INFORMATION TO USERS
The most advanced technology has been used to photo­
graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm
master. UMI films the original text directly from the copy
submitted. Thus, some dissertation copies are in typewriter
face, while others may be from a computer printer.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a
complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will
be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyrighted material had to
be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize m aterials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re­
produced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper
left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal
sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is available
as one exposure on a standard 35 mm slide or as a 17" x 23"
black and white photographic print for an additional charge.
Photograph r included in the original manuscript have been
reproduced xerographically in this copy. 35 mm slides or
6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for
any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI

A ccessin g the World’s Information sin ce 1938

300 North Z eeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

O rd e r N u m b e r 8900044

A n investigation o f factors relating to teachers and shared
decision m aking in selected M ichigan high schools
Hicks, Thomas Allan, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1988

UMI

300 N. Zceb R d
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s _____

2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print______

3.

Photographs with dark background_____

4.

Illustrations are poor copy______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy______

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Print exceeds margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in sp in e_______

V

S

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13.

Two pages numbered_______; Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p ag es______

15.

Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed a s received_________

16.

Other______________________________________________________________________

UMI

AN INVESTIGATION OF FACTORS RELATING TO TEACHERS
AND SHARED DECISION MAKING IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOLS

By
Thomas Allan Hicks

A DISSERTATION
Submitted t o
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e req u ir e m e n ts
f o r t h e degre e o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION OF FACTORS RELATING TO TEACHERS
AND SHARED DECISION MAKING IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOLS
By
Thomas Allan Hicks

The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose
degree

to

which

teachers

in t h i s

were

study was

involved

in

to

describe

schoo l-wid e

th e

decision

making, a s s e s s t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e or d e s i r e f o r i n c r e a s e d involvement,
e x p lo re

the

extent

involvement

in

school-wide d e c i s i o n making as n e ce s sa ry o r advantageous, and seek

an

explanation

an

of

to

these

which

the y p e r c e iv e d

issues.

More

investigation of the d ifferences
involvement
categorized

their

sp ecifically ,

in involvement and p e r c e p t i o n s o f

i n s h a r e d d e c i s i o n making o f h i g h
on

the

basis

of

i t was

the

f o ll o w i n g

school

factors:

teach ers
sex ,

age,

e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s , classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e , ty pe o f community,
s i z e o f s c h o o l, degree o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , t e a c h i n g ass ign me nt, and
t e a c h e r p e r c e p t i o n o f th e p r i n c i p a l ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t y l e .
Twenty-two

high

Michigan were s e l e c t e d .

sc ho ols
All

in

three-county

a r e a o f west er n

o f t h e t e a c h e r s in t h e s e high sch ools

were c o n t a c t e d , over 1,000 in a l l .
responded.

a

Four hundred t h i r t y - f i v e t e a c h e r s

Thomas Allan Hicks
High
shared

school

teachers’

decision

making

perceptions

were

regarding

expressed

involvement

through

a

in

tw o-part

q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m in is te r e d d uri ng t h e second s e m e s te r o f t h e school
year.

The f i r s t p a r t o f t h e survey in s tr u m e n t c o n ta i n e d q u e s t i o n s

through which t e a c h e r s ex pre sse d t h e i r op in io ns about sh ared d e c i s i o n
making in t h e i r

sc ho ol s

and provided

in fo r m at io n con cer nin g

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making.
demographic
their

in fo r m at io n

perceptions

of

about
their

the

their

The second p a r t e l i c i t e d

respondents,

principals’

their

leadership

schools,
styles.

and
The

r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu dy i n d i c a t e d t h a t :
1.

High

school

teachers

were

d e c i s i o n making in t h e fo ll o w i n g a r e a s :
a ctiv ities,

school

im p r o v e m e n t,

professional

development,

the

currently

involved

in

c u rr ic u lu m , e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r

school

rules

coordination

of

and

teaching

d iscip lin e,
w ith

other

t e a c h e r s , and school p o l i c y .
2.

The involvement o f high school t e a c h e r s

making was r e l a t e d

to

the

number o f y e a r s

in s har ed d e c i s i o n

o f cl assroom t e a c h i n g

experience, the p r i n c i p a l ’s leadership s t y l e , job s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

and

t h e type o f community in which t h e school was l o c a t e d .
3.

Teachers’ w illingness

to

invest

making a c t i v i t i e s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y

time

in

shared-decision-

influenced

by e d u c a t i o n a l

s t a t u s , t h e type o f community in which t h e school was l o c a t e d ,
te a c h i n g assignment.

and

shared

To Jean, my best friend.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wrote t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n !
W riting a d i s s e r t a t i o n was f o r me a p a ra d o x ic a l e x p e r i e n c e , f o r
it

required

me

psychological,
others.

to

work

alone

and e m o t i o n a l

w hile

needing

the

support of c o u n tle ss

I t was r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h a t

tech n ical,
sig n ifican t

f e e l i n g o f being a lo n e

in

a

crowded room.
Thanks t o my grandmother f o r wondering why I "needed" a Ph.D.
Her q u e s t i o n i n g s t i r r e d in me t h a t c h i l d l i k e r e b e l l i o n symbolized by
wanting d e s p e r a t e l y what your e l d e r s q u e s t i o n e d o r f o r b a d e .
Thanks

to

Hallie

Snyder.

She

believed

in

me,

mothered

through t h e e x p e r ie n c e l i k e t h e second son she n e v er wanted,

me
and

typed f o u r d i f f e r e n t p r o p o s a l s and numerous r e v i s i o n s o f Ch apt ers I,
I I , and I I I .

She was t h e r e when I was tempted t o abandon my dre am --

t h e r e t o t e l l me t h a t I d i d n ’ t have p e rm is si on t o q u i t .
I t was Dr. Joseph Hesse I I I who a p p l i e d s u b t l e p r e s s u r e on a
weekly b a s i s , c h a l l e n g i n g me t o f i n i s h b e f o r e he d i d .

He won, but

w ith h i s p e r s i s t e n t nagging I f i n i s h e d second!
Kathy Klouw typed
provided

many h o u r s

r e v i s i o n s and d r a f t s .

the

early

o f typing

format
help

at

of

the

many t a b l e s

and

a moment’ s n o t i c e

for

In h e r s p ar e time she was my s e c r e t a r y .

v

John Bird provided a l i s t e n i n g e a r and p e r s p e c t i v e s on r e a l i t y
th ro ug ho ut t h e p r o j e c t .
Dr. Samuel Moore I I became t h e a d v i s o r / c h a i r p e r s o n I needed t o
f i n a l l y fin i s h the ta sk .

He was su re I could w r i t e a d i s s e r t a t i o n ;

i n h e r i t e d me on t h e rebound from a n o t h e r c h a i r p e r s o n ;
l i k e a person o f worth; and provided e f f e c t i v e ,

treated

me

e f f i c i e n t coaching

in a t i m e l y f a s h i o n .
F i n a l l y , I e x p re s s my deep a p p r e c i a t i o n t o my w i f e , J e a n ; sons,
Tom and C h r i s t i a n ; and d a u g h t e r , Cara.

From t h e moment we met, Jean

knew t h a t someday I might amount t o something, and she has loved me
through t h e a do les cen ce o f my c a r e e r .

Tom, C h r i s t i a n , and Cara l o s t

f o r a few y e a r s r e l a t i o n s h i p time with t h e i r dad, and I wit h them.
This i s t h e s t u f f o f which p a r e n t a l g u i l t i s made.
We wrote t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n !

vi

PREFACE

This d i s s e r t a t i o n
decisions
also

is

a b o u t p e o p l e - - p e o p l e who d a i l y

about high school

a s tu d y in power,

s t u d e n t s and t h e i r e d u c a t i o n .

authority,

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ,

make
It

for

is

power

r e s t s with th o s e who e x e r c i s e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make d e c i s i o n s in our
institutions.
My hunch i s t h a t when t e a c h e r s a r e empowered wit h t h e a u t h o r i t y
t o s h ar e in t h e decisio n-m aking p ro c e ss with a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
teachers

and

principals

de velop in g an e f f e c t i v e

will

also

share

the

responsibility

both
for

l e a r n i n g environment and f i n d i n g s o l u t i o n s

t o t h e p e r s i s t e n t problems o f p u b l i c secondary e d u c a t i o n .

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ................................................................................................

xi

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

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

1

Purpose o f t h e Study .............................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s ...............................................................................
P o p u l a t i o n ...................................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study .....................................................
O pe ra t io nal D e f i n i t i o n s .........................................................
Overview o f Succeeding Chapters ........................................

8
12
12
13
13
14

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

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

15

Domains o f Educational Decision Making ......................
I n s t r u c t i o n a l C oord in a tio n ............................................
Curriculum Development .....................................................
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development ................................................
E v a l u a t i o n ...............................................................................
School Improvement and Personnel
...............................
Rules and D i s c i p l i n e .........................................................
General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .....................................................
P o li c y Making ...........................................................................
Summary............................................................................................

16
17
18
20
21
24
26
27
28
29

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

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

31

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f V a r i a b l e s ................................................
Design o f t h e In s tru m e nt .....................................................
S e l e c t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n o f Respondents ..................
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...............................
D at a- A na ly s is Procedures .....................................................
H y p o t h e s e s ...................................................................................

31
35
37
42
43
46

viii

Page
IV.

PRESENTATION OF THE F I N D I N G S................................................
Cu rrent Involvement in School-Wide Decision
M a k i n g .......................................................................................
Pe rceived R e s u l t s o f Involvement in School-Wide
D e c i s i o n s ...................................................................................
P er ceived A b i l i t y t o A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D eci si on s .........................................................
Pe rc e p ti o n o f Overall Degree o f Involvement in
School-Wide Decision Making ............................................
Expressed D e si re t o Become Involved in School-Wide
Decision Making ......................................................................
Investment o f Time ..............................................................
P r e f e re n c e f o r Involvement in School-Wide
Decision Making ..................................................................
P e r c e p t i o n s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s , C os ts , o r
Hindrances t o Involvement in Shared D ecision
M a k i n g ........................................................................................
Perceived B e n e f i t s o f Involvement in Shared
Decision Making ..................................................................
Perceived Costs o f Involvement in Shared
Decision Making ..................................................................
Perceived Hindrances t o Involvement in Shared
Decision Making ..................................................................
Chi-Square T e s t o f A s s o c i a t i o n ........................................
Cu rrent Involvement in School-Wide D ecision
M a k i n g ...................................................................................
Expressed D e si re t o Become Involved in Scho olWide Decision M a k i n g .....................................................
P e r c e p ti o n s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s , C ost s , or
Hindrances t o Involvement in Shared
Decision Making ..................................................................

V.

48
48
57
66
72
80
81
87
89
89
96
103
Ill
112
120
121

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................

127

Summary............................................................................................
Major Findings ( D e s c r i p t i v e ) ........................................
Major Findings ( S t a t i s t i c a l )
........................................
C o n c l u s i o n s ...................................................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Action .........................................................
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research ...........................

127
128
139
142
143
144

A.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO GATHER DATA FOR THE STUDY .

145

B.

LETTER TO PRINCIPALS..................................................................

152

APPENDICES

ix

Page
C.

LETTER TO ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS

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

153

D.

POSTCARD RETURNED BY PRINCIPALS ............................................

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

x

155

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

Page
Summary o f High School Sample Pool and Sample by
S iz e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n ......................................................................

37

2.

Age and Sex o f R e s p o n d e n t s ..........................................................

38

3.

Educational S t a t u s o f Respondents .............................................

39

4.

Classroom Teaching Experience o f Respondents

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

39

5.

Type o f Community in Which Respondents Were Employed

6.

S iz e o f School in Which Respondents Taught

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

40

7.

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n o f Respondents .................................................

41

8.

Teaching Assignment o f Respondents

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

41

9.

Res pondents’ P e r c e p t i o n s o f P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
S t y l e s .................................................................................................

42

10.

Teacher Involvement in School-Wide D eci si on s

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

49

11.

Teacher Involvement in School-Wide D e c is io n s ,

by Sex .

50

12.

Involvement in School-Wide Deci si ons by Teachers of
Varying Ages ...................................................................................

51

Involvement in School-Wide Deci si ons by Teachers With
Varying Classroom Teaching Experience ...............................

51

Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by Teachers
With Varying Educational S t a t u s ............................................

52

Involvement in School-Wide Deci si ons by Teachers in
Varying Types o f Communities ................................................

53

Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by Teachers
in School With Varying S tu de nt Enrollments ......................

53

Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by Teachers
With Varying Teaching Assignments ............................................

55

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

xi

.

40

Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by Teachers
With Varying Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
........................

56

Involvement in School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers
With Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e i r P r i n c i p a l s ’
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ......................................................................

57

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making, by Sex

. .

58

Te a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making, by Age

. .

60

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers With Varying Classroom Teaching Experience . .

60

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers With Varying Educational S t a t u s ...........................

61

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers in Varying Types o f Communities ...........................

62

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers in Schools With Varying Stude nt Enrollments

.

62

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers With Varying Teaching Assignments ......................

63

T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers With Varying Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . . .

64

T e a ch e r- P er ce iv e d P o s i t i v e R e s u lt s From Actual
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making by
Teachers With Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e ir
P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ............................................

65

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D e c i s i o n s , by Sex .....................................................

66

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D e ci s io n s by Teachers o f Varying Ages . . .

66

xii

Page
31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.
39.
40.

41.
42.
43.

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome of
School-Wide D e ci s io n s by Teachers With Varying
Classroom Experience ......................................................................

67

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D e ci s io ns by Teachers With Varying
Educational S t a t u s ...........................................................................

68

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D e ci s io ns by Teachers in Varying Types
o f Communities ...................................................................................

69

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D e c is io n s by Teachers in Schools With
Varying S tu d e nt Enr ollmen ts .........................................................

69

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f
School-Wide D eci si o ns by Teachers With Varying
Teaching Assignments ......................................................................

70

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome of
School-Wide D eci si o ns by Teachers With Varying
Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .........................................................

71

T e a c h e r s ’ B e l i e f That They Can A f f e c t t h e Outcome of
School-Wide D e ci s io n s by Teachers With Varying
Perceptions of Their P r i n c i p a l s ’ Administrative
S t y l e s ..............................................................................................

72

Pe rceived Ext ent o f Teacher Involvement in School-Wide
Decision Making, by S e x ...........................................................

73

Perce ived Extent o f Teacher Involvement in School-Wide
De cision Making by Teachers o f Varying Ages.......................
Perce ived Ext ent o f Involvement in School-Wide Decision
Making by Teachers With Varying Classroom Teaching
E x p e r i e n c e ......................................................................................

74

75

Perc eived Ex te nt o f Involvement in School-Wide Decision
Making by Teachers With Varying Educational S t a t u s . .

75

Perceived Extent o f Involvement in School-Wide Decision
Making by Teachers in Varying Types o f Communities
. .

77

Perc ei ved Ext ent o f Involvement in School-Wide Decision
Making by Teachers in Schools With Varying Stude nt
E n r o l l m e n t s ......................................................................................

xiii

77

Percei ved Ex te nt o f Involvement in School-Wide D ecision
Making by Teachers With Varying Teaching Assignments .

78

Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement in School-Wide Decision
Making by Teachers With Varying Degrees o f Job
S a t i s f a c t i o n .......................................................................................

79

Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement in School-Wide D ecision
Making by Teachers With Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e i r
P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ............................................

79

Perc ei ved W i ll in g n e s s t o In v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making, by Sex ..................................................................

81

Perc e iv ed W i ll in g n e s s t o In v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers o f Varying Ages ......................

81

Percei ved W i ll in g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers With Varying Classroom
Teaching Experience ..........................................................................

82

Perc ei ved W il li n g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers in Varying Types o f
Communities ............................................................................................

83

Perc ei ved W il li n g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers With Varying Educational
S t a t u s .....................................................................................................

83

Percei ved W il li n g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers in Schools With Varying
Student Enrollments

84

Percei ved W il li n g n e ss t o I n v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers With Varying Teaching
Assignments ............................................................................................

85

Percei ved W il li n g n e s s t o In v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers With Varying Degrees o f
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ...............................................................................

85

Pe rc e iv ed W i ll in g n e s s t o In v e s t Time in School-Wide
Decision Making by Teachers with Varying P e r c e p t i o n s
o f T h e ir P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ......................

86

T e a c h e r s ’ P r e f e r e n c e s f o r Involvement in School-Wide
Decision Making ...................................................................................

87

xiv

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cis ion Making,
by Sex .....................................................................................................

89

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cision Making
by Teachers o f Varying Ages .........................................................

90

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared D eci si on Making
by Teachers With Varying Classroom Experience ..................

90

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared D e ci s io n Making
by Teachers With Varying Educational S t a t u s ......................

91

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared D e ci s io n Making
by Teachers in Varying Types o f Communities ......................

92

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared Deci si on Making
by Teachers in Schools With Varying Stude nt
Enrollments ............................................................................................

92

R atings o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cision Making
by Teachers With Varying Teaching Assignments ..................

93

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cision Making
by Teachers With Varying Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .

94

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cision Making
by Teachers With Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e i r
P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ............................................

95

T e a c h e r s ’ R atings o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision
Making, by Sex ...................................................................................

96

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision Making
by Teachers o f Varying Ages .........................................................

97

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision Making
by Teachers With Varying Classroom Teaching
Experience ............................................................................................

97

R atings o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision Making
by Teachers With Varying Educational S t a t u s ......................

98

R atings o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision Making
by Teachers in Varying Types o f Communities ......................

99

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared Decision Making
by Teachers in Schools With Varying S tud en t
Enrollments ............................................................................................

99

xv

Page
Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared D ecision Making
by Teachers With Varying Teaching Assignments . . . .

100

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared D ecision Making
by Teachers With Varying Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n

101

R at in g s o f P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared De cis ion Making
by Teachers With Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e i r
P r i n c i p a l s ’ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ........................................

102

T e a c h e r s ’ Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o
Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making, by Sex

.

103

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide D ecision Making by Teachers o f Varying
A g e s .....................................................................................................

104

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers With
Varying Classroom Teaching Experience ...............................

105

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers With
Varying Educational S t a t u s .....................................................

105

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers in Varying
Types o f Communities ..................................................................

106

R at in gs o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers in Schools
With Varying S tu de nt Enrollments ........................................

107

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers With
Varying Teaching Assignments ................................................

108

Rat ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making by Teachers With
Varying Degrees o f Job S a t i s f a c t i o n ...................................

109

R at ing s o f P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in
School-Wide D eci si on Making by Teachers With
Varying P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e ir P r i n c i p a l s ’
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e s ..................................................................

110

Summary o f Chi-Square Te s t f o r C u rr e nt Involvement o f
Teachers in Shared De cision Making ...................................

112

xvi

Page
85.

Summary o f Chi-Square Te s t f o r Teachers* P e r c e p t i o n s
o f t h e R e s u l t s o f T h e ir Involvement in Shared
Decision Making ...................................................................................

115

86.

Summary o f Chi-Square T e s t f o r T e a c h e r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s
o f T h e ir A b i l i t y t o A f f e c t t h e Outcome o f SchoolWide D e c i s i o n s .........................................................................................117

87.

Summary o f Chi-Square T e s t f o r T e a c h e r- P e r c e iv e d
E xt ent o f Involvement in Shared Decision Making . . . .

119

88.

Summary o f Chi-Square T e s t f o r T e a c h e r s ’ P e r c e p t i o n s
o f W i ll in g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time in Shared De cision
M a k i n g .......................................................................................................... 120

89.

Summary o f Chi-Square Te s t f o r T e a c h e r s ’ R at in gs of
P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s o f Shared De cis ion Making ..................

122

Summary o f Chi-Square T e s t f o r T e a c h e r s ’ R at ing s o f
P o t e n t i a l Costs o f Shared De cision Making ...........................

123

Summary of Chi-Square T e s t f o r T e a c h e r s ’ R at in gs of
P o t e n t i a l Hindrances t o Involvement in Shared
Deci si on Making ...................................................................................

125

90.
91.

xvii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A r e c u r r i n g theme in t h e l i t e r a t u r e o f e d u c a ti o n and b u s i n e s s
i s emp loye e p a r t i c i p a t i o n
th eo rists

such

as

C hester

F r e d e r i c k Ta yl o r (1947),
addressed

the

various

i n d e c i s i o n m a k in g .
Barnard

(1938),

O rganizational

Max Weber

(1974),

and James March and H e rb e r t Simon (1958)
aspects

of

individual

particip atio n

in

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making.
The importance o f employee p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n making in
de te rm in in g accep tanc e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l changes was s t u d i e d by Coch
and

French

(1948).

p articip atio n

They

noted

a

positive

correlation

i n d e c i s i o n making and p r o d u c t i v i t y

r e s i s t a n c e t o change.

between

and r e d u c e d

Sharma (1955) found t h a t t e a c h e r s ex pre sse d

an i n t e r e s t in becoming involved in d e c i s i o n making a s s o c i a t e d with
instruction.
Patchen,
employees,

in

his

su ggested

1970
that

s tu d y

of

in c r e a s e d

Tennessee
individual

V a lley

Authority

participation

in

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making l e a d s t o g r e a t e r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and
work achievement as well as a h i g h e r l e v e l o f i n t e g r a t i o n i n t o th e
organization.
Lammers (1967) argued t h a t allow ing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n s
over which employees have no c o n t r o l may be as damaging as a t o t a l

1

2
lack

of participation.

Gouldner

(1954),

Tannenbaum

(1968),

and

Mulder (1971) contended t h a t allow ing employees t o p a r t i c i p a t e
d e c i s i o n making broadens t h e employer’s o r s u p e r v i s o r ’ s

in

influence

ov er t h e performance o f i n d i v i d u a l r o l e pe rf o rm e rs .
I m p l i c i t in t h e w r i t i n g o f t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s i s t h e n o t i o n o f a
workplace democracy o r t h e r i g h t o f employees t o c o n t r o l t h e i r own
labor

at

affected.

least

to

the

extent

that

pr od u c ti o n

is

no t

negatively

Blumberg (1969) summarized t h e l i t e r a t u r e c oncer nin g th e

relatio n sh ip

be tw een

worker

decision-m aking

power

and

job

s a t i s f a c t i o n as fo ll o w s :
There i s s c a r c e l y a study in t h e e n t i r e l i t e r a t u r e which f a i l s
t o dem ons tr at e t h a t s a t i s f a c t i o n in work i s enhanced . . . by a
genuine i n c r e a s e in w o rk e rs ’ deci si on- m aki ng power. . . . The
p a r t i c i p a t i v e worker i s an involved worker, f o r h i s j o b becomes
an e x t e n s i o n o f h i m s e l f ; and by h i s d e c i s i o n s he i s c r e a t i n g
h i s work, modifying and r e g u l a t i n g i t . (p. 121)
Scott

(1966)

sup porte d

this

performs t h e e n t i r e t a s k w i l l

view,

n o ti n g

that

be more w i l l i n g

"a worker

who

and b e t t e r a b l e to

assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h e c o n tr o l o f h i s performance than w il l
t h e worker who c a r r i e s

out only a p o r t i o n o f t h e t a s k

and whose

performance may in v a r i o u s ways be dependent on t h e work o f o t h e r s "
(p. 267).
Pateman

(1970)

sug ges ted t h a t workplace democracy

b e s t i n t e r e s t o f both t h e i n d i v i d u a l and s o c i e t y .

is

in t h e

She noted t h a t :

People who have a sense o f p o l i t i c a l e f f i c a c y a r e more l i k e l y
t o p a r t i c i p a t e in p o l i t i c s than th o s e in whom t h i s f e e l i n g is
l a c k i n g ; and i t has a l s o been found t h a t u n d e rl y in g t h e sense
of p o l i t i c a l e ffic a c y is a sense of g e n eral, personal
e f f e c t i v e n e s s , which inv olv es s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e in on e ’ s d e a l i n g s
with t h e world, (p. 46)

3
Schools, however, vary in a v a r i e t y o f ways from t h e i n d u s t r i a l
examples

th at

were

the

focus

q u e s ti o n e d whether t h e r e i s ,
workplace

d e m ocr ac y

of th ese

studies.

Forsythe;

and p r o d u c t i v i t y

dimensions

and

of teacher

(19 80 )

in f a c t , a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between
in

the

R ese arc he rs such as Duke; Hoi 1away; Miskal,
Hoy and

Duke

Ratsoy

have

commitment

to

school

Fe vurly ,

sought

setting.

and S te w a r t ;

to understand

school-wide

the

m a t t e r s . Among

o t h e r t h i n g s , th e y su ggested t h a t school should not be th oug ht o f as
a p ro d u c t i v e

unit,

but

number o f d i s c r e t e
explain

some

of

rather

a cover o r g a n i z a t i o n

teaching-learning

the

teacher

activities.

reluctance

to

that

holds

That

join

in

a

may help

schoo l-wid e

endeavors because i t i s not in t h e "school" t h a t t h e major b u s in e s s
of

teaching

committing

and

learning

teachers

to

takes
the

school,

clas sr oom, r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n :
no t

do

that

seems

to

elicit

place.

The

as

What i s
higher

n o ti o n

opposed

to

of

further

m erely

the

i t t h a t sc hoo ls do o r do
levels

of

commitment from

teachers?

Commitment has u s u a l l y been phrased by t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s

in

of

terms

perceived

satisfactio n ,

low

absenteeism ,

and

a

w i l l i n g n e s s t o p a r t i c i p a t e in s c h o o l - l e v e l a c t i v i t i e s .
Duke,

Showers,

and Imber

(1980)

reported

that

most t e a c h e r s

f e l t l e s s than anxious t o p a r t i c i p a t e in school d e c i s i o n making and
d e r i v e d l i t t l e s a t i s f a c t i o n when they did p a r t i c i p a t e .

Twenty-two

p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s claimed t h a t t h e i r noninvolvement in school
d e c i s i o n s was not t h e r e s u l t o f a l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y but a f u n c t i o n
o f per so nal

choice.

Those who r e p o r t e d t h a t th e y d id p a r t i c i p a t e

said they benefited l i t t l e

from involvement and f u r t h e r

indicated

4

that

adm inistrators

were

t e a c h e r involvement.

less

than

sincere

when

th e y

solicited

That i s r e m i n i s c e n t of L o r t i e ’ s (1975)

"good

day" i s s u e where he r e p o r t e d t h a t f o r t e a c h e r s p o s i t i v e e v e n t s and
outcomes

are

students.

linked

to

two s e t s

of

actors--the

teacher

and th e

He found t h a t n e g a t i v e a l l u s i o n s were made t o p a r e n t s ,

t h e p r i n c i p a l , t h e school n u r s e , and c o l l e a g u e s - - i n f a c t , t o anyone
and everyone who " i n t r u d e s on classroom e v e n ts " (p. 106).
Holdaway

(1 9 7 8 )

used

Herzberg’ s

theory

to

study

teacher

s a t i s f a c t i o n and found t h a t f o r t e a c h e r s t h e " f a c e t a s s o c i a t e d most
f r e q u e n t l y with o v e r a l l
t h a t label

satisfaction

. . . was ’ t h e work i t s e l f ’ - -

a p p l i e d t o classroom a c t i v i t i e s ,

with t h e s t u d e n t s " (p. 45 ).

especially interaction

I t may be t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e

in terms o f bure au cra cy i s only p a r t

of the

problem,

bu t

Ratsoy

(1979) r e p o r t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n on t h e av erage was lower
in scho ols where t h e y p e rc e iv e d a high de gre e o f bu re a u c ra c y .
was

not

sup porte d

by

Misk al ,

Fev url y,

and

S te w a rt

That

(1979),

who

r e p o r t e d t h a t more e f f e c t i v e sc hools (as p e rc e iv e d hy t e a c h e r s ) were
characterized
decision

by

m a k in g ,

co mp le xi ty ,

more

participative

more

form alized

and high p r o f e s s i o n a l

processes,

less

general

rules

centralized
and

more

a c t i v i t y - - i n o t h e r words,

where

t h e r e was a d e f i n i t e but not o p p r e s s i v e b ur e a ucr a c y.
Hoy

and

Forsythe

(1981)

reported

th eir

theory

th at

an

i n d i v i d u a l ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t a t u s w i l l i n f l u e n c e h i s i s o l a t i o n from
o t h e r s on a v a r i e t y o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

dimen si on s.

But

isolation

from formal c o n t r o l and i s o l a t i o n from p e rc e iv e d a c t u a l c o n t r o l were

5
not

related

in d iv id u als

to

increased

could

be

work

alienation.

excluded

from

T h eoretically,

power

networks

in

o r g a n i z a t i o n and y e t no t p e r c e i v e t h e i r work as la c k i n g
meaning o r v a l u e .
reported

that

On t h e o t h e r

isolation

e lem en ta ry s c h o o l s .

was

hand,

highly

Zielinski
related

They concluded t h a t

pride

intrinsic

and Hoy

to

the

(1983)

alien atio n

in

in o ne ’ s work i s

r e l a t e d t o t e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f s t h a t t h e y can make a d i f f e r e n c e in both
t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e school and in c lass roo m a c t i v i t i e s , and f u r t h e r
t h a t t h e l i n k between a f a c u l t y member’ s po we rle ss nes s
e str an ge me nt
s u p p o rt
desire
that

is

Conway

both
(1976),

participation
participation

organization.

substantial
who found

in t h e
leads

to

and

significant.

that

the

organization
their

That

m ajority

and t h a t

negative

and s e l f ­

of

would

teachers

deprivation

perceptions

of

of
the

He concluded t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t need f o r o b t a i n i n g

g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s c h o o l s .
This i s encouraging f o r th o s e who g e n e r a l l y l i k e t o t h i n k in
terms

of

relations

improving

performance

techniques

collegiality.

and s a t i s f a c t i o n

of cooperation,

openness,

wit h

the

human-

participation,

and

But i t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e whether i t s u p p o r t s t h e work

o f L o r t i e and Waller (1975) and Duke (1976); o r Hoy, Newland,

and

Blazovsky’ s (1977) f i n d i n g s t h a t jo b c o d i f i c a t i o n

and

s ig n if ic a n tly re la ted to teacher s p i r i t .

is d ire c tly

The more c a r e f u l l y t h e job

i s s p e c i f i e d through t h e use o f r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ,
t h e s p i r i t among t h e t e a c h e r s .
and

Belasco

(1973),

t h e h ig h e r

I t does s u p p o rt t h e work o f A l l u t o

who r e p o r t e d

that

teachers

were

p a r t i c i p a t i n g in schoo l-wid e m a t t e r s more th a n t h e y wanted.

already

6

However,

it

high s c h o o l s ,

i s n o t in keeping w ith C us ic k’ s (1983)

s tu d y o f

where t h e t e a c h e r s were q u i t e c o n t e n t t o le a v e th e

running o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e t o t h e

adm inistrators

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s could g e t t o help them.

and whomever th e

To Cusick, when t e a c h e r s did

e n t e r i n t o t h e l a r g e r a re na o f school d e c i s i o n s ,

i t was t o p r o t e c t

t h e i r own o p e r a t i n g f i e l d s , which c e n t e r e d on t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l

set

o f c l a s s e s , a c t i v i t i e s , and e v en ts t h a t each one had s p e n t some time
and e f f o r t c o n s t r u c t i n g .

The f o r a y s t h a t one made i n t o t h e l a r g e r

school were made f o r t h e purpose o f p r o t e c t i n g and expanding t h a t
set.

I t appeared t o Cusick t h a t as t e a c h e r s became more exposed t o

the r e a l i t i e s of the schools, t h e i r ideologies
more c u s t o d i a l ,

tough minded,

and r e a l i s t i c .

s h i f t e d toward th e
Further,

i f t h e jo b

demands tough-mindedness and a c u s t o d i a l approach t o s t u d e n t s , t h e s e
might well m i t i g a t e a g a i n s t e f f e c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n and a de m oc ra ti c
approach t o d e c i s i o n making.
Miskal,

McDonald,

and

Bloom

(1983)

su gg est ed

an

additional

1 iiiiit to the p a r t i c i p a t o r y model when th e y r e p o r t e d weak s t r u c t u r a l
links

between

teachers

and s p e c i a l i s t s

t e a c h e r s and b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
of

discipline.

They

s u gg est ed

that

bu t

strong

links

between

p a r t i c u l a r l y over t h e m a t t e r
that

element c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t e a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

may be

the

for if,

strongest

f o r example,

b u i l d i n g d i s c i p l i n e i s good, t e a c h e r s a r e h a p p i e r .
On t h e o t h e r hand,
more involved

Raywid (1983)

and e f f e c t i v e l y

d i f f e r e n t school s t r u c t u r e .

related

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e key t o a
faculty

may be

a un iq u e ly

He a s s e r t e d t h a t i t i s t h e a l t e r n a t i v e

7
ty pe o f school

wherein t e a c h e r s

display

" re a l

ownership"

in

the

program and where 90% a r e w i l l i n g to t a k e on even more p r o f e s s i o n a l
a c t i v i t y and o b l i g a t i o n .
In

addition,

teaching

option,

who e n t e r

teachers

may

p articu larly

attractive
people

it

to

at

be

that,

the

as

secondary

as evidenced by t h e
the

return

profession,

to

service p o sitio n s,

teaching

the

and

(1981)

level

small

is

after

s u g g e s te d ,
not

number o f

unwillingness
finding

of

jobs

in

a

very

talented
laid-off
sales

and

u n i m a g i n a t i v e p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s , and t h e

l i m i t e d pay and c a r e e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
L ortie,

Cohen

Duke,

one

might

From re a d in g Cohen, W aller,

suggest

that

the

failu re

of

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o g e t more t e a c h e r involvement i s a r e s u l t o f t h e r e
being l i t t l e

in t h e way o f p o s i t i v e inducements t h e p r o f e s s i o n can

offer.
Teacher commitment t o t h e l a r g e r o r g a n i z a t i o n does seem t o say
some t h i n g s about school
affiliatio n

structure.

with th e o r g a n i z a t i o n

b e l i e v e d t h a t while d i f f e r e n c e s

Worthy (1970)
as

always

are most l i k e l y

viewed worker

problem atic.
to

He

oc cu r between

management and l i n e employees, in school t h e r e a r e some p a t t e r n s to
those

d ifferences.

Teachers

resist

m a n a g e m e n t’ s

attem pt

u n i f o r m i t y and a f u r t h e r c o n t r o l o f classroom p r o c e s s e s .
are

d ifferen tially

Attempts t o

with

increase or at l e a s t

va ryi ng outcomes.
of structure.

affiliated

the

regulate

larger
their

at

Teachers

organization.

affiliation

have

At t h a t p o i n t , f o r Worthy, t h e i s s u e becomes one

Is t h e s t r u c t u r e such t h a t normative commitment to

t h e school i s a c t i v e l y dis cou rage d?

Is t h e s t r u c t u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l

8

classrooms so compelling t h a t one i s di s c o u r a g e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g
in t h e l a r g e r school?
Miskal,

Fevurly,

and S te w a rt ;

Zielinski

and Hoy; Conway;

and

Raywid su ggested t h a t employee p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and
involvement b ri n g g r e a t e r s a t i s f a c t i o n
Duke and Showers,

Ratsoy,

Holdaway,

and g r e a t e r e f f o r t .

Cusick,

Duke,

and Worthy i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t e a c h e r s a re d i f f e r e n t i a l l y a f f i l i a t e d with t h e s c h o o l,
a t t e m p t s t o make them more involved have u n c l e a r r e s u l t s ,

that

and t h a t

t e a c h e r s seem t o r e s i s t involvement in school-wide endea vors.
The i s s u e o f employee involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making has
been o f i n t e r e s t t o r e s e a r c h e r s s i n c e t h e 1930s, but t h e r e appea r to
be u n c l e a r f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e n t o f t e a c h e r involvement in
t h e decisio n-m akin g pro c e ss and c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e t o how
such

involvement

influences

teacher

performance

or

affects

th e

classroom environment in which th e y work.
Purpose o f t h e Study
With
purpose

this

in

teachers

are

p ro ble m a tic

this

study was

involved

condition
to

(a)

in

mind,

describe

the

the

in school-wide d e c i s i o n

r e s e a r c h e r ’s

degre e

making,

to
(b)

which
assess

t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r i n c r e a s e d involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n
m a k in g ,

(c)

explore

the

extent

to

wh ic h

they

perceive

th eir

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n s as n e c e s s a ry o r advantageous,
and (d)

seek some degree o f e x p l a n a t i o n

More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
questions:

this

to

all

of these

issues.

r e s e a r c h e r sought t o answer t h e fo ll ow in g

9

1.

2.

To what degre e a r e high school t e a c h e r s involved in school wide d e c i s i o n s ?
a.

What d e c i s i o n s a r e th e y p r e s e n t l y inv ol ve d in?

b.

What a r e t h e
involved?

c.

How much o f t h e i r e f f o r t i s p r e s e n t l y expended on o u to f - c l a s s endeavors?

4.

areas

in

which

To what d e gre e do high school t e a c h e r s
involved in school-wide d e c i s i o n s ?

th e y

are

wish t o

not

become

a.

Do t h e y see themselves as being a b l e t o a f f e c t d e c i ­
s i o n s o u t s i d e t h e classroom?

b.

What d e c i s i o n s do th e y see themselves as a f f e c t i n g ?

c.
3.

decision

How much e f f o r t a re they w i l l i n g t o expend in o u t - o f c l a s s endeavors?

Do high school t e a c h e r s see themselves as b e n e f i t i n g from
involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making?
a.

What a re t h e

benefits?

b.

What a r e t h e

dis a d v a n ta g e s ?

c.

What h in d e r s

t h e i r involvement?

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t demographic d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d
with t e a c h e r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making?

Involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making by high school

teachers

in s e l e c t e d p u b l i c scho ols in Michigan was i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s s tu d y .
The

differences

were

categorized

on

the

basis

of

each

f o ll o w i n g e i g h t f a c t o r s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e components:
1.

Sex
a.

Female

b.

Male

of

th e

10

2.

Age
a.

Under 30 y e a r s

b.

30-39 y e a r s

c.

40-49 y e a r s

d.
3.

4.

5.

Educational s t a t u s
a.

B.A. degree

b.

M.A. degree

c.

Ed.S. degree

d.

Ph.D. degre e

Classroom te a c h i n g e x p er ie n c e
a.

1 - 5 years

b.

6-10 y e a r s

c.

11-15 y e a r s

d.

16-20 y e a r s

e.

Over 20 y e a r s

Type o f community
a.
b.

6.

Over 50 y e a r s

Rural
Small town

c.

City

d.

Suburban

Siz e o f school
a.

Under 319 s t u d e n t s

b.

319-626 s t u d e n t s

c.

627-1,204 s t u d e n t s

d.

Over 1,204 s t u d e n t s

11

Degree o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n
a.

Very s a t i s f i e d

b.

Satisfied

c.

D issatisfied

Teaching assignment
a.

English

b.

Mathematics

c.

Science

d.

Social s t u d i e s

e.

Art

f.

Music

g.

Home economics

h.

Business

i.

Industrial a rts

j.

Phys ical e d u c a ti o n

k.

Guidance and c ou ns e lin g

1

L i brar y/m ed ia

,

m.
9.

Spec ial ed u ca ti o n

Teacher p e r c e p t i o n o f b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l ’ s
adm inistrative sty le
a.

E x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l over a l l school d e c i s i o n s

b.

E x e r c is e s c o n t r o l over most school d e c i s i o n s

c.

E x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l over some school d e c i s i o n s

d.

E x e r c i s e s c o n t r o l over few school d e c i s i o n s

12

Imolications
Much o f t h e p r e v io u s l i t e r a t u r e on t e a c h e r s and sh ared d e c i s i o n
making has

focused on

e lem en ta ry

schools.

Given

r e c e n t i n t e r e s t in improving secondary e d u c a t i o n ,
this

it

the

increased

i s hoped t h a t

s tu dy can c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e e x t e n s i o n o f e x i s t i n g

knowledge

by i d e n t i f y i n g whether o r not secondary t e a c h e r s a r e i n t e r e s t e d
s h a r in g

the

d e ci si on- m aki ng

responsibilities

that

will

in

accompany

t h i s reform e f f o r t .
From t h i s in fo r m a t io n l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s , s t a t e dep artment s
o f e d u c a t i o n , and u n i v e r s i t y scho ols o f e d u c a ti o n can begin t o s o r t
out a d i r e c t i o n in which t o proceed with school improvement.

Also,

the y can i d e n t i f y who w i l l be involved in making t h e d e c i s i o n s t h a t
w ill

ultim ately

reshape

the

stru ctu re

of

A me ric an

secondary

education.
Popu la tio n
The

teachers

from

22

selected

public

high

sc ho ol s

in

the

Ottawa, Kent, and Muskegon County I n t e r m e d i a t e School D i s t r i c t s were
t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s s tu d y .

The 42 high sc h o o ls t h a t a re a p a r t o f

t h e s e i n t e r m e d i a t e school d i s t r i c t s were grouped by s i z e , usi ng t h e
classificatio n
Association.
random.

system

of

the

M ic h i g a n

High

School

A thletic

Schools from each s i z e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were s e l e c t e d a t

The t o t a l

number o f

high

schools

chosen

from

each

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was determined by t h e p e rc en ta g e t h a t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
r e p r e s e n t e d o f th e 42 s c h o o l s .

The number o f p a r t i c i p a n t s involved

in t h i s sampling was ap pro xim at el y 1,000.

13
The sample o f b u i l d i n g s was s e l e c t e d by s i z e w i t h i n t h e county
a r e a t o i n s u r e v a r i e t y in (a) s i z e o f s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , (b) r a c i a l
com pos it ion , and (c) s i z e and typ e o f community.
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
One o f t h e major q u e s t i o n s t h a t

had t o

be

resolved

in

th e

d e si gn o f t h e survey in s tr u m e n t f o r t h i s stud y was how t o co ver th e
broad

range

essay-type

of

possible

questions

decision

might

provide

areas.
the

Wh ile

greatest

open-ended,
latitu d e

for

resp onse and allow f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , such a s t r a t e g y would
c o m pl ic at e t h e t a s k o f t r y i n g t o c l a s s i f y o r s t a n d a r d i z e res ponse s
t o permit comparison or a n a l y s i s .
having

the

resp on den ts

provide

The mechanics alo ne involved in
l e n g th y

res po nse s

was

seen

as

a

s e r i o u s handicap.
Several o t h e r l i m i t a t i o n s a l s o w a rr a n t i n j e c t i o n he re :
1.

The d i f f e r e n c e s

identified

and t h e comparisons drawn

in

t h i s r e s e a r c h do not prove c a u s e - a n d - e f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
0

<_•

Tko

ii«w.

f inHinnc

• iiivinyv

r»f

wi

f k i <*

r + mWi#

/* r» r*+

wui Mi vv

t i s t i c a l sens e to a broad p o p u l a t i o n .
a theoretical

sens e,

however,

to

kn

ai

4 ■»

ilcu

4m

iii

m

a

I m p l i c a t i o n s can be drawn in

other

populations

of

a sim ilar

description.
3.

This study involved only secondary t e a c h e r s .

The f i n d i n g s

may not n e c e s s a r i l y be a p p l i c a b l e t o el em entary t e a c h e r s .
O pe rat ion al D e f i n i t i o n s
For t h e purposes o f t h i s s tu dy , involvement r e f e r s t o t e a c h e r s ’
p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e de ci si on -m aki ng p ro c e ss in

14

their

s c h o o l.

School-wide

making a r e ph ra s es t h a t

decision

making

and

s har ed

decision

a r e used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y in t h e st ud y to

r e f e r t o t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t t h e e n t i r e
school.
Overview o f Succeeding Chapters
L i t e r a t u r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h e stu dy i s reviewed in Chapter
Data c o l l e c t i o n
III.
its

and a n a l y s i s

proc ed ures

are

Findings a re p r e s e n t e d in Chapter IV.
conclusions,

lim itatio n s,

r e s e a r c h c o n s t i t u t e Chapter V.

presented

II.

in Chapter

A summary o f t h e s tu dy,

and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

for fu rth er

CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Conway (1984) contended t h a t f o r one t o unde rs ta nd t h e r e s u l t s
of participation

in d e c i s i o n making in e d u c a t i o n a l

t h e concept must f i r s t be d e f i n e d .

organizations,

He concluded t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i v e

d e c i s i o n making comprises t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n o f two major conceptual
sets:

(a) t h e s e t o f conce pts a s s o c i a t e d wit h d e c i s i o n making and

(b) th e s e t o f co ncep ts a s s o c i a t e d with p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
Locke

and

Schweiger

(1979)

defined

decision

making

as

any

p ro c e s s wherein one o r more a c t o r s de te rm in e a p a r t i c u l a r c h o ic e .
P a r t i c i p a t i o n f o r them r e f e r s t o t h e s h a r i n g by two o r more a c t o r s
in some a c t i o n or m a t t e r .
Duke,

Showers,

and

Imber

(1978)

concluded

that

attempts

invo lve t e a c h e r s in t h e decisio n-m akin g pro c e ss t y p i c a l l y

to

r e s t on

t h e n o ti o n t h a t such involvement would have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on th e
p ro d u c tiv ity of schools.
on two arguments.

In t h e i r o p i n i o n , t h i s p o s i t i o n i s based

The f i r s t argument i s t h a t t e a c h e r s , by v i r t u e of

t h e i r f r e q u e n t c o n t a c t with s t u d e n t s ,

a r e in an i d e a l p o s i t i o n t o

a s s e s s t h e e d u c a ti o n a l needs o f s t u d e n t s in a given school and t h a t
such an awareness o f s t u d e n t needs i s an e s s e n t i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e to
e f f e c t iv e educational d ecisions.

15

16
The a u t h o r s c o n tin ue d by i d e n t i f y i n g t h e second argument as one
whose b a s i s i s found in psychology.

This argument holds t h a t people

who a r e a p a r t o f t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p ro c e ss w i l l

have a v e st e d

i n t e r e s t in t h e implementation o f t h o s e d e c i s i o n s .

Therefore,

the

argument c o n t i n u e s , t e a c h e r s who help make d e c i s i o n s w i l l t r y h a r d e r
to

make t h o s e

decisions

work out

well,

and,

in

turn,

students

presumably w i l l b e n e f i t .
Domains o f Educational D eci si on Making
Duke (1978) noted f o u r domains o f d e c i s i o n making t h a t prov ide
an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t e a c h e r involvement.
the

domain

of

classroom

decisions

According t o t h e a u t h o r ,
has

received the

attention

in s t u d i e s o f t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n making.

are

to

easy

identify

from t h o s e

in

other

g reatest

These d e c i s i o n s

domains because

their

d i r e c t e f f e c t c e n t e r s on i n d i v i d u a l s in a s i n g l e c las sr oo m and a re
not n e c e s s a r i l y c o o r d i n a t e d with pe rsons o u t s i d e t h e c la s s ro om .

The

autonomy e x e r c i s e d by most t e a c h e r s in t h i s domain was q u e s ti o n e d in
a

study

by t h e

Natio nal

Institute

of

Education

(1975)

when

its

a u th o r s commented:
The t r a d i t i o n a l l y o rg a ni z ed school does not g iv e s u f f i c i e n t
su p p o rt t o t h e cl assroom t e a c h e r ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e .
In t h a t
school t h e l e a s t su pp or te d o r c o n t r o l l e d d e c i s i o n i s th e
d e c i s i o n on i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a t e g y made by cl assroom p e r s o n n e l .
Although t h e s c h o o l, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e e lem en ta ry s c h o o l , has
t h e appearance o f a b u r e a u c r a t i c s t r u c t u r e with t h e p r i n c i p a l
s u p e r v i s i n g t h e c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s , a n a l y s i s and r e s e a r c h
in d ic a te t h a t th e classroom te a c h e r is t y p i c a l l y t o t a l l y
i s o l a t e d in making im port an t e d u c a ti o n a l d e c i s i o n s , (pp. 8-9)
The s e c o n d do m a in , p r o f e s s i o n a l

organizational

decisions,

r e p r e s e n t s th o s e t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n s or a c t i v i t i e s t h a t a re a s s o c i a t e d

17
w it h t e a c h e r s ’ unions o r o t h e r e d u c a ti o n a l s p e c i a l t y g ro up s .
system d e c i s i o n s make up th e t h i r d domain.

School

Teachers may be a f f o r d e d

some de gre e o f i n p u t i n t o t h e s e d e c i s i o n s ,

but g e n e r a l l y t h e y are

made by c e n t r a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r e l e c t e d o r ap p o in te d g ro u p s .

The

f o u r t h domain encompasses t h o s e d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t t h e o p e r a t i o n
of a single school.
W ithin

these

do ma in s

of

educational

d e c i s i o n s t h a t mu st be made a b o u t

decision

instruction al

making

lie

coordination,

c u r r ic u lu m development, p r o f e s s i o n a l development, e v a l u a t i o n , school
im pr ovem e nt

and

personnel,

rules

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and p o l i c y making.
some i n s i g h t

into

the

and

d iscip lin e,

general

The e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e pr o v id e s

opportunities

for

involvement

in

these

decisional categories.
I n s t r u c t i o n a l C oo rd in a tio n
One o f t h e

larg est

concentrated

efforts

c o o r d i n a t i o n i s t h e concept o f team t e a c h i n g .
activity

belies

the

pla nn ing t o g e t h e r .

name

in

that

its

at

instructional

The focus o f t h i s

emphasis

is

prim arily

on

Cohen (1976) noted t h a t team t e a c h e r s i n t e r a c t e d

more than nonteam c o u n t e r p a r t s

and th ou gh t th e y e x e r c i s e d g r e a t e r

i n f l u e n c e over t h e i r t e a c h i n g t a s k s .
Johnson
instructional

(197 5)

reported

coordination

that

actually

ty p e s o f school d e c i s i o n making.

teacher
led

to

p articip atio n

involvement

He d i s c o v e r e d t h a t

in

in

other

" th e g r e a t e r

t h e i n t e n s i t y and e x t e n s i t y o f t e a c h e r c o l l a b o r a t i o n in d a i l y work,
th e

more

likely

it

is

that

teachers

will

participate

in

school

18
d e c i s i o n s which in o t h e r sc ho ol s a re l e f t p r i m a r i l y t o p r i n c i p a l s "
(p. 3 6) .
Duckworth and J o v i c k (1978) warned t h a t one should be c a u t i o u s
when

predicting

coordination.

the

effects

of

team

teaching

They concluded t h a t t h e r e

on

instructional

i s a v a r i e t y o f ways t o

b r in g about i n s t r u c t i o n a l c o o r d i n a t i o n , and each may a f f e c t t e a c h e r
involvement in a d i f f e r e n t way.
In a stud y o f sc ho ols t h a t a r e made up o f t e a c h e r work groups,
Schmuck, Paddock, and Packard (1977) r e p o r t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s d id not
b e l i e v e , e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l l y o r as a s t a f f , t h a t t h e y had i n c re a s e d
influence

over

school

c o l l a b o r a t i v e gro ups.

decisions

through

involvement

with

these

While t e a c h e r s have had some o p p o r t u n i t y to

he lp c o o r d i n a t e t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l program, t h i s involvement appears
to

have r e s u l t e d

in u n c l e a r f i n d i n g s

in

terms

of

its

effect

on

a

result

of

t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n making.
Instructional

coordination

p r o c e s s e s o t h e r than teaming.

can

take

as

Hanson (1978) broke scho ols down i n t o

a s s o r t e d formal and informal c o a l i t i o n s ,
power b a s e s .

p la c e

He b e l i e v e d t h a t

s p h er es o f i n f l u e n c e ,

and

i n t e r e s t groups o f t e n form around

p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s and d i s s o l v e upon t h e i r r e s o l u t i o n .
Curriculum Development
Teacher involvement in cu rri c ul um d e c i s i o n making has grown out
o f t h e mandate f o r e d u c a ti o n a l change.

Meyer and Cohen (1971), in a

st udy comparing open and t r a d i t i o n a l s c h o o l s , found t h a t t e a c h e r s in
the

open

school

collaborated

more

often

on

c u rr ic u lu m

issues,

19
t ho ugh t o f themselves as a b le t o e x e r c i s e c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e in
c u rr ic u lu m

pl a n n in g ,

influence

less

and

often.

e lem ent ary p r i n c i p a l s

p e rc ei v e d
Johnson

their

(1975)

surveyed

188

exercise
California
them

c o n s u l t e d o r involved t e a c h e r s in c u rr ic u lu m d e c i s i o n making.

He

obtained

indications

that

that

to

of

also

and d is c o v e r e d

principal

teacher

involvement

g r e a t e r in sch ool s where teaming o c c u r r e d .
s tu dy inc lu de d no g e ner al
It

is

c o n c e iv a b le

that

three-quarters

was

somewhat

U n f o r t u n a t e l y , Jo hnso n’ s

check on t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r i n c i p a l s .

these

individuals

s har ed

a perception

of

t e a c h e r involvement t h a t d i f f e r e d from t h e t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s .
Being involved in making, or being c o n s u l t e d abo ut, c ur ri c u lu m
decisions

is

not n e c e s s a r i l y t h e same as e x e r c i s i n g

what d e c i s i o n s a r e made.

Walker

(1977),

control

over

w hile acknowledging th e

r e l a t i v e autonomy o f t e a c h e r s "behind t h e cl assroom d o o r , " observed
that

" th e t e a c h e r ’ s r o l e

is constrained

and l i m i t e d

by d e c i s i o n s

made o u t s i d e th e cl assroom which a re out o f h i s o r her c o n t r o l " (p.
19 ).

Some o f

assignment

of

the

external

students,

decisions

s c h e d u li n g ,

co ver

te x tb o o k

such

areas

approval,

as

th e

and

the

s e le c tio n o f standardized t e s t s .
Floden

(1978)

and a group o f

researchers

at

Michigan

State

U n i v e r s i t y ’ s I n s t i t u t e f o r Research on Teaching s t u d i e d who c o n t r o l s
what i s t a u g h t in cl as s ro om s .

They noted t h a t t e a c h e r s should not

be regar ded as autonomous c u rr ic ulu m d e c i s i o n makers i f t h e c o n t e n t
c h o ic e s the y make a r e based on a l i m i t e d range o f o p t i o n s ( i . e . ,
d i s t r i c t l i s t o f approved t e x t b o o k s ) .

a

20

A National Education A s s o c i a t i o n p o ll r e p o r t e d t h a t 62% o f th e
t e a c h e r s surveyed f e l t th e y were as invol ve d in c u r r i c u l u m d e c i s i o n
making as th e y wanted t o be.

A l u t t o and Belasco (1972) and Conway

(1976) found t h a t some t e a c h e r s had more involvement in c u rr ic u lu m
d e c i s i o n making than th e y d e s i r e d .

K i r s t and Walker (1971) observed

t h a t s i n c e t e a c h e r s have f a i l e d t o br in g c u r ri c u lu m i s s u e s t o th e
bargaining ta b le ,

involvement by t e a c h e r s

in c u r ri c u lu m d e c i s i o n s

a ppea rs t o occupy a r e l a t i v e l y low p r i o r i t y .
that

involvement

in

c u rr ic ulu m

decisions

Imber (1978) sug ges te d
could

make

the

job

of

t e a c h i n g more c h a l l e n g i n g , r e s p o n s i b l e , and s t i m u l a t i n g .
P r o f e s s i o n a l Development
Teachers

are

staying

and gra yin g

in t o d a y ’ s t e a c h e r market.

The q u e s t i o n o f how t o pr ov ide t h i s v e t e r a n t e a c h i n g f o r c e with new
knowledge

and sharpened

skills

is

the

thrust

of

efforts

in

the

professional-development area.
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , c o n t r o l over i n s e r v i c e e d u c a ti o n has r e s t e d with
uni VPrsit.iPS.
.....- - - - - -

;

srhnnl

H istrirt

nff-irialc
w

McLaughlin and March (1978) noted t h a t
participate
decision

[in

inservice

e x p e r ie n c e s ]

making power and w it h o u t

time

}

nr

hii'i'M'jnn

w•

• I MI

"teachers

1I I I V i

were i n v i t e d

w it h o u t having
being

D r ip .c ic al s.

p

given

i w•

to

significant
for

them to

p a r t i c i p a t e me aningfully" (p. 91 ).

E d e l f e l t (Far West Teacher Corps

Network,

guideline

1976)

s ug ges te d

as

one

for

the

control

of

p r o f e s s i o n a l development t h a t " d e c i s i o n s a r e made by t h e peop le who
a r e a f f e c t e d , and t h e d e c i s i o n s a r e made as c l o s e as p o s s i b l e t o th e
s i t u a t i o n where t h e y w i l l be o p e r a t i v e . "

21

Joyce

(1976)

concluded t h a t

no one group c u r r e n t l y

controls

p r o f e s s i o n a l development, but t h e r e i s some e vid enc e t o s u g g e s t t h a t
teacher

involvem ent

in

th is

area

is

expanding.

L egislation

promoting and p ro v id i n g f i n a n c i a l sup por t f o r t e a c h e r c e n t e r s i s an
im po rt an t i n d i c a t i o n o f p r o g r e s s in t h i s a r e a .
Duke (1977) and Lawrence (1974) noted t h a t i n s e r v i c e programs
with

the

best

teachers

being

effective

are

those

in t h e pla n n in g and managing o f t h e i r

development
findings
pursu ed ,

chance o f

activities.

regarding

Joyce

et

al.

(1976)

te a c h e rs ’ perceptions

of

that

in v ol v e

own p r o f e s s i o n a l documented

sim ilar

activ ities

to

in c l u d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n from o t h e r t e a c h e r s ,

be
and

t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f o n - t h e - j o b a p p l i c a t i o n and fee db ack .
Stephens (1975) r e p o r t e d t h a t one o f t h e d e c i s i o n s t e a c h e r s a re
most i n t e r e s t e d in i n f l u e n c i n g i s th e d e s i g n a t i o n o f t h e p r i o r i t i e s
of professional-development a c t i v i t i e s .

He su gg est ed t h a t t e a c h e r

i n t e r e s t in t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e a i s keen because t r a i n i n g t o p i c s t h a t
ayo viewed as high p r i o r i t i e s a re not always t h e same as t h o s e t h a t
concern a d m i n i s t r a t o r s o r t e a c h e r e d u c a t o r s .
Yarger e t a l .

(1976)

most w e re i n t e r e s t e d

in

surveyed 1,200 t e a c h e r s
training

that

covered

and found t h a t
basic

teaching

s t r a t e g i e s a c r o s s c o n t e n t a r e a s and ge ner al t e a c h i n g s k i l l s .
Ev al ua tio n
Ev a lu a tio n a s s o c i a t e d with t e a c h e r performance has g e n e r a t e d an
almost unmanageable volume o f r e s e a r c h .

Teachers s t i l l

c o n t i n u e to

c r i t i c i z e t h e fr equency o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s as well

as

22

the

criteria

and

procedures

involved

in

teacher

evaluation.

C o l l e g i a l e v a l u a t i o n i s one outgrowth o f t h i s t e a c h e r conce rn.
The c a s e o f c o l l e g i a l

e v a l u a t i o n was put s u c c i n c t l y by Bruno

and Nottingham (1976):
Teachers a re in t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o e v a l u a t e o t h e r t e a c h e r s ;
and more i m p o r t a n t l y , th e y a re more l i k e l y t o g e t c o o p e r a t i o n
from po or e r t e a c h e r s toward i n c r e a s e d performance s i n c e th e y
a r e no t pl ace d in t h e a d v e r s a r y t e a c h e r - a d m i n i s t r a t o r r o l e .
(pp. 29-30)
F u r t h e r argument

for

teacher

involvement

in

evaluation

came

from a s tu dy by Vavrus (1978), who r e p o r t e d t h a t t e a c h e r a l i e n a t i o n
may r e s u l t in p a r t from t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f l a c k o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
the

evaluation

evaluation

of

one’s

by Roper,

Vavrus’ s c o n c l u s i o n .

own work.

Deal,

and Dornbusch

and

test

(1976)

of

collegial

seemed t o

uphold

Most o f t h e 30 t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r t r a i n e e s

r e a c t e d f a v o r a b l y t o t h e ex per im ent ,
improvement

A pilot

feeling

a sens e

gaining

of jo b

new id e a s

control.

for

self-

The c o l l e g i a l

e v a l u a t i o n model t h a t was t e s t e d c o n s i s t e d o f seven s t e p s :
1.

Choosing a p a r t n e r

2.

Selecting evaluation c r i t e r i a

3.

Self-assessment

4.

S tud en t ass essment

5.

O bs e rv a tio ns

6.

Conference on e v a l u a t i o n s

7.

Development o f an improvement plan

The f i r s t ,

second, and seventh s t e p s r e q u i r e formal d e c i s i o n s t o be

made, a lth oug h t e a c h e r s a re no t involved

in t h e f i r s t

step.

The

principal is responsible fo r selectin g c o lle g ial evaluation p a ir s .

23

The a u t h o r s no te d t h a t t h e a s p e c t o f t h i s model with t h e most
radical

i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e school a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e c l e a r l y i s

teacher determination of evaluation c r i t e r i a .
t e a c h e r s found t h i s phase t h e most d i f f i c u l t .

In t h e exp eriment,
Five g u i d e l i n e s were

established fo r the sele c tio n of evaluation c r i t e r i a :
1.
u si ng

The two t e a c h e r s
such

so u rc es

as

i d e n t i f y t h e pool

school

goals,

of possible c r i t e r i a

accountability

guidelines,

r e c e n t r e s e a r c h , and t h e i r own ph ilo s op hy .
2.

Each t e a c h e r makes a l i s t

of four or fiv e

criteria

and

exchanges l i s t s w it h h i s or he r p a r t n e r .
3.

The two t e a c h e r s agree on a l i s t o f f o u r o r f i v e c r i t e r i a .

4.

The two t e a c h e r s review th e l i s t t o make s u r e each c r i t e ­

r i o n i s s p e c i f i c and o b s e r v a b l e .
5.

The c r i t e r i a a re l i s t e d on t h e o b s e r v a t i o n form.

Evidence on t h e e f f e c t o f c o l l e g i a l
mixed.

e v a l u a t i o n appea rs t o be

Dornbusch and S c o t t (1975) r e p o r t e d on a stu dy o f 131 p u b l i c

school t e a c h e r s in which i t was noted t h a t t e a c h e r s were s a t i s f i e d
w ith t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n
control.

systems over which th e y e x e r c i s e d

little

Marram, Dornbusch, and S c o t t (1972) found t h a t e le m ent ary

t e a c h e r s had l i t t l e c onfi de nc e in an a p p r a i s a l o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g by
other

teachers.

teachers

in

Meyer

an open

c onfi de nc e in c o l l e g i a l
t r a d i t i o n a l schools.

and

school

Cohen

(1971),

expressed

however,

a much h i g h e r

found

that

level

e v a l u a t i o n th a n d id t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s

of
in

24
D e sp ite t h i s mixed review o f f i n d i n g s , d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g th e
e v a l u a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s c o n ti n u e t o be i n f l u e n c e d most by t h o s e in
adm inistrative positions.
School Improvement and Personnel
Like t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n ,

school-improvement e f f o r t s

an e x e r c i s e in top-down management.

have been

Duke (1980) noted t h a t t h e s e

e f f o r t s have tended t o ad dr e ss a number o f changes, i n c l u d i n g a l t e r ­
a t i o n s in t h e a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s c h o o l.

Two such s c h o o l -

improvement programs i nvo lv in g t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n making a r e t h e San
J o s e Teacher Involvement P r o j e c t (TIP) and t h e I n d i v i d u a l l y Guided
Education (IGE) program sponsored by t h e K e t t e r i n g Foundation.
The TIP was in te nde d t o achiev e t h r e e

primary outcomes

(San

J os e Teacher A s s o c i a t i o n , 1977):
1.

To encourage t h e p ro c e s s in g o f problems through l o c a l gov­

ernance s t r u c t u r e .
2.

To c o n ti n u e and extend t e a c h e r involvement by p r o v i d i n g a

means by which t e a c h e r s could use t h e i r

professional

judgment to

i n f l u e n c e and improve t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs f o r s t u d e n t s .
3.

To provid e funds f o r implementation o f programs de signed

and managed by t e a c h e r s t o so lv e t h e problems i d e n t i f i e d through t h e
governance s t r u c t u r e .
While t h e IGE s h a r e s t h e TI P’ s b a s i c concern f o r comprehensive
school improvement, i t s d i f f e r e n c e s may be seen in t h e b a s i c b e l i e f s
t h a t u n d e r l i e t h e program:

25
1.

The i n d i v i d u a l

school

i s a s t r a t e g i c u n i t o f e d u c a ti o n a l

change.
2.

The c u l t u r e o f t h e school i s c e n t r a l both t o un de rs ta n d in g

and t o e f f e c t i n g e d u c a ti o n a l improvement.
3.

Given e x i s t i n g

individual

social

and e d u c a t i o n a l

scho ols a r e not s t r o n g enough t o

constraints,

overcome t h e

most

inertia

a g a i n s t change b u i l t i n t o t h e t y p i c a l school d i s t r i c t .
4.

Each school

needs a pro c e ss by which i t

can deal

effec­

t i v e l y wit h i t s own problems and e f f e c t i t s own change.
Duke (1978) noted t h a t i t seems c l e a r from t h e s e examples t h a t
some at te m p t has been made t o invo lve t e a c h e r s in school-improvement
e f f o r t s , but th e e x t e n t t o which d e c i s i o n s have had an i n f l u e n c e on
school improvement i s u n c l e a r .
The view t h a t seems to p r e v a i l among th o s e who have s t u d i e d th e
problems a s s o c i a t e d with school

improvement was e x p re ss e d by Bredo

and Bredo (1975):
Strong a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a d e r s h i p may be an e f f e c t i v e approach
t o implementing major change, p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e c a s e of
resistance
from some o f t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s members.
A d m i n i s t r a t o r s may b o l s t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n by e n l i s t i n g
in c r e a s e d s up port from s u p e r i o r s . . . . I f such s u p p o rt i s not
for thcoming, and i f an a d m i n i s t r a t o r i s weak o r no l o n g e r has
t h e c on fi d e nce o f t h e s t a f f , a tt e m p ts t o impose changes a r e not
l i k e l y t o meet with s u c c e s s , (p. 21)
Duke (1978) concluded t h a t t h e s t a t e o f t h e a r t in t h e a r e a of
school improvement c o n t i n u e s t o be a view from t h e t o p down r a t h e r
than from such g r a s s - r o o t s elements as l o c a l t e a c h e r s .
Johnson (1975) observed t h a t personnel d e c i s i o n s t y p i c a l l y a re
one o f t h e school d e c i s i o n s in which t e a c h e r s a r e l e a s t

inv olv e d.

26
He r e p o r t e d t h a t seldom a r e t e a c h e r s inc lud ed in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g
the

determ ination

recruitm ent

personnel

criteria,

adm inistrators,
uncertain

of

or

or

other

financial

needs,

the

establishm ent

the

actual

selection

school

staff.

D ecl in in g

may f o r c e

school

conditions

of

of

teachers,

enrollment
systems

to

and
hold

fast.
Rules and D i s c i p l i n e
Duke, Donmoyer, and Farman (1978) and Duke (1979) c i t e d s t u d e n t
b e ha vi or

problems

teachers.

as

the

They b e l i e v e d

decision
that

area

often

of

greatest

interest

out o f d e s p e r a t i o n

to

and f e a r

t e a c h e r s a r e f o r c i n g t h e i r unions t o bri n g school d i s c i p l i n e i s s u e s
t o th e b a r g a in in g t a b l e .
t e a c h e r s may even ig n o re

The a u th o rs concluded t h a t some f r u s t r a t e d
school-wide problems

and c o n c e n t r a t e

on

e s t a b l i s h i n g o r d e r in t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c la ss roo ms .
The kinds o f d e c i s i o n s t h a t have t o be made i f t e a c h e r s wish to
deal with s t u d e n t be ha vi or problems a t t h e s c h o o l, r a t h e r than th e
class room ,

le v e l

i n c lu d e t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f r u l e s ,

f o r bre ak in g r u l e s ,

consequences

and mechanisms f o r r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s between

s t u d e n t s and t e a c h e r s .

Duke (1977)

and F r a n c is

(1975)

sup por te d

t h e need f o r a high degree o f t e a c h e r involvement in making a l l
these

decisions,

believing

that

the

odds

of

getting

enforcement a r e g r e a t e s t when th o s e who must see t h a t

of

effective
rules

are

obeyed a re involved in making them, along with th o s e s u b j e c t t o th e
rules.

Elsewhere, though, Duke (1979) noted t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e not

involved very much in making d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g

school

rules

and

27
discipline policies.

It

seems i r o n i c

that

teacher au th o rity

for

making t h e s e d e c i s i o n s appea rs t o be e ro di ng a t t h e same time t h a t
public expectations t h a t teach ers will
s t u d e n t conduct a r e i n c r e a s i n g .
(1971),
are

over

Johnson (1975) and Meyer and Cohen

however, noted t h a t open-space sc hools wit h team t e a c h i n g

characterized

adm inistrator
with

ex ercise t i g h t control

by

influence

self-contained

g reater

teacher

influence

over d i s c i p l i n a r y
classroom s

and

decisions

low

and

less

tha n

sc ho ol s

of

teacher

levels

interaction.
Whether

the

sc h o o ls as well
P e rr y (1978),
that

small

p re c ed in g

findings

are

as e lem en ta ry scho ols

applicable

to

remains u n c l e a r .

in a s tu dy o f a l t e r n a t i v e high s c h o o l s ,
size

is

a major

secondary

factor

in

Duke and

hy p ot h e si ze d

explaining

why

these

a l t e r n a t i v e s seem t o e x p e r ie n c e fewer d i s c i p l i n e problems th a n l a r g e
high s c h o o ls ne arby.
policies

for

I t would seem t h a t t h e demand f o r r u l e s and

hand lin g

be h a v io r

problems

is

greater

in

secondary

sc h oo ls tha n in e lem en ta ry s c h o o l s .
General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
The a l l o c a t i o n
determination

of resources,

of e x tr a c u r r ic u la r

s e t t l e m e n t o f minor g r i e v a n c e s ,
programs,

and

on-site

budgetar y

m a t t e r s make up t h e d e c i s i o n c a te g o ry g e n er al a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
category
w ithin

is
the

easily
purview

identifiable
of

the

as

one t h a t

building

traditionally

principal.

Duke

This
falls
(19 80 )

commented:
Within
little

t h e c o n t e x t o f c on ve nt io na l p u b l i c sc h o o ls
evidence
of
teacher
involvem ent
in

th e re is
general

28
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n de ci s io n -m ak in g .
Sometimes in small e le m ent ary
s c h o o l s , o f t e n l o c a t e d in r u r a l d i s t r i c t s , one t e a c h e r may be
d e s i g n a t e d a " te a c h in g p r i n c i p a l , " b ut t h i s p r a c t i c e t y p i c a l l y
bespeaks more o f a concern with economies o f s c a l e th a n a
commitment t o t e a c h e r l e a d e r s h i p .
One

occasionally

re a d s

or

h e ar s

about

a

school

in

which

t e a c h e r s e x e r c i s e some c o n t r o l over d e c i s i o n s in t h e a r e a o f g en eral
adm inistration,

bu t i t

is

s a f e t o conclude t h a t

the

overwhelming

m a j o r i t y o f t h e s e d e c i s i o n s r e s t with t h e b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l .
The

one

area

adm inistration
alternative

in

decision

s c h o o li n g .

wh ic h

teacher

making
Duke

might
(1978)

involvem ent
be

studied

noted

that

in

general

em pirically
many

is

alternative

sc h oo ls have been c r e a t e d by t e a c h e r s d i s s a t i s f i e d w it h c o nven ti on al
public education.

T y p i c a l l y an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

s tr u c t u r e fo r these

sc h oo ls i s s e l e c t e d t h a t p ro v id e s f o r c o l l a b o r a t i v e d e c i s i o n making
among a l l s t a f f and o f t e n among s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s as w e l l .

Full­

time a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a r e r a r e , and, where the y e x i s t , t h e y te nd t o be
f a c i l i t a t o r s or c o o r d i n a t o r s r a t h e r th a n c l a s s i c a l
McConahay e t a l .

adm inistrators.

(1973), in a s tu dy o f one such a l t e r n a t i v e s c h o o l,

d is c o v e r e d t h a t t e a c h e r s v a r i e d in t h e i r d e s i r e t o do a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
task s.

Some

spent

more

than

10% o f

th eir

tim e

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , whereas o t h e r s sp en t almost no t i m e ,

in

general

p r e f e r r i n g to

counsel s t u d e n t s o r t e a c h a d d i t i o n a l c l a s s e s .
Po li cy Making
A review o f th e h i s t o r y o f e d u c a t i o n a l p o l i c y making r e v e a l s a
t e a c h e r c orp s removed from t h e very h e a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s .

Corwin

(1970)

policy

found t h a t a d e s i r e f o r more i n f l u e n c e o ve r school

29
accounted f o r much o f t h e t e a c h e r m i l i t a n c y and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

he

found in t h e 28 high sc h oo ls he s t u d i e d .
Duke (1980) main taine d t h a t , t r a d i t i o n a l l y , t e a c h e r s i n t e r e s t e d
in becoming

involved

in p o l i c y making had t o

contend with

local

boards o f e d u c a ti o n and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who j e a l o u s l y guarded t h e i r
prerogatives.

Today t h e r e a r e i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t t e a c h e r s may have to

contend with d i f f e r e n t f o r c e s i f t h e i r v o i c e s a re t o be heard duri ng
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f school p o l i c i e s .
Proposition
local

13,

control,

ostensibly
actually

Legislation lik e C a lifo rn ia ’s

a grass-roots

effort

may foreshadow t h e

end

by

believers

in

of

decentralized

d e c i s i o n making a t t h e d i s t r i c t and school l e v e l s .
Summary
A h i s t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e o f t e a c h e r s and sh ared d e c i s i o n making
was t h e

focus

researchers

of th is

chapter.

seemed t o q u e s t i o n

Throughout

the

extent

to

th is
which

chronology,
teachers

are

involved in t h e decis ion -m aki ng p ro c e s s and t h e de gre e t o which such
involvement i n f l u e n c e s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r work o r t h e environment
in which i t t a k e s p l a c e .
Much o f t h e
el em entary

research

teachers

as

on t e a c h e r s

the

subjects

and
of

shared

the

decisions

s tu d y .

This

used
stu dy

d i f f e r s from most o f t h o s e reviewed in t h a t i t s foc us i s secondary
teachers
im por tan t

and,

more s p e c i f i c a l l y ,

difference

is

the

high

inclusion

school
of

a

teachers.
broad

Another

spectrum

of

d e c i s i o n a r e a s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f

30
involvement, as well as t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r i n f l u e n c e in
t h e d e ci si on-m aking a r e n a .
What appea rs in t h e l i t e r a t u r e seems t o be inc on gr uen t with th e
c u r r e n t p r e s s t o reform p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n .

The c r i t i c s ’ f i n g e r o f

blame and f e e l i n g s o f hope f o r speedy reform appea r t o r e s t h e a v i l y
on t h e b a s i c human element in t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
teachers,

and t h e i r

involvement

in d e c i s i o n s

process,
to

change

cl assroom
existing

p r a c t i c e s seems c r i t i c a l t o a s u c c e s s f u l reform e f f o r t .
Most

of

th is

criticism

appears

to

be

directed

at

high

s c h o o l s , and most o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s and recommendations f o r change
invo lve a s p e c t s o f sc ho ol in g in which high school t e a c h e r s s h a r e a
v e s te d

interest.

A restructuring

of

public

appears t o be a n a t i o n a l p r i o r i t y f o r t h e 1980s.

secondary

e d u c a ti o n

I t seems t h a t the

s p o t l i g h t o f reform i s aimed and focused on almost every a s p e c t of
this

institution,

and t h e c r i t i c s

and p h i l o s o p h e r s

e x to l t h e v i r t u e s o f t h e i r pl an s o f a c t i o n .

s ta n d re ad y to

CHAPTER I I I
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

The r e s e a r c h e r ’ s purpose
e x t e n t t o which high school

in

this

teachers

stu dy was t o
are

involved

identify
in

the

school-wide

d e c i s i o n making and t o r e l a t e v a ri o u s a s p e c t s o f t h i s involvement to
a number o f v a r i a b l e s .

The i n t e n t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o d e s c r i b e

how t h e v a r i a b l e s were s e l e c t e d , how t h e in s tr u m e n t t o i d e n t i f y th e
degree o f t e a c h e r involvement was developed and a d m i n i s t e r e d ,

how

t h e sample sc h o o ls were chosen, and how t h e d a t a were c o l l e c t e d and
analyze d.
Although t h e major f u n c t i o n o f d e s c r i p t i v e s t u d i e s has as i t s
primary focus a concern with f i n d i n g
researcher’s

purpose

to

describe

th e

out

"what

current

is,"
status

it
of

was t h i s
teacher

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making as t h e f i r s t s t e p toward
t h e development o f id e a s f o r change and improvement.
I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f V a r ia b le s
The in s tr u m e n t developed t o g a t h e r in fo r m a t io n f o r t h i s
had two major p a r t s .
1.

study

The o b j e c t i v e s were:

To g a t h e r demographic and d e s c r i p t i v e in fo r m a t io n about th e

respondents.

31

32
2.

To deter mine

the

decision

areas

in

which

teachers

are

"results"

of

involved in school-wide d e c i s i o n making.
3.

To deter mine

teachers’

perceptions

of

the

t h e i r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making in v a r i o u s d e c i s i o n
areas.
4.

To deter mine t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r involvement in

g en era l schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making.
5.

To deter mine whether t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e th e y can a f f e c t or

i n f l u e n c e t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s .
6.

To deter mine t h e degr ee t o which t e a c h e r s a re w i l l i n g to

i n v e s t time in th e a c t i v i t i e s o f school-wide d e c i s i o n making.
7.

To

gather

"benefits"

or

i n fo r m a t io n

on

teachers’

advantages o f t h e i r

perceptions

involvement

in

of

th e

school-w ide

d e c i s i o n making.
8.
"risks"

To g a t h e r
or

in f or m at io n

on

teachers’

disadvantages of t h e i r

perceptions

involvem ent

in

of

th e

school-w ide

d e c i s i o n making.
9.

To g a t h e r in fo r m a t io n on t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e f a c ­

t o r s t h a t h i n d e r t h e i r involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making.
A review

of

the

literatu re

and

interviews

with

teachers,

counselors,

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f a l l

played a r o l e

in d e f i n i n g

t h o s e v a r i a b l e s t o be used in t h e s tu d y .

The v a r i a b l e s

used were:
1.

Demographic and d e s c r i p t i v e in fo r m a t io n about r e s p o n d e n ts :
a.

sex o f re sp onden t

b.

age o f re sp onden t

33

2.

c.

de g re es held

d.

classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e

e.

ty pe o f community

f.

school e n ro ll m e n t

g.

job s a t i s f a c t i o n

h.

te a c h i n g assignment

i.

p r in c ip a l’s leadership s ty le

D ecision a r e a s in which t e a c h e r s a r e inv ol ve d in school wide d e c i s i o n making:
a.

team t e a c h i n g

b.

c ur ri c u lu m

c.

p r o f e s s i o n a l development

d.

teacher evaluation

e.

school improvement

f.

personnel needs

g.

hiring

h.

school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e

i . budget

3.

j.

the settlem ent of grievances

k.

extracurricular a c tiv itie s

1.

school p o l i c i e s

Teachers’ perceptions of the " r e s u lt s " of t h e i r involve­
ment in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making:
a.

positive

b.

negative

c.

neutral

34
4.

5.

6.

Teachers* p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r involvement in ge ner al
schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making:
a.

very involved

b.

somewhat involved

c.

not involved

Teachers* p e r c e p t i o n s o f whether they can a f f e c t o r i n f l u ­
ence t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s in t h e s e d e c i s i o n
areas:
a.

team te a c h i n g

b.

c ur ri c u lu m

c.

p r o f e s s i o n a l development

d.

teacher evaluation

e.

school improvement

f.

personnel needs

g.

hiring

h.

school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e

i.

budget

j.

t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f g r ie v a n c e s

k.

extracurricular a ctiv itie s

1.

school p o l i c i e s

The degree t o which t e a c h e r s a r e w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t t h e i r
time in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making:
a.

a g r e a t deal o f time

b.

some time

c.

l i t t l e o r no time

35
7.

8.

Teachers* p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e " b e n e f i t s " o r ad vantages o f
t h e i r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making:
a.

in c r e a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e

b.

a sens e o f accomplishment

c.

a f e e l i n g o f c o o p e r a ti o n

d.

i n c r e a s e d workplace democracy

Teachers* p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e " r i s k s " o r d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f
t h e i r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making:
a. l o s s o f time

9.

b.

r e d u c t i o n in pe rsonal autonomy

c.

r i s k o f n e g a t i v e r e a c t i o n from c o l l e a g u e s

d.

r i s k t h a t c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g e f f o r t s may be
je o p a r d i z e d

e.

r i s k t h a t such involvement may a f f e c t f u t u r e chances
f o r advancement

T e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e f a c t o r s t h a t h i n d e r t h e i r
involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making:
a.

l a c k o f time

b.

lack of opportunity

rW•

|^«

d.

pe er p r e s s u r e

e.

personal philo so phy

f.

disinterest

n r i n• •r• w
i n• ^a M
l I

l oI aWrM
l oMvW'Ie ^11
h - l nI ^

WWJ

o

I W

Design o f t h e Ins trument
The v a r i a b l e s o f i n t e r e s t were i d e n t i f i e d by means o f a twop a r t , seven-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix A).
p ro vi de

re s p o n d en ts

wit h

a predeterm ined

would e s t a b l i s h t h e c e n t r a l

series

focus o f t h e s tu d y ,

I t was de ci de d to
of

ite m s ,

which

i n s u r e t h e uniform

36

coverage

of

specific

im por tan t

systematic analysis of the d a ta.

or

key

issues,

and

p e rm it

Once t h i s d e c i s i o n was made,

th e
it

was n e c e s s a r y t o det er mi ne what t o p i c s should be inc lud ed in t h i s
s t r u c t u r e d for mat.
B uild in g t h e c o n t e n t and format o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e became a
s ix -s te p process:
1.

Reviewing t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

2.

Writing t h e f i r s t d r a f t o f t h e i n s tr u m e n t.

3.

Ad mi nis te rin g t h e in s tr um e nt t o a sample group f o r r e a c t i o n .

4.

Revising t h e rough d r a f t .

5.

P r e s e n t i n g t h e in s tr um e nt t o sp ons ori ng committee members
for reaction.

6.

Developing a f i n a l copy o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

The review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e provided a view o f what has been
as t h e l o g i c a l a n t e c e d e n t in t h e searc h f o r "what i s . "
review ,

the w rite r

id en tified

recurring

Through t h i s

the m e s t h a t w a r r a n t e d

i n c l u s i o n in t h e p r e s e n t study.
A dm inistering
individuals,

the

i n c lu d in g

instrum ent
teachers,

to

a

s am pl e

adm inistrators,

group
and

of

six

counselors,

helped p ro vid e br e a d th and de pth through t h e i r p e r t i n e n t q u e s t i o n s
and c r i t i c i s m .

With t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e , language used in t h e survey

was s i m p l i f i e d and modified t o f a c i l i t a t e u n d e rs ta n d in g and minimize
redundancy.

Sponsoring committee members r e a c t e d f a v o r a b l y t o th e

r e v i s e d rough d r a f t and sug ges te d t h e a d d i t i o n o f s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s

37
in t h e demographic and d e s c r i p t i v e

in f or m at io n about th e re s p o n d ­

ents.
S e l e c t i o n and D e s c r i p t i o n o f Respondents
High

school

research.

teachers

w e re

the

subjects

studied

in

this

In d e f i n i n g t h e sample, a random s t r a t i f i e d p r o c e s s was

chosen in an at te m pt t o i n s u r e as v a r i e d a sample as p o s s i b l e .

The

sampling was a c t u a l l y based on t h e s i z e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system o f th e
Michigan High School A t h l e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n .
The

43

public

high

sc h o o ls

Counties were grouped by s i z e

in

Ottawa,

classification.

p o o l , 23 high sch ool s were s e l e c t e d a t random.

Kent,

and

From t h i s

Muskegon
sample

The number of high

scho ols s e l e c t e d from each s i z e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was de termined by the
p e r c e n ta g e t h a t s i z e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e p r e s e n t e d o f t h e 43 sc h o o ls in
t h e sample pool (s e e Table 1) .

Table 1 . --Summary o f high school sample pool and sample by s i z e
classification.
Size
C lassification

Stude nt
Enrollment

No. of
Schools

A
B
C
D

1,205 o r more
627-1,204
319- 626
Less than 319

13
18
9
3

30
42
21
7

7
10
5
1

43

100

23

Total

% of
Sample Pool

Sample

38
All o f t h e t e a c h e r s in t h e 23 high sc h oo ls in t h e sample were
contacted.

Of t h e 1,030 c o n t a c t e d , 435 responded (a r e t u r n r a t e of

42%).
A m a j o r i t y o f t h e t e a c h e r s who responded t o t h e stu dy were
between 30 and 49 y e a r s o f age.

Twenty p e r c e n t more males than

females were r e p r e s e n t e d (s e e Table 2 ) .

Table 2 . --Age and sex o f re s p o n d e n ts .
Absolute Frequency

Adjus ted Frequency (%)

Age (N « 432)
Age
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50 o r o l d e r

22
175
158
77

5.1
40.5
36.6
17.8

Total

432

100.0

Sex fN = 4311

Sex
Male
Female
Total

255
176

59.2
40.8

431

100.0

Approximately 61% o f th o s e responding r e p o r t e d having a t l e a s t
a m a s t e r ’ s degre e (s e e Table 3 ) ; 80% i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y had more
tha n 11 y e a r s o f cl assroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (s e e Table 4 ) .

39

Table 3 . -- E d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f re s p o n d e n ts (N - 433 ).
Degree

Ab sol ute Frequency

Adjus ted Frequency (%)

170
250
10
3

39.3
57.7
2.3
.7

433

100.0

B.A.
M.A.
Ed.S.
Ph.D.
Total

Table 4 . --Classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e o f re s p o n d e n ts (N = 433).
Years

Abso lute Frequency

Adjusted Frequency (%)

1- 5
6-10
11-15
16-20
Over 20

26
60
111
118
118

6 .0
13.9
25.6
27.3
27.3

Total

433

100.0

S l i g h t l y more th a n h a l f o f t h e t e a c h e r s were employed in urban
o r suburban school d i s t r i c t s

(s e e Table 5 ) .

Approximately 60% of

t h o s e re s pon din g r e p o r t e d t e a c h i n g in a C la ss B high school w it h a
s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t between 627 and 1,204 (s e e Table 6 ) .

40
Table 5 . --Type o f community in which re s p o n d en ts were employed (N =
433).
Type

Abso lute Frequency

Adjust ed Frequency (%)

Rural
Small town
Urban
Suburban

50
153
114
116

11.5
35.3
26.3
26.8

Total

433

100.0

Table 6 . - - S i z e o f school in which res p o n d en ts t a u g h t (N = 426).
St ud en t
Enrollment

Absol ute Frequency

Under 319
320-626
327-1,204
Over 1,205

9
64
255
98

2.1
15.0
59.9
23.0

Total

426

100.0

Teachers
satisfactio n .

w ere

asked

N inety

to

percent

indicate
of

the

Adjust ed Frequency (%)

th eir

degree

respondents

s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r c u r r e n t j o b (s e e Table 7 ) .

of

job

expressed

41

Table 7 . - - J o b s a t i s f a c t i o n o f re s po nden ts (N * 430) .
Degree o f
Satisfaction

Absolute Frequency

Very s a t i s f i e d
Satisfied
D issatisfied
Total

Adju st ed Frequency (%)

142
245
43

33.0
57.0
10.0

430

100.0

The re s po nd en ts were a l s o asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e s u b j e c t a r e a in
which th e y t a u g h t .
taught

in

14 s u b j e c t

Four hundred t w e n t y - f o u r
areas.

The l a r g e s t

of

the

re s p o n d e n ts

number t a u g h t

E n g l is h ,

mathematics, s o c i a l s t u d i e s , s c i e n c e , and b u s i n e s s - r e l a t e d s u b j e c t s ,
in descending o r d e r (s e e Table 8 ) .
Table 8 . --Teaching assignment o f res p o n d en ts (N = 424).
Su b je c t
English
Mathematics
Social s t u d i e s
Science
Business
Industrial a rts
Special e duca tio n
Physical e du ca tio n
Home economics
Counseling
Lib rary/media
Music
Art
Other
Total

Absolute Frequency

Adjusted Frequency (%)

78
57
50
48
35
28
21
21
17
17
12
8
6
26

18.4
13.4
11.8
11.3
8 .3
6 .6
5.0
5.0
4 .0
4 .0
2 .8
1.9
1.4
6.1

424

100.0

42

The

in d i v i d u a l

teachers

surveyed

provided

in f o r m a t io n

about

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s in
terms o f t h e lo cu s
decisions.

of

c o n tr o l

for

building-level

or

schoo l-wid e

Approximately 33% o f th e re s pond en ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e

p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l l e d most, i f not a l l , school-wide o r b u i l d i n g - l e v e l
d e c i s i o n s (s e e Table 9 ) .

Table 9 . - - R e s p o n d e n ts ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of p r i n c i p a l s ’ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
s t y l e s (N * 428).
Style

C on tr o ls
C on tr o ls
C o n tr o ls
C on tro ls
Total

a ll decisions
most d e c i s i o n s
some d e c i s i o n s
few d e c i s i o n s

Absolute
Frequency

Adjusted
Frequency (%)

118
260
47
3

27.6
60.7
11.0
.7

428

100.0

w•l W Oiiacf
WMV.UKinrtniiwn
I WllliU 11 k.
Admini s t r a t i o n nwf• +ho

The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e survey in s tr um e nt became a s e r i e s o f
t a c t i c a l d e c i s i o n s , in c l u d i n g (a) d e c id i n g t h e most e f f e c t i v e time
f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e surve y, (b) d e c id i n g how t h e surv ey would be
a d m i n i s t e r e d , (c) s o l i c i t i n g t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o help
a d m i n i s t e r t h e sur ve y, and (d) conducting a fo ll o w - u p .
The d e c i s i o n was made t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

in th e

s p r i n g o f t h e y e a r , a f f o r d i n g res po nd en ts an o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e f l e c t
on t h e school y e a r as an i n d i c a t o r o f t h e i r degre e o f involvement in

43
building-level decisions.
sc h oo ls
asked

selected

to

for th is

administer

the

The b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s from t h e 23 high
stu dy were c o n t a c t e d
questionnaire

to

by t e l e p h o n e

ev ery

t e a c h i n g s t a f f , c o l l e c t th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,

member

of

and

their

and r e t u r n them t o th e

r e s e a r c h e r by m a il.
Each c o o p e r a t i n g

principal

was mailed a p a ck e t o f m a t e r i a l s

t h a t in c lu d e d (a) an e x p l a n a t o r y l e t t e r (Appendix B),

(b) a supply

of questionnaires

a letter

for d istribution

e x p l a n a t i o n ad dre sse d t o t h e l o c a l
C),

(d)

(Appendix A),

(c )

association president

a stamped and ad dre ssed envelope

in which t o

of

(Appendix
return

the

completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and (e) a p o s t c a r d t o mail back s e p a r a t e l y
(Appendix D).

The p o s t c a r d served a dual purpo se .

I t en abl ed t h e

r e s e a r c h e r t o m a in ta in a foll ow- up procedure and s t i l l p r e s e r v e t h e
anonymity

of

the

respondents.

It

also

provided

a means

of

e s t i m a t i n g t h e r e t u r n r a t e d uri ng th e e a r l y s t a g e s o f th e s tu d y .
D a ta- Anal vs is Procedures
Data

from t h e

questionnaires

were

coded,

q u ality

tra n s fe rre d to data-processing cards,

and v e r i f i e d .

tech n iq u es

of

used

were

a comparison

mean

checked*

The r e s e a r c h

response

to

note

d i f f e r e n c e s or s i m i l a r i t i e s o f resp ons e and t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t of
s i g n i f i c a n c e t o note t h e a s s o c i a t i o n between re sp on se v a r i a b l e s and
t o deter mine whether r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between v a r i a b l e s in th e
to ta l population.

The independent v a r i a b l e s s e l e c t e d were:

44
1.

2.

Sex
a.

Female

b.

Male

Age
a.

Under 30 y e a r s

b.

30-39 y e a r s

c.

40-49 y e a r s

d.
3.

4.

5.

50 y e a r s o f age o r o l d e r

Educational s t a t u s
a.

B.A. degree

b.

M.A. degr ee

c.

Ed.S. de gr e e

d.

Ph.D. de gr e e

Classroom t e a c h i n g e x p er ie n c e
a.

1 - 5 years

b.

6-10 y e a r s

c.

11-15 y e a r s

d.

16-20 y e a r s

e.

Over 20 y e a r s

Type o f community
a.
b.

Rural
Small town

c.

City

d.

Suburban

45
S iz e o f school
a.

Under 319 s t u d e n t s

b.

319-626 s t u d e n t s

c.

627-1,204 s t u d e n t s

d.

Over 1,204 s t u d e n t s

Degree o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n
a.

Very s a t i s f i e d

b.

S atisfied

c.

D issatisfied

Teaching assignment
a.

English

b.

Mathematics

c.

Science

d.

Social s t u d i e s

e.

Art

f.

Music

9-

Home economics

h.

Business

i.

Industrial a rts

j.

Physical ed u ca ti o n

k.

Guidance and co u n se li n g

1.

Librar y/m ed ia

m.

Spec ial ed u ca ti o n

n.

Other

46
9.

Teacher p e r c e p t i o n o f b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l ’ s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
style
a.

C on tr o ls a l l d e c i s i o n s

b.

C on tr o ls most d e c i s i o n s

c.

C o n tr o ls some d e c i s i o n s

d.

C on tr o ls few d e c i s i o n s
Hypotheses

The n u ll hypotheses t h a t were t e s t e d a t t h e .05 and .10 l e v e l s
o f s i g n i f i c a n c e were as f o ll o w s :
Hyp othe sis 1 :
There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s o f v a ry in g ages conce rni ng
t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
Hypothesis 2 :
There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f male and female high school t e a c h e r s conce rni ng
t h e i r involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making.
Hypothesis 3 :
There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g e d u c a t i o n a l
s t a t u s r e g a r d i n g t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
Hypothesis
4 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g cl assroom
te a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e concerning t h e i r involvement in sh ared
m v v

i v I

vm

m ui\ I liy •

Hypothesis
5 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s employed in v a ry in g ty p e s
o f communities concerning t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n
making.
Hypothesis
6 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s employed in sc h o o ls o f
varyin g s i z e s concerning t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n
making.
Hypothesis
7 : There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng de g re es o f jo b
s a t i s f a c t i o n conce rni ng t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n
making.

47
Hypothesis 8 :
There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s with t e a c h i n g assignments
in v a ry in g s u b j e c t ar e as concerning t h e i r involvement in shared
d e c i s i o n making.
Hypothesis 9 :
There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the
p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school t e a c h e r s with va ry in g b e l i e f s about
t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s co ncerning t h e i r i n v o l v e ­
ment in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

The r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r f a l l
major a r e a s :

(a) t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l

into three

o f involvement o f high school

t e a c h e r s in school-wide d e c i s i o n making, (b) t h e e x p re ss e d d e s i r e of
high

school

making,

teachers

to

become

involved

in

scho ol- wid e

and (c) t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school

decision

teachers regarding

t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f o r hi nd ra nc es t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making.
school

teachers

were

The d i f f e r e n c e s
categorized

(inde pe nde nt v a r i a b l e s ) .
responses

to

the

i n s tr um e nt

as

the y r e l a t e

on

in t h e

the

Also include d

open-ended

basis

is

question

re s p o n s e s o f high
of

nin e

factors

a b r i e f discussion

included

t o major f i n d i n g s

of

in
the

the

of

survey

s tu d y .

The

r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s f o r t h e s e a r e a s a re r e p o r t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r as a
summary

of

relatio n sh ip

descriptive

statistics

be tw e e n v a r i a b l e s

and

using

the

an

analysis

chi-square

of

the

test

for

association.
C urr en t Involvement in School-Wide Decision Making
The d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l o f involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n

making by high

b a s i s o f nin e f a c t o r s

school

are presented

48

teachers
in t h i s

categorized
part

on th e

o f Chapter

IV.

49
Those who i n d i c a t e d involvement in t h e s e d e c i s i o n
often

invol ve d

in c u r r i c u l u m ,

extracurricular

a r e a s were more

activities,

s ch oo l-

improvement e f f o r t s , school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e , and p r o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s .

Teachers r e p o r t e d l i m i t e d

decisions regarding h irin g ,

involvement

the resolution of grievances,

in

and t h e

school budget (see Table 10).

Table 1 0 . -- T e ac h er involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s .

Decision Area

% o f Teacher
Involvement

Rank

73.7
63.4
61. 8
60.2
57.0
55.4
54.4
30.7
18.1
17.1
14.1
13.3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
C oord in a tio n o f t e a c h i n g
Poli cy
School personnel
Teacher e v a l u a t i o n
Budget
Grievances
Hir ing

In

an

differences

effort

to

in

re s p o n se s

the

estab lish

de cisi on- m aki ng c a t e g o r i e s

of

a focus
high

for

school

interpreting
teachers

and t o measure th o s e

t h e ni n e independent v a r i a b l e s ,

to

re s p o n se s

the

the

12

against

t h e d e cis io n-m ak in g c a t e g o r i e s

in

which 50% o r more o f t h e high school t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d involvement
were

used

for

analysis.

Those de ci si on- m aki ng

categories

were:

50
c u r r ic u lu m ,

activities,

school

improvement,

rules

and d i s c i p l i n e ,

p r o f e s s i o n a l development, c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g , and p o l i c y .
In a l l

seven

o f t h e s e de ci si on-m ak in g c a t e g o r i e s ,

a higher

p e r c e n ta g e o f men than women i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y were inv ol ve d in
scho ol-w ide d e c i s i o n s .

The p e r c e n ta g e d i f f e r e n c e between male and

female re s p o n d e n ts ranged from .9% t o 5.5% (see Table 11 ).

Table 1 1 . - - T e a c h e r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n s , by sex.
Sex
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol i cy

Male

Female

76.0
63.8
62.7
61.4
58.4
56.5
56.3

70.5
62.9
60.3
58.3
54.9
53.7
51.7

Teachers between t.he aaes o f 30 and 39 r e c or de d t h e g r e a t e s t
p e r c e n ta g e o f involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making in f o u r o f
the

seven

decision

categories,

followed

closely

by

teach ers

between t h e ages o f 40 and 49 ( s e e Table 12).
I n d i v i d u a l s who r e p o r t e d having more th a n 20 y e a r s o f clas sroo m
te a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e l e d a l l o t h e r groups in t h e c u r r ic u lu m d e c i s i o n
area.
the

Teachers with 11 t o 16 y e a r s o f cl assroom e x p e r i e n c e rec or ded
highest

p e r c e n ta g e

of

involvement

in

the

activities,

improvement and p o l i c y d e c i s i o n a r e a s (s e e Table 13).

school

51

Table 1 2 . --I nvolv em ent in school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s o f
va ryi ng ages.
Age
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coord i n a t i o n / t e a c h i ng
P o li cy

< 30

30-39 i

40-59

> 50

63.3
61.9
40 .0
47.6
40.9
45.5
40.0

72.4
74.1
65.7
61.5
52.6
53.7
58.0

79.1
60.1
59.5
60 .8
62.0
58.2
55.7

68.8
48.1
63 .6
61 .0
60.5
57.9
48.1

Table 1 3 . --I nvo lve me nt in school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with
v a ry in g classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e .
Years o f Teaching Experience
D eci si on Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordi n a t i o n / t e a c h i n g
P o li c y

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

57.5
48.0

73.3
60.0

73.6
79.1

75.4
62.7

76.3
55.1
61.0
61.0
63.6
63.2
53.4

M m

00 0
ww «v

Cl o
VI*/

Vtf. O

OH. H

44.0
34.6
38.5
25.0

46.7
50.0
46.7
48.3

62.7
57.7
56.8
63.6

67 .8
58.1
55.1
55.9

The f i n d i n g s in t h e s e two a re a s appea r t o be f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t
w it h t h e b e l i e f t h a t o l d e r , more ex pe ri en c e d s t a f f a r e more l i k e l y
t o be involved in t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e school and more a c t i v e than
you nge r, l e s s e xp er ie nc e d s t a f f in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g such t h i n g s
as

curriculum ,

policy,

school

i m p r o v e m e n t,

and

professional

52

development.

In

recent

years

the

number

of

veteran

teachers

involved in e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s in some school d i s t r i c t s has
d e c l i n e d , f o r c i n g school o f f i c i a l s t o make g r e a t e r use o f community
re s o u r c e pe rsons t o s u p e r v i s e such a c t i v i t i e s .

The re s p o n d e n ts

in

t h i s study seemed t o i n d i c a t e a much h i g h e r l e v e l o f involvement in
such a c t i v i t i e s tha n e x p ec te d .
Teachers who r e p o r t e d having e d u c a t i o n a l
comprised

the

p e rc e n ta g e o f
decision

group

of

involvement

categories

in d iv id u als
in

s p e c i a l i s t ’ s degre es

who r e c o r d e d

school-wide d e c i s i o n s

chosen f o r

analysis.

the

highest

for the

They were

seven

followed

by

t e a c h e r s with m a s t e r ’ s de gre es (s e e Table 14).

Table 1 4 . --In volv ement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s
with va ryi ng e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s .
Educational S t a t u s
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordi n a t i o n / t e a c h i ng
Pol icy

B.A.

M.A.

Ed.S.

Ph.D.

71.6
64.3
56.0
57.7
52.4
51.8
49.7

74.8
63.6
64.8
61.2
58.6
56.6
56.8

90.0
60.0
90.0
80 .0
90.0
90.0
80 .0

66.7
33.3
33.3
66.7
66.7
66.7
33.3

With re ga rd t o t h e i s s u e o f school s i z e and l o c a t i o n and t h e i r
in f l u e n c e on t e a c h e r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making,

survey

res po ns e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t involvement in b u i l d i n g - l e v e l

53
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s
occ ur red

in

the

seven d e c i s i o n

categories

in high sc h o o ls with e n r o ll m e n ts o f between 319 and 626

s t u d e n t s t h a t were l o c a t e d in r u r a l a r e a s (s e e Tables 15 and 16) .

Table 1 5 . -- Involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s in
v a ry in g ty p e s o f communities.
Type o f Community
De cision Area
Rural
Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
P o li cy

79.6
68.8
61.2
68.8
60.0
64.0
65.3

Small
Town

C it y

Suburban

73.9
66.7
62.7
62.7
53.9
56.9
60.8

68 .4
64.0
60 .5
50.9
47.4
52.2
44.2

76.7
56.9
61.7
62.9
69.0
53.4
51.3

Table 1 6 . --In volve men t in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in
sc h o o ls with va ryi ng s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s .
- a.
l i 11 u 1i 1i ___
men
t

r - ~
ULUUCIIL

Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol icy

< 319

319626

6271,204

88.9
55.6
55.6
55.6
44.4
55.6
55.6

76.6
68.8
60.9
79.7
68.8
59.4
64.1

73.2
61.7
57.9
53.8
53.9
54.3
53.8

> 1,204
72.4
67.3
72.2
63.3
59.2
56.1
49.5

54
In e x p l o r i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s u b j e c t s t a u g h t by
t h e re s p o n d en ts in t h i s stu dy and t h e i r involvement in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making, t h e s u b j e c t a r e a s were grouped f o r convenience of
reporting.
1.

Core s u b j e c t s
a.

English

b.

mathematics

c.

science

d.

social studies

2.

Fine a r t s

3.

4.

5.

The fo ll o w i n g grouping scheme was employed:

a.

music

b.

art

Practical a rts
a.

home economics

b.

b u s in e s s

c.

industrial arts

d.

ph y s ic a l ed u ca ti o n

Support s t a f f
a.

guidance and co u n se li n g

b.

library/m edia

c.

s p e c i a l ed u ca ti o n

Other

Teachers
groups

in

in t h e f i n e a r t s

terms o f p e rc e n ta g e

le d a l l
of

other teaching

involvement

in

assignment

s har ed

decision

making in f o u r o f t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s used f o r a n a l y s i s .

55
They were second only t o t e a c h e r s with c or e s u b j e c t assignme nts in
t h e c u rr ic ulu m d e c i s i o n a r e a .
Support

staff

recorded

the

second

highest

percentage

of

i n v o l v e m e n t in s c h o o l - w i d e d e c i s i o n making i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s ,
professional

development

o t h e r groups

in t h e

and p o l i c y d e c i s i o n

school

improvement

areas,

and r u l e s

and

led

all

and d i s c i p l i n e

d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s (s e e Table 17).

Table 1 7 . -- Involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s
w ith v a ry in g t e a c h i n g assi gnm en ts .
Teaching Assignments
Decision
Area

Core
S u b je c ts

Fine
Arts

Practical
A rt s

Support
Staff

Other

79.5
64.3

72.9
100.0

66.1
57.7

65.1
67.6

68.0
60.0

61.8

56.2

59.6

74.2

64 .0

61.1

64.6

61.4

67.6

48 .0

53.2

75 =0

63.3

C3
c*
VV • S

AO

62.4
55.4

40.1
64.6

50.6
52.9

46.3
61.6

60.0
52.0

Curriculum
A ctivities
Scho ol/
improvement
R u le s/
discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
teaching
P o li cy

n

T W • V

When comparing t h e degr ee o f jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n e xpre ss ed by th e
high

school

teachers

surveyed

with

their

involvement

in

sh ared

d e c i s i o n making, th o s e res po nd en ts who i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y were very
satisfied
involvement

with» t h e i r
in

jobs

school-wide

reported
decisions.

the

highest
Ranking

percentage
second

in

of

this

56

c a t e g o r y were t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d being s a t i s f i e d wit h t h e i r j o b s .
Seventy-two p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d

that

th e y were

d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s r e p o r t e d involvement in t h e c u r r i c u l u m
d e c i s i o n a r e a (s e e Table 18).

Table 1 8 . --I nv ol ve me nt in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s
with v a ry in g d e gre es o f jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol icy

T k n
i ii w

1 **+ A « n r k
i & i u t i v i u i i

r\
i p

u c

d e c i s i o n making and t h e
wit h

re g a r d

to

the

+
a w
u n c c n

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

D issatisfied

79.4
72.3
71.1
67.4
65.5
57.4
64.1

71.0
60 .0
59.0
57.1
54.1
55.9
51.4

72.1
52.4
45.2
52.4
46.5
46 .5
38.1

f A A w k A M A i
t c a c n c i d

4 W«l
i i i v V 1 V ClltCtl t

4 I II

building p r i n c i p a l ’s a d m in istrativ e

amount o f c o n t r o l

h e /s h e

de cis io n -m ak in g p ro c e s s was a l s o e x p l o r e d .
o f involvement by t e a c h e r s

- W 1 u 6

S C i i G O l

exercised

style

ove r

the

The h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e

in sh ared d e c i s i o n

making oc c u r re d

sc h oo ls in which t e a c h e r s p e r c e iv e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l

controlled

most or few o f t h e d e c i s i o n s in t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s .
h ig h e r than expected p e rc e n ta g e of involvem ent

in

in

A

school-w ide

57

d e c i s i o n making was a l s o r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s who p e r c e iv e d

that

th e ir p rincipals controlled a l l decisions.
These

findings

may be

somewhat

inconsistent

dynamics one might guess would be o p e r a t i o n a l
principals

exercise

making p r o c e s s .

absolute or t i g h t

control

with

the

human

in s c h o o ls in which
ove r t h e

decision­

Only .7% o f t h e re s p o n d en ts r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r

p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l l e d few d e c i s i o n s , and a s u b s t a n t i a l p e r c e n ta g e of
individuals

teaching

under

that

lead ersh ip

style

reported

involvement in t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p ro c e s s (see Table 19).

Table 1 9 . --I nvo lve ment in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s
with va ryi ng p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ a d m in is ­
tra tiv e styles.
P r in c ip a ls ’ Administrative Styles
Decision
Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School
improvement
R u le s /
discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
teaching
P o li c y

Control
All
D eci si on s

Control
Most
D e cis io ns

Control
Some
D e cis io ns

Control
Few
D e ci s io ns

72.6
55.6

76.5
65 .6

68.1
72.3

33.3
100.0

50.8

68.2

53.2

100.0

42.7

68.7

6 3 .8

33.3

50.4

58.1

68.1

66.7

50.4
39.3

57.3
60.5

63 .8
59.6

33.3
66.7

58
Perc ei ved R e s u lt s o f Involvement in School-Wide D eci si on s
High
in shared

school t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y had been involved
d e c i s i o n making

in t h e 12 a r e a s were asked about t h e i r

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e s u l t s o f such involvement.

They were asked to

i n d i c a t e whether t h e i r involvement in schoo l- wi de d e c i s i o n s y i e l d e d
positive,

negative,

reporting

survey

orn e u tra l

results

resu lts.

in t h i s

t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e

area

results

The m a j o r
is

on

focus

in

responses

of

involvement

in

the

from t h e i r

shared d e c i s i o n making.
Between 61% and 79% o f t h e males who i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y had
been involved

in

schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s

reported

positive

results

from t h a t involvement in t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s s e l e c t e d f o r
analysis.

This compared w ith 59% t o 83% o f t h e women re s p o n d e n ts

who i n d i c a t e d involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 20).

Table 2 0 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in school-wide d e c i s i o n making, by sex .
Sex
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Po li cy

Male

Female

72.5
78.9
69.4
74.4
61.9
76.9
67.3

76.9
83 .0
70.7
59.8
73.1
81.5
62.9

59
Some r e p o r t e d
making

are

neutral

worthy

policy-decision

of

results

n o te

in

categories.

from

the

involvement

in

decision

professional-development

Approximately

30% o f

the

male

and
and

female res p o n d en ts i n d i c a t e d n e u t r a l r e s u l t s from t h e i r involvement
in school-wide d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o p o l i c y ,
and d i s c i p l i n e .

curriculum,

Approximately 30% o f male

and r u l e s

r e s p o n d e n ts

reported

s i m i l a r r e s u l t s in t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a r e a .
Respondents over 50 y e a r s o f age ranked f i r s t
p e rc ei v e d
making

positive

in

three

results
of the

from

seven

involvement
decision

in

in
sh ared

decision

categories.

Teachers

between t h e ages o f 40 and 49 recorded t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e of
positive

resu lts

from

involvement

coordination of teaching.

in

the

curriculum

categories.

consistently

the

Respondents in t h e s e two groups accounted

fo r the highest percentages of p o s itiv e r e s u l t s
decision

and

Teachers

reported the

highest

in

the

in f i v e o f seven

under-30

p e r c e n ta g e

of

a ge

positive

from involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making in t h e

group
results

activities

and

p o l i c y d e c i s i o n a r e a s (se e Table 21).
The high school t e a c h e r s in t h e stu dy with between 11 and 15
years

of

classroom

teaching

experience

reported

the

highest

in c id e n c e o f p o s i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s wit h t h e i r involvement in sh ared
d e c i s i o n making in t h e a c t i v i t i e s and c urr ic u lu m a r e a s .

Those who

r e p o r t e d between 16 and 2G y e a r s o f classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e
ranked f i r s t in p e r c e iv e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l

involvement

in school-wide d e c i s i o n making in t h e a r e a s o f c u rr ic u lu m and the
coordination

of teaching.

Those w i t h

more t h a n

20 y e a r s

of

60

cl assroom e x p e r ie n c e
results

from t h e i r

rec or de d

the

highest

involvement with

p e r c e n ta g e

of

school-wide d e c i s i o n s

positive
in

th e

c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g , c u rr ic u lu m , and r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e (see
Table 22).

Table 2 1 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in school-wide d e c i s i o n making, by age.
Age
D eci si on Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R u l e s / d i s c i p l ine
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol icy

< 30

30-39

40-59

> 50

53.8
92.3
62.5
66.7
40.0
80.0
87.5

73.2
79.7
64.9
62.3
67 .8
74.7
63.4

78.2
80.0
72.8
72.3
65.3
83.1
64.8

74.5
78.9
78.3
78.3
73.3
79.1
68.4

Table 2 2 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c tu a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with
varying classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e .
Years o f Teaching Experi ence
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol ic y

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

64.3
91.7
50.0
54.5
40.0
80.0
66.7

59.5
85.7
77.1
69.2
70.0
75.9
69.0

73.4
77.4
68.1
66.7
69.4
73.8
67.6

80.9
79.5
70.1
66.7
67.7
81.8
58.8

77.3
80. 0
70.6
76.1
64.9
81.7
68.7

61

When comparing t h e p e rc e iv e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from involvement
in school-wide d e c i s i o n making with t h e e d u c a t i o n a l

status

r e s p o n d e n t s , th o s e ho ldi ng s p e c i a l i s t ’ s de gre es l e d a l l
in f o u r o f t h e

seven

de ci si on- m aki ng

This group was followe d by high school

areas

chosen

for

o f the

categories
analysis.

t e a c h e r s who he ld a Ph.D.

(s e e Table 23) .
Table 2 3 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with
v a ry in g e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s .
Educational S t a t u s
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordi n a t i o n / t e a c h i ng
P o li cy

B.A.

M.A.

75.2
85.3
65.6
69.4
59.1
81.1
60.7

73.9
77.5
71.2
67.3
69.7
77.3
67.6

Ed.S.
66.7
83.3
88.9
100.0
77.8
87 .5
87 .5

Ph.D.
100.0
.0
100.0
50.0
100.0
50.0
.0

The i s s u e o f t h e ty p e o f community in which t h e high school was
l o c a t e d and t h e p e r c e iv e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from t e a c h e r involvement
in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making y i e l d e d r e s u l t s t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t
t e a c h e r s who t a u g h t in sc ho ol s l o c a t e d in suburban a r e a s e xp re ss ed
t h e g r e a t e s t p e rc e n ta g e o f p o s i t i v e e x p e r ie n c e s as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r
actual

involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making in

seven c a t e g o r i e s (s e e Table 24) .

f o u r o f th e

62

Table 2 4 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in
v a ry in g t y p e s o f communities.
Type o f Community
D eci si on Area
Rural
Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
P o li cy

71.1
81.8
65.6
84.8
53.3
81.3
75.0

Small
Town

City

Suburban

68.5
80.0
74.2
67.7
66.7
77.0
58.3

77.6
78.6
68.2
61 .0
72.2
75.4
60 .8

80.5
8 1 .8
68.1
70.0
67.1
83 .6
76.3

Tea chers in sc h o o ls with e n r o l l m e n t s o f l e s s th a n 319 s t u d e n t s
(C la ss D) more o f t e n t h a n any o t h e r group r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s
from t h e i r a c t u a l involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making f o r th e
seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s (s e e Table 25) .

Table 2 5 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in scho ol- wid e decision making by t e a c h e r s in
s ch o o ls with va ryi ng s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s .
St ude nt Enrollment
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Pol icy

< 319

319626

6271,204

> 1,20-

50.0
60.0
100.0
100.0
75.0
60.0
80.0

79.2
78.0
70.3
86.0
73.8
84.2
71.4

74.4
82 .6
71.0
62.7
65.2
77.1
65.9

76.1
78.5
64.2
68.3
61.4
83.3
59.2

63

High school t e a c h e r s in t h e f i n e a r t s a re a

(music, a r t )

more

f r e q u e n t l y i n d i c a t e d p o s i t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s w ith sch ool-wide d e c i s i o n
making (s e e Table 26).

Table 2 6 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in sch ool-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with
varyin g t e a c h i n g ass ig nm en ts .
Teaching Assignments
Decision
Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
Sc hoo l/
improvement
R u le s/
discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
teaching
Po li cy

Of th o s e

Core
Subjects

Fine
A rt s

Practical
Arts

Support
Staff

Other

76.5
78.0

80.0
77.1

69.1
82.8

74.0
87.8

70.6
80.0

69.5

75.0

65.5

80.3

64.3

68 .8

77.5

69.2

68.7

66.7

62.1

35.0

77.2

73.6

83.3

81.5
62.2

62.5
87 .5

79.1
62.9

70.6
87.1

73.3
58.3

individuals

reporting

positive

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making,
s a t i s f i e d wit h t h e i r j o b s ,

results

71% t o

from

their

85% were very

59% t o 77% e xp re ss ed s a t i s f a c t i o n with

t h e i r j o b s , and 40% t o 85% r e p o r t e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r j o b s .
I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g , however, t h a t 85% o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts who r e p o r t e d
being d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r jo b s ex per ie nc e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from
t h e i r involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making in t h e a c t i v i t i e s
a r e a (see Table 27).

64

Table 2 7 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with
v a ry in g de gr e es o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
Decision Area
Very
S atisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

83.3
8 5.0
8 0.0
79.8
71.7
87.7
76.9

72.5
77.2
65.0
65.9
61.7
77.5
59.8

54 .8
85.7
57.1
40.0
70.0
55.0
52.9

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Po li cy

Comparisons between high school t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r
b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s ’ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t y l e s and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of
positive

resu lts

from t h e i r a c t u a l

involvement

in

school-w ide

d e c i s i o n making appeared t o i n d i c a t e t h a t o f t e a c h e r s who p e rc e iv e d
t h e i r b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s as i n d i v i d u a l s who c o n t r o l l e d a l l o r most
decisions,

64% t o

82% r e p o r t e d

positive

resu lts

from

th eir

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making f o r t h e seven d e c i s i o n
c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r a n a l y s i s (s e e Table 28).

65
Table 2 8 . - - T e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from a c t u a l i n v o l v e ­
ment in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with
va ryi ng p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
styles.
Principals* Administrative Styles
Decision
Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School
improvement
R u le s/
discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
teaching
Po li cy

Control
All
Deci si ons

Control
Most
Deci si ons

Control
Some
Deci si ons

Control
Few
D e ci s io n s

74.4
82.0

74.4
79.4

77.4
84 .8

50.0
33.3

72.4

73.4

50.0

.0

70.0

69.4

65.5

100.0

69.5

64.4

73.3

.0

75.0
66.7

81.8
67.3

74.2
55.6

50.0
50.0

Perce ived A b i l i t y t o A f f e c t t h e Outcome
o f School--Wide D eci si ons
The high

school

teachers

whether o r not th e y thoug ht

involved
that

in

through

this

s tu dy were

their

involvement

asked
they

could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s in t h e 12 d e c i s i o n
areas.

Between 69% and 77% o f t h e res p o n d en ts i n d i c a t e d a b e l i e f in

t h e i r a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s through
involvement.
res p o n d en ts

This
and

b e l i e f was

34% t o

80% o f

held

by 64% t o

females

for

c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r a n a l y s i s (s e e Table 29).

79% o f

the

seven

the

male

decision

66

Table 2 9 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t the y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s , by sex.
Sex
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Po li cy

The age group t h a t

Male

Female

74.2
72.2
79.1
72.9
66.3
65.9
64.5

80.7
75. 0
74.9
75.4
71.2
73.7
34.3

appeared t o be most predominant

in t h e i r

b e l i e f t h a t th e y could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s
was made up o f th o s e i n d i v i d u a l s

under 30 y e a r s o f age,

followed

c l o s e l y by t e a c h e r s between t h e ages o f 30 and 39 ( s e e Table 30 ).

Table 3 0 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s o f v a ry in g ages.
Age
De cis ion Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R u l e s / d i s c i p l ine
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Poli cy

< 30

30-39

40-59

> 50

61.9
76.2
85.0
85.7
75.0
76.2
77.8

77.1
77.8
82.8
76.9
71.9
70.1
69.6

82.1
72.2
73.0
70.4
71.1
70.4
59.7

71.6
66.2
71.4
72.6
68.1
63.0
66.2

67
High school t e a c h e r s who made up t h e groups o f i n d i v i d u a l s who
had t a u g h t 11 y e a r s o r more r e p o r t e d p e r c e n t a g e s between 60% and 82%
in terms o f t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t th e y could i n f l u e n c e t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s ( s e e Table 31 ).

Table 3 1 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with va ry in g c l a s s ­
room e x p e r i e n c e .
Years o f Teaching Experience
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
Rules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Poli cy

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

66.0
68.0
83.3
76.0
69.6
79.2
72.7

77.2
73.7
80.7
76.3
70.7
66.1
69.0

75.0
82.2
82.2
76.1
75.9
72.1
70.4

78.8
69.0
73.9
73.7
73.9
63.7
63.2

79.1
70.8
72.5
70 .8
63 .4
71.1
60 .0

When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts and
t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t e a c h e r s could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f sch ool-wide
decisions,

between

60% and 78% o f

reco rd ed a p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e .

those

Individuals

with

a m a s t e r ’ s degree

ho ldi ng a s p e c i a l i s t ’ s

degree r e c or de d t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n ta g e o f any group e x p r e s s i n g t h a t
b e l i e f (s e e Table 32 ).

68

Table 3 2 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t the y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school- wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng
educational s t a t u s .
Educational S t a t u s
D ecision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Po li cy

B.A.

M.A.

Ed.S.

Ph.D.

77.6
75.3
75.6
74.8
66.2
72.0
73.7

76.5
72.6
78.2
73.9
73.7
66 .8
60.3

80.0
80 .0
80.0
80 .0
90.0
80.0
80.0

66.7
.0
66.7
.0
33.3
66.7
.0

High school t e a c h e r s who th oug ht th e y could a f f e c t t h e outcome
of

school-w ide

decisions

most

often

taught

in

schools

with

e n r o l l m e n t s o f between 627 and 1,204 s t u d e n t s t h a t were l o c a t e d in
small

towns.

Teachers

in

the percentage o f teach ers

rural

schools

who b e l i e v e d

t h e outcome o f School - Wide d e c i s i o n s in o 1
chosen f o r a n a l y s i s (s e e Tables 33 and 3 4 ).

led

that
a

uI

all

th e y
me

others
could

in

affect

S e v e n CctLeyur i eS

69

Table 3 3 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school -w ide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s in v a ry in g t y p e s o f
communities.
Type o f Community
Decision Area
Rural
Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordi n a t i o n / t e a c h i ng
Poli cy

83.0
81.3
81.3
81.6
78.3
75.0
79.2

Small
Town

City

Suburban

76.9
76.2
81.4
79.2
77.0
70.0
69.4

74.5
74.1
70.6
70.0
58.2
71.8
63.4

77.0
66.1
76.4
67.9
72.3
62.8
56.8

Table 3 4 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
sch oo l- wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s in s c h o o ls with
v a ryi ng s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s .
S tu de nt Enrollment
D eci si on Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
P o li c y

< 319

319626

6271,204

> 1,204

75.0
75.0
75.0
62.5
87.5
75.0
79.2

84.1
73.0
82.5
84.1
76.2
70.0
69.4

76.1
73.6
76.2
72.5
70.4
71 .8
63 .4

75.0
73.7
75.8
73.7
69.5
62 .8
56.8

Between 56% and 86% o f t h e 435 res p o n d en ts who t a u g h t in the
v a r i o u s s u b j e c t a r e a s e xp re ss ed t h e b e l i e f t h a t th e y could a f f e c t
the

outcome

of

school-w ide

decisions

for

the

seven

decision

70
c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r a n a l y s i s .

Teachers in t h e c o re s u b j e c t a re a s

r e p r e s e n t e d t h e l a r g e s t number o f i n d i v i d u a l s surveyed bu t d id not
always e x p r e s s t h e
decisions
their

belief that

th e y could a f f e c t

t h e outcome o f

a t a r a t e g r e a t e r than o t h e r t e a c h e r s when c o n s i d e r i n g

proportion

of

the

responses.

Teachers

in

the

fine

arts

rec ord ed some o f t h e h i g h e s t p e rc e n ta g e s o f re s po ns e f o r t h e i s s u e
o f t h e i r p e r c e iv e d e f f e c t on t h e outcome o f d e c i s i o n s

(s e e Table

3 5 ).

Table 3 5 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t the y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g t e a c h i n g
ass ign me nts .
Teaching Assignments
Decision
Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
S c hoo l/
improvement

Core
S u b je c ts

Fine
A rts

Practical
A rts

Support
Staff

Other

82 .0
76.0

77.1
91.0

68.1
67.2

86.5
75.5

62.5
65.2

75.8

84.5

74.7

77.1

75.0

73.1

92.5

75.6

72.5

79.2

69.0

78.5

70.6

76.5

75.0

72.0
64 .9

56.2
76.2

68.5
65.1

62.6
71.7

84.4
66.7

D i l l a e (/
• V M • W ■**

discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
t e a c h in g
Po li cy

Between 63% and 79% o f t h e high school t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d a
belief

in

their

ability

to

affect

the

outcome

of

school-wide

d e c i s i o n s were s a t i s f i e d or very s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s .

Those

i n d i v i d u a l s who were very s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r jo b s l e d a l l

other

71

grou ps , followed by t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were s a t i s f i e d
w it h t h e i r c u r r e n t employment.
chosen

for

analysis,

between

For t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s
5% and

7% o f

the

r e s p o n d e n ts

who

b e l i e v e d th e y could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f scho ol- wid e d e c i s i o n s were
d i s s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r c u r r e n t employment (s e e Table 3 6 ).

Table 3 6 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t th e y can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g de gre es
of job s a t i s f a c tio n .
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
Decision Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School improvement
R ules/discipline
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Coordination/teaching
Po li cy

High school

teachers

prin cip als controlled

in t h e

Very
Satisfied

S atis­
fied

D issat­
isfied

79.6
77.5
79.6
76.1
78.5
73.7
72.3

76.3
73.6
77.0
74.2
68.1
68.9
63.2

70.7
58.1
69.0
65.1
62.5
53.5
53.7

survey who b e l i e v e d

that

some o f t h e school-wide d e c i s i o n s

their

comprised

t h e l a r g e s t group o f i n d i v i d u a l s who a l s o e xp re ss ed t h e b e l i e f t h a t
t h e y could have some e f f e c t on t h e outcome o f d e c i s i o n s .
62% and 77% o f t h e

teachers

who b e l i e v e d

that

their

Between
principals

c o n t r o l l e d a]_l schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s th ought th e y had t h e a b i l i t y to
affect

the

outcome o f d e c i s i o n s

for

each

of the

c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r a n a l y s i s (s e e Table 37 ).

seven

decision

72
Table 3 7 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ b e l i e f t h a t they can a f f e c t t h e outcome o f
school-wide d e c i s i o n s by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng p e r c e p ­
tions of t h e i r p rin c ip a ls ’ adm inistrative sty le s.
P r in c ip a ls ’ Administrative Styles
De cision
Area

Curriculum
A ctivities
School
improvement
R u le s /
discipline
Professional
development
Coordination/
teaching
Po li cy

Control
All
D eci si on s

Control
Most
De cis ion s

Control
Some
D ecisions

Control
Few
D e c is io n s

77.2
72.8

77.9
73.3

80.9
80 .9

.0
3 3.3

71.4

80.9

74.5

66.7

65. 5

77.8

80.0

66.7

67.3

73.1

72.3

33.3

69.0
62.5

69.7
67.9

70.2
68.1

33.3
.0

P e rc e p ti o n o f Ov erall Degree o f Involvement
in School-Wide Decision Making
The high school t e a c h e r s who were t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s
were

asked

decisions.
of

to

indicate

their

overall

1nvolven'ieni

in

study

schoo l- wi de

They were asked t o r a t e t h e i r involvement in d e c i s i o n s

school-w ide

in terest

by c h a r a c t e r i z i n g

them selves

as

very

in v ol v e d, somewhat in vo lv e d, o r not involved in scho ol- wid e d e c i s i o n
making.

While t h e re s p o n d e n ts may have had a te ndency t o fo c us on

t h e 12 d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s inc lu d e d on t h e

survey i n s t r u m e n t ,

the

ge ne r al n a t u r e o f t h i s l i n e o f q u e s t i o n i n g was de sig ne d t o encourage
re s p o n s e s based on a broad d e f i n i t i o n o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s and

73
t o i s o l a t e t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r de gre e o f involvement in
school-wide d e c i s i o n making.
A p p r o x i m a t e l y 8% o f
involved

the

respondents

in th e d e c is io n -m a k in g

reported

process.

being

very

The p e r c e n t a g e s

of

re s p o n se s f o r men and women were e q u a l l y d i v i d e d in t h i s c a t e g o r y .
S i x t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e male res p o n d en ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were
somewhat involved in schoo l- wide d e c i s i o n making as compared with
57% o f fe m a le s .
reported

Women s l i g h t l y outnumbered men in t h e p e r c e n t a g e of

noninvolvement

in

the

de ci si on-m ak in g

process.

Thirty

p e r c e n t o f t h e re s po nd en ts i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y were not invol ve d in
school- wide d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 38 ).

Table 3 8 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f t e a c h e r involvement in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making, by sex.
Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement
Sex

Male
Female

Very
Involved

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

7.1
9.2

64.6
57.5

28.3
33.3

No high school t e a c h e r s under 30 y e a r s o f age i n d i c a t e d t h a t
th e y were very involved in d e c i s i o n making.
those

reporting

that

t h e y were

somewhat

S i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of
involved

d e c i s i o n s were between t h e ages o f 40 and 49,

in

school-wide

followe d c l o s e l y by

62% o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s between t h e ages o f 30 and 39.

The l a r g e s t

74
r e p o r te d p e rc e n ta g e of noninvolvement belonged to

h ig h

school

t e a c h e r s o ve r 50 y e a r s o f age (s e e Table 3 9 ) .

Table 3 9 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f t e a c h e r involvement in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s o f va ryi ng ag es.
Percei ved Ex te nt o f Involvement
Age
Very
Involved
Under 30
30-39
40-49
50 and o l d e r

.0
6 .9
7.0
14.5

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

59.1
62.6
68.2
47 .4

40.9
30.5
24.8
38.2

Respondents who r e p o r t e d between 11 and 15 y e a r s and ov er 20
y e a r s o f cl assroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e r e p r e s e n t e d t h e groups with
the

highest

percentage

of overall

involvem ent

d e c i s i o n making f o r t h e c a t e g o r y very i n v o l v e d .

in

school-w ide

The p e r c e n ta g e rank

o r d e r o f t h o s e who were somewhat involved in d e c i s i o n s was l e d by
high school

t e a c h e r s with 16 t o 20 y c a i s

oi

te a c n in y e x pe r ie nc e )

follo wed by n e a r l y equal p e rc e n ta g e s o f t e a c h e r s with 11 t o 15 and
ove r

20 y e a r s

of

teaching

experience.

The p e r c e n t a g e

of

th o s e

r e p o r t i n g noninvolvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making was e q u a l l y
distributed
teach in g

in t h o s e groups with more th a n 11 y e a r s

experience;

how e v e r,

teachers

r e p o r t e d 50% noninvolvement (s e e Table 4 0) .

in

the

o f cl assroom

u n d e r 30 g r o u p

75
Table 4 0 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s with var yin g cl assroom t e a c h i n g
experience.
Perc e iv ed Ext ent o f Involvement
Experience
Very
Involved
1- 5 y e a r s
6-10 y e a r s
11-15 y e a r s
16-20 y e a r s
Over 20 y e a r s

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

50.0
56.7
63.6
66.7
60.7

50.0
38.3
24.5
29.1
28.2

.0
5 .0
11.8
4.3
11.1

High school t e a c h e r s with m a s t e r ’ s de g re es l e d a l l

individuals

in terms o f t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f re s ponden ts who r e p o r t e d being very
involved in school-wide d e c i s i o n s .
who i n d i c a t e d

that

the y were

The p e r c e n t a g e o f re s pon de nt s

somewhat

involved

in

the

decision­

making p ro c e ss includ ed 66% o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s who held b a c h e l o r ’ s
or doctorate degrees.
degree

category

About o n e - t h i r d o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts

reported

noninvolvement

in

scho ol- wide

in each
decision

making (s e e Table 41).
Table 4 1 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s .
Percei ved Extent o f Involvement
Educational S t a t u s
Very
Involved
B.A.
M.A.
Ed.S.
Ph.D.

3 .0
11.3
10.0
.0

Somewhat
Involved
66.9
58.5
60.0
66.7

Not
Involved
30.2
30.2
30.0
33.3

76

When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e ty p e o f community in which t e a c h e r s t a u g h t
and

the

size

of

their

high

school

and

its

relative

effect

on

involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s , re s po nd en ts
provided t h e fo ll o w i n g in f o r m a t i o n :
1.

Of th o s e t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d being very involved in th e

deci si on- m aki ng p r o c e s s , t h e g r e a t e s t p e rc e n ta g e t a u g h t in suburban
o r small-town s c h o o ls .
be tw ee n 627

and

Teachers in sch ools w ith s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s

1 ,2 0 4

led

all

other

groups

in

terms

p e rc e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s r e p o r t i n g t h a t th e y were very

of

the

invol ve d

in

school-wide d e c i s i o n s .
2.

The l a r g e s t p e rc e n ta g e o f high school

teachers

reporting

t h a t they were somewhat involved in d e c i s i o n making were t e a c h e r s in
r u r a l a r e a s , followed by th o s e who t a u g h t in small-town and suburban
schools.

The p e r c e n t a g e

involved)

were

teachers

leaders
in

scho ols

for

this

with

category

enrollments

(somewhat
under

319

students.
3.

Teachers in c i t y and r u r a l

sc ho ol s r e p o r t e d t h e g r e a t e s t

pe rc e n ta g e o f noninvolvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making.

Those

who

1,204

taught

students

in

sc ho ol s

reported

Tables 42 and 43).

the

with
largest

e n r o ll m e n ts
p e rc en ta g e

between
of

627

and

noninvolvement

(see

77
Table 4 2 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in schoo l- wide d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s in v a ryi ng ty p e s o f communities.
Perce ived Ext ent o f Involvement
Type o f Community
Very
Involved
6 .0
7.2
5.3
12.3

Rural
Small town
C ity
Suburban

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

66.0
65.1
57.0
60.5

28.0
27.6
37.7
27.2

Table 4 3 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in scho ol- wid e d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s in sc ho ols with v a ry in g s t u d e n t
enrollments.
Perceived Extent o f Involvement
Enrollment
Very
Involved
Under 319 s t u d e n t s
319-626 s t u d e n t s
627-1,204 s t u d e n t s
Over 1,204 s t u d e n t s

.0
6.3
9 .8
5.2

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

77.8
66.7
57.1
69.1

22.2
27.0
33.1
25.8

When comparing high school t e a c h e r s ’ involvement in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making with t h e t e a c h i n g assignment o f t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s
s tu d y ,

su p p o rt s t a f f

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were very

invol ve d more

o f t e n than t e a c h e r s in t h e o t h e r assignment c a t e g o r i e s .
percent of the teachers

in t h e core s u b j e c t s

Sixty-seven

i n d i c a t e d t h a t they

were somewhat involved in t h e deci si on-m aki ng p r o c e s s ,

and 24% of

78
this

group

also

reported

noninvolvement

in

scho ol- wid e

decision

making (s e e Table 44).

Table 4 4 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng t e a c h i n g a ss ig nm e nt s .
Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement
Teaching Assignment
Very
Involved
Core s u b j e c t s
Fine a r t s
Practical arts
Support s t a f f
Other

5 .8
8 .3
5.8
20.0
.0

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved
24.5
16.5
41 .4
28.1
.0

67.6
75.0
52.7
51.7
100.0

When comparing t h e degre e o f t e a c h e r involvement in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making with high school

teachers’ relativ e

degre e o f jo b

s a t i s f a c t i o n , ap pro xim at ely 14% o f th o s e who r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y were
ve ry involved

in t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p ro c e s s

ve ry s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r j o b s .
involved

in

said

that

th e y were

Those i n d i v i d u a l s who were somewhat

school-wide d e c i s i o n

making and s a t i s f i e d

with

j o b s r e p r e s e n t e d 62% o f t h e res p o n d en ts in t h a t c a t e g o r y .
two p e r c e n t
their

jo b s

o f high
were no t

p ro c e ss ( s e e Table 45) .

school

teachers

involved

in

th e

reporting

Thirty-

satisfaction

school-wide

their

with

de ci s io n- m ak in g

79
Table 4 5 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in sch ool-wide d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng d e gre es o f j o b s a t i s f a c ­
tion.
Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement
Degree o f
Satisfaction

Very
Involved

Very s a t i s f i e d
Satisfied
D issatisfied

14.3
5.3
2.3

Approximately 65% o f
being somewhat

involved

in

the

high

school

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

60 .0
62.3
62 .8

25.7
32.4
34.9

teachers

school-wide d e c i s i o n

who r e p o r t e d

making

t h a t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l e d most o f t h e d e c i s i o n s .
of the

re s p o n d e n ts who r e p o r t e d t h a t

th e y were very

indicated
Almost 8%

invol ve d

in

d e c i s i o n making noted t h a t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l e d a l l o r most
decisions.

As might be a n t i c i p a t e d , a l a r g e p e r c e n ta g e o f r e p o r t e d

noninvolvement

in t h e

deci si on-m aki ng

p ro c e ss

o c cu r re d

with

high

school t e a c h e r s who p e rc e iv e d t h a t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l e d a l l
d e c i s i o n s (s e e Table 46).
Table 4 6 . - - P e r c e i v e d e x t e n t o f involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n
making by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r
p r in c ip a ls ’ adm inistrative sty le s.
Pe rce ive d Extent o f Involvement
Adm inistrative Style

C o n tr o ls
C on tr o ls
C o n tr o ls
C o n tr o ls

a lj. d e c i s i o n s
most d e c i s i o n s
some d e c i s i o n s
few d e c i s i o n s

Very
Involved

Somewhat
Involved

Not
Involved

7.6
9.3
2.2
.0

50.6
65.5
73.9
33.3

41.5
25.2
23.9
66.7

80

Expressed Desi re t o Become Involved in
School-Wide Decision Making
The d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e e xpre ss ed d e s i r e o f high school t e a c h e r s
t o become involved in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making a r e p r e s e n t e d in
th is section.

Teachers were asked t o i n d i c a t e how much time they

would be w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t in schoo l-wid e de ci si on- m aki ng a c t i v i t i e s
i f th e y were pro vided wit h t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r involvement.

They

were a l s o asked t o i n d i c a t e what kinds o f d e c i s i o n s th e y would l i k e
t o be invol ve d
question.

in a t t h e school

The d i f f e r e n c e s

level

occurring

by means o f an open-ended
between t e a c h e r s ’ res ponse s

r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r ex pr e sse d d e s i r e f o r
decision

making

and

the

ni ne

involvement

independent

in school-wide

variables

chosen

were

examined by co nducting an a n a l y s i s of c e l l means.
Investment o f Time
When q u e st i o n e d about t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s to i n v e s t time in th e
s ch ool- w ide

de ci s io n- m ak in g p r o c e s s , t h e

subjects

of

this

study

provide d in fo r m a t io n co ncerning whether th e y were w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t
a g r e a t deal

o f ti m e , some tim e, o r l i t t l e o r no time in school-wide

decisions.

S ix t e e n

percent

of

th e male

and

12% o f t h e

female

re s p o n d e n ts were w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t a g r e a t deal o f time in s ch oolwide

decision

re s p o n d e n ts

making,

some

re s p o n d e n ts l i t t l e
Table 47).

tim e,

78% o f
and

the

female

and

74% o f

8% and 9% o f

the

male

the

and

male
female

o r no time in t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p ro c e ss

(see

81

Table 4 7 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making, by sex.
Time Investment
Sex

Male
Female

L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

7 .9
9 .2

74.7
78.0

A Great Deal
o f Time
16.2
12.1

High school t e a c h e r s who were 50 y e a r s o f age and o l d e r l e d a l l
o t h e r age c a t e g o r i e s in ex pr e sse d w i l l i n g n e s s to i n v e s t a g r e a t deal
o f time o r some time in t h e deci si on-m aki ng p r o c e s s .

This group was

followed in both resp on se c a t e g o r i e s by t e a c h e r s between t h e ages of
30 and 39 (s e e Table 48).

Table 4 8 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s o f va ryi ng ages.
Time Investment
Age

Under 30
30-39
40-49
50 and o l d e r

L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

4.5
7.4
9.6
9.5

81.8
76.6
76.3
74.3

A G reat Deal
o f Time
13.6
15.4
12.8
16.2

High school t e a c h e r s with between 6 and 10 and 16 and 20 y e a r s
of

classroom

teaching

experience

accounted

for

the

highest

p e r c e n ta g e o f res p o n d en ts who i n d i c a t e d th e y would be w i l l i n g

to

82

i n v e s t a g r e a t deal o f time o r some time in sch ool-wide d e c i s i o n
making (s e e Table 49).

Table 4 9 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s wit h va ryi ng classroom
te a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e .
Time Investment
Experience
L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

15.4
11.7
5.4
6.0
10.5

73.1
73.3
80.2
77.8
72.8

1- 5 y e a r s
6-10 y e a r s
11-15 y e a r s
16-20 y e a r s
Over 20 y e a r s

Of t h o s e

i n d i v i d u a l s who ex pre sse d

an

interest

A Great Deal
o f Time
11.5
15.0
12.6
16.2
14.9

in

investing

time in t h e de ci si on- m aki ng p r o c e s s , 88% who i n d i c a t e d th e y would be
w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t some time t a u g h t in high scho ols t h a t were l o c a t e d
in r u r a l a r e a s .

The l a r g e s t p e rc e n ta g e o f high school t e a c h e r s who

i n d i c a t e d a w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t a g r e a t deal o f time in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making t a u g h t in schools t h a t were l o c a t e d in urban or
suburban a r e a s (s e e Table 50).
Teachers with b a c h e l o r ’ s degre es l e d a l l

other degree-status

c a t e g o r i e s in t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s e x p r e s s i n g an i n t e r e s t in
investing

some time

followed

by t e a c h e r s

res pon de nts

ex pre sse d

in

school-wide

with

m aster’ s degrees,

an i n t e r e s t

de cisi on -m ak in g p r o c e s s .

decision

in

making.

They were

o f whom 75% o f

investing

some time

in

the
the

O n e - t h i r d o f t h e high school t e a c h e r s who

83
he ld a s p e c i a l i s t ’ s degre e were w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t a g r e a t deal

of

time in t h e de ci si on- m aki ng p ro c e s s (s e e Table 51 ).

Table 5 0 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l- wid e
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in v a ry in g t y p e s of
communities.
Time Investment
Type o f
Community

Rural
Small town
City
Suburban

L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

2.0
9 .8
7.2
10.5

88.0
80 .4
72.1
69.3

A G reat Deal
o f Time
10.0
9.8
18.9
18.4

Table 51 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l- wi de
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng e d u c a t i o n a l
status.
Time Investment
Educational
Status

L i t t l e or
No Time

B.A.
M.A.
Ed.S.
Ph.D.

9 .0
7.3
20.0
33.3

Some
Time

A G reat Deal
o f Time

80.2
75.4
50.0
.0

10.2
16.1
30.0
66.7

Respondents who worked in scho ols with e n r o l l m e n t s o f more than
1,204

students

led

all

other

en ro ll m e n t

categories

in

ex pr e sse d

w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t a g r e a t deal o f time in d e c i s i o n making (see
Table 52).

84

Table 5 2 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in sc h o o ls wit h va ryi ng
student enrollments.
Time Investment
Enrollment
L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

.0
7 .8
9.4
7.5

88 .9
84. 4
75.3
71.0

Under 319 s t u d e n t s
319-626 s t u d e n t s
627-1,204 s t u d e n t s
Over 1,205 s t u d e n t s

Support s t a f f r e g i s t e r e d t h e g r e a t e s t
great

deal

o f time

in

A Gre at Deal
o f Time
11.1
7 .8
14.9
18.3

interest

schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n

in i n v e s t i n g a

making.

The

second

h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y would i n v e s t
a g r e a t deal o f time in t h e de ci si on-m aki ng p ro c e ss were t e a c h e r s in
t h e c ore s u b j e c t s
social

studies,

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e a r e a s o f English* mathematics,

and s c i e n c e .

Teachers

f i n e a r t s a r e a s e xp re ss ed t h e g r e a t e s t

in t h e p r a c t i c a l
interest

in

arts

investing

and
some

time in s c h o o l -wide d e c i s i o n making (see Table 53).
Of th o s e high school
invest

a great

deal

of

t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d
time

in

school-w ide

that

th e y would

decision

m a kin g,

ap pro xim at ely 18% were ve ry s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e i r c u r r e n t j o b s ,
were s a t i s f i e d ,
employment.

and 16% w ere d i s s a t i s f i e d

with

th eir

11%

current

Of t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y were w i l l i n g

to

i n v e s t some time in t h e de ci si on-m aki ng p r o c e s s , a ppro x im a te ly 72%
were

very

satisfied

with

th eir

jobs,

with

79%

indicating

85
s a t i s f a c t i o n and 67% d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e i r c u r r e n t j o b s

(see

Table 54) .

Table 5 3 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with va ry in g t e a c h i n g
ass ig nm e nts .
Time Investment
Teaching
Assignment

L i t t l e or
No Time

Core s u b j e c t s
Fine a r t s
Practical a rts
Support s t a f f
Other

7.9
12.5
7.4
2.7
100.0

Some
Time

A G re at Deal
o f Time

76.4
81 .0
81 .7
68.0
.0

14.3
6. 2
10.8
29.2
.0

Table 5 4 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in schoo l- wide
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g de gre es o f
job s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Time Investment
Degree o f
Satisfaction

L i t t l e or
No Time

Some
Time

7.9
7.9
14.0

72.9
79.8
67.4

Very s a t i s f i e d
Satisfied
D issatisfied

When

comparing

the

respondents’

p r in c ip a ls ’ adm inistrative sty les

perceptions

A G reat Deal
o f Time

18.6
11.6
16.3

of

th eir

r e l a t i v e t o d e c i s i o n making and

t h e i r w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in th e d e cis io n-m ak in g p r o c e s s , 75%
o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts s a i d t h a t t h e y would be w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t some

86

tim e in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making d e s p i t e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t
t h e p r i n c i p a l s o f t h e i r scho ols c o n t r o l l e d most o f t h e d e c i s i o n s .
Seventy-six

percent

of the

res p o n d en ts

who i n d i c a t e d

that

their

p r i n c i p a l c o n t r o l l e d a l l d e c i s i o n s would be w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t some
time in t h e de ci si on-m ak in g p ro c e ss (s e e Table 55).

Table 5 5 . - - P e r c e i v e d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g p e r c e p t i o n s o f
t h e i r p r in c ip a ls ’ adm inistrative sty le s.
Time Investment
Administrative
Style

C o n tr o ls
C o n tr o ls
C o n tr o ls
C o n tr o ls

L i t t l e or
No Time

a ll decisions
most d e c i s i o n s
some d e c i s i o n s
few d e c i s i o n s

Some
Time

7.6
8 .6
8.7
33.3

A Great Deal
o f Time

76.3
75.8
78.3
66.7

16.1
14.8
10.9
.0

P r e f e r e n c e f o r Involvement in
School-Wide De cision Making
The high school t e a c h e r s in t h i s

stud y were provided with an

o p p o r t u n i t y t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r involvement in s ch oolwide d e c i s i o n making by resp ond ing to an open-ended survey q u e s t i o n .
This

question

was de sig ne d

to

pr ovi de

the

res p o n d en ts

wit h

th e

o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s i d e r de ci si on- m aki ng c a t e g o r i e s o t h e r th a n th o s e
included

sp ecifically

decision

areas

were

in t h e
in cl ude d

survey
as

a

instrum ent.
part

of

the

Although

12

questionnaire,

t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d an i n t e r e s t in becoming involved in school-wide
d e c i s i o n making in 34 d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n a r e a s ( s e e Table 56).

87

Table 5 6 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ p r e f e r e n c e s f o r involvement in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making.
De cision Area
Curriculum
R ules/discipline
Personnel
Poli cy
School improvement
Budget
Teacher e v a l u a t i o n
C oo rdi na tio n o f t e a c h i n g
P r o f e s s i o n a l development
Scheduling
Attendance p o l i c y
Extracurricular a c tiv itie s
Teaching assignments
All a r e a s l i s t e d
Department m a tt e r s
Class s i z e
Graduation re q ui re m e nt s
Textbook s e l e c t i o n
Maintenance
School philosophy
Grade r e p o r t i n g
Grievances
Awards
Facilities
Pare nt involvement
Stud en t t e a c h e r s
School day
Bui ldi ng use
Scheduling o f ev en ts
Communication
Administrative selectio n
T e s ti n g
S a fe ty
Career plan ni n g

Absolute Frequency

Rank

97
81
44
39
39
34
26
24
24
16
16
16
15
12
6
5
5
5
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
2
3
4
4
6
7
8
8
10
10
10
13
14
15
16
16
16
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26

The h i g h e s t frequ en cy o f response by t e a c h e r s with r e g a r d to
t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making was
in th e a r e a s o f c u rr ic u lu m , r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e , p e r s o n n e l , school

88

improvement,

and p o l i c y .

The

decision

areas

through n i n t h in r e l a t i v e frequency were a l l

that

ranked

first

among t h e 12 d e c i s i o n

a r e a s inc lu de d on t h e survey i n s tr u m e n t.
P e r c e p t i o n s o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s . C o st s , o r Hindrances
t o Involvement in Shared Decision Making
The p e r c e p t i o n s
potential

o f high

school

teachers

b e n e f i t s , c o s t s , o r h in d ra n c es t o

relativ e

section,

re s p o n d en ts

were asked

to

react

the

involvement in s c h o o l -

wide d e c i s i o n making c a t e g o r i z e d on t h e b a s i s o f n in e
v a r i a b l e s a re p r e s e n t e d in t h i s s e c t i o n .

to

independent

For t h e pu rposes o f t h i s
to

a list

of

possible

a dv an ta ge s, d i s a d v a n t a g e s , and hi ndra nc es t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making t h a t were gleaned from th e l i t e r a t u r e on shared
decision

making.

resp on se

in

Teachers

were allowed

answering q u e s t i o n s

relative

to

check more th a n

to

their

one

perceptions

of

a dv an ta ge s, d i s a d v a n t a g e s , and hi nd ra nc es t o shared d e c i s i o n making.
Perceived B e n e f i t s o f Involvement
in Shared Decision Making
The high school t e a c h e r s who were t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s

study

were asked t o s e l e c t from a group o f f o u r pred etermined res p on se s
t h o s e r e s p o n s e s th e y viewed as advantages o f t h e i r
school-wide

decision

making.

increased teacher influence,

T h e ir

res po ns e

involvement in

choices

were

(b) a sense o f accomplishment,

f e e l i n g o f c o o p e r a t i o n , and (d) in c r e a s e d workplace democracy.

(a)

(c)

a

They

were a b le t o s e l e c t as many re sp ons es as a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t e d t h e i r
feelings
making.

about

the

benefits

of

involvement

in

sh ared

decision

89
E i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e female re s p o n d en ts and 78% o f th e
male re s p o n d e n ts r e p o r t e d t h a t a f e e l i n g o f c o o p e r a t i o n (ownership)
was t h e number one b e n e f i t o f involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n making.
In c re a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e was c i t e d by 69% o f t h e female and 58%
o f t h e male r e s p o n d e n t s .
Both male and female t e a c h e r s s e l e c t e d ownership as t h e major
b e n e f i t o f involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
indicated

th at

increased

accomplishment were e q u a l l y

teacher

influence

impo rtan t b e n e f i t s ,

Male res p o n d en ts
and

a

sense

of

w hil e women chose

i n f l u e n c e over accomplishment (s e e Table 57).

Table 5 7 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f shared d e c i s i o n making,
by sex.
Sex
Benefit
Male

Female

In f l u e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership

58.4
58.4
78.8

69.9
57.4
84.7

Unrknlarp Hpmnrrarv

3R.4

R4.0

The t e a c h e r s in t h e age groups 30 t o 39 and 40 t o 49 ranked th e
benefits

of

involvement

fo ll o w i n g o r d e r :
and

(d)

in

school-wide

decision

(a) ownership, (b) i n f l u e n c e ,

workplace democracy.

Teachers

in

the

making

in

the

(c) accomplishment,
50 and o l d e r

age

c a t e g o r y chose accomplishment over in f l u e n c e as a b e n e f i t o f shared
d e c i s i o n making

(s e e Table 58).

90
Table 58.--Ratings of potential benefits of shared decision making
by teachers of varying ages.
Age
Benefit

I n f lu e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

< 30

30-39

40-59

> 50

63.6
27.3
72.7
4 5.5

62.9
58.3
85.7
36.6

65.2
59.5
79.1
50.0

58.4
63.6
79.2
51.9

Teachers in a l l c l a s s r o o m - t e a c h i n g - e x p e r i e n c e c a t e g o r i e s ex cept
t h e 1- t o 5 - y e a r and 11- t o 1 5- ye a r c a t e g o r i e s ranked t h e b e n e f i t s
o f involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making wit h ownership being
viewed

as

influence,

the
a

greatest
sense

of

benefit,

followe d

accomplishment,

by

and

increased

workplace

teacher

democracy.

Teachers wit h between 11 and 15 y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e gave a s l i g h t
edge t o a sens e o f accomplishment over i n c r e a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e
as a b e n e f i t o f involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making ( s e e Table
59).

Table 5 9 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng clas sr oom e x p e r i e n c e .
Years o f Teaching Experience
Benefit

In f lu e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

69.2
38.5
80 .8
42.3

61.7
51.7
83.3
43.3

58.6
60.4
87.4
40.5

65.3
61.9
83.9
42.4

63.6
59.3
72.0
52.5

91

Respondents who held d o c t o r a t e de g re e s le d a l l o t h e r s in terms
o f t h e p e r c e n ta g e o f t e a c h e r s who b e l i e v e d t h a t ownership was t h e
most i m p o r t a n t b e n e f i t o f i n v o l v e m e n t
making.
all

in

Respondents who held e d u c a ti o n a l

school-w ide d e c is io n

s p e c i a l i s t degrees rated

fo u r b e n e f i t c a t e g o r i e s as having v i r t u a l l y

the

same r e l a t i v e

importance (s e e Table 60 ).

Table 6 0 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f sh ar ed d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s with vary ing e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s .
Educational S t a t u s
B e n e f it

I n f lu e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

R e s p o n d e n t s who t a u g h t
suburban

schools

all

in

B.A.

M.A.

Ed.S.

Ph.D.

57.1
56.5
78.2
35.9

65.6
58.0
83 .6
49.2

80.0
80.0
70.0
80.0

100.0
66.7
100.0
66.9

ru ral,

small

renort.ed
aareement.
■i •
. . .

urban,

to w n,

and

in thpi r b e l i e f th a t

ownership and i n f l u e n c e were th e primary b e n e f i t s o f involvement in
school-wide

decision

making.

Workplace democracy ranked

as

the

l e a s t im po rt an t o f t h e f o u r b e n e f i t c h o ic e s (s e e Table 61) .
Respondents who t a u g h t in sch ool s in t h e A, B, and C s t u d e n t e n ro ll m e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s concu rr ed with t h e rank o r d e r o f b e n e f i t s
noted by t e a c h e r s who t a u g h t
town, urban,

in

and suburban a r e a s .

schools

located

in

rural,

Teachers who t a u g h t

small

in sc ho ol s

with e n ro ll m e n ts o f under 319 s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t ownership and a

92

sense

of

a c c o m p l i s h m e n t w ere

involvement

in

the

mo st

s har ed d e c i s i o n making.

im portant
These

two

benefits
benefits

of
were

c i t e d by t h e s e t e a c h e r s as t h r e e t o f o u r times more imp ort an t than
i n c r e a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e and workplace democracy ( s e e Table 62 ).

Table 6 1 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f s har ed d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s in v a ry in g ty p e s o f communities.
Type o f Community
Benefit
Rural
Influence
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

58.0
50.0
86.0
34.0

Small
Town

City

Suburban

67.3
59.4
84.3
4 2.5

60 .5
60.5
78.9
48.2

61.2
56.9
77.6
49.1

Table 6 2 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s in sc ho ol s with v a ry in g s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s .

Student Enrollment
< 319

319626

6271,204

> 1,204

22.2
88.9
100.0
22.2

71.9
62.5
75.0
37.5

64.7
58.4
85.1
45.9

57.1
51.0
73.5
48.0

Benefit

In f lu e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

High

school

teachers

in

all

te a c h i n g - a s s i g n m e n t

categories

r a t e d ownership and in c r e a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e t h e number one and

93

number two

potential

benefits,

respectively,

of

s har ed

decision

making (s e e Table 6 3 ).

Table 6 3 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f s har ed d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s wit h v a ry in g t e a c h i n g as s ig nm e nt s .
Teaching Assignments
Benefit

Core
Subjects

Fine
A rts

Practical
A rt s

Support
S taff

Other

61.5
61.5
80.1
43.3

43.7
35.4
87.5
20.8

61.7
53.8
79.7
41.8

74.3
59.6
87 .8
56.5

56.0
64.0
88 .0
60.0

I n f lu e n c e
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace
democracy

When comparing t e a c h e r r a t i n g s

of the

potential

benefits

of

s har ed d e c i s i o n making with r e p o r t e d de g re e s o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
teachers

who were

very

satisfied

with

their

current

employment

viewed ownership as t h e c h i e f b e n e f i t o f involvement, with in c r e a s e d
t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e and a sense o f accomplishment ra nki ng second and
third.

Teachers

who

reported

being

satisfied

wit h

their

jo b s

c l e a r l y found ownership and i n c r e a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e t o be t h e
primary b e n e f i t s o f involvement.

Those who r e p o r t e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n

with t h e i r j o b s i n d i c a t e d t h a t ownership and i n f l u e n c e were e q u a l l y
im por tan t b e n e f i t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making, as were accomplishment
and workplace democracy ( s e e Table 64).

94
Table 64.--Ratings of potential benefits of shared decision making
by teachers with varying degrees of job satisfaction.
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
B e n e f it
Very
S atisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

62.0
60.6
83.1
40.1

62.4
56.7
82.0
45.3

69 .8
55.8
69.8
55.8

Influence
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace democracy

Respondents who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l e d a l l
d e c i s i o n s viewed ownership and in c re a s e d t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e as th e
m a j o r b e n e f i t s o f i n v o l v e m e n t in s c h o o l - w i d e d e c i s i o n

m a k in g .

Teachers who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l e d most o r some
d e cisio n s recorded sim ila r r e s u l t s .

However,

reported th a t th e ir p rin c ip a ls c o n tro lled
influence

and workplace

democracy e q u a l l y

r e s p o n d e n t s who

few d e c i s i o n s
as

b e n e f i t s o f involvement in d e c i s i o n making,

the

most

rated

im por tan t

followed by ownership

and accomplishment, which were a l s o r a t e d e q u a l l y (s e e Table 65) .
Pe rce ive d Costs o f Involvement
in Shared Decision Making
Teachers were asked t o

i n d i c a t e which

items

predeterm ined re s p o n se s r e p r e s e n t e d p o t e n t i a l
in shared d e c i s i o n making.
ti m e ,

(b) l o s s o f autonomy,

of collective

bargaining,

re s p o n se s were

(c) c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r ,
(e)

threats

to

of

c o s t s o f involvement

The predeterm ined

and

from a l i s t

(a)

(d) s ub ve rs io n

career

advancement.

The re s p o n d en ts were p e r m i t t e d t o check as many o f t h e s e re s p o n se s

95
Table 6 5 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s o f s har ed d e c i s i o n making
by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’
adm inistrative s ty le s.
P r in c i p a ls ’ A dministrative Styles
Benefit

Control
All
D e ci s io n s

Control
Most
D eci si ons

Control
Some
D e ci s io n s

Control
Few
D e c is io n s

67.8
59.3
83.1

58.8
58.5
81.9

74.5
53.2
76.6

66.7
33.3
33.3

51.7

40.8

44.7

66.7

Influence
Accomplishment
Ownership
Workplace
democracy

as they b e l i e v e d would a d e q u a t e l y ex pre ss t h e i r f e e l i n g s conce rni ng
the

costs

of

predeterm ined

involvement
responses

in

school-wide

w ere

chosen

on

decision
the

making.

basis

of

The
th eir

i n c l u s i o n in t h e l i t e r a t u r e on shared d e c i s i o n making and t h e i r use
in o t h e r s t u d i e s in v o lv in g employees and shared d e c i s i o n making.
The p e r c e n t a g e

o f t e a c h e r s who r e s p o n d e d

to

th is

survey

q u e s t i o n about t h e c o s t s o f involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n making
was

sig n ifican tly

lower

than

the

percentage

responded t o t h e q u e s t i o n on t h e p o t e n t i a l
in th e de ci si on -m ak in g p r o c e s s .

of

teachers

who

b e n e f i t s o f involvement

The high school t e a c h e r s who were

t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s stud y th ou gh t t h a t t h e primary c o s t o f t h e i r
involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making was tim e.

Time was followed

by t h e

loss

potential

autonomy,

the

for

possible

collegial

disfavor,

s ub ve rs io n

of

the

p r o c e s s , and t h r e a t s t o c a r e e r advancement.

the

collective

of

pe rsonal
b a r g a in in g

96
The to p t h r e e p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f involvement in sh are d d e c i s i o n
making

for

subversion

men were
of

the

respondents’ ra tin g s
costs,

t im e ,

collegial

co llectiv e

disfavor,

bargaining

m i r r o r e d m a le s ’ f o r t h e

and

the

possible

process.
first

Female

two p o t e n t i a l

but females ranked l o s s o f autonomy as t h e most im por tant

c o s t o f involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 6 6 ) .

Table 6 6 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ r a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f s har ed d e c i s i o n
making, by sex .
Sex
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial d is fa v o r
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g p ro c e ss
T h r ea ts t o c a r e e r advancement

Male

Female

58.4
10.2
27.5

60.8
10.8
33.0

11.0
7. 8

8.5
9.1

Teachers r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e age groups from 22 t o 49 y e a r s old
all

ranked tim e, c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r ,

as

the

major

costs

of

involvement

and p o s s i b l e l o s s o f autonomy
in

sh ared

decision

making.

Teachers ov er 50 y e a r s o f age ranked su b v er si o n o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g p ro c e s s ahead o f l o s s o f autonomy in t h e i r re s p o n s e s (see
Table 67) .

97
Table 67.--Ratings of potential costs of shared decision making by
teachers of varying ages.
Age
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial d isfavor
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g pr o c e ss
T h r e a t s t o c a r e e r advancement

< 30

30-391

40-49

> 50

59.1
9.1
18.2

58.3
10.3
33.1

57.6
13.3
28.5

64.9
5.2
28.6

.0
9.1

7.4
9.7

12.0
8.9

14.3
5.2

The r a t i n g s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f shared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s w i t h v a r y i n g numbers o f y e a r s

of classroom

teaching

e x p e r ie n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t time and c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r were t h e two
greatest

costs

of

their

involvement

in

sh ared

decision

making.

P o t e n t i a l c o s t s occupying t h e t h i r d , f o u r t h , and f i f t h ranks v a r i e d
with age group (see Table 68).

Table 6 8 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f shared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s wit.h varying classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e .
Years o f Teaching Experience
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial disfavor
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g process
Threats to career
advancement

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

65.4
11.5
26.9

58.3
8.3
35.0

55.9
10.8
32.4

55.1
11.9
29.7

65.3
9.3
25.4

3 .8

3.3

10.8

11.0

12.7

15.4

10.0

8.1

9.3

18.9

98
High school t e a c h e r s in a l l e d u c a t i o n a l - s t a t u s c a t e g o r i e s a l s o
ranked

time

and

collegial

disfavor

as

the

two

most

prominent

p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f involvement in t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p r o c e s s .

The

ra nk in g o f t h e o t h e r pre de te rm in ed p o t e n t i a l c o s t s v a r i e d w ith each
group ( s e e Table 69 ).

Table 6 9 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f shared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s .
Educational S t a t u s
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial d isfavor
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p ro c e ss
Threats to career
advancement

B.A.

M.A.

Ed.S.

Ph.D.

61.8
10.6
28.2

56.8
10.8
31.2

70.0
.0
20.0

66.7
.0
33.3

8.2

11.6

.0

.0

9.4

8. 0

10.0

.0

Teachers in sc ho ol s l o c a t e d in r u r a l ,
suburban a r e a s all

small

town,

i n d i c a t e d t h a t time and c o l l e g i a l

urban,

and

disfavor were

t h e g r e a t e s t c o s t s o f t h e i r involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making.
Loss of autonomy ranked t h i r d f o r t e a c h e r s
rural

and

subversion

urban

areas.

of the

Suburban

in sc h o o ls l o c a t e d

teachers

collectiv e-b arg ain in g

ranked

process

the

in

possible

as t h e

third

p o t e n t i a l c o s t o f involvement.

Teachers in scho ols l o c a t e d in r u r a l

communities

of

ranked

both

loss

autonomy

and

su b v er si o n

of

the

c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g p ro c e s s as t h e t h i r d g r e a t e s t c o s t o f t h e i r
involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making ( s e e Table 70).

99
Table 7 0 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s in va ryi ng ty p e s o f communiti e s .
Type o f Community
Cost

Small
Town

City

Suburban

66.0
16.0
32.0

63.4
9 .8
33.3

53.5
14.0
28.1

56.0
5.2
25.9

16.0

11.8

4.4

10.3

4.0

10.5

7 .0

9 .5

Rural
Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial disfav o r
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g pro c e ss
T h r e a ts t o c a r e e r
advancement

Respondents

in

sc hools

in

all

student-enrollment

categories

ranked time and c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r as t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l

costs

o f involvement in t h e de ci si on-m aking p ro c e s s (s e e Table 71).

Table 7 1 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s in sc h oo ls with v a ry in g s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s .
S tud en t Enrollment
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial disfavor
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g pr oc e ss
Threats to career
advancement

< 319

319626

6271,204

> 1,204

66.7
11.1
55.6

60.9
15.6
34.4

62.0
8 .2
30.2

51.0
13.3
24.5

.0
11.1

15.6
9.4

8 .2
7.1

12.2
12.2

100

Teachers in a l l t e a c h i n g - a s s i g n m e n t c a t e g o r i e s a l s o ranked time
and c o l l e g i a l
arts

d i s f a v o r as p o t e n t i a l

ranked t h e

pro c e ss

possible

ahead o f l o s s

costs.

s u bv er sio n

Teachers o f p r a c t i c a l

of the

o f autonomy as

collective-bargaining

a potential

cost

of

their

involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 7 2 ) .

Table 7 2 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s with vary ing te a c h i n g as s ig nm e nt s .
Teaching Assignments
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial d isfav o r
Subversion o f
collectiveb a r g a in in g p ro c e ss
Th r ea ts t o c a r e e r
advancement

High school

Core
Su b je c ts

Fine
Arts

Practical
A rts

Support
Staff

Other

61.6
12.1
28.3

70.8
6.2
16.6

55.6
5.2
28.1

49.8
9.0
37.5

60.0
8.0
24.0

9.5

8 .3

10.8

8 .3

8.0

7.4

.0

5.5

9.1

8 .0

t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d

being very s a t i s f i e d

t h e i r j o b s c i t e d t im e , c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r ,

with

and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

of

s ubver sio n o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g p ro c e s s as t h e t h r e e major
potential

costs

of

involvement

in

the

d e ci s io n- m ak in g

process.

Teachers who i n d i c a t e d t h a t the y were s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r c u r r e n t
employment
disfavor,

ranked
and l o s s

the

costs

of

o f autonomy,

involvement
in t h a t

as

order.

t im e ,

collegial

Those r e p o r t i n g

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r jo b s viewed tim e, c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r , and

101

p o s s i b l e t h r e a t s t o c a r e e r advancement as t h e c h i e f c o s t s o f t h e i r
involvement in sh ar ed d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 73) .

Table 7 3 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f s har ed d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s with va ryi ng de gre es o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
Cost

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial d isfavor
Subversion o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g p ro c e ss
Threats to career
advancement

Teachers

reporting

th at

Very
Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

56.3
7.0
23.2

61.2
11.0
33.1

58.1
18.6
30.2

9.2
3 .5

9.8
9 .0

14.0
23.3

th eir

principals

controlled

all

d e c i s i o n s ranked t h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f involvement in schoo l-wid e
decision

making

in

the

follow ing

order:

disfavor,

and t h e p o s s i b l e su b v er si o n o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g

process.

Those w ith t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l i n g

most o f t h e d e c i s i o n s chose ti m e , c o l l e g i a l

tim e,

disfavor,

co lleg ial

and l o s s o f

autonomy as t h e t h r e e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f involvement.
the

other

hand,

teachers

who

reported

the

perception

of

On

their

p r i n c i p a l s c o n t r o l l i n g few d e c i s i o n s viewed ti m e , l o s s o f autonomy,
c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r , and t h e p o s s i b l e s ubver si on o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g pro c e ss as equal p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f t h e i r involvement in
sh ared d e c i s i o n making (s e e Table 74).

102

Table 7 4 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f shared d e c i s i o n making by
t e a c h e r s w it h va ry in g p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’
adm inistrative sty le s.
P r in c i p a ls ’ Administrative Styles
Cost

Control
All
D eci si on s

Control
Most
Decis ion s

Control
Some
D e ci s io ns

Control
Few
Deci si ons

57.6
9 .3
33.1

58.8
11.5
28.1

68.1
6.4
34.0

33.3
33.3
33.3

10.2

10.4

6 .4

33.3

8.5

7.7

12.8

.0

Time
Loss o f autonomy
Collegial disfavor
Subv ersion o f
collectiveb a r g a i n i n g p ro c e ss
Threats to caree r
advancement

Perc e iv ed Hindrances t o Involvement
in Shared D e ci si on Making
The s u b j e c t s o f t h i s
list

of

predeterm ined

represented
s f r* *+ £ r 4 n n

J I V I I

potential

m i 1/ 4

stu dy were asked t o choose from among a
responses

h in d r a n c e s t o

T U /»

llia i \l l l ^ a

(IIC

lack of opportunity,

those

4

I C d p U l l d C

I

items

th at

their

involvement

i»

i.iim a

/ i

I1CI C

\ a /

V lld

\

1 **<■»!#

for
in

« C

VI

them
shared

♦ 4m «

b IIIIC)

(c) t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ,

/ k 1

\U J

(d) peer

p r e s s u r e , (e ) per so nal p h i lo s op hy , and ( f ) d i s i n t e r e s t .
F ifty-eight
respondents

percent

of

the

vie w ed l a c k o f t i m e

m al e
as

and

65% o f

a potential

involvement in schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n making.

the

female

hindrance

to

Approximately 50% of

t h o s e resp ond ing c i t e d l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y as a p o t e n t i a l hind ranc e
t o involvement.

Twenty p e r c e n t o r l e s s o f t h e re s p o n d e n ts chose the

f o u r o t h e r p re d e te r m in e d re s p o n s e s as p o t e n t i a l

hindrances

to

103

involvem ent

in

shared

decision

m a k in g .

In

rank

order

h i n d r a n c e s were r e p o r t e d as t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p

those
style,

pe rso na l philo s ophy, d i s i n t e r e s t , and p e e r p r e s s u r e .
Both men and women ranked l a c k o f tim e as t h e c h i e f hin dra nc e
to

involvement in s ha re d d e c i s i o n making and l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y

second (see Table 7 5 ).

This f i n d i n g was a l s o c o n s i s t e n t wit h every

age-group c a t e g o r y e x c e p t t h o s e re s p o n d e n ts who were 50 y e a r s
older.

and

That group chose l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y over l a c k o f time as

t h e c h i e f p o t e n t i a l h in dr a nc e to involvement in schoo l- wide d e c i s i o n
making.

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e

im port an t c o n s i d e r a t i o n
under 30 y e a r s o f age.

as

a potential

d id

not

h in dr a n c e

seem t o
for

be an

re s p o n d e n ts

All o t h e r age groups viewed i t as t h e number

t h r e e h in dr a nc e (s e e Table 76).

Table 7 5 . - - T e a c h e r s ’ r a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l h in d ra n c e s t o involvement
in school-wide d e c i s i o n making, by sex.
Sex

n murdiice

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P r in c ip a l’s leadership s ty le
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal philosophy
D isinterest

Male

Female

58.8
52.5
22.3
4.3
17.3
14.9

65.3
50.6
18.8
8.0
11.4
8.5

104
Table 7 6 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hin dra nc es t o involvement in s ch oo lwide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s o f v a ry in g ages.
Age
Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P r in c ip a l’ s leadership s ty le
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal philo so phy
D isinterest

Of t h o s e
potential

re s pon de nt s

h in dr a nc e t o

< 30

30-39 i

40-59

> 50

72.7
45.5
9.1
13.6
13.6
4 .5

64.6
52.6
17.7
5 .7
16.6
11.4

58.9
48.8
24.7
6.3
13.9
14.6

57.1
58.4
23.4
2 .6
13.0
11.7

who viewed

lack

of

time

as

the

chief

involvement in sh are d d e c i s i o n making,

the

l a r g e s t p e rc e n ta g e were i n d i v i d u a l s with 1 to 5 y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g
experience.

Approximately t h e

between 11 and 15,
experience

felt

16 and 20,

that

lack

of

same p e r c e n ta g e

of

teachers

with

and more than 20 y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g
time

was

the

greatest

potential

hi nd ra nc e t o involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making.
o p p o r t u n i t y co ntin ue d t o rank second as a p o t e n t i a l

Lack o f

h in d ra n c e f o r

a l l t e a c h i n g - e x p e r i e n c e groups (s e e Table 77).
Teachers with

b a c h e l o r ’ s degre es

le d

all

other

educational-

s t a t u s groups in terms o f t h e p e rc en ta g e o f t e a c h e r s who h e ld th e
b elief

that

hindrance

to

lack

of time

involvement

ranked
in

as t h e

shared

number one

decision

potential

making.

This

e d u c a t i o n a l - s t a t u s group a l s o r e p o r t e d t h e h i g h e s t p e r c e n ta g e r a t i n g
f o r pe er p r e s s u r e as a p o t e n t i a l hin drance t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making (see Table 78).

105

Table 7 7 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hi nd ra nc es t o involvement in s ch oolwide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s wit h v a ry in g classroom
teaching experience.
Years o f Teaching Experience
Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P rin cipal’s leader­
sh ip s t y l e
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal ph ilosophy
D isinterest

1-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

> 20

8 0.8
46.2

65.0
50.0

61.3
53.2

58.5
51.7

58.5
52.5

19.2
3 .8
7.7
3 .8

13.3
8 .3
13.3
16.7

20.7
6.3
15.3
9 .0

23.7
6 .8
19.5
11.9

22.0
3 .4
11.9
15.3

Table 7 8 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l h in d ra n c es t o involvement in s c h o o lwide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g e d u c a t i o n a l
status.
Educational S t a t u s
Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
n

ini'ipat

5

B.A.

M.A.

Ed.S.

Ph.D.

70.0
47.6

56.8
54.4

40.0
50.0

33.3
66.7

18.2
5.9
15.9
10.6

22.8
6 .0
14.0
13.2

10.0
.0
20.0
20.0

33.3
.0
.0
.0

1_
_
_
_
_
_l ----------L i ieauei5iii|J

style
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal philosophy
D isinterest

High school t e a c h e r s who ta u g h t in schoo ls l o c a t e d
small town, o r suburban a r e a s r e p o r t e d

in r u r a l ,

l a c k o f time as t h e c h i e f

p o t e n t i a l hin dra nc e t o involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making,
followed

by

lack

of

opportunity

and

the

principal’s

leadership

106
style.

Teachers who t a u g h t

thought

that

lack

of

1n sc hools

opportunity

located

was

the

in urban c e n t e r s

greatest

potential

h i n d r a n c e , followed by l a c k o f time (s e e Table 7 9).

Table 7 9 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hi n dr a nc es t o involvement in s ch o ol wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in va ry in g ty p e s o f
communities.
Type of Community
Small
Town

City

Suburban

66.0
44.0

69.9
50.3

54.4
61.4

55.2
47 .4

20.0
4 .0
18.0
16.0

22.9
7.2
13.1
11.8

16.7
2.6
14.9
9.6

22.4
7 .8
15.5
13.8

Hindrance
Rural
Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P r i n c i p a l’s leadership
style
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal philo so phy
D isinterest

These f i n d i n g s were a l s o c o n s i s t e n t f o r t e a c h e r s in s c h o o l s of
va ryi ng s i z e s .

Teacher re s po nd en ts in a l l school s i z e s e x c e p t l a r g e

high sc ho ol s (more th a n 1,205 s t u d e n t s ) viewed l a c k o f time as th e
greatest
making.

potential

hi n dr an ce

to

involvement

in

sh ared

decision

Teachers in l a r g e high scho ols r e p o r t e d l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y

as t h e number one p o t e n t i a l hi ndra nc e t o involvement in schoo l-wid e
d e c i s i o n making ( s e e Table 80 ).

107

Table 8 0 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l h in d ra n c e s t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s in s c h o o l s wit h va ryi ng
student enrollments.
S tu de nt Enrollment
< 319

319626

6271,204

> 1,204

88.9
33.3

59.4
53.1

65.1
48.2

52.0
59.2

11.1
11.1
44.4
22.2

9.4
12.5
15.6
17.2

27.1
5.1
13.7
10.2

14.3
3.1
15.3
12.2

Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P rin c ip a l’s leadership
style
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal phil os oph y
D isinterest

Teachers in t h e c o r e s u b j e c t a r e a s chose l a c k o f time as th e
greatest

potential

m a k in g ,

followed

leadership
activity.

h in dr a nc e
by

styles,

lack

to
of

and t h e i r

involvement
opportunity,

pe rsonal

in

sh ared

th eir

philosophies

decision

prin cip als’
regarding

This ra nkin g v a r i e d f o r t e a c h e r s in t h e f i n e a r t s .

chose l a c k o f t i m e ,
decision

m a k in g ,

h in d ra n c e s

to

their

per so nal

and l a c k

their

of

involvement

Teachers in t h e p r a c t i c a l

philosophies

opportunity
in

as

scho ol- wid e

regarding
the

th ree

decision

th e
They

shared
major
making.

a r t s a r e a viewed t h e top t h r e e p o t e n t i a l

h in d ra n c e s in t h e same ra nk o r d e r as t e a c h e r s in t h e c or e s u b j e c t
areas.

Support s t a f f r a t e d l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y as t h e number one

potential
Table 81 ).

hi n d ra n c e t o

involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making (see

108

Table 8 1 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hi n d ra n c es t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a r y in g t e a c h i n g
ass ign me nts .
Teaching Assignments
Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f oppor­
tunity
Principal’s
leadership sty le
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal p h i ­
losophy
D isinterest

Core
Subjects

Fine
A rts

Practical
Arts

Support
Staff

65.5

77.1

56.8

45.1

64.0

51.0

14.6

52.6

47.0

80.0

20.8
4 .9

.0
.0

19.8
5.4

22.5
10.7

24.0
8.0

16.8
12.8

31.2
8 .3

12.6
12.9

6.3
12.3

8.0
12.0

Other

Respondents who r e p o r t e d being very s a t i s f i e d o r s a t i s f i e d with
th eir

current

opportunity,

employment

ranked

lack

of

tim e,

and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s

lack

of

as t h e t h r e e

most pr o b a b le p o t e n t i a l hi nd ra nc es to involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n
making.

Those t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d being d i s s a t i s f i e d wit h t h e i r

j o b s l i s t e d l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y as t h e g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l
to

their

involvement

in

school-wide d e c i s i o n making,

h in d ran ce

foll owed

by

l a c k o f time and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s ( s e e Table 82 ).

109

Table 8 2 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hi ndra nc es t o involvement in school wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g d e g re e s o f
job s a tis f a c tio n .
Degree o f S a t i s f a c t i o n
Hindrance

Lack o f time
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y
P r in c ip a l’s leadership
style
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal philo so phy
D isinterest

High

school

controlled all
the

greatest

decision
styles

individuals.

S atis­
fied

D issat­
isfied

65.5
46.5

60 .8
53.5

51.2
60 .5

15.5
2.1
15.5
7.7

21.6
6 .9
13.1
14.7

34 .9
11.6
23.3
11.6

who b e l i e v e d

that

th eir

principals

school-wide d e c i s i o n s ranked l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y as
h in d ran ce

making.

ranked

teachers

Very
Satisfied

to

Lack o f

their
time

second and t h i r d ,

own

involvement

and t h e i r

that,

sch ool-wide

p r in c ip a ls ’ leadership

respectively,

Teachers who r e p o r t e d

in

in

for

this

their

group

opinion,

of
th e

p r i n c i p a l s o f t h e i r sch ools c o n t r o l l e d most d e c i s i o n s ranked l a c k of
time as t h e c h i e f p o t e n t i a l hin drance t o . t h e i r involvement in shared
d e c i s i o n making,

followed by l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y ,

their

personal

philos ophy r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t i v i t y , and t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ l e a d e r s h i p
styles.

Those

individuals

who

reported

that

their

principals

c o n t r o l l e d only some o f t h e school-wide d e c i s i o n s

viewed l a c k of

time

and

and l a c k o f

opportunity

as

the

number one

h in d ra n c es t o involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making.

number

two

Personal

110

philos ophy r e g a r d i n g t h i s type o f involvement and d i s i n t e r e s t were
o f equal

importance as h in d ra n c es f o r t h i s group and ranked t h i r d

(s e e Table 8 3) .

Table 8 3 . - - R a t i n g s o f p o t e n t i a l hi nd ra nc es t o involvement in s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s with v a ry in g p e r c e p t i o n s
of t h e i r p r in c ip a ls ’ adm inistrative s ty le s .
P r in c ip a ls ’ Administrative Styles
Hindrance

Control
All
De cisions

Lack o f time
Lack o f oppor­
tunity
Principal’s
leadership sty le
Peer p r e s s u r e
Personal p h i l o s ­
ophy
D isinterest

Control
Most
D ecisions

Control
Some
D e cis ion s

Control
Few
D e ci s io ns

55.9

63.1

68.1

66.7

57.6

48.8

48.9

100.0

40.7
5.9

13.1
5. 0

14.9
10.6

.0
.0

9.3
5.9

14.2
11.2

31.9
31.9

33.3
33.3

Chi-Square Te s t of A s s o c i a t i o n
The r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e l a t i v e to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between th e
ni ne independent v a r i a b l e s and t h e re s p o n se s o f t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s
s tu dy

regarding

(a)

the

current

school-wide d e c i s i o n making,

(b)

level

of

their

involvement

in

t h e i r ex pre sse d d e s i r e t o become

involved in school-wide d e c i s i o n making, and (c) t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s
concerning t h e c o s t s and b e n e f i t s o f o r hi n d ra n c es t o involvement in
school-wide d e c i s i o n making were analyzed using t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t .

Ill

Because o f t h e s i z e o f t h e sample (1,0 00 +) , t h e n u l l hypothe ses were
t e s t e d a t both t h e .05 and .10 l e v e l s o f s i g n i f i c a n c e .
C ur re nt Involvement in SchoolWide De cis ion Making
The d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l o f involvement in school wide d e c i s i o n making by high
basis

of

nin e

factors

decision

area

curriculum ,

association

b e tw ee n

are

school

teachers

categorized

in

section.

presented
the

teacher

this

chi-square
involvem ent

scores
in

on th e
For

indicated

shared

th e
an

decisions

r e g a r d i n g c u rr ic u lu m and t h e t e a c h i n g assignment o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ,
s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 l e v e l (s e e Table 84).
When comparing

the

nin e

independent

t e a c h e r i n v o l v e m e n t in d e c i s i o n s

variables

regarding

school

with

current

a ctiv ities,

a s s o c i a t i o n s were found between t h e t e a c h e r s ’ involvement in t h i s
decision

area

and

(a)

s a t i s f a c t i o n a t the

age,

(b)

teaching

experience,

and

(c)

jo b

.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and between t e a c h e r

involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n s

in t h e

a r e a and t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p

school-activities

style

significant

at

decision
the

.10

l e v e l (s e e Table 84 ).
With re g a r d t o t h e c u r r e n t involvement o f high school t e a c h e r s
in sh ared d e c i s i o n making in t h e a re a o f school

improvement, t h e r e

was an a s s o c i a t i o n between t e a c h e r s ’ j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

p rin c ip a l’s

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , and involvement in t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e a s i g n i f i c a n t
a t t h e .05 le v e l and e d u c a ti o n a l

s t a t u s and t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e a t

t h e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 84 ).

Ta ble 8 4 . — Summary o f c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r c u r r e n t invo lve me nt o f t e a c h e r s i n s h a r e d d e c i s i o n making.
D eci si on Area
Variable
Curricu­
lum

A ctivi­
ties

School
Improvement

R u le s /
D iscipline

Professional
Development

C o o r d in a ti o n
o f Teaching

P o li cy

Sex

1.367

.008

.161

.424

.541

.319

.696

Age

4.6 36

17.258^

5.630

1.543

5.728

1.772

3.961

E du c a tio na l s t a t u s

1.991

1.277

7. 7 7 7 **

2.217

6 .3 2 4 ^

6.060

5.246

Teaching e x p e r i e n c e

4.034

18.096A

9 . 3 3 9 **

10.501^

8.662

7.876^

13.196^

Type o f community

3 .3 1 2

4.431

.142

6 .3 7 9 ^

2.270

10.003^

S i z e o f school

1.449

1.979

6.216

14.94 3A

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n

1.640

8 .2 66 ^

10.898+

Assignment
P r in c ip a l's lead­
ership sty le

36.72 6#
4. 428

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .0 5 .

♦♦Significant at p < .10.

11.268
7.0112 * *

5.047^

17.134

10.059

13.845^

23.913*

1 1 .848+
5.347

.545

3. 40 0

1.6 40

10.724^

18.497

15.582

11.268

4.656

3.449

15.250

6 .9 4 9 ^

113
When c o n s i d e r i n g
rules

associations

and d i s c i p l i n e ,

chi-square

for

the

scores

decision

indicated

area

school

a relationship

between c u r r e n t t e a c h e r involvement in t h i s a r e a and (a)

teaching

e x p e r i e n c e , (b) s i z e o f s c h o o l, and (c) p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e
at

the

.05 l e v e l

of significance

and t y p e o f

community and job

s a t i s f a c t i o n a t t h e .10 l e v e l ( s e e Table 84 ).
Three

variables

emer ged

as

sig n ifican t

determ inants

involvement in p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s .

of

They were type

o f community a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n
and e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s a t t h e .10 l e v e l (s e e Table 84 ).
For t h e d e c i s i o n a r e a c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g , onl y t e a c h i n g
experience

was

found

to

be

a

significant

indicator

of

current

t e a c h e r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making a t t h e .10 l e v e l

(see

Table 84 ).
The

responses

involvem ent

of

high

in d e c i s i o n s

school

relative

teach ers
to

school
(b)

regarding
policy

th eir

indicated

a s s o c i a t i o n s with (a)

teaching experience,

t y p e o f community,

(c) j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

and (d) pi i hv.i pa i s ic au e rs u ip s l y t e , a 1 1

al

t h e .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e ( s e e Table 8 4).
Perc ei ved
High school

results

of

involvement

t e a c h e r s who r e p o r t e d

in

schoo l-wid e

involvement

in

decisions.

sh ared d e c i s i o n

making were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e s u l t s of
such involvement.

They were d i r e c t e d t o r e p o r t whether t h e r e s u l t s

o f t h e i r involvement in th e de ci si on- m aki ng p ro c e s s were in t h e i r
op ini on p o s i t i v e , n e g a t i v e , or n e u t r a l .

114
Ch i-s q ua re s c o r e s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n a r e a c u r r ic u lu m i n d i c a t e d an
association

with

teacher

job

satisfaction

at

the

.05

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e and number o f y e a r s o f clas sr oom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e a t
t h e .10 l e v e l (see Table 8 5) .
For

the

decision

area

activ ities,

only

the

teachers’

e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s was r e l a t e d t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e s u l t s
o f t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making ( s e e Table 85 ).
Teachers’ perceptions o f the r e s u l t s
school

im pr ovem en t

satisfaction

decisions

and t h e i r

were

of th e i r

associated

p rin c ip a ls ’ leadership

involvement in

with

styles

th eir
at

the

job
.05

l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and wit h age a t t h e .10 l e v e l (see Table 85 ).
For t h e d e c i s i o n a r e a r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e , a c o r r e l a t i o n was
found

between

te a c h e r s ’ perceptions

of

the

results

of

th eir

involvement in t h a t d e c i s i o n c a te g o r y and sex and jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n
a t t h e .05 l e v e l and typ e o f community and s i z e o f school a t t h e .10
l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 85).
Comparing t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e s u l t s o f involvement
in shared d e c i s i o n making in t h e ar ea o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
with th e nine

independent v a r i a b l e s

resulted

development.

in c h i - s q u a r e s c o r e s

t h a t i n d i c a t e d only a r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r c e p t i o n s o f r e s u l t s in
t h i s d e c i s i o n a re a and t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e a t t h e .05
l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 85).
Scores

f o r comparisons

between

te a c h e rs ’ perceptions

of

the

r e s u l t s o f involvement in t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t e a c h i n g with o t h e r
teachers

and t h e n i n e v a r i a b l e s

perceptions

produced a s s o c i a t i o n s

o f r e s u l t s in t h i s d e c i s i o n a r e a and

job

be tw een

satisfaction

Table 85.— Summary of chi-square test for teachers' perceptions of the results of their involvement in
shared decision making.
D e ci s io n Area
Variable

Curricu­
lum

A ctivi­
ties

School
Improvement

Professional
Development

Coordination
o f Teaching

6 .1 7 6 +

3.203

2.794

.540

Policy

Sex

.851

.764

Age

8.714

2.394

10.985^

4.9 67

6.763

3.556

4. 204

E du c a tio na l s t a t u s

2.037

56.247^

3.089

5.695

6. 396

4 .2 3 8

5.429

13.398^

3.758

9.160

6. 479

5.546

5.793

10.076

Type o f community

4.5 40

2.294

6.052

11.046^

5.105

4 .6 5 9

7.291

S i z e o f school

6.600

4. 45 8

5.672

12.321♦♦

4 .4 79

3.841

3.783

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n

15.197^

3.261

10.431♦

17.194 ♦

4 .0 55

14.651♦

8.5 45^

Assignment

23.364

26.798

24.490

20.723

27.872

35.462

39.967^

9.266

7.183

23.569^

26.556^

Teaching e x p e r i e n c e

P r in c ip a l's lead­
ership style

♦ S ig n ific a n t a t p < .05.

♦♦Significant at p < .10.

.351

R u le s /
D iscipline

54.694^

1.342

3.198

116

and t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e a t t h e

.05 l e v e l

( s e e Table

85 ).
T e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s about t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r involvement in
school d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g p o l i c y were a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e i r l e v e l s
of job s a t i s f a c t i o n

and t h e i r

perceptions

of the

p rin c ip a l’s

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e a t t h e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 8 5).
Perceived
decisions.

ab ility

The

to

subjects

affect
of

this

the
stu dy

outcome
were

of

asked

school-w ide
to

indicate

whether o r not they th ought t h a t through t h e i r involvement in shared
decision

making

in

the

seven

decision

categories

selected

a n a l y s i s the y could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s .

for
A

r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f an a b i l i t y
t o a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school d e c i s i o n s in c u rr ic u lu m and t e a c h i n g
assignment

at

the

.05 l e v e l

of

significance

and

the

p rin c ip a l’s

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e a t t h e .10 l e v e l (s e e Table 86).
An a s s o c i a t i o n was noted between t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s ’
ability

to

affect

the

outcome

of

school-wide

decisions

in

the

a c t i v i t i e s d e c i s i o n a r e a and t h e i r t e a c h i n g assignment a t

the

.10

l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 86).
In t h e school

improvement d e c i s i o n a r e a ,

only one c o r r e l a t i o n

was found between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t
t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s and t h e age o f t h e re sp on den t
a t t h e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (see Table 86).

Table 86.— Summary of chi-square test for teachers' perceptions of their ability to affect the
outcome of school-wide decisions.
D e ci s io n Area
Variable

Curricu­
lum

A ctivi­
ties

School
Improvement

Professional
Development

.445

5.805^

2.903

2.156

Coordination
o f Teaching

P oli cy

Sex

2.897

.997

Age

7.674

5.442

6 .603^

3.906

.530

2.711

5.234

.985

6.835

.606

6.228

6 .3 9 8 ^

1.862

15.779^

Teaching e x p e r i e n c e

4.91 8

8 .7 06

4.541

7.238

4. 91 0

7.529

6.593

Type o f community

4.054

7.417

4.591

7.798

12.638^

6.719

11.184^

S i z e o f school

5.289

.713

1.287

11 . 0 0 6 ^

2.022

11.899^

9.531

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n

3.766

7.181

2.0 09

2.694

6.096^

7.545

7. 48 5

18.417

12.112

25.893

26.765

3.412

5.278

8.5 24

E du c a ti o n a l s t a t u s

1.015

R u le s /
D is ci p i i n e

Assignment

43 .8 7 7 #

38.919^

17.690

P rin c ip a l's lead­
ership sty le

11 . 4 5 4 ^

4.4 96

4.435

♦ S ig n ific a n t a t p < .05.

♦♦Significant at p < .10.

11 . 4 8 5 ^

118

An a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f high school
t e a c h e r s concerning t h e i r a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school wide d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e and t h e s i z e of
school

and t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p

style

at

the

.10 l e v e l

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e (see Table 86 ).
Chi-square sco res in d ic a te d r e l a t i o n s h i p s
te a c h e rs ’ perceptions

of th e ir

school-wide d e c i s i o n s

co nc ern in g p r o f e s s i o n a l

s ex,

(b)

level

type of community,

ability

and

(c)

to

job

existed

affect

the

b e tw ee n

outcome

development

satisfaction

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and t h e t e a c h e r s ’ e d u c a t i o n a l

at

status

of

and

(a)

the

.05

a t th e

.10 le ve l (s e e Table 86 ).
In

the

decision

category

coordination

of

teach in g ,

a

c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t e d between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r a b i l i t y
t o a f f e c t t h e outcome o f schoo l-wid e d e c i s i o n s in t h i s a r e a and th e
s i z e o f t h e school a t t h e .10 l e v e l (s e e Table 86 ).
A r e l a t i o n s h i p was a l s o found between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s of
th eir

ab ility

to a f f e c t

the

outc ome o f

school-w ide d e c is io n s

re g a r d i n g school p o l i c y and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e t e a c h e r a t
the

.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and s i z e o f school

a t the

.10 le v e l

(s e e Table 8 6).
P e rc e p ti o n
decisions.

of

overall

The high school

r a te t h e i r overall
characterizing

level

th eir

extent

teachers

involvement
in t h i s

in

school-wide

s tu dy were asked to

o f involvement in scho ol- wid e d e c i s i o n s ,

activ ity

in

somewhat invo lve d, o r no t in vo lv e d.
square t e s t ,

of

th is

area

as

very

involved,

Based on t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c h i -

a r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

119
o f t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i r o v e r a l l involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making
and (a) age,

(b) number o f y e a r s o f classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ,

(c)

job

teacher

satisfaction,

(d)

teaching

ass ignm en t,

and

(e)

t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e ( s e e Table
87).

Table 8 7 . --Summary o f c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r t e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d e x t e n t
o f involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
V a r ia b le

Percei ved Ext ent o f Involvement

Sex
Age
Educational s t a t u s
Teaching e x p e r ie n c e
Type o f community
Si z e o f school
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
Assignment
P r in c ip a l’s leadership sty le

2.266
13.801*
10.289
15.722*
7.833
7.063
12.567*
60.853*
16.237*

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05.

Expressed D s s i r s t o Bsconis Involvsd
in School-Wide Decision Making
The d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e ex pre sse d d e s i r e o f high school t e a c h e r s
t o become involved in scho ol- wide d e c i s i o n making a r e p r e s e n t e d in
th is section.

Teachers were asked t o i n d i c a t e how much time they

would be w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t in sh ar ed -d e c is i o n -m a k in g a c t i v i t i e s

if

t h e y were provided with t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r such involvement.
Investment o f t i m e .
teachers’

perceptions

of

The r e s u l t s o f th e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t
w illingness

to

invest

time

in

for

shared

120

d e c i s i o n making i n d i c a t e d t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p
teach ers’ willingness to

existed

b e tw e e n

i n v e s t time in t h e schoo l- wide d e c i s i o n ­

making p r o c e s s and t h e i r e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s and t e a c h i n g assignment
a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , and ty pe o f community a t t h e .10
l e v e l ( s e e Table 88 ).

Table 8 8 . --Summary o f c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f
w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in s har ed d e c i s i o n making.
W il l i n g n e s s t o I n v e s t Time

V a r ia b le

1.941
3.113
18.259^
9.726
15.167^
11.849
6.874
63.783^
5.684

Sex
Age
Educational s t a t u s
Teaching e x p e r ie n c e
Type o f community
Si z e o f school
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
Assignment
P rin c ip a l’s leadership s ty le
♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05.
♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .10.

PerceDtions o f P o t e n t i a l B e n e f i t s .
C osts , or Hindrances t o Involvement
in Shared Decision Making
D ifferences
the

potential

in

the

benefits,

perceptions
costs,

or

of

hin d ra n c es

s c h o o l - w i d e d e c i s i o n making c a t e g o r i z e d
independent

variables

purposes o f t h i s

are

analysis,

presented

teach ers

in

to

on t h e

this

relativ e

to

involvement

in

basis

section.

o f nine
For

th e

res p o n d en ts were asked t o choose from

121

among a l i s t o f p o t e n t i a l

ad van ta ge s, d i s a d v a n t a g e s ,

and hin dra nc es

t o t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
Per ce ive d b e n e f i t s

of involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n

making.

High school t e a c h e r s were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
potential
from

a

benefits of t h e i r
predet er min ed

influence,

(b)

a

list

sense

involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making
that

of

in cl uded

(a)

accomplishment,

increased
(c)

c o o p e r a t i o n , and (d) i n c r e a s e d workplace democracy.
was found between t h e t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n t h a t
i n f l u e n c e r e p r e s e n t e d a b e n e f i t o f involvement

a

teacher

feeling

of

A relationship

in c r e a s e d t e a c h e r
in sh ared d e c i s i o n

making and t h e sex o f t h e t e a c h e r and t h e s i z e o f t h e school a t th e
.05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , and t h e e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e t e a c h e r
a t t h e .10 le v e l (s e e Table 89).
No r e l a t i o n s h i p was noted between t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e
benefit

category

a sense

of

accomplishment

and

any o f

the

nine

independent v a r i a b l e s (s e e Table 89) .
For t h e b e n e f i t c a t e g o r y ow nership, only an a s s o c i a t i o n between
t e a c h e r s ’ perception

of

that

c a te g o ry

as

a benefit

and

size

of

school e x i s t e d a t t h e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ( s e e Table 8 9 ) .
Teachers’ perception

o f workplace democracy as

a benefit

of

involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making was found t o

be a s s o c i a t e d

w ith

the

(a)

sex,

(b)

age o f t h e

re s p o n d e n t,

and

(c)

t e a c h e r ’s

e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s , a l l a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table
8 9 ).

122

Table 89.--Summary of chi-square test for teachers’ ratings of
potential benefits of shared decision making.
Benefit
V a ri a b le
In f l u e n c e
Sex
Age
Educational s t a t u s
Teaching e x p er ie n c e
Type o f community
Size o f school
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
Assignment
P rin cip al’s leader­
ship s ty le

5.869*
1.016
6.282**
1.682
2.210
10.356*
.941
8.770
5.762

Accomp­
lis h m e n t

Ownership

Workplace
Democracy

.047
9.686
2.242
6.123
1.807
6.036
.627
15.251
1.302

3.266
4.951
5.527
11.749
7.962
10.900**
4.916
19.156
7.106

10.177*
8.115*
13.014*
4.073
4.120
3.747
3.379
18.675
4.536

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05.
♦ ♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .10.

Perce ived c o s t s o f involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.

The

high school t e a c h e r s who were t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s stud y were asked
to

indicate

represented

which

items

in t h e i r

from a

o pin io n

predeterm ined

potential

list

disadvantages

t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.

of

re s p o n se s

or c o s t s

of

Their p o t e n t i a l - c o s t

ch o ic e s were (a) tim e, (b) l o s s o f autonomy, (c) c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r ,
(d )

subversion

of the

collective-bargaining

process,

and

(e)

p o s s i b l e t h r e a t s t o t h e i r c a r e e r advancement.
C hi-square
relationship

test

between

scores

did

not

te a c h e r s ’ perception

indicate
of

a

loss

an
of

existing
time

or

c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r as a c o s t o r d i s a d v a n ta g e o f t h e i r involvement in

123

shared d e c i s i o n making and any o f t h e

nin e

independent

variables

(s e e Table 90).

Table 9 0 . --Summary o f c h i - s q u a r e t e s t f o r t e a c h e r s ’ r a t i n g s o f
p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f sh ar ed d e c i s i o n making.
Costs
V a ri a b le
Time

Sex
Age
Educational
status
Teaching
e x p e r ie n c e
Type o f
community
Siz e o f school
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
Assignment
Principal’s
leadership
style

Loss o f C o l l e g i a l
Autonomy D is fa v o r

Subvert
Bargain
Pr ocess

T h r e a t to
Career
Advancement

.241
1.278

.040
3.694

2.774
3.203

.700
6.406

1.577
2.074

1.609

1.559

2.467

2.758

2.014

3.559

.750

4.080

5.268

4.596

4.080
3.806
.916
14.831

6.764**
3.959
4.897**
19.394

7.332
5.669
4.501
20.525

6.575**
4.638
.870
16.900

8.044
3.579
16.744*
25.883

2.501

2.981

2.533

2.540

2.876

* S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .05.
* * S i g n i f i c a n t a t p < .10.

An a s s o c i a t i o n was found between t h e t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n of
loss

of

personal

autonomy

as

a

cost

of

involvement

in

shared

d e c i s i o n making and t y p e o f community and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n a t the
.10 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 90) .
Subversion o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a in in g pr oc e ss was a s s o c i a t e d
with

type

of

community

at

the

.10

level

of

significance

as

a

124
t e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d c o s t o f involvement in t h e s har ed d e ci s io n-m ak in g
p r o c e s s (s e e Table 9 0).
A c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t e d between t h r e a t t o c a r e e r advancement as a
p o t e n t i a l c o s t o f t e a c h e r involvement in t h e s h a r e d - d e c i s i on-making
process

and

teacher

job

satisfactio n

at

the

.0 5

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e (see Table 90) .
Perc ei ved hin d ra n c es t o involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
The high school t e a c h e r s were asked t o s e l e c t p o t e n t i a l

h in d ra n c e s

t o t h e i r involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making from a pre de te rm in ed
list

s e l e c t e d from t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

lack

of

tim e,

(b )

leadership s ty le ,

lack

(d)

of

The r e s p o n s e o p t i o n s were (a)

opportunity,

peer pressure,

(e)

(c)

the

perso nal

p rin c ip a l’s

p h il o s o p h y ,

and

(f) d i s i n t e r e s t .
An a s s o c i a t i o n was found between l a c k o f time as a p e r c e iv e d
hi nd ran ce t o t e a c h e r involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n making and type
o f community a t

the

.05 l e v e l

of significance

and t h e

teachers’

e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s a t t h e .10 l e v e l (s e e Table 91) .
Lack o f o p p o r t u n i t y was c o r r e l a t e d with type o f community and
t e a c h i n g assignment as p o s s i b l e hi n d ra n c es t o t e a c h e r involvement in
t h e s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p ro c e s s a t t h e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e
( s e e Table 91 ).
A relationship

was

s t y l e as a p o t e n t i a l
o f th e

school

at

the

noted

between

the

p rin c ip a l’s

leadership

hin dra nc e t o t e a c h e r involvement and t h e s i z e
.05 l e v e l

and t h e

t e a c h e r s ’ de gre e o f job

s a t i s f a c t i o n a t th e .10 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ( s e e Table 91 ).

Table 91.— Summary of chi-square test for teachers' ratings of potential hindrances to involvement
in shared decision making.
Hindrance
Variable

Lack o f
Time

Lack o f
Opportu­
nity

Principal

p

LTt^ h1p

Per so na l
Phi lo so ph y

D is i nterest

Sex

2.999

.164

2.283

3.187

2.858**

3.929*

Age

3.598

2.351

5.223

5.481

.755

2.127

11.543**

2.129

3.859

1.562

1.021

1. 625

6. 980

.517

4.624

5.330

4 .0 38

4. 892

14.361♦

6.455**

7.369

6.544

.818

1.663

10.511

6.4 63

3.319

3.063

4.091

16.890

17.219

14.479*

22.979*

E duc a tio na l s t a t u s
Teaching e x p e r i e n c e
Type o f community
S i z e o f school

8 .8 2 8

4.642

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n

3.543

3.177

23.259

22.395**

4. 188

5.453

Assignment
P r in c ip a l's leadership
style

♦ S ig n ific a n t a t p < .05.

♦♦Significant at p < .10.

14.993*
7.951**
15.801
40.465*

8.782**
34.083
3.1 19

126
Peer p r e s s u r e was found t o be a s s o c i a t e d only with t h e degree
of

teacher job

involvem ent

satisfaction

in

shared

as

a possible

decision

making

h in d ra n c e
at

the

to

.10

teacher

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 91).
Personal

philosophy

as

a potential

hindrance

to

teacher

involvement was r e l a t e d t o t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e a t t h e
.05

le v el

and t h e

sex

of

the

re sp onden t

at

the

.10

level

of

s i g n i f i c a n c e (s e e Table 91) .
T e a c h e rs ’ r a t i n g o f d i s i n t e r e s t as a h in dr a nc e t o

involvement

in shared d e c i s i o n making was a s s o c i a t e d w ith both t h e sex o f t h e
r e s p o n d e n t and t h e t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s

of th e ir

prin cip als’

l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e s a t t h e .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ( s e e Table 91) .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The re s p o n se s o f 435 high school
s ch ools

in

western

specifically,

Michigan were examined

t h e stu dy was designe d t o

decision

areas

in v o lv e d ,

(b)

involvement

teachers

in

which

high school

seek in fo r m a t io n

in school-wide

about

decision

in

(a)

s tu d y .

More

de te rm in e t h e

shared

their

desire

making,

(c)

for

involvement o r noninvolvement

making,

(d)

investigate

for

explore

increased
possible

in sh ared d e c i s i o n
among

groups o f t e a c h e r s c a t e g o r i z e d on t h e b a s i s o f ni n e f a c t o r s :

age,

clas sr oom

community,

teaching

student

differences

were c u r r e n t l y

re s p o n s e s

sex,

the

this

teachers

explanations
and

in s e l e c t e d p u b l i c

experience,

enrollm ent,

in

e d u c a ti o n a l
teaching

s a t i s f a c t i o n , and p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e .

status,

type

assignm ent,

of
job

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d

were grouped in terms o f nine c a t e g o r i e s , which became t h e c e n t r a l
i s s u e s o f t h i s s tu dy.
In de te rm in in g t h e c u r r e n t involvement o f high school t e a c h e r s
in

sh ared

teacher

d e c i s i o n making,
involvement

in

the
shared

issues

r a i s e d were

decision

m a ki ng ,

t h e d e gre e of
th e kinds

of

d e c i s i o n s th e y were involved i n , and t h e r e s u l t o f t h e i r involvement
in terms o f i t s p o s i t i v e e f f e c t .

127

128
It

seemed

im po rt an t

to

e x p lo re

not

only

the

"what"

when

c o n s i d e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f c u r r e n t involvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n
making but a l s o t o d i s c o v e r how much time (a l i t t l e ,

some, a l o t )

t e a c h e r s were spending on t h i s type o f a c t i v i t y and whether t h e i r
e x p e r ie n c e s o r inve st me nts o f time were p e rc e iv e d as p o s i t i v e .
The i s s u e s t h a t most c l o s e l y a li g n e d themselves with t h e d e s i r e
f o r in c r e a s e d involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making were t h e
w i l l i n g n e s s on t h e p a r t o f t e a c h e r s t o i n v e s t time in t h e a c t i v i t y ,
and t h e i n d i v i d u a l c h o ic e s o f d e c i s i o n a r e a s f o r involvement c i t e d
by t e a c h e r s when re sponding t o t h e open-ended q u e s t i o n in c lu d e d in
t h e survey i n s tr u m e n t.
In

seeking

some

explanation

for

teacher

involvem ent

or

noninvolvement in sh ared d e c i s i o n making, t h e i s s u e s d e r i v e d from a
selective

grouping

believed

they

could

o f survey q u e stio n s
affect

the

were w h e t h e r t e a c h e r s

outc ome

of

decisions,

th eir

p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e c o s t s o f t h e i r involvement in t h e de ci si on- m aki ng
process,

te a c h e rs ’ perceptions

o f th e

involvement in shared decision making,
exist

that

process.

might h i n d e r t h e i r

possible

benefits

of th e ir

and whether c e r t a i n f a c t o r s

involvement

in t h e de cisi on- m aki ng

Toge the r, t h e s e i s s u e s r e p r e s e n t e d a s y s t e m a t i c method f o r

o rg a n i z i n g t h e d a t a f o r a n a l y s i s and e s t a b l i s h i n g a fo c u s .
Ma.ior Findings ( D e s c r i p t i v e )
C urr en t

involvement

in

sh ared d e c i s i o n making.

The c u r r e n t

involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making o f t h e high school
who were

the

subjects

of

th is

study

indicated

the

teachers
greatest

129
involvement in d e c i s i o n a r e a s t h a t were c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d wi th and
a f f e c t e d t h e i r classroom te a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e s o r g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t in
students.
(b)

These d e c i s i o n a r e a s , in rank o r d e r , were (a) c u r r ic u lu m ,

extracurricular a c tiv itie s ,

and d i s c i p l i n e ,
teaching,

(e)

(c)

professional

school

improvement,

development,

and (g) school p o l i c y .

(f)

(d)

rules

coordination

of

This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with

C usi c k’ s (1983) in t h a t i t seems t o s u p p o rt t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t when
teachers

become

involved

in s c h o o l - w i d e

decision

making

it

r e p r e s e n t s a d e s i r e on t h e i r p a r t to p r o t e c t a c t i v i t i e s o r e v e n t s in
which th e y have a v e s te d i n t e r e s t or have i n v e s t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e time
and energy.
The f i n d i n g t h a t
curriculum

high school

d e v e l o p m e n t was a l s o

literature.

The pe rc e n ta g e

t e a c h e r s were
consistent

of teachers

involve d most

with

in t h i s

in

the

existing

stu dy

reporting

involvement in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g c u rr ic u lu m development (73%) was
sim ilar

to

that

reported

by C a l i f o r n i a

e lem en ta ry

principals

in

Jo hn so n’ s (1975) s tu dy .
C urr en t involvement in e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s i s a n a t u r a l
e x t e n s i o n o f th e secondary t e a c h e r ’ s i n t e r a c t i o n with h i g h - s c h o o l age s t u d e n t s .

Since e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s

i n t e g r a l p a r t o f high school

programming,

viewed as

in and p o s s i b l y t h i n k of

as a p a r t o f t h e i r j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .

In many i n s t a n c e s t e a c h e r s a r e pa id t o d i r e c t such a c t i v i t i e s ,
so

one

might

ex pect

d e c i s i o n s in t h i s a r e a .

that

an

i t l o g i c a l l y fo ll o w s t h a t

t e a c h e r s a t t h i s l e v e l would be involved
extracurricular a c tiv itie s

are

they

would,

in

fact,

be

involved

and
in

130

T e a c h e r s ’ involvement in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g school-improvement
e f f o r t s has been viewed in t h e l i t e r a t u r e as an e x e r c i s e in top-down
management no t u s u a l l y in v o lv in g t e a c h e r s in any s i g n i f i c a n t number.
Approximately 62% o f t h e t e a c h e r s in t h i s st ud y i n d i c a t e d t h a t they
were or had been involved in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g school improvement.
One might

surmise from t h i s

finding

t h a t many school-improvement

e f f o r t s a r e c u r r e n t l y being implemented in t h e s c h o o l s - - e f f o r t s t h a t
invo lve

de ci si on-m aki ng

teachers.

groups

comprised

of

a

large

number

of

Such a f i n d i n g was i n c o n s i s t e n t with t h e r e s e a r c h o f Duke

(1978, 1980) and i n d i c a t e d a g r e a t e r de gre e o f t e a c h e r involvement
in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g school improvement than p r e v i o u s l y n o te d .
This in c r e a s e d involvement by t e a c h e r s

in t h e d e ci si on-m aking

pro c e ss i s a p a r t i c u l a r l y imp ort an t f i n d i n g in l i g h t o f t h e p u b l i c
p r e s s u r e f o r high sc h o o ls t o c o n s i d e r t h e changes a s s o c i a t e d with
t h e volumes o f r e c e n t n a t i o n a l
secondary s c h o o l.

s t u d i e s and p u b l i c c r i t i c i s m o f th e

The i n d i v i d u a l school has been i d e n t i f i e d as th e

most e f f e c t i v e u n i t o f change, and an i n c r e a s e in sh ared d e c i s i o n
making

in

the

a re a

of

school

improvement

co uld

have

a

direct

i n f l u e n c e on any e f f o r t s toward such improvement.
Duke e t

al.

(1978)

and

Duke

(1979)

problems as a d e c i s i o n a r e a o f g r e a t

cited

student

b e hav io r

in te r e s t to teachers.

Duke

(1979) no te d , however, t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e not invol ve d very much in
making d e c i s i o n s t h a t deal with school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e .
p e r c e n t o f t h e high school

teachers

the y

decisions

had

been

involved

in

in t h i s

s tu dy

regarding

indicated

school

rules

Sixty
that
and

131

discipline.
s c h o o l,

Since t h e

the

focus o f Duke’ s study was t h e e le m en ta ry

question of the

applicability

of h i s

finding

to

the

secondary school noted in t h e l i t e r a t u r e review a ppea rs t o have been
p a r t i a l l y answered.

Duke (1977) and F r a n c i s

(1975)

su pp orte d t h e

need f o r such involvement by t e a c h e r s as a means o f a s s u r i n g more
effective

enforcement o f e s t a b l i s h e d

individuals

who must

e n fo rc e

the

rules,

rules

believing

should

have

that
a

th o s e

hand

in

de velop in g them.
F i f t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t o f t h e high school t e a c h e r s noted t h a t th e y
w e re i n v o l v e d
activities.

in d e c i s i o n s

regarding p rofessional-developm ent

Although t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t school d i s t r i c t

o f f i c i a l s or b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y c o n t r o l l e d t h i s
decision area,
level

this

f i n d i n g seems t o

o f involvement o f t e a c h e r s

i n d i c a t e an i n c r e a s e

in t h i s

in th e

imp or tan t a c t i v i t y .

It

a l s o i s in keeping with Duke’ s (1977) and Lawrence’ s (1974) f i n d i n g
t h a t t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o p m e n t programs t h a t have t h e
chance f o r
n n

ilia 11a y n i ^

+• U

su cce ss
4 v*

vi t a M

are

m .m

th o s e
<* i

t h a t in vo lv e

^1

t e a c h e r s p la nn in g

n n m n n 4*

wvti p i v t w ^ i v i t a t u v v v i vpi uvi i v

invol ve d

coordination
involvement

or
of

had

been

teaching

in t h i s

area

involved
in

is

th eir

i n r

g reater

the

coordination,

degree
the

of

in

teacher

more l i k e l y

i n d i c a t e d t h a t the y

decisions

schools.

an impor tan t

o t h e r school-wide d e c i s i o n a r e a s .

and

vtvvtviviw*

F i f t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e 435 re s ponden ts
were

greatest

link

It
to

regarding
may be

the
th at

involvement

in

Johnson (1975) r e p o r t e d t h a t th e
participation
i t is

that

in

instructional

t e a c h e r s w i l l become

involved in d e c i s i o n s t h a t a re u s u a l l y l e f t p r i m a r i l y t o p r i n c i p a l s .

132

Lack o f involvement in p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s was c i t e d
(1970) as n major so urc e o f t e a c h e r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
f o r t h e high sc hoo ls he s t u d i e d .

by Corwin

and m i l i t a n c y

S l i g h t l y more than 50% o f t h e high

school t e a c h e r s in t h i s s tu dy i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y were involved in
policy decisio n s.
teacher

One might i n f e r ,

d issatisfactio n

involvement

in

dissatisfaction

policy
wi th

give n Corwin’ s f i n d i n g ,

and m i l i t a n c y

decisions,
current

and,

might
in

be

fact,

assignment/employment

m inimized
the

that
by

d e gr e e

of

e x p re ss e d

by

t e a c h e r s who were t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s stu dy was minimal (10%).
The t e a c h e r s who were most l i k e l y t o become involved in t h e s e
seven d e c i s i o n

a r e a s were between t h e ages o f 30 and 39 and had

t e a c h i n g assignments in t h e f i n e a r t s .

They t a u g h t in Cla ss C high

sc h oo ls l o c a t e d in r u r a l

a r e a s , were s a t i s f i e d wi th t h e i r c u r r e n t

employment,

that

and b e l i e v e d

their

principals

controlled

all

or

most o f t h e school d e c i s i o n s .
A v a s t m a j o r i t y (59% t o 83%) o f t h e t e a c h e r s who i n d i c a t e d t h a t
th e y were involved in s har ed d e c i s i o n making in t h e s e seven d e c i s i o n
a r e a s r e p o r t e d such involvement ended with p o s i t i v e

results.

One

might i n f e r from such in fo r m a t io n t h a t g e n e r a l l y t e a c h e r s view t h e i r
involvement

in t h e de ci si on- m aki ng

p ro c e s s

as a p o s i t i v e

profes­

s i o n a l o r pe rsonal e x p e r i e n c e .
A p ro file

of

the

teach ers

p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s from t h e i r

actual

who most

frequently

perceived

involvement in t h e school-wide

de cis io n-m ak in g p ro c e ss r e v e a l e d t h a t most o f t e n t h i s i n d i v i d u a l was
a female between t h e ages o f 40 and 50+.

This t e a c h e r was ass ig ne d

133

t o a f i n e a r t s s u b j e c t in a suburban high school She was g e n e r a l l y
s a t i s f i e d with he r j o b and p e rc ei v e d her p r i n c i p a l as an i n d i v i d u a l
who c o n t r o l l e d a l l o r most o f t h e school d e c i s i o n s .
T h i r t y p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s in t h i s stu dy were not involved
in school-wide d e c i s i o n making in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s c h o o l s .

Only 7%

o f th e males and 9% o f t h e females c h a r a c t e r i z e d the mselves as very
inv ol ve d ,

le a v i n g s l i g h t l y more than 60% somewhat involved

in the

sh a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p r o c e s s .
Desire f o r in c r e a s e d invo lve me nt.

S ix t e e n p e r c e n t o f t h e male

and 12% o f t h e female t e a c h e r s in t h i s s tu dy i n d i c a t e d th e y would be
w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t a g r e a t e r amount o f time in sh ared d e c i s i o n making
i f given t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r such involvement.

An a d d i t i o n a l 74% of

t h e men and 78% o f t h e women were w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t some t im e .

From

t h e s e d a t a , one might i n f e r t h a t high school t e a c h e r s a re i n t e r e s t e d
in becoming involved in d e c i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f th e
school.
The t e a c h e r most w i l l i n g t o i n v e s t a g r e a t deal o f time in the
sh ar ed -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p ro c e ss was once ag ain a man over 50 y e a r s o f
age with an advanced d e g re e , ass ig ne d in a s u p p o r t - s t a f f p o s i t i o n in
a school with a s t u d e n t e n ro ll m e n t over 1,204 t h a t was l o c a t e d in an
urban o r a suburban a r e a , s a t i s f i e d with h i s j o b , and who viewed h i s
school

adm inistrator

as

th e

person who made a l l

or

most

of

th e

d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l.
When t h e t e a c h e r s in t h i s study were given t h e o p p o r t u n i t y by
means o f an open-ended q u e s t i o n include d in t h e survey in s tr u m e n t to
i n d i c a t e th o s e d e c i s i o n a r e a s t h a t r e p r e s e n t e d t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e f o r

134

involvement

in t h e

de ci si on-m ak in g

process,

th e y

generally

chose

d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s from among th o s e in c lu de d in t h e surve y. T h e ir
major p r e f e r e n c e s ,
rules

in p r i o r i t y o r d e r ,

and d i s c i p l i n e ,

i m p r o v e m e n t,
coordination

(f)
of

(c)

personnel,

budget,

teaching

inc lu de d (a) c u r r i c u l u m ,

(g )

with

(d)

teacher
other

policy,

(e)

evaluation,

teachers,

(i)

(b)

school
(h)

the

professional

development, ( j ) s c h e d u l i n g , (k) a t t e n d a n c e , and (1) e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r
activities.

Of

this

list

of

preferences,

only

s c h e d u li n g

a tt e n d a n c e were not inc lud ed in t h e survey i n s t r u m e n t .
and school
cited

rules

preferences

and d i s c i p l i n e were by f a r
of teachers

for

and

Curriculum

t h e most f r e q u e n t l y

involvem ent

in

school-w ide

d e c i s i o n making.
While i t appears t h a t t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t o r d e s i r e
on t h e

part

o f high

school

teachers

to

become

involved

o r more

involved in shared d e c i s i o n making a t t h e school l e v e l , i t should be
noted t h a t t h e i r p r e f e r e n c e s f o r involvement were w i t h i n t h e range
of

decision

categories

generally

in cl ude d

in

the

literature

shared d e c i s i o n making and i n c o r p o r a t e d in t h i s s tu d y .

on

Even when

p r e s e n t e d with t h e o p ti o n o f e x p r e s s in g a d e s i r e t o become involved
in any a s p e c t o f d e c i s i o n making a t t h e school l e v e l , t h e t e a c h e r s
in t h i s

s tu dy con tin ue d t o

focus

closely

associated

influencing

with

or

on d e c i s i o n
their

opportunities
daily

activity

most
of

te a c h in g s t u d e n t s .
A very

small

p e rc e n ta g e

of

teachers

indicated

any

special

p r e f e r e n c e f o r involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making in t h e i r answer

135
t o t h e open-ended q u e s t i o n .

For example,

te ac h e rs expressed a preferen ce fo r

only about

involvem ent

20% o f t h e

in c u rric u lu m

development and school r u l e s and d i s c i p l i n e , which were by f a r t h e
most f r e q u e n t d e c i s i o n a r e a s mentioned.
decision

areas

as

p o l i c y , school

Less th a n 10% l i s t e d such

improvement,

budget,

and

in f o r m a t io n

to

p r o f e s s i o n a l development.
In s h o r t ,

there

a p pea rs

to

be a t

least

some

su g g es t a d e s i r e on t h e p a r t o f high school t e a c h e r s t o be involved
in d e c i s i o n s
schools.
appeared

affecting

select

aspects

of

the

operation

T h e ir s e l e c t i o n o f d e c i s i o n a r e a s f o r
to

schoo l-wid e

su pport

C u s ic k ’ s c lai m t h a t

decisions

is

a function

the

their

involvement again

teacher

of

of

need

involvement
to

protect

in
th e

i n t e g r i t y o f t h e i r clas sr oom t e a c h i n g environment.
Fa c to rs r e l a t e d t o
he/she

can

participation

affect

the

invol ve me nt.
outcome

An i n d i v i d u a l ’ s b e l i e f t h a t

of

a decision

in t h e d e ci s io n-m ak in g p ro c e s s

d e s i r e f o r involvement in such a p r o c e s s .
t h e high school

teachers

in t h i s

through

his/her

seems key t o h i s / h e r

Between 62% and 83% of

stu dy ex pre sse d t h e b e l i e f t h a t

through t h e i r involvement in sch ool-wide d e c i s i o n making t h e y co u ld ,
in f a c t , a f f e c t o r i n f l u e n c e t h e outcome o f such d e c i s i o n s .
The

profile

of

the

teacher

most

apt

to

hold

that

p a r a l l e l s t h a t o f t h e o t h e r major f i n d i n g c a t e g o r i e s

in t h a t t h i s

i n d i v i d u a l was a male between t h e ages o f 22 and 39,
master’s

d e g re e,

was

satisfied

with

opini on t h a t h is s c h o o l ’ s p r i n c i p a l

his

job,

and

belief

po s se ss e d a
harbored

c o n t r o l l e d most o r a l l

d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e g e ner al o p e r a t i o n o f t h e s c h o o l.

th e

o f th e

136

It

is

interesting

that

one o f

the

decision

areas

in

which

t e a c h e r s thoug ht th e y had t h e g r e a t e s t p o s s i b i l i t y o f a f f e c t i n g th e
outcome o f d e c i s i o n s
finding

is

clamoring

of

for

was

special

area

in terest

secondary

c las sr oo m t e a c h e r s

the

school

of

school

when c o n s i d e r i n g
reform

in t h e e f f o r t

improvement.

and

the

and fo c us

the

current

to

in v o lv e

need

refor m

This

activities

on

i n d i v i d u a l sc h oo ls as t h e most p r o d u c t i v e u n i t s f o r change.
E i g h t y - f o u r p e r c e n t o f t h e female t e a c h e r s and 78% o f t h e male
teachers

ex pre sse d

th e

belief

that

a

feeling

of

cooperation

or

ownership was th e primary b e n e f i t d e ri v e d from involvement in shared
d e c i s i o n making a t t h e school

level.

t e a c h e r i n f l u e n c e and a personal
ne xt

most

decisions

impor tant
for

these

p e r c e iv e d
teachers.

The p o t e n t i a l

f o r in c r e a s e d

sense o f accomplishment were th e

benefits

of

Fifty-four

involvement
percent

of

in

school

the

female

t e a c h e r s and 38% o f t h e male t e a c h e r s l i s t e d workplace democracy as
a b e n e f i t o f t h e i r involvement.
All

f o u r b e n e f i t c h o ic e s r e c e i v e d a high re s po ns e r a t e

teachers

as

potential

benefits

d e ci s io n -m ak in g p r o c e s s .
t h a t these four fa c to rs

of

involvement

in

the

from

s c h o o l’s

Such a p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e r a t e may i n d i c a t e
a re a t l e a s t

t e a c h e r s when c on tem pla ti ng

possible

im por tant c o n s i d e r a t i o n s
involvement

in

the

for

decision

a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s c h o o l.
The rank o r d e r o f t h e s e p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s was s i m i l a r f o r a l l
groups

and

variables.

categories

included

in

the

nine

independent

This i n d i c a t e d t h e u n i v e r s a l appeal o f t h e s e b e n e f i t s to

137

t h e high school t e a c h e r s in t h e stu dy and promoted t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
t h a t t h e g e ne r al p o p u l a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s s h a r e s t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h e s e
f o u r b e n e f i t s a r e im p o r ta n t f a c t o r s

in d e te r m in in g

involvement in

t h e s h a r e d - d e c is i o n - m a k in g p r o c e s s .
When c o n s i d e r i n g

the

shared-decision-m aking
p o ssib ility
involvement

of
in

potential

process,

co lleg ial
school

costs

teach ers

disfavor

decisions.

of

the

involvement

found

major

Of t h e s e

time

costs

two c o s t s ,

in

th e

and

the

of

th eir

only time

r e c e i v e d a high re s po nse r a t e , being c i t e d by a v a s t m a j o r i t y o f th e
re s p o n d e n ts
collegial

as

a cost.

Only about

d i s f a v o r as a p o t e n t i a l

30% o f

the

teachers

c o s t o f involvement.

viewed

The rank

o r d e r o f t h e s e two f a c t o r s was c o n s i s t e n t f o r t h e nine independent
v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n s .
The resp on se r a t e was 11% o r l e s s f o r t h e c o s t c h o ic e s l o s s of
a ut o n o m y , s u b v e r s i o n o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e - b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s ,
t h r e a t s t o c a r e e r advancement.
as

potential

m a l H. .n. ns

costs

of

their

and

Teachers did not see t h e s e f a c t o r s
involvement

in

the

shared-decision-

nr r. n—r o—c c- •

Time was t h e major c o s t a s s o c i a t e d wit h t e a c h e r involvement in
t h e de ci s io n- m ak in g p r o c e s s .

Seventy p e r c e n t t o 90% o f t h e t e a c h e r s

who were t h e s u b j e c t s o f t h i s s tu dy d id no t c o n s i d e r t h e f o u r o t h e r
cost

choices,

including

collegial

disfavor,

significant

costs

of

involvement.
Teachers r a t e d l a c k o f time f o r involvement in shared d e c i s i o n
making and l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y f o r such involvement as t h e c h i e f
h in d ra n c e s t o t h e i r involvement in d e c i s i o n s a t t h e school

level.

138

F i f t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e males and 65% o f t h e females responding
vie w ed

lack

of

time

as

A p p r o x i m a t e l y 50% o f t h e
opportunity
h i n d ra n c e .

for

a

major

hindrance

to

involvem ent.

men and women c o n s i d e r e d

involvement

in

school

decisions

a lack
as

a

of

major

The rank o r d e r o f t h e s e f a c t o r s was c o n s i s t e n t f o r a l l

nin e independent v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r v a r i o u s s u b d i v i s i o n s .
The resp on se r a t e s f o r t h e o t h e r p o t e n t i a l
(a)

p rin c ip a l’s leadership s ty le ,

(b)

hi n d ra n c e c h o i c e s ,

p e er p r e s s u r e ,

(c)

pe rsonal

p h i lo s op hy , and (d) d i s i n t e r e s t , were 22% o r l e s s .
As with t h e p o t e n t i a l c o s t s o f involvement, time again s u r f a c e d
as a major hind ra nc e f o r t e a c h e r s when c o n s i d e r i n g
t h e sh a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p r o c e s s .
and a l a c k

o f o p p o r t u n i t y were

h in d ra n c e s t o t h e i r
least

The f a c t t h a t a l a c k o f time

both

seen

by

involvement might appear t o

in some i n s t a n c e s ,

even i f

involvement in

opportunities

teachers
su g g es t

as

major

that,

at

were a v a i l a b l e

to

t e a c h e r s f o r i n c r e a s e d involvement in t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e s c h o o l,
teachers

may

ha ve

thought

they

lacked

the

time

for

actual

involvement in t h i s a c t i v i t y .
Although i t seems c l e a r t h a t t e a c h e r s saw s e v e r a l
th eir

involvement

in

the

shared-decision-m aking

b e n e f i t s to

process,

the

p o t e n t i a l c o s t s and h i n d r a n c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y time c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and
the lack of opportunity,

might have m i t i g a t e d a g a i n s t t h e i r e n t r y

i n t o t h e l a r g e r arena o f school d e c i s i o n s .
C u s i c k ’ s (19 83 )

contention

that

high

school

teachers

are

c o n t e n t t o le av e t h e running o f t h e e n t e r p r i s e t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r s or

139
whomever a d m i n i s t r a t o r s can g e t t o help them may not be a t o t a l l y
accurate
s tu dy .

assessment when c o n s i d e r i n g
The high

school

the

major

findings

t e a c h e r s who were a p a r t

of

of th is

this
stu dy

appeared t o be involved in sh ared d e c i s i o n making and e x p re s s e d a
d e s i r e f o r such involvement, b e l i e v e d t h e r e were some b e n e f i t s t o be
d e ri v e d from t h e i r

involvement, had g e n e r a l l y e xpe r ie n c e d p o s i t i v e

r e s u l t s from t h i s involvement, and seemed t o s h a r e t h e b e l i e f t h a t
th e y could a f f e c t t h e outcome o f school-wide d e c i s i o n s .
Ma.ior Findings ( S t a t i s t i c a l )
Current

involvement

in

involvement o f high school

shared d e c i s i o n making.

The c u r r e n t

t e a c h e r s in shared d e c i s i o n making f o r

th e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e
number o f y e a r s o f classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ,
leadership

style,

job s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

the p r i n c i p a l ’s

and t h e typ e o f community in

which t h e school was l o c a t e d appeared t o have t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t
i n f l u e n c e on t e a c h e r i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e s h a r e d - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g
process.
related

The number o f y e a r s o f classroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e was
to

categories.

teacher

involvement

in

five

of

the

seven

decision

Although c u rr ic u lu m was t h e d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r y in which

t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d t h e g r e a t e s t involvement, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
in t h i s c a te g o r y were a s s o c i a t e d only with t e a c h i n g ass ign me nt.
The most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f
the

results

of

their

involvement

in

the

pro c e ss f o r t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s

s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g
reported

in t h i s

study

were t e a c h e r s ’ jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n and t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r

140
p r in c ip a l’s leadership s ty le s.

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n was a s s o c i a t e d with

t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i r involvement in shared
d e c i s i o n making in f i v e o f t h e seven d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r i e s chosen f o r
analysis.
When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e o v e r a l l e x t e n t o f t e a c h e r s ’ involvement in
s har ed

decision

making,

five

factors

degre e o f t e a c h e r s ’ involvement.
cl assroom t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ,
assignment,

and

(e)

appeared

to

influence

the

These f a c t o r s were (a) age,

(b)

(c) j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,

teachers’

perceptions

of

(d)

their

te a c h i n g

principals’

leadership s ty le s .
Desi re f o r in c r e a s e d in volve me nt.
t h e high school
i n v e s t time

A w i l l i n g n e s s on t h e p a r t of

t e a c h e r s who were t h e

in t h e

subjects

s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p ro c e s s

significantly

i n f l u e n c e d by t h e i r e d u c a ti o n a l

community

which

in

ass ign me nt.

of th is

the

school

No s i g n i f i c a n t

was

to

appeared t o

be

status,

located,

differences

s tu dy

were

and

t h e ty p e of

th eir

found

in

teaching
teachers’

ex pr e sse d w i l l i n g n e s s t o i n v e s t time in t h e s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g
process

and

experience,

the
size

respondents
of

age

school,

ci

level

Sex,
of

^.lassiOGin

job

teacning

satisfactio n ,

or

perceptions of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s ’ leadership s ty le s .
F a c to rs
perception
decisions

related
that

through

to

invo lve ment.

they could
their

affect

involvement

The high
the

school

outcome o f

in t h e

teachers’

school-w ide

s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g

pro c e ss appeared t o be most d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t o r s o f (a)
t e a c h e r s ’ e d u c a ti o n a l
s c h o o l,

status,

(b)

type o f community,

(c)

size

of

(d) t e a c h i n g ass ign me nt, and (e) t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e a d e r s h i p

141

style.
the

None o f t h e s e f a c t o r s was a s s o c i a t e d with more th a n two o f

seven

decision

categories

selected

for

analysis.

Teachers’

p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e i r a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t t h e outcome o f d e c i s i o n s in
t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l - d e v e l o o m e n t d e c i s i o n c a t e g o r y was a f f e c t e d most by
the f a c to r s ,

with c h i - s q u a r e s c o re s

between t h i s

decision

area

and sex ,

indicating
educational

a relationship
status,

ty p e

of

community, and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
With r e g a r d t o t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l

benefits

o f t h e i r involvement in sh are d d e c i s i o n making, t h e r e appeared t o be
a l i n k between th e b e n e f i t c a t e g o r y i n c r e a s e d i n f l u e n c e and (a) sex,
(b) e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s , and (c) s i z e o f s c h o o l.
Teachers’ perception
benefit

of

their

that

involvement

ownership
in

the

represented

deci s io n -m ak in g

a

potential

process

was

a f f e c t e d only by t h e s i z e o f t h e s c h o o l.
Workplace democracy,

when viewed

as

a potential

benefit

of

involvement in shared d e c i s i o n making, was a s s o c i a t e d with t h e age,
sex, and e d u c a ti o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e t e a c h e r .
In t h e a re a o f t e a c h e r - p e r c e i v e d c o s t s o f t h e i r involvement in
t h e s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g p r o c e s s , r e l a t i o n s h i p s appeared t o e x i s t
between t h e c o s t c a t e g o r y l o s s o f time and ty pe o f community and jo b
satisfaction,

su b v er si o n

of the

collective-bargaining

process

and

type o f community, and t h e p o s s i b l e t h r e a t t o c a r e e r advancement and
job

satisfaction.

There were no

significant

differences

in

th e

t e a c h e r s ’ r a t i n g s o f t h e c o s t c a t e g o r i e s time and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of
c o l l e g i a l d i s f a v o r and t h e nin e independent v a r i a b l e s .

142
When

considering

the

potential

hindrances

to

teacher

involvement in s har ed d e c i s i o n making, l a c k o f tim e f o r involvement
in s har ed d e c i s i o n making by t e a c h e r s appeared t o be r e l a t e d t o th e
i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r ’ s e d u c a t i o n a l s t a t u s and t h e ty p e o f community in
which t h e school was l o c a t e d .

A l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y f o r involvement

seemed t o be l i n k e d t o t h e ty pe o f community in which t h e school
was

located

and

the

teach er’s

perception

of

the

p rin c ip a l’s

leadership s ty le .
The

possible

noninvolvement

of

teachers

in

sh ared

decision

making as t h e r e s u l t o f p e e r p r e s s u r e was c o r r e l a t e d with t h e le v el
of job s a t i s f a c t i o n .
When t e a c h e r s chose not t o p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s h a r e d - d e c i s i o n making p ro c e ss due t o t h e i r pe rsonal philos oph y o r d i s i n t e r e s t , such
d e c i s i o n s were a s s o c i a t e d wit h t h e i r sex and p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r
p r in c ip a ls ’ leadership s ty le s .
Conclusions
1.
in

sh ared

P r i n c i p a l s had a major i n f l u e n c e on t e a c h e r s ’ involvement
decision

making.

T h e ir

adm inistrative

b e h a v io r

commitment t o p a r t i c i p a t o r y management were c a t a l y s t s
involvement on t h e p a r t o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g s t a f f .

to

and
su ch

While t e a c h e r s had

had some e x p e r ie n c e w ith t h e p r o c e s s , t h e i r n e u t r a l re s p o n s e s t o th e
p o t e n t i a l c o s t s , b e n e f i t s o f , o r hi n d ra n c es t o involvement in shared
d e c i s i o n making

indicated

that

this

p ro c e s s was not

primary d e c i s i o n model in t h e i r s c h o o ls .

used as

th e

143
2.

The

involvement o f

teachers

in

a

s h a r e d -d e c is i o n -m a k in g

pro c e ss as a p a rt ic ip a to ry -m a n a g em e n t s t r a t e g y r e q u i r e s th e a l t e r i n g
o f t e a c h e r s ’ and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’ mind s e t s
r o l e s in t h e

institution.

responsibilities

Traditional

in h ib it principal

about t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

attitudes

about l e a d e r s h i p

and classroom t e a c h e r

alike

in

t h e i r e f f o r t s t o a ch ie ve t h i s s h a r i n g o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s c h o o l wide d e c i s i o n s .

N e i t h e r t e a c h e r s nor a d m i n i s t r a t o r s appear t o have

any r e a l commitment t o t h e concept o f sh ared d e c i s i o n making.
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Action
1.

School

adm inistrators

must

involve

teachers

de cisi on -m ak in g p ro c e s s in a more meaningful way.

in

the

Ownership i s an

im por ta nt element o f t h i s involvement.
2.
involve

School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and boards o f e d u c a ti o n must begin to
teachers

environment

and

in

decisions

influence

th eir

th at

affect

general

th eir

classroom

resp o n sib ilities

as

teachers.
3.

For t e a c h e r s ’ involvement in t h e d e c i s i o n s o f t h e school to

be t r u l y e f f e c t i v e , and i f t h e scope o f t h e i r c u r r e n t involvement i s
t o be broadened, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and school boards must f i n d ways to
minimize t h e c o s t o f involvement o r hi nd ra nc es t o involvement t h a t
a r e o f primary concern t o t e a c h e r s .
4.
in being

School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s must c a p i t a l i z e on t e a c h e r s ’ i n t e r e s t
involved in school-improvement e f f o r t s

development pl a n n in g .

Meaningful

involvement

and p r o f e s s i o n a l in

t h e s e two a re a s

could have a profound p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on t h e c l i m a t e o f th e s c h o o l.

144
5.
develop

School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
operational

school-w ide

models

decision

and

for

making

boards

the
that

of

e d u c a ti o n

involvement
increase

of

the

need

to

teachers

in

opportunities

c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e t o t e a c h e r s f o r such involvement and a s s u r e a
b ro a de r range o f involvement a c r o s s s u b j e c t - a r e a d i s c i p l i n e s .
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research
1.

Assess and compare t h e

principals

current

perceptions

r e g a r d in g t e a c h e r s ’ involvement

in

of

building

shared d e c isio n

making.
2.

Conduct a study to i d e n t i f y t e a c h e r s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f ways

in which t e a c h e r s ’ involvement in school-wide d e c i s i o n making could
be i n c r e a s e d o r made more meaningful.
3.

Conduct a study s i m i l a r t o t h e one r e p o r t e d h e r e ,

investi­

g a t i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t e a c h e r s in e le m en ta ry , j u n i o r hi g h ,

and

s e n i o r high s c h o o ls .
4.

Study t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between shared d e c i s i o n making and

p o s i t i v e school c l i m a t e .
5.

C ond uct

studies

of

teachers’

involvem ent

in

shared

d e c i s i o n making in t h e school d i s t r i c t and p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n
d e c i s i o n domains.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO GATHER DATA FOR THE STUDY

145

A STUDY TO IDENTIFY AND EXPLAIN
THE FACTORS RELATING TO TEACHERS
AND SHARED DECISION MAKING

PART I
In questions 1-9 you are asked to provide information about your
involvement in decisions which directly affect the operation of your high
school or to record your opinion about teacher involvement in school
decisions.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS SURVEY ARE

BUILDING-LEVEL DECISIONS AND NOT CLASSROOM OR SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISIONS.

1.

Are you involved or have you been involved in building-level
decisions regarding:
YES

NO

a.

the coordination of teaching with other teachers

___

___

b.

building-level curriculum

___

___

c.

professional development (in-service)

___

___

d.

teacher evaluation

___

___

e.

school improvement

___

___

f.

school personnel needs______________________________ ___

___

g.

the hiring of school personnel

___

___

h.

school rules and discipline

___

___

i.

the school budget___________________________________ ___

___

j.

the settlement of grievances___________________________

___

k.

extra-curricular activities

___

1.

school policies_____________________________________ ___

___

___

146

2.

If you checked Yes for any of the kinds of building-level
decisions listed in question #1, what were the results of your
involvement in these decision areas?
RESULTS
POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL
a.

the coordination of teaching with other
teachers

____

____

____

b.

building-level curriculum

____

____

____

c.

professional development (in-service)

____

____

d.

teacher evaluation

e.

school improvement

____

f

school personnel needs________________________ ____

____

____

g.

the hiring of school personnel

____

____

____

h.

school rules and discipline

____

____

____

i.

the school budget_____________________________ ____

____

____

j.

the settlement of grievances_________________ ____

____

____

k.

extra-curricular activities

____

____

____

1

school policies

____

____

____

COMMENTS:

In which kinds of building-level decisions would you like to be
involved? (Your choices need not be from the list included in
question #2.)

How would you describe your overall involvement in building-level
decision making? (Check one.)
Very involved

Somewhat involved

Not involved

Do you believe that you can affect the outcome of building-level
decisions regarding:
YES

NO

a.

the coordination of teaching with other teachers

____

___

b.

building-level curriculum

___

___

c.

professional development (in-service)

___

___

d.

teacher evaluation

___

___

e.

school improvement

___

___

f.

school personnel needs_______________________________ ___

___

g.

the hiring of school personnel

___

___

h.

school rules and discipline

___

___

i.

the school budget____________________________________ ___

___

j.

the settlement of grievances_________________________ ___

___

k.

extra-curricular activities

___

___

1.

school policies__________________________________________

___

148

6.

If you had opportunities to become involved in building-level
decision making how much time would you be willing to invest
in this activity?
A great deal
______ of time

7.

8.

9.

Some
time

Little or
notime

Which of the following do you view as advantages of involvement in
building-level decision making? (You may check more than one.)
a.

increased teacher influence_______________ ______

b.

a sense of accomplishment

c.

a feeling of cooperation__________________ ______

d.

increased workplace democracy

______

______

Which of the following do you consider possible disadvantages
of your involvement in building-level decisions?
(You may
check more than one .)
a.

loss of time

______

b.

reduction in personal autonomy

______

c.

risk of negative reactions from colleagues

______

d.

risk that collective bargaining efforts may
be jeopardized_______________________________________ ______

e.

risk that such involvement may affect future
chances for advancement______________________________ ______

Which of the following factors hinder your involvement in
building-level decision making? (You may check more than one.)
a.

lack of time

______

b.

lack of opportunity

______

c.

your principal's leadership style_________ ______

d.

peer pressure

______

e.

personal philosophy

______

f.

disinterest

149
PART II
Please respond to the following questions.

They are designed to

provide information which will be used in the interpretation of your
responses in Part I of this survey.
1.

Your sex: ______ Female

2.

What is your age?

______ Male

(Check one.)

(Check one.)

______ under 30 years of age
______ 30-39
40-49
______ 50 years of age or older
3.

What is your educational status?

(Check one.)

______ Bachelors Degree
______ Masters Degree
______ Educational Specialist
______ Doctorate
4.

How many years of classroom teaching experience do you have?
(Check one.)
______ 1-5 years
______ 6-10 years
______ 11— 15 years
______ 16-20 years
______ over 20 years

5.

In what type of community is your school located?
______ Rural
______ Small town
______ City
Suburban

(Check one.)

150

6.

What is the student enrollment in your school?

(Check one.)

Under 319
319-626 students
_627-1204 students
_over 1205 students
7.

Which of the following statements most accurately describe
your degree of job satisfaction? (Check one.)
______ Very satisfied
Satisfied
Dissatisfied

8.

What is your current teaching assignment?
(Please check the
area in which you spend the majority of your time.)
_English
_Mathematics
Science
_Social Studies
Art
Music
_Home Economics
Business
_Industrial Arts
^Physical Education
_Guidance and Counseling
_Library/Media
_Special Education

151

9.

How would you categorize your building principal's administrative
style? (Check one.)
______ exercises control over all school decisions
______ exercises control over most school decisions
______ exercises control over some school decisions
exercises control over few school decisions

APPENDIX B
LETTER TO PRINCIPALS

152

18370 Country Avenue
S p r in g Lake, Michigan 49456
January 1985

J am c o n d u ctin g a s tu d y i n c o o p era tio n w ith Dr. Samuel Moore,
Department o f A d m in is tr a tio n and Higher E ducation a t Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , which w i l l i d e n t i f y and e x p la in th e degree o f te a c h e r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n sch oo l d e c i s i o n making.
As a p a r t o f t h i s p r o c e s s , I am r e q u e s tin g your a s s i s t a n c e i n
th e g a th e r in g o f data f o r t h i s s tu d y . To f a c i l i t a t e th e work o f
t h i s s tu d y , I am a s k in g t h a t you:
(1)

d i s t r i b u t e th e e n c lo s e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t o a l l o f th e
te a c h e r s on your s t a f f f o r co m p letio n

(2)

c o l l e c t th e q u e s ti o n n a ir e s com pleted by your s t a f f

(3)

p la c e a l l com pleted q u e s ti o n n a ir e s i n th e stamped,
s e l f - a d d r e s s e d en ve lo p e and r e tu r n them t o me by
February 11

This q u e s ti o n n a ir e i s d e sig n e d t o be c o m p leted q u i c k l y and
e a s i l y . P lea se ask your te a c h e r s to a v o id p l a c i n g t h e i r names on
th e s u rv e y . P lea se be a s su r e d th a t a l l in fo r m a tio n p r o v id e d w i l l
be c o n f i d e n t i a l .
So t h a t I can k eep tr a c k o f who has r e tu r n e d th e s tu d y and s t i l l
m aintain com plete a n o n y m ity , a p o s t card i s e n c lo s e d t o r e t u r n a t th e
tim e you r e tu r n th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . P lea se m ail t h i s p o s t card
sep a ra te ly .
I know th a t t h i s i s n o t th e most i d e a l tim e o f year to in t r u d e
on your tim e , b u t i t i s prim e tim e i n which t o g a th e r th e r e f l e c t i o n s
o f your s t a f f r e g a rd in g t h e i r in v o lv em e n t i n scho ol d e c is io n making.
Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a tio n .
S in c ere ly ,

Thomas A. H ic k s , P r in c ip a l
S p r in g Lake J r - S r High School

APPENDIX C
LETTER TO ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS

153
18370 Country Avenue
S p r in g Lake, Michigan 49456
January 1985

Dear A s s o c ia t io n P r e s i d e n t :
I n r e c e n t months th e s p o t l i g h t o f p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n and concern
has f a l l e n upon our p u b l i c hig h s c h o o ls . A m u ltitu d e o f r e p o r ts and
recommendations f o r re fo r m have accompanied t h i s a t t e n t i o n . D e c isio n s
concerning which o f t h e s e recommendations w i l l be implemented w i l l be
made by lo c a l sch o ol d i s t r i c t s a c ro ss t h e c o u n tr y . The degree t o which
te a c h e r s are i n v o lv e d i n th e s e d e c is io n s may u l t i m a t e l y determ ine th e
su c c e ss o f such e f f o r t s .
I am c o n d u c tin g a s tu d y i n co o p era tio n w ith Dr. Samuel Moore,
Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education a t Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , which w i l l i d e n t i f y and e x p la i n th e degree o f te a ch e r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n sch o o l d e c i s i o n making.
The s u b j e c t s o f t h i s s tu d y are h igh s ch o o l te a c h e r s in Ottawa,
Muskegon, and Kent C o u n tie s .
High scho o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have agreed t o a s s i s t me i n th e
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e s u r v e y instrument to h ig h scho o l te a c h e r s i n your
d i s t r i c t . You have my a ssu ra n ce t h a t t h e in fo r m a tio n p ro vid e d by
te a c h e r s in your d i s t r i c t w i l l be k e p t i n s t r i c t c o n fid e n c e .
I f you have q u e s t i o n s or concerns r e g a r d in g t h i s s tu d y , p le a s e
f e e l f r e e t o c o n ta c t me a t (616) 846-5500, E x te n sio n 56; or eve n in g s
a t (616) 842-4523.
S in c e re ly ,

Thomas A. H ic k s , P r in c ip a l
S p rin g Lake J r . / S r . High School

APPENDIX D
POSTCARD RETURNED BY PRINCIPALS

Our teachers have completed the survey on shared
decision making, and I have put i t in the mail.
Principal __________________________________ _
School
Number of surveys distributed: ________
Number of surveys completed: ________
I would l i k e to receive a copy of the re su lts
of this study.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A l u t t o , Joseph A., and Belasco, James A. "A Typology f o r P a r t i c i ­
p a t i o n in O r g a n iz a ti o n a l Decision Making." A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
Science Q u a r t e r l y 17 (March 1972): 117-25.
Barnard, C hes te r I . The Function o f t h e E x e c u t i v e .
Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938.
Blumberg, Pa ul.
1969.

I n d u s t r i a l Democracy.

New York:

Cambridge,
Schocken Books,

Boyer, Er ne s t H. High School: A Report on Secondary Education in
America. New York: Harper and Row, 1983.
Bredo, Anneke E., and Bredo, Er ic R. A Case Study o f Educational
Inn o va tio n in a J u n i o r High School: I n t e r a c t i o n o f E nv ir on ­
ment and S t r u c t u r e . Palo A lt o , C a l i f : S ta n fo r d Cent er f o r
Research and Development in Teaching, 1975.
Bruno, James E . , and Nottingham, M. A.
Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976.

C o l l e g i a l Teams.

Lexington,

Coch, L e s t e r , and French, John R. P. Overcoming R e s i s t a n c e to
Change." Human R e l a t i o n s 1 (1948): 512-32.
Cohen, D. "The F a i l u r e o f High Schools and t h e Pr o g re ss o f Educa­
t i o n . " Daedalus (Summer 1981): 69-88.
Cohen, E l i z a b e t h G. Problems and P r o s p e c ts o f Teaming. Research
and Development Memorandum No. 143. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : S t a n ­
f o r d Center f o r Research and Development in Teaching, 1976.
Conway, James A. "Test o f L i n e a r i t y Between T e a c h e r s ’ P a r t i c i p a t i o n
in Decision-Making and T h e ir P e r c e p t i o n s o f T h e i r Schools as
O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y 21 (March
1976): 130-39.
________ . "The Myth, Mystery, and Mastery o f P a r t i c i p a t i v e Decision
Making in Ed uc at io n. " Educational A d m in is tr a ti o n Q u a r t e r l y 20
(Summer 1984): 11-40.

155

156
Corwin, Ronald G. M i l i t a n t P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m : A Study o f O rg a ni z a ­
t i o n a l C o n f l i c t in High S c h o o l s . New York: Ap pleton-CenturyC r o f t s , 1970.
Cusick, P h i l i p .
New York:

The E g a l i t a r i a n Ideal and t h e American High S c hoo l.
Longman, 1983.

Dornbusch, Sanford M., and S c o t t , W. Richard. E va lu a tio n and
E x e r c is e o f A u t h o r i t y . San F r a n c is c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1975.
Duckworth, Kenneth, and J o v i c k , Thomas. "Task In te rd e pe nd en c e ,
Communication, and Team Management Among Elementary School
T e a c h e r s ." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual meeting o f t h e
American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n , March 1978.
Duke, Daniel L. "Adults Can be D i s c i p l i n e Problems
ogy in t h e Schools 15 (October 1978): 522-28.

Too!" Ps yc ho l­

________ . "Developing a Comprehensive I n - S e r v i c e Program."
B u l l e t i n 61 (April 1977): 66-71.

NASSP

________ . "Environmental In f lu e n c e on Classroom Management." In
Classroom Management. Seve nty-Eighth Yearbook o f t h e National
S o c i e t y o f t h e Study o f Education. Edited by Daniel L. Duke.
Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1979.
. The R et ra n s fo r m at io n of th e School.
H a l l , 1978.

Chicago:

Nelson-

________ . "A Sy st e ma tic Management Plan f o r School D i s c i p l i n e . "
NASSP B u l l e t i n 61 (Janu ary 1977): 1-10.
________ ; Donmoyer, Robert; and Farman, Greg. "Emerging Legal
Is s u e s Relate d t o Classroom Management." Phi D e lta Kappan 60
(December 1978): 305-309.
Duke, Daniel L., and P e rr y , C heryl.
Succeed Where Benjamin Spock,
Have F a il e d ? " Adolescence 13

"Can A l t e r n a t i v e Schools
Spir o Agnew,
and B. F. Skinner
(F a ll 1978).

Duke, Daniel L .; Showers, Beverly K.; and Imber, Michael.
"Teacher
Involvement in O rg a n i z a t i o n a l Decision-Making: A Research
P r o p o s a l . " Unpublished r e s e a r c h p r o p o s a l, 1978.
________ . "Teachers and Shared Decision-Making: The Costs and
B e n e f i t s o f Involvement." Educational A d m in is tr a ti o n
Q u a r t e r l y 16 (Winter 1980).
Far West Teacher Corps Network. I n - S e r v i c e Education: C r i t e r i a f o r
Local Programs. Bellingham: Western Washington S t a t e Col­
l e g e , 1976.

157
Floden, Robert E. "A P o l i c y Capturing Study o f Teacher D e ci s io ns
About C o n te n t. " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e annual meeting o f th e
American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n , March 1978.
F r a n c i s , Pa ul. Bevond Co nt ro l? A Study o f D i s c i p l i n e in t h e Com­
p re h e n s iv e S c h o o l . London: George Allen & Unwin, 1975.
Gouldner, Alvin W. P a t t e r n s o f I n d u s t r i a l Bu re au c ra cy .
Free P r e s s , 1954.

New York:

Hanson, E. Mark. " O rg a n iz a ti o n a l Control in Educational Systems: A
Case Study o f Governance in S c h o o ls ." Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e
annual meeting o f t h e American Educational Research A s s o c i a ­
t i o n , March 1978.
Holdaway, E. "Facet and Overall S a t i s f a c t i o n o f T e a c h e r s . "
t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 14 (Winter 1978): 45.

Educa­

Hoy, W., and Fo r sy th e , P. " O r g a ni za tio na l S t a t u s and Work A l i e n a ­
t i o n . " Educational A d m in is tr a ti o n Q u a r t e r l y 17 (S pri ng 1981):
31-37.
Hoy, W.; Newland, W.; and Blazovsky, R. " Su bo rd in at e Loyalty t o
S u p e r i o r , E s p r i t and Aspects o f B u r e a u c r a t i c S t r u c t u r e . " Edu­
c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 13 (Winter 1977): 71-85.
Imber, Michael. "Teacher Power and Curriculum:
Reform." Unpublished m a nu sc ri pt , 1978.

A Potential for

Johnson, Rudolph. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Teacher C o l l a b o r a t i o n
and Teacher and P r i n c i p a l In f l u e n c e and P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
School Decision-Making." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , S ta n fo r d
U n i v e r s i t y , 1975.
Joyce, Bruce R. e t a l . I s s u e s t o Fac e. I n - S e r v i c e Teacher Educa­
t i o n Report I . Palo A l t o , C a l i f . :
I n - S e r v i c e Teacher Educa­
t i o n Concepts P r o j e c t , 1976.
K i r s t , Michael W., and Walker, Decker F. "An A n a ly si s o f Curriculum
Policy-Making." Review o f Educational Research 41 (December
1971): 479-509.
Lammers, C. J . "Power and P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Decision-Making in Fo r­
mal O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " American Jou rnal o f Soc iology 73 (1967):
201-16.
L o r t i e , David. School T e a c h e r .
P r e s s , 1975.
March, James, and Simon, H e r b e r t .
Wiley, 1958.

Chicago:

U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago

Organizations.

New York:

John

158

Marram, Gwen D.; Dornbusch, Sanford M.; and S c o t t , W. Ric hard . The
Impact o f Teaming and t h e V i s i b i l i t y o f Teaching on t h e Pro­
f e s s i o n a l i s m o f Elementary School T e a c h e r s . Technical Report
No. 33. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . : S ta n fo r d Cent er f o r Research and
Development in Teaching, 1972.
McConaham, John B. e t a l . " E v a lu a tio n o f High School in t h e Commu­
n i t y : New Haven, C o n n e c ti c u t, 1973." New Haven: Educational
Research S e r v i c e , 1973.
McLaughlin, Milbrey Wall, and Marsh, David D. " S t a f f Development
and School Change." Teachers C olle ge Record 80 (September
1978): 69-94.
Meyer, John, and Cohen, E l i z a b e t h . The Impact o f t h e Qpen-Space
School Uoon Teacher In f l u e n c e and Autonomy: The E f f e c t s o f an
O rg a n i z a t i o n a l I n n o v a t i o n . Technical Report No. 21. Palo
A l t o , C a l i f . : S ta n fo r d Cent er f o r Research and Development in
Teaching, 1971.
Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s and Michigan
Department o f Education. " P r e l i m i n a r y Report o f t h e Michigan
Commission on High Sc h o o ls ." September 1983.
Miskal, C.; Fe vur ly, R.; and S te w a r t, J . " O r g a n iz a ti o n a l S t r u c t u r e s
and P r o c e s s e s , Perc e iv ed School E f f e c t i v e n e s s , Loyalty and Job
S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 15 (F al l
1979): 97-118.
Miskal, C.; McDonald, D.; and Bloom, S. " S t r u c t u r a l and Expectancy
Linkages Within Schools and O r g a n iz a ti o n a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s . "
Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 19 (Winter 1983): 49-82.
National Commission on Exc e lle nc e in Education.
Washington, D.C.: April 26, 1983.

A Nation a t R i s k .

National I n s t i t u t e o f Education. I n s t r u c t i o n a l Personnel U t i l i z a ­
t i o n . National Conference on S t u d i e s in Teaching. Washing­
t o n , D.C.: U.S. Department o f H e a l t h , Educ at ion , and W elfare,
1975.
National Science Board. Educating Americans f o r t h e 21 s t C e n t u r y .
Report o f t h e Commission on P r e - c o l l e g e Education in Mathemat­
i c s , Science and Technology, 1983.
Patchen, M ar tin . Pa r t i c i p a t i o n . Achievement and Involvement on th e
J o b . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1970.
Pateman, C a r o l e . P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Democratic Th eo ry .
Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970.

Cambridge:

159

Raywid, M. "Schools o f Choice: T h e i r C u rr e n t Nature and P r o s ­
p e c t s . " Phi D e lt a Kappan (June 1983): 686.
Roper, Susan S t a v e r t ; Deal, Te rr enc e E .; and Dornbusch, Sanford M.
A P i l o t Te s t o f C o l l e g i a l Ev a lu a ti o n f o r T e a c h e r s .
Research and Development Memorandum No. 142. Palo A l t o ,
C a l i f . : S ta n fo r d Cent er f o r Research and Development in
Teaching, 1976.
San J o s e Teachers A s s o c i a t i o n . The San J o s e Teacher Involvement
P r o j e c t . San J o s e , C a l i f . : San J o s e Teacher Involvement
P r o j e c t , 1977.
Schmuck, P a t r i c i a ; Paddock, Susan; and Packard, John.
I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Team T e ach ing . Eugene, Oregon:
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P o l i c y and Management, 1977.

Management
Cent er f o r

S c o t t , W. Richard. " P r o f e s s i o n a l s in B u re a u c r a c i e s - - A r e a s of
C o n f l i c t . " In P r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n . Edi ted by Howard M.
Vollmer and Donald L. M i l l s . Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1966.
Sharma, C h i r a n j i Lai . "Who Should Make What D e cis io ns ?"
t r a t o r ’ s Notebook 3(81 (1955).

Adminis­

S te ph en s, J o . "Some C u rr e nt I s s u e s f o r Teacher I n - S e r v i c e Educa­
t i o n . " In I n - S e r v i c e Education f o r T e a c h e r s ’ C e n t e r s . Edited
by E l i z a b e t h Adams. Oxford: Pergamon P r e s s , 1975.
Tannenbaum, Arnold S. ( e d . ) .
McGraw-Hill, 1968.
T a y lo r , F r e d e r i c k W.
Row, 1947.

Control in O r g a n i z a t i o n s .

S c i e n t i f i c Management.

New York:

New York:
Harper and

Vavrus, M. J .
"The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Teacher A l i e n a t i o n t o School
Workplace C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and C ar ee r Stages o f T e a c h e r s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978.
Walker, Decker F. "How Does a Curriculum Work?"
s c r i p t , 1977.

Unpublished manu­

W all er, W. The Sociology o f Tea ching. C ite d in L i c a t a , J . , and
Willower, D. "Stud en t Brinkmanship and t h e School as a Social
System." Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 2 (Spring
1975): 1-2.
Weber, Max. The Theory o f Social and Economic O r g a n i z a t i o n .
Glencoe: Free P r e s s , 1947.

160
Worthy, J .
"O rg a n iz a ti o n a l S t r u c t u r e and Employee Morale."
American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 15(2) (1970): 169-79.
Yarger, Sam J . , e t a l . C r e a t i v e A u t h o r i t y and C o l l a b o r a t i o n .
I n s e r v i c e Teacher Education Report IV. Palo A l t o , C a l i f . :
I n s e r v i c e Teacher Education Concepts P r o j e c t , June 1976.
Z i e l i n s k i , A. , and Hoy, W. " I s o l a t i o n and A l i e n a t i o n in Elementary
S c h o o l s . " Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 19 (S pring
1983): 27-45.