home. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ E1,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ SecNSt+ #5. Woman, cocktail at home. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 39. Woman, beer at home. El,NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ #0. Man, beer at,a party. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSa+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 121+ TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. Tchrs. Tchrs. Adm. Adm. Bds. VS o~ VSO- VS. VS. V5. V8. Adm. Bds. Cit. Bds. Cit, Citg H6. Man, cocktail at a party. El,NSa+ El,NSt+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ 47. WOman,.cocktail at a party. El,NSa+ El,NSb+ El,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ #1. Woman, beer at a party. E1, NSa+ El,NSt+ E1,NSc+ NSa+ NSc+ NSc+ Se6,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ Sec,NSt+ %8.. Ilan, cocktail in a tavern. El NSt-- El, NSt- El, NSc- NSa- H.756- NSc- Se6,6 .67tt. Se6,%. 68t1 Se6,NSt+ N2. Man, beer in a tavern. El, NSt- El, NSt- El ,NSc- NSa- NSc- NSC- Se6,l7.l§t+ Se6,PSt:. Se6, l8. 69t: #9. WOman, cocktail in a tavern. El ,NSt- El, NSt-— El,NSc- NSa-~ NSC- NSC- Se6,8. #2t: Se6,PSt:. Sec,l9.79ti #3. Woman, beer in a tavern. El, NSt- El, NSt- El, NSC- NSa- N80- N86- Se6,8.66t- Se6,7. 9Ht- Se6, 1h. 55t- 50. Man, drinking and acting silly. El,NSt- El, NSt- El, NSt- NSa- NSa- NSc- Sl. Woman, drinking and acting silly. El,NSa- El ,NSt- El ,NSt- NSa-» NSa-- NSC- Sec, NSt- Se6,6. 59t- Se6 ,l7. 79t- --------------*--------—-----~- All. ‘IIAI. ’. I . Tchrs. vs- Adm. SWEARING AND JOKING: r 36. Man” swearing, off-color Joking. El,NSa- Sec,NSt- TABLE X (continued) Tchrs. vs. Bds. El,NSb- Sec , 8 o 61+t" Tchrs. vs. Cit, El,NSt- Adm. vs. Bds. NSa- 37. WOman,.swearing, off—color joking. El,NSt-- El,NSt- Sec ,3088t- NSt- NSb-- Adm. 'vs. Cit. NSa- NSc- 125 Bds. vs. Cit. NSb- NSc- 126 it was significant, i.e., above 3.8%1. The designations PS for probably significant and PNS for probably not sig- nificant were used when the expected value in one of the squares of the two-by-two table dropped below five, custo- mary minimum for the Chi-square test. Where the elementary and secondary teacher indexes were far apart or where one was significantly different and the other was not, both were indicated; otherwise, they were treated together as one index. The small initial letter following the NS or the Chi-square value shows which of the groups being compared was the more liberal. Immediately following each small letter is a + sign to indicate that both groups were on the liberal side, or a - sign to indicate both groups were restrictive, or a t sign to show the first group was liberal and the second was restrictive, or a * sign to show the reverse was true. Tabulation of the number of times each teacher group was more liberal than the administrator group, or vice versa, revealed these comparisons or patterns, also shown in Table X A: l. TeacherS‘were, in general, more liberal than administrators, elementary teachers by a ratio of 1.2 to l and secondary teachers by a ratio of 3.4 to l. 2. Administrators were more liberal than teachers on certain types of questions, usually those involving such items as working on another job summers, freedom to teach and discuss political issues, other basic freedoms, dating, dancing, playing pool privately and a few others. 3. There were significant differences between them in the ratio of h.l% to 0% for elementary teachers to 127 TABLE X A SUMMARY OF DATA IN TABLE X SHOWING COMPARISON PATTERNS, SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES AND CONFLICTS* Pattern Ratios Sig. Diff. Elementary Adminis- Board Conflicts\ Teachers Citizens trators Members \«2f631** 2. :1 3;h:1 . 12.7:1 Secondary -l6.l%:2.1% 15.5%:O% 15.5%:O% 28.9%:O% Teachers ——8.9%:O.3% 11.3%:o% 10.3%:o% 2u.8%:o% l.%:l7 1&2:% 4 3 h:i“ fl Elementary 16:10 . pgop 13. fl:0fl Teachers- - — ------ . 9.9%:1% 6.2%:2.1% 18.6%:2.l% é3zl 5 a 3.6:; 7 f . .2/0: .2/0 9.30310 Citizens- -§2___ 112.111.. Number of questions answered more liberally.............. 2O 20 NO (50%) (50%) (100%) Number of questions showing significant differences in Chi.square* valueooooooooooo O O O/LK) (No pattern apparent as to which questions were answered. *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8hl. 193 TABLE XXII PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED QUES- TIONS, COMPARING CITIZEN P.T.A. MEMBERS VS. NON-MEMBERS 4‘ _____“__ Citizen ' Iden- Total Members Members Re- Ques- {322 $1182 sponses tions Number of questions answered more liberally.............. 22 13 5 MO (55%) (32.5%) (12.5%) (100%) 11.. =l_/ Number of questions showing significant differences in Chi‘square* valueooooooooooo O l l/NO (2.5%) (0%) (2.5%) Questions P.TgA, members answered more liberally: 2(X2-5.13) 1+ 7, ; l7, 1 , 19, 20, 22, 23, 2""; 33, )‘I‘O, “’1, 1+3, ’ 1%, 71 83, an, 85, 86, 88. Questions non-members answered more liberally: 3, 5, 6; 35, 38’ 39, i2, ii, “'5’ “'8; 81, 82, 870 Questions answered with equal liberality: l; 21; 3h, 36, 37. *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8hl. 19% TABLE XXIII PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED QUESTIONS, COMPARING CITIZEN NON-HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES VS. HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES Non-High High Iden- Total School School tical No. of Graduates< Graduates. Re- Ques- 1168)_ £822 sponses tions Number of questions; answered more liberally. ll 28 1 ho (27.5%) (70%) (2.5%) (100%) A__Ll:2.5 _/ Number of questions.show- ing significant differ- ences in Chi-square* valueOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO'OOO 3 0 3/h0 (7.5%) (0%) (7.5%) Questions no§-hi h .hool adu tes agswegfid ggfeglébggally: - . ° 39° 1 2 3 X - . 88(XS-5.38), AB.’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ Questions high s§hool graduates answered more liberally: -l 28 7: 3 17: l 9 19: 20: 21: 22: 233 3: fig: $5: , 3 , 57, 38, 110,111, 1+2, 43, 111+, 115, 1+6, 7, ; 7. Questions answered with equal liberality: 2N. :— .—,- *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8hl. 195 7.5% of significant differences. The significant differ- ences were Opposite to the general pattern and had to do with leaving the community week-ends and discussion of national political issues. Questions answered more liberally by the non-graduates (more restrictively by the graduates) were: living outside the district, leaving the community week-ends, buying groceries outside the district, woman drinking beer at home and seven of the eight political questions. Family ingomg g§,§,va;iable. Table XXIV compared 82 citizens with family income under $6,000 versus 68 citizens with family income of 116,000 and over. The higher income group was far more liberal by h.7 to l, with NO% of the responses shewing significant differences, all in the same direction as the general pattern. Questions involving significant differences were: women living in apartments ‘without chaperones, three on smoking, swearing and joking and ten questions on drinking. The only questions answered more liberally by lower income groups were: owning a car, dancing privately, women playing pool in public and half of the political questions. Three of the four political questions were on discussion of political issues in the classroom. Marital status a§_a,variable. In Table XXV the MI single persons were compared to 315 non-single persons (all groups combined). This variable showed the greatest 196 STABLE XXIV PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED QUESTIONS, COIPARING CITIZENS WITH INCOIiE UNDER $6,000 VS. CITIZENS WITH INCOI 1E OF*$6 000 AND OVER —:—:—-._ T Citizens With Citizens With Total Income Under Income of No. of 000 $6,000 &.0ver Ques- %éaj (08) tions Number of questions answered more liberally.. 7 33 NO ' (17.5%) (82.5%) (100%) A._, :h. _._._/ Number of questions show- ing significant differences in Chi-square* value..... 0 l6 l6/N0 (0%) (h0%) (100%) Questions citizens withi ome under 8$6,000 answered more liberally: 1:22:3M5 81, 85, Questions gitim n§ with in ome of 6 000 d over answered more liberally: fiIX§:H:hg ,27,&8r17 l8 19(X2= 8.31%, 20(xé:5.39) 21(x -%. 11)g 3i, 6(X281O. 17), 37(x =6. 82), 38(xé- §7H),’ 39(X2-6.61), (1,2-7. .67)2 ’h1(x2-8. 63) ’h2(X2-6. 23), 2- 6. .75), 45(x -6. 61), h6(Xé-10. 18), u7(x2=1i.1h), h8(x2= 7.35), 82, 83, an, *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3. 8H1. 197 TABLE XXV PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED - QUESTIONS, COMPARING SINGLE PERSONS VS. NON-SINGLE PERSONS I M J * x: Total Single Non-Single No. of Persons Persons Ques- (11) (3152, tions Number of questions answered more liberally...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOO 37 3 ho (92.5%) (7.5%) (100%) L_l2.3:l _/ Number of questions showing sig- nificant differences in Chi-square* valueOOOOOOO0.0.0000000010100000000 1+ O LN/l'lo (10%) (0%) (10%) Questions n le erson ered more liberally: 1:7"'BT;'L:L9(3(551:5g $.13), 20, 212 22 23, M2i 33, 3:3 525$ 6 37 38, 39 1+1 112(X2.-6 57) 113068: {1113 é’ns,’1+6, ’117,’1.8(x2 -5’82), 81, 82,’83, 85, Questiogg’non:§ingle persons answered more liberally: 2, 7; *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8%1. 198 difference in patterns of all those tested. The single persons were more liberal by 12.3 to l, with 10% of the responses showing significant differences. This 10% con- sisted of four questions: men smoking in school's teachers' room and three questions on drinking. The only questions an- swered more liberally by the non-single persons were: owning a Cadillac, men wearing Shorts and discussion of state political issues in the community. Parental status as“; variable. In Table XXVI the 316 non-single persons were divided into #6 without children and 270 with children. Those having children were definitely more liberal by 1.9 to l, but with no significant differ- ences. Questions answered more liberally by childless persons were as follows: owning a Cadillac, women living in apartments, leaving the community week-ends, buying groceries out of the district, women wearing shorts, three on smoking, two on swearing and joking and four on politics. Children ig,§ghool as §,vgriable. The 270 parents were divided, in Table XXVII, into 101 persons with no children in school versus 169 persons with children in school. Persons with children in school showed a somewhat more liberal pattern of responses by a margin of 1.6 to l, with 2.5% identical responses and no significant differences. Study of the individual questions answered revealed no particular concentration in any area. 199 TABLE XXVI PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED QUESTIONS, COMPARING PERSONS WITH NQ’CHILDREN VS. PERSONS WITH CHILDREN Persons Persons Total with No ‘with No. of Children Children Ques- ...Qt‘a)... ..L2292__. Iééflgi. Number of questions answered more liberallyOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... 11+ 26 1"'0 (35%) (65%) (100%) 1 1:1.9 _/ Number of questions showing signi- ficant differences in Chi-square* val-HQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 0 GAO Questions Eersons8 with no children answered more liberally: 6, 8; 19, 20, 21; 36, 37; 82, 85, 87, 88. Questions gerignsiwich hil manswergd.mgre %iberalig: 1+1, 23 3 3 9 l E ’ use :16 fi7,t+83é1£§3é383’ ’ :Z- J j r j ‘ l *Chi-square values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8hl. 200 TABLE XXVII PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED SCHOOL VS. PERSONS WITH CHILDREN IN SCHOOL Iden- Total No Children Children tical No. of in School in School Re- Ques- SlOl) (169)__ soonses tipns Number of questions answered more lib- erallYOoooooooooooeoo 15 21+ 1 1+0 (37.5%) (60%) (2.5% (100%) L_ l:l.6 _,_ _/ Number of questions showing significant differences in Chi- square* value........ 0 O 0 Questions persons with no children in s hool answered more liberally: 81,88; 18,22; 33, 3 , 3? , ME $2 ,h3,h r h; 81, 8,7 Questions persons with children in school answered more lib- erally: 2, 3,H 5, 7, 3; 17, 19, 2o, 23, 2%; 36,37, 38, ,MS, £6, #7, #8; 83, 8h, 85, 80 0. Questions answered with equal liberality: 21. .— _; *Chivsquare values are significant at the 5% level with one degree of freedom when above 3.8M1. =1 .- ...-u 201 Age a§_g_variablea In Table XXVIII the 18% persons in the 21-h0 age.group.were compared with 171 persons #1 and older. The younger group were far more liberal than the older group by h.7 to l, with half of the responses showing significant differences-47.§% in the general pattern and 2.5% Oppositely. The 19 significant differences in line with the general pattern occurred in these items: women and coaches smoking in public and in a school's teachers' room, dancing at a tavern, man swearing, ten questions on drinking and three on politics. The one significant difference in the Opposite direction was on women playing pool in public. The questions answered more liberally by the older group were: three Ln residencerequirements, three on playing pool and state political discussion in the community. Chgzgh attendgggg §§_§,vg;i§pl . In Table XXIX the entire group was divided into 2H3 regular church attenders versus 110 non-attenders. The non-attenders were definitely more liberal by 3 to l, with 30% of significant differences, all in the same direction as the general pattern. The sig- nificant.differences involved women playing pool in public and eleven questions on drinking. The only questions answered more liberally by church attenders were: living outside the district,.women living in apartments-and all eight questions on politics. Thus church attenders valued political discussion most highly and were strongly restrictive on the drinking 202 TABLE XXVIII PATTERNS OF COMPARISON OF RESPONSES TO FORTY SELECTED QUESTIONS COMPARING PERSONS gl-NO YEARS OF AGE VS. THOSE #1 AND 0 Persons Persons Total Zl-MO M1 & Over No. of Years of Age in Age Quese (18h2 £1212 tions Number of questions answered more liberally. ........ ..... 33 7 1+0 (82.5%) (17.5%) (100%) L-” _/ Number of questions showing significant differences in Chi-square* vaIue. ....... ... 19 1 20/HO (87.5%) (2.5%) (50%) Questions ersons ' e answered more Iiberall . p1gT'EES'.8§)%18(x2=11.82),19,20(X2=y 9.335 621(3(2=;.9 ), 22 W23, 2%(X2 =h. .66g” 36(x2=1o. o ), 37. 38(x2—522g) 39,140 X=9.26), 1+1(X 18 .810, ‘+2(X = 23 56>, #3012— 87 wow: ‘+. 52) ’i+5, L+6