INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may
be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
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 copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in
reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 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.

U n iv ersity M icrofilm s In te rn a tio n a l
A Be ll & H o w e l l I n f o r m a t i o n C o m p a n y
3 0 0 N o r t h Z e e b R o a d . A n n A rbo r, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1 3 4 6 U S A
3 1 3 ,7 6 1 -4 7 0 0

800 521-0600

O rder N u m b er 9129471

Teacher perceptions in four M ichigan school districts in 1967
and 1987: A n inquiry into long-term change
Kugler, Marianne Russell, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1991

UMI

300 N. Zeeb Rd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS IN FOUR MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN
1967 AND 1987:

AN INQUIRY INTO LONG-TERM CHANGE

By
Marianne R u s s e ll Kugler

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 r e q u i r e m e n t s
fo r the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department o f E d uc a tio n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

ABSTRACT

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS IN FOUR MICHIGAN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN
1967 AND 1987: AN INQUIRY INTO LONG-TERM CHANGE
By
Marianne R u s s el l Kugler

T hi s

study

structure

of

addressed

large

the

institutions

effect

of

social

ov er t i m e .

change

The s t r u c t u r e

i n s t i t u t i o n was c o n s i d e r e d from t h e v ie w p o i n t o f T a l c o t t
structural

functionalist

theories.

s t u d i e d was t h e ad ven t o f
the

structure.

school

The

collective

d istricts

w ith

a sample

e l e m e n t a r y and se co nd ar y s c h o o l s .

of

specific

studied
teacher

the

of the

Parsons’ s

social

b a r g a i n i n g and i t s

The l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s

on

change

e f f e c t on

were f o u r Michigan
perceptions

in

42

The p e r c e p t i o n s were a s s e s s e d in

1967 and a g a i n in 1987.
Thp
I

+ h o n * " pWt Vi rI aW lM ) mnHol
iico
W +Ko
l l i w W «. >
W a> W M
V *i W

■fnn»*
■fiinpt
i oria"]
I W U I
I MII W W I W l t U I

a d a p t a t i o n , p a t t e r n m a in te n a n ce , goal a t t a i n m e n t ,
to. re vie w

the

points

time.

in

findings
The

from e i g h t
eight

attitude

scales

were

■irr.nf’TSt
1 IIIIU ^ I M V I i C w

-

and i n t e g r a t i o n - -

scales

gi v e n

at

both

analyzed

u s in g

two-way

repeated-measure a n a ly s is of variance.
F in d in g s

in c l u d e d

increases

in

community

participation,

t e a c h e r autonomy, and in t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
was found in j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .

C entralization

levels,

in

A decrease
principals’

Marianne R u s s e ll Kugler

organizational

management

activities

and

instructional

leadership

a c t i v i t i e s , and t e a c h e r s ’ p a r t i c i p a t i o n in school d e c i s i o n s remained
c o n s t a n t in t h e two y e a r s .

C o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g as r e p r e s e n t e d by

s t r e n g t h o f c o n t r a c t l a ng u ag e was n o t found t o be a s o u r c e o f t h e
variance.

Level

was

found t o

be a

source

of

variation

for

job

s a t i s f a c t i o n , w it h high s a t i s f a c t i o n in both y e a r s a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y
level,

and i n s t r u c t i o n a l

l e a d e r s h i p , a g a i n with e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s

r e p o r t i n g h i g h e r l e v e l s in both 1967 and 1987.
Use o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model i n d i c a t e d t h a t
t h e same i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n changed in t h e
directions consistently.

Thus, i n t e n t i o n a l

indicators

serving

same o r complementary
change in s u b u n i t s o f a

s t r u c t u r e may be p r e d i c t e d .
When
related
not

perceptions

perceptions

o nl y

consistent

in r e l a t e d

consistent
in

changed,

related

in

the

th e y

changed

d istricts.
internal

in stitu tio n s.

a t t i t u d e s d i d not change a t a l l ,

in

Thus,

structure,

tandem
the

th e

changes were

they

N evertheless,

w ith

were

many

also

of

the

t e n d i n g t o c o n f i r m P ars ons s

"law

o f i n e r t i a " - - t h a t s u b u n i t s o f i n s t i t u t i o n s change o n ly w it h g r e a t e r
i n t e r n a l o r e n vi ro nm en ta l p r e s s u r e .

I s o l a t e d , i n t e n t i o n a l change i s

l e s s p r e d i c t a b l e and more l i k e l y t o r e q u i r e l o n g - t e r m ,
e f f o r t , based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y .

Major p r o f e s s o r :

Dr. F r e d e r i c k I g n a t o v i c h

large-scale

To

Larry,

d issertation

is

Anne,

and

Teresa

and

to

Ann

always an ext en de d f a m i l y e f f o r t .

a l l my h e a r t .

iv

and

C hris.

A

Thank you with

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr.

Phil Marcus ( d e c e a s e d ) and t h e team a t

the

Social

S ci e n ce Research Bureau f o r s h a r i n g t h e

for

p r o v i d i n g g r e a t s u p p o r t in t h e 1987 s t u d y .

1967

s t u d y and

And t h a n k you t o my

doctoral

com mittee,

each o f whom c o n t r i b u t e d a m a jo r p i e c e t o

effort:

Dr. Diana P u l l e n f o r h e r c o n c i s e i d e a s ; Dr. Michael S e d l a k ,

who he lp ed t i g h t e n t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f t i m e ;
who

clarified

Parsons’s th e o rie s .

a d v i s o r , ke p t t h e s tu d y on t a r g e t .

v

Dr. Fred

and Dr.

the

P e t e r Manning,

Ignatovich,

my major

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

C ha pt er
I.

INTRODUCTION

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

Overview ............................................................................................
T h e o r e t i c a l Framework Overview ..........................................
S ta t e m e n t o f t h e Problem ........................................................
B as ic Assumptions ..........................................................................
B as ic D e f i n i t i o n s ..........................................................................
The Study Methodology ................................................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study ........................................................
T h e o r e t i c a l C o n s t r a i n t s ........................................................
Em pi ric a l C o n s t r a i n t s ............................................................
T h e o r e t i c a l C o n t r i b u t i o n s ...................................................
Em pir ica l C o n t r i b u t i o n
........................................................
Summary .................................................................................................
II.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .....................................................................
Tn +

in n

The Concept o f Change .................................................................
The S t r u c t u r a l B a s is
................................................................
Linkages .......................................................................................
The F u n c t i o n s and T h e i r I n d i c a t o r s
................................
Un ions--The Environmental Change I n d i c a t o r . . .
A d a p t a t i o n and I t s Two I n d i c a t o r s : C e n t r a l i ­
z a t i o n and Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
P a t t e r n Ma intenance and t h e P r i n c i p a l ’ s
A u t h o r i t y ...................................................................................
Goal A tt a i n m e n t and t h e Te a ch er as P r o f e s s i o n a l .
I n t e g r a t i o n and t h e Two I n d i c a t o r s : Job S a t i s ­
f a c t i o n and Tension in S t a f f R e l a t i o n s h i p s
. .
Framework Summary ..........................................................................

Page
III.

IV.

V.

LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................

48

...................................................................................
Introduction
C h a n g e ................................................................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Change ............................................................
Change From t h e School P e r s p e c t i v e ............................
T ea ch er Unions and Change ...................................................
Summary o f Change S t u d i e s ...................................................
L i n k a g e s ............................................................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Linkages .......................................................
Linkages in t h e School S e t t i n g .....................................
Linkages and t h e C l a s s r o o m ..............................................
Summary o f Linkage S t u d i e s ..............................................
The Environmental Force ............................................................
The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n d i c a t o r s ..............................................
Centralization
..........................................................................
Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n .......................................................
The P r i n c i p a l ’ s O r g a n i z a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip . . . .
The P r i n c i p a l ’ s I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip
. . . .
Tea che r Autonomy .....................................................................
T ea ch er P a r t i c i p a t i o n in D e c is io n Making . . . .
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .....................................................................
Tension in S t a f f R e l a t i o n s h i p s
.....................................
C o n c l u s i o n ...................................................................................

48
48
49
51
52
53
53
53
54
56
58
58
61
62
64
66
70
71
74
77
79
81

METHODOLOGY............................................................................................

84

Introduction
...................................................................................
A c ti on P l a n .......................................................................................
Exploration of F e a s i b i l i t y
...................................................
Design o f t h e S t u d y .....................................................................
D i s s e r t a t i o n Hypotheses .......................................................
The V a r i a b l e s ................................
The In str um en t- De v elo pm en t P r oc es s ................................
S c a l e R e l i a b i l i t y .....................................................................
F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f S c a l e s ...................................................
Sample S e l e c t i o n
..........................................................................
Method o f D i s t r i b u t i n g t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ...................
Method o f A n a l y s i s
.....................................................................

84
84
85
86
86
94
101
103
104
108
112
113

THE STUDY F I N D I N G S .........................................................................

117

Introduction
...................................................................................
F in d in g s Using O r i g i n a l H yp ot h es es -- G e n er al
A p p r o a c h .......................................................................................
Formal S t r u c t u r e I n d i c a t o r s ...................................................
C entralization
..........................................................................
Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n .......................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management ...................................................

117

v ii

117
118
118
123
127

Page

VI.

I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip ...................................................
T e c h n ic a l A c t i v i t y I n d i c a t o r s ..............................................
A u t o n o m y .......................................................................................
Professional P articip a tio n
..............................................
Jo b S a t i s f a c t i o n .....................................................................
R e l a t i o n s h i p s ..............................................................................
Summary o f P a t t e r n s o f F in d in g s .............................................
F u r t h e r E x p l o r a t i o n o f F in d in g s .............................................
So urc es o f V a r i a t i o n ............................................................
Unchanged F a c t o r s .....................................................................

131
135
135
139
143
147
151
151
151
153

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................

155

Review o f F i n d i n g s and C on cl us io ns ................................
I s There C h a n g e ? .....................................................................
I f So, Which V a r i a b l e s May Account f o r t h e
C h a n g e ? .......................................................................................
Were t h e Changes in t h e D i r e c t i o n s P r e d i c t e d ? . .
Does T ea ch er C o n t r a c t S t r e n g t h Have Any
R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e P a t t e r n s o f Change? . . . .
The T h e o r e t i c a l Model ................................................................
Concept o f C h a n g e .....................................................................
L i n k a g e s .......................................................................................
I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s ............................................................
Overview o f C o n c l u s i o n s Regarding t h e T h e o r e t i ­
cal M o d e l ...................................................................................
The I n d i c a t o r s ..............................................................................
C entralization
.........................................................................
Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n .......................................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management ...................................................
I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip ...................................................
A u t o n o m y .......................................................................................
P r o f e s s i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n in D e r i s i o n Making , .
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n .....................................................................
R e l a t i o n s h i p s ..............................................................................
Overview o f C o n cl us io ns Regarding S p e c i f i c
I n d i c a t o r F in d in g s ............................................................
Im plications
...................................................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s R e l a te d t o t h e T h e o r e t i c a l
F r a m e w o r k ...................................................................................
I m p l i c a t i o n s S p e c i f i c t o EachI n d i c a t o r ......................
Overview o f I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e F i e l d ...................
S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F utu re Study ..............................................
Overview o f S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Study . . . .
O v e r a ll C on cl us io n .....................................................................

155
155

viii

156
158
160
161
161
163
165
168
168
168
169
170
172
173
174
175
176
177
181
182
184
190
191
195
195

Page
APPENDICES
A.

INITIAL ACTION PLAN...........................................................................

200

B.

DEFINITIONS OF THE INDICATORSSPECIFIC TO THIS
STUDY.....................................................................................................

202

C.

THE VARIABLES.........................................................................................

204

D.

ITEMS L I S T ..............................................................................................

205

E.

SAMPLE SCHOOL RESPONSE PATTERNS ................................................

209

F.

CONTRACT STRENGTH ANALYSIS

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

211

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

213

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ix

LIST OF TABLES
Ta bl e

Page

4.1

R a t i n g s o f C o n t r a c t S t r e n g t h f o r t h e Four D i s t r i c t s . .

98

4.2

The I n de pen de nt V a r i a b l e s .....................

99

4.3

The Dependent V a r i a b l e s ....................................................................

100

4.4

R e lia b ility Patterns

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

103

4.5

P a t t e r n s I n d i c a t e d by F a c t o r A n a l y s i s o f t h e E i g ht
S c a l e s Used in t h e S t u d y ............................................................

105

4.6

D i s t r i c t Demographics .........................................................................

110

4.7

Response P a t t e r n s by D i s t r i c t and Y e a r ...............................

Ill

4.8

Response Rate by L ev e l, 1987 S t u d y .........................................

Ill

4.9

Planned Comparisons .............................................................................

115

5.1

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V ar ia nc e f o r C e n t r a l i z a t i o n . . . .

122

5.2

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r C e n t r a l i z a t i o n by D i s t r i c t and
by Year and L e v e l ..............................................................................

122

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V ar ia nc e f o r Community
P a r t i c i p a t i o n ........................................................................................

124

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n by
D i s t r i c t and by Year and Level
..............................................

127

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V ar ia nc e f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
M a n a g e m e n t ............................................................................................

128

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management by
D i s t r i c t and by Year and Level
..............................................

131

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V ar ia nc e f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h i p ............................................................................................

132

P a t t e r n s o f Means f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip by
D i s t r i c t and by Year and L e v e l ..............................................

135

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

x

Page
.......................

136

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r Autonomy by D i s t r i c t and by
Year and Level ...................................................................................

139

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r ia n c e f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l
P articipation
...................................................................................

140

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n by
D i s t r i c t and by Year and Level ..............................................

143

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r ia n c e f o r Job S a t i s f a c t i o n

. .

146

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r Job S a t i s f a c t i o n by D i s t r i c t
.................................................................
and by Year and Level

146

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r ia n c e f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p s . . . .

150

P a t t e r n o f Means f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p s by D i s t r i c t and
by Year and Level
..........................................................................

150

Comparison o f Actual F i n d i n g s With P r e d i c t e d
F in d in g s .................................................................................................

152

P a t t e r n s o f B et w ee n - S u b j ec t So ur ces o f V a r i a t i o n
O th e r Than Time f o r t h e Six Changing I n d i c a t o r s

. .

153

P a t t e r n s o f Change From Study F i n d i n g s ................................

166

Summary o f P a t t e r n s and C o n c l u s i o n s f o r S p e c i f i c
I n d i c a t o r s ............................................................................................

179

Two-Way A n a l y s i s o f V a r ia n c e f o r Autonomy

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

1.1

Overview o f t h e T h e o r e t i c a l Framework

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

3

2.1

Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c t i o n s in R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
E n v i r o n m e n t ........................................................................................

21

2.2

Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s in t h e S o ci a l System . . . .

24

2.3

The Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c t i o n s in t h e School as a
S o c i a l System ...................................................................................

29

The F i r s t o f t h e Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s and I t s
I n d i c a t o r s ............................................................................................

35

The Second o f t h e Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s and
I t s I n d i c a t o r s ...................................................................................

39

The T hi rd o f t h e Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s and
I t s F a c t o r s .......................................................................................

43

The Fo ur th o f t h e Four I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s and
I t s I n d i c a t o r s ...................................................................................

45

T h e o r e t i c a l Framework A pp lie d t o P o t e n t i a l Em pirica l
P a t t e r n s f o r T h i s S t u d y .....................................................
.

47

Model f o r Two-Way Repeated-Measure A n a l y s i s o f
V a r i a n c e .................................................................................................

114

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r C e n t r a l i z a t i o n by Year and by
Level
.....................................................................................................

120

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r C e n t r a l i z a t i o n by Year and by
D i s t r i c t .................................................................................................

121

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n by Year
and by L e v e l .......................................................................................

125

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n by Year
and by D i s t r i c t ..............................................................................

126

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

4.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

x ii

Page
Mean P a t t e r n s f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management by Year
...................................................................................
and by Level

129

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management by Year
and by D i s t r i c t ..............................................................................

130

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip by Year
and by Level
...................................................................................

133

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip by Year
and by D i s t r i c t ..............................................................................

134

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Autonomy by Year and by Level

137

. . .
.

138

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n by
Year and by Level ..........................................................................

141

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n by
Year and by D i s t r i c t .....................................................................

142

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Job S a t i s f a c t i o n by Year and by
Level .....................................................................................................

144

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Job S a t i s f a c t i o n by Year and by
D istrict
............................................................................................

145

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p s by Year and by
Level .....................................................................................................

148

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r Autonomy by Year and by D i s t r i c t

Mean P a t t e r n s f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p s by Year and by
D istrict
............................................................................................

xi i i

l

I

a

r*

?

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Overview
In t h i s s t u d y t h e w r i t e r a d d r e s s e s t h e e f f e c t o f s o c i a l change
on t h e s t r u c t u r e o f l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s o v e r t i m e .

The s t r u c t u r e of

t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d from t h e v ie w p o i n t o f T a l c o t t P a r s o n s ’
theories.

The

specific

social

c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and i t s
in stitu tio n s

studied

sample o f 42 s c h o o l s .

are
The

change

studied

is

the

a dv en t

e f f e c t on t h a t s t r u c t u r e .

f o u r Michigan

school

of

The l a r g e

d istricts,

time p e r i o d i s t h e 20 y e a r s from

w ith

a

1967 to

1987.
The f o l l o w i n g pages p r o v i d e a broad p i c t u r e o f t h e s t u d y ,
sig n ifican ce,
devel opm ent .

and

the

co n strain ts

experienced

during

its

study

C h ap t er I I th e n b eg in s t h e d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n

and

analysis.

T h e o r e t i c a l Framework Overview
The t h e o r e t i c a l

framework

fo r the

s t u d y assumes a s t r u c t u r a l

f u n c t i o n a l i s t b a s i s b u i l t on t h e work o f Pa rs ons
(H ills,

1982;

Meyer & Rowan,

1983;

Willower,

(1974) and o t h e r s

1983).

Systems

ar e

assumed t o have f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t must be s e r v e d by t h e
p r o c e s s e s and s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e s u b u n i t s in o r d e r f o r t h e system t o
survive.

Change

occurs

when a

new

1

env iro nm en ta l

force

or

an

2
internal

strain

develops

t o which t h e

system i s

un abl e t o

adjust

th r o u g h i t s usual mechanisms.
T hi s s tu d y i d e n t i f i e s and examines e i g h t school d im e n s io n s , two
associated

w it h

definitions

each

of

the four im perative

functions.

a r e c o n s i d e r e d f o r each o f t h e e i g h t

Nominal

indicators.

The

i n d i c a t o r s a r e th e n p l a c e d in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e f u n c t i o n w it h which
they are asso ciated .
One m a j o r

component

is

the

ass u mp ti on o f t h e d i f f e r i n g l i n k a g e s r e l a t e d t o t h e d i m e n s i o n s .

The

linkages,

that

th e

subunits

together

is,

the
in

the

structure

and

the

th eo retical

connecting
units

components o f t h e sy stem.
in

of

structures,

and t h e

framework

serve

u nits

to

to gether

hold
in

larger

The p o s i t i o n o f t h e s u b u n i t s t o be l i n k e d

the

function

the

subunits

serve

for

th e

s t r u c t u r e a r e assumed t o i n f l u e n c e t h e t y p e s of l i n k a g e s t h a t e x i s t .
Th is a s s u m p ti on ,

based on t h e work o f P a r s o n s , Meyer and Rowan, and

others,

two s p e c i f i c t y p e s o f l i n k a g e s .

includes

d e f i n e d as f o r m a l ,

frequent,

between

and u n i t s

subunits

T i g h t c o u p l i n g is

d e f i n e d l i n k a g e s between s u b u n i t s
of

the

in stitu tio n ,

whereas

and

loose

c o u p l i n g d e s c r i b e s t h o s e l i n k a g e s t h a t a r e infor ma l o r l e s s f o r m a l ,
le ss frequent,
the

and n o t d e f i n e d

institution.

as p a r t o f t h e formal

T i g h t l y coup le d dim ens ion s o f t h e

structure
structure

of
ar e

assumed t o be more l i k e l y t o change tha n t h o s e t h a t a r e more l o o s e l y
coupled.
be

Thus, t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s a d d r e s s e d in t h i s

e x p e c te d

function
function.

to

served

have

differing

and on t h e

patterns

type

of

of

linkage

change,

s tu d y would

based

associated

on

w ith

the
that

3

F ig u r e 1.1 shows t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s in t h i s s t u d y as t h e y a r e
presumed t o

relate

Parsons.

In

to

the

addition,

four
the

imperative

mid dle

column

functions

described

presents

the

by

types of

l i n k a g e s a s s o c i a t e d w it h s u b u n i t s which s e r v e each o f t h e i m p e r a t i v e
functions.

Origin
School
Components

Pa rs o ns
Imperative
F u n c ti o n s

FORMAL
STRUCTURE

Meyer & Rowan

T h i s Study
E i g h t School
Indicators

Linkages

Adaptation

Tightly
coupled

1. C e n t r a l i z a t i o n
2. Community p a r t i c i ­
pation

Patternma in te na n ce

Tightly
coupled

1. P r i n c i p a l ’ s
authority
a. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
management
b. I n s t r u c t i o n a l
leadership

Goal
attainm ent

1nnco
■
— — - lv
•*/
cou pl ed

1. . Toarhov*’
c~ nr r. n f, o c .
sional ro le
a. I n s t r u c t i o n a l
autonomy
b. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
instructional
d e c i s i o n making

Integration

Loosely
coupl ed

1. Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
2. Tensi on in s t a f f
relationships

TECHNICAL
ACTIVITY

Figure 1.1:

w

„ . . w

.

Overview o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l framework.

w

w -

4

S tructuralism

as

an approac h

to

knowledge

seeks

to

identify

u n d e r l y i n g s e t s o f s y s t e m a t i c r e l a t i o n s based on a model o r l o g i c a l
p a t t e r n t h a t o r d e r s e m p i r i c a l o r s u r f a c e d a t a (Manning, 19 8 2 ) .
theoretical

framework was used i n t h i s

amount

data

of

regarding

contract

The

s t u d y t o o r d e r an e x t e n s i v e
pro v isio n s

and

teach er

perceptions.

S ta t e m e n t o f t h e Problem
The c o n c e p t o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l
more

th a n

in

the

in stitu tio n

change has nowhere been e x p l o r e d

of

education.

Theoreticians

and

r e s e a r c h e r s s t r u g g l e t o i d e n t i f y changes and t o s e p a r a t e l o n g - t e r m ,
s u b s t a n t i v e changes from s h o r t - t e r m o r random p a t t e r n s .

Identifying

and p r o v in g change i s so d i f f i c u l t t h a t r e p u t a b l e e d u c a t o r s s p ea ki n g
of

the

same

conclusions.
schools
efforts.

in stitu tio n
Silbe rman

remained as

may
(1970)

before,

state

and

co n c l u d e d ,

support
for

d e s p i t e more th a n

contradictory

example,

that

the

a deca de o f reform

Bredemeier (19 78) , on t h e o t h e r hand, when s p ea k in g o f t h e

same e f f o r t s ,

indirated that

"It

i s not t h a t t h e r e

is

any l a c k o f

waves o f r efo rm in t h e s c h o o l s and even swings in f a s h i o n " (p. 31 4).
Assuming change i s i d e n t i f i e d ,

e d u c a t o r s must c o n s i d e r w het her

such change i s e v o l u t i o n a r y o r r e v o l u t i o n a r y ,
n a t u r a l , or planned,

that

is,

accidental,

and t h e p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f t h a t chang e.

The

c u r r e n t l y hazy i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g c a u s e s and e f f e c t s in e d u c a t i o n
makes such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t .
has been d e m o n s t r a te d and p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s

Then, when change

re v ie w e d ,

the educators

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

5
t h e change on t h e i n s t i t u t i o n .
requires

rigorous

substantial

atten tio n

Any r e a l
to

each

testing
of

o f change models

these

issues

p e r i o d o f ti m e and c o n s i d e r i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l

m aterial.

The

th eo retical

m o d e ls

of

inform ation

over

av ailab ility

certain ly

tim e

has

over

a

amount o f

exist,

but

the

be

more

of these

same

proved

to

d ifficu lt.
The p u r p os e o f t h i s

s t u d y was t o

i s s u e s f o r a s e l e c t e d sample o v e r ti m e .
1.

address

each

The i s s u e s a d d r e s s e d were:

I s t h e r e change in t h e depe nd en t v a r i a b l e s ,

the o rg an iz a­

tional indicators?
2.

If

so ,

which

in d e p e n d e n t

variables

may ac c ou nt

for

that

change?
3.

In which d i r e c t i o n does t h e change o cc ur ?

4.

What e f f e c t might t h e change o r changes have on t h e i n s t i ­
tution?

The i s s u e s

are

addressed

using

p r e v i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l o v er vi e w .
on t h e change model,

t h e change model

described

in

the

The i n f o r m a t i o n t o be o r d e r e d , based

includes teacher perceptions

in 42 s c h o o l s

in

Michigan o v e r a 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d .
The r e s u l t i n g p a t t e r n s s e r v e t o t e s t t h e e f f i c a c y o f t h e change
model, as w e ll as p r o v i d i n g some i n s i g h t s i n t o s p e c i f i c p a t t e r n s o f
change in t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n .
There

have been many changes

o v er t h e l a s t 20 y e a r s .
and t e c h n i c a l

F ed er al

in

the

and s t a t e

educational

envi ronm ent

in itiativ es,

n ee ds , l e g a l d e c i s i o n s , and p o l i t i c a l

i n f l u e n c e d t h e environ me nt in which s c h o o l s f u n c t i o n .

industrial

swings have a l l
The a d v e n t o f

6
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g f o r t e a c h e r s has been one o f t h e most c o n t r o ­
versial

of

between

one

indicators

these

ch an g e s.

The

environm ental

from

the

two

s tud y

change,

explored

the

co llectiv e

components

of

the

relationship

bargaining,

schools,

the

and

formal

s t r u c t u r e and t h e t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s .
The f i r s t q u e s t i o n c o n s i d e r e d was w h et h er any changes o c c u r r e d
i n t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with t h e two school
If

change o c c u r r e d ,

three

time

possible

itself,

at

sources

explored.

F irst,

two p o i n t s ,

considered

a p o s sib le source o f v a r i a t i o n .

of

components.

variation

were

1967 and 1987,

was

Then d i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y

was a d d r e s s e d as a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n . School

level

was

a l s o c o n s i d e r e d w ith t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t changes o c c u r r i n g a t t h e
e l e m e n t a r y l e v e l may n o t n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r a t t h e

same r a t e

the

that

same way a t

the

s e co n da r y

level.

Assuming

or

change

in
was

i d e n t i f i e d and s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e
change was e x p l o r e d
change,

based

on

as
the

related

to

th eoretical

the p re d ic te d
model

and

direction
the

of the

educational

1i t e r a t u r e .
F i n a l l y , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t , where change was a s s o c i a t e d with
d istrict

identity,

provisions

the

strength

in t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s
explored.

If

of

the

varying

teacher

contract

was somehow a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

change was

also

an

indicator

pattern of

t h a t change a s s o c i a t e d with d i s t r i c t

that

had changed, was
i d e n t i t y , and,

the
if

so , was one im p o r ta n t a s p e c t o f t h a t a s s o c i a t i o n t h e v a r i a t i o n s

in

teacher c o n tra ct

of

teacher contracts,

la ngu age s t r e n g t h ?

Thus,

the

possible

effect

as t h e y v a r i e d from one d i s t r i c t t o a n o t h e r , was

7
t o be i s o l a t e d from t h e o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e s ex p ec te d among t h e f o u r
districts.
As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,
within

each

component.

the w r ite r

D istrict

addressed four in d ic a to rs

centralization,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management and i n s t r u c t i o n a l
p articipation

were c o n s i d e r e d

indicators

the

p r i n c i p a l ’s

leadership,

and c i t i z e n

of the

formal

structure.

The t e a c h e r ’ s p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e as i n d i c a t e d by t e a c h e r autonomy and
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 making were c o n s i d e r e d a s p e c t s of
the

tech n ical

satisfaction

activ ity .

were

also

The

in c l u d e d

staff
as

relatio n sh ip s

affectiveindicators

and
of

job
the

technical a c t i v i t y of schools.
The i n i t i a l b a s i c change h y p o th e s e s f o r t h e s tu d y were:
1.

Those i n d i c a t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e formal s t r u c t u r e o f t h e
school w i l l change as c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g i s i n t r o d u c e d :
a.
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l change as e n v iro n m e n ta l f o r c e s
re q u ire ad aptation of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e .
b. Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l change as a d a p t a t i o n i s
required.
c.
P r i n c i p a l s ’ a u t h o r i t y w i l l change.
1)
In o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management in r e s p o n s e t o needs
f o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l p a t t e r n m a in te n a n ce .
2) In i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p in r e s p o n s e t o p a t t e r n m a in ten an ce n ee ds .

These i n d i c a t o r s were p r e d i c t e d t o change bec au se t h e y were r e g a r d e d
as t i g h t l y l i n k e d and t h e r e f o r e a c c e s s i b l e t o s o c i e t a l f o r c e s .
2.

Those i n d i c a t o r s r e l a t e d t o t h e t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t y o f t h e
school w i l l remain s t a b l e even when c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
is introduced:
a. T e a c h e r s ’ p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e s w i l l remain s t a b l e as t h e
o v e r a l l g o a l s in s o c i e t y remain s t a b l e f o r e d u c a t i o n
and s h o r t - t e r m p a t t e r n c h a n g e s a r e d e a l t w i t h in
individual subunits.
1)
In i n s t r u c t i o n a l autonomy.
2)
In p a r t i c i p a t i o n in i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n making as
a gro up.
b. Teach er j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l remain s t a b l e .
c . Tension in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l remain s t a b l e .

8
These

indicators

were r e g a r d e d

were

predicted

to

as l o o s e l y co u p le d ,

remain

unchanged

and t h e r e f o r e

bec au se

th e y

environm ental

changes were l e s s l i k e l y t o be a b l e t o have a s t e a d y o r c o n t i n u e d
e f f e c t on them.

Any e f f e c t would be c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n

a subunit,

r a t h e r than spreading.
Three

basic

sources

of

any

change

were

expected

to

be

identified.
3.

Three main s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n w i l l a c c o u n t f o r ch an ge s,
i f such changes a r e found in t h e i n d i c a t o r s :
a. Time, t h e 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d from 1967 t o 1987, w i l l be
found t o be one s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .
Thi s p e r i o d
c o v e r s ma jor changes in t h e s e f o u r d i s t r i c t s , i n c l u d i n g
changes in t h e f i n a n c i a l s t r u c t u r e , t h e e n r o l l m e n t , t h e
l e a d e r s h i p , and av er a ge ages o f t e a c h e r s , as well as
more g l o b a l
c h an g e s in s o c i e t a l
attitu d es
and
p r i o r i t i e s , s o u r c e s o f re v e n u e , and dem og rap hic s.
b. D i s t r i c t , t h e b a s i c d i f f e r e n c e s in i d e n t i t y among t h e
f o u r d i s t r i c t s , w i l l be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .
The
f o u r d i s t r i c t s have l o n g - s t a n d i n g c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s ,
i n c l u d i n g wide v a r i a t i o n s in r e l i g i o u s , r a c i a l , and
e t h n i c p a t t e r n s , which w i l l l e a d t o v a r i a t i o n s in t h e
way e n v i r o n m e n t a l f o r c e s , i n c l u d i n g u n i o n i z a t i o n ,
in flu e n c e change.
D i s t r i c t s a r e p r e d i c t e d t o be
sources
of v ariatio n
even
though
the
general
dem o g ra p h ic d i f f e r e n c e s were c o n t r o l l e d
f o r by
s e l e c t i n g d i s t r i c t s with s i m i l a r e n r o l l m e n t s , f i n a n c i a l
and i n d u s t r i a l p a t t e r n s , geo graphy, and so on.
c.
Le ve l, t h e two g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f e l e m e n t a r y arm
s e c o n d a ry , w i l l be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .
In g e n e r a l ,
e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e has emphasized t h e d i f f e r e n c e s
in a t t i t u d e and s t r u c t u r e between t h e two l e v e l s .
G iv en t h e s e
differences,
environm ental
forces,
i n c l u d i n g u n i o n i z a t i o n , wo u ld be e x p e c t e d t o hav e
d i f f e r i n g e f f e c t s a t t h e two l e v e l s , w i t h s ec ond ary
c h a n g i n g more t h a n e l e m e n t a r y b e c a u s e o f t i g h t e r
coupling.

The d i r e c t i o n o f such changes was p r e d i c t e d t o be:
4.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l i n c r e a s e as t e c h n o l o g y ,
and o t h e r e n vi ro nm en ta l f o r c e s i n c r e a s e t h e
for routinization.

unionization,
possibilities

9
5.

Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l d e c r e a s e a s t e c h n o l o g y ,
u n i o n i z a t i o n , and o t h e r e nv ir o nm en ta l f o r c e s make d e c i s i o n
m a k in g more t e c h n i c a l and l e s s a m e n a b l e t o com mun ity
i n v o lv em en t.

6.

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s r o l e in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
management w i l l
d e c r e a s e as u n i o n i z a t i o n and o t h e r e n v i ro n m e n ta l f o r c e s
c o n s t r a i n p a r a m e t e r s i n r e s o u r c e s e l e c t i o n and dep loyment.

7.

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s r o l e i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l
le a d e rs h ip w ill
d e c r e a s e as u n i o n i z a t i o n , f e d e r a l i z a t i o n , p o l i t i c a l
pat­
t e r n s , and o t h e r e nv i ro n m en ta l f o r c e s l e a d t o a s m a l l e r
f i e l d of choice.

(Again, a r e m i n d e r t h a t t h e o t h e r f o u r o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s were
predicted

to

remain

unc han ge d.)

I f change o c c u r r e d and d i s t r i c t
source o f th e v a r i a t i o n ,
be

isolated

from

i d e n t i t y was found t o be one

the e f f e c t of c o l l e c t i v e

o t h e r env iro n m en ta l
contract

language

and e x p l o r e d

v ariatio n s

in

districts.

The h y p o t h e s i s f o r t h i s e x p l o r a t i o n was:

8.

teach er

forces

b a r g a i n i n g would

strength

in

us in g

the

four

The d i s t r i c t s
w ith s t r o n g e r c o n t r a c t language
w ill
e x p e r i e n c e more c h a n g e i n t h e i n d i c a t o r s and i n t h e
d ire c tio n predicted.
Thus, a d i s t r i c t w ith s t r o n g e r
c o n t r a c t la n g u a g e o v e r t h e 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d would be ex p ec te d
t o have even
more c e n t r a l i z a t i o n th a n one w it h
weak
la n g u a g e , f o r example.

Bas ic Assumptions
The h y p o t h e s e s were based on s e v e r a l

assumptions:

o r g a n i z a t i o n s have s t r u c t u r e and t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e
maintain s t a b i l i t y
(b)

that

as well

en v i ro n m e n ta l

organization,

and

(c)

as t o

forces
that

depending on t h e s t r u c t u r e .

attain

and

the

changes

(a )

that

is designed to

o rg an iz atio n ’ s goals,
force

change

in

th e

t h e p r o c e s s e s o f change vary p a r t i a l l y

10
The e d u c a t i o n a l

in stitu tio n

i s assumed t o have such s t r u c t u r e

and i s r e g a r d e d as a p r o f e s s i o n a l o r s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n .
The

institution

is

made up o f

units

and s u b u n i t s

w it h d i f f e r i n g

linkages.

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

the

o f the

units

th eir

pattern

structure,

o f ch a n g e .

makes change e a s i e r ,
subunits

related

relationships

to

the

and r o l e s

in

terms

outside

of

and r e l a t e d

monitored.

of

the

The

in d icato rs

are

a s s o c i a t e d w it h

each

subunit

to

change

is

the

of all

as sumpti on i s

whereas l o o s e c o u p l i n g

defined

introduced,

representative

the

the

aspects

thattig h t

coupling

impedes chang e.
tig h tly

are

and o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s
indicator.

quickly

When

coupled,

indicator

Thus,

the

clearly

and

roles

when change

communicated

in

and

is

form ally

In l o o s e l y cou pl ed s i t u a t i o n s , on t h e o t h e r hand, change

may no t be communicated and e f f e c t i s n o t m o n i t o r e d .
assump tion
m aintain

is

that

the

the

patterns

goal
of

of the educational
the

society

Finally,

in stitu tio n

through

th e

is

to

in stru ctio n

of

so c ie ty ’s children.

Basic D e f i n i t i o n s
The

theoretical

framework

for

the

study

depends

heavily

on

P a r s o n s ’ co n c e p t o f f u n c t i o n , d e f i n e d as a group o f r e l a t e d a c t i o n s
c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e c o n s i s t e n c y o r e q u i l i b r i u m o f t h e system so t h a t
the

purp os e

and

goals

of

the

system

may

be

fu lfilled .

This

e x p l o r a t i o n o f change d e f i n e s change as t h e o p p o s i t e o f m a i n t a i n i n g
t h e s t a t u s quo.
the

system

The formal s t r u c t u r e i s r e g a r d e d as t h a t a s p e c t o f

responsible

for

the

ritual

and

classification

of

the

11
activ ities
teachers,
sy stem

w ithin

the

students,

is

that

achieving

sy st em ,

this

and c u r r i c u l u m .

aspect

the

in

goals

of

of

the

the

case

classification

The t e c h n i c a l

system

system,

directly

in

this

of

the

a c t i v i t y o f the
responsible

case

teaching

for
the

s t u d e n t s t h e v a l u e s and s k i l l s r e q u i r e d t o m a i n t a i n t h e p a t t e r n s o f
our so c ie ty .

The l i n k a g e i s d e f i n e d as t h e c o n n e c t i o n between one

a c t i v i t y group w i t h i n a system and a n o t h e r , in t h i s c a s e between one
t e a c h e r and a n o t h e r , one d e p a r t m e n t and a n o t h e r , and so on.
study,

linkages

are

divided

into

two

types,

loose

In t h i s

couplings

and

t i g h t couplings.
Appendix B i n c l u d e s t h e s p e c i f i c d e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e in de p en de nt
and de pe nd e nt v a r i a b l e s ,

the e ig h t in d i c a to r s ,

used in t h i s

study.

These d e f i n i t i o n s a r e used c o n s i s t e n t l y in t h e t h e o r e t i c a l framework
and t h e e m p i r i c a l s t u d y .

The Study Methodology
The d a t a
principal
F ifty-three
study.

were

gathered

attitudes

in

five

schools

in

the

in

a 1967

survey

m iddle-sized
five

d istricts

d istricts

The s t u d y was redo ne d u r i n g f a l l

of

were

teacher
in

Michigan.

included

in

s c h o o l s were used as t h e u n i t o f measure.
from

the

42

contracts

for

the

four

r e v ie w e d .

schools

were

districts

The 42

The r e s p o n s e s o f 1,585

analyzed.
ov er

th e

1986 and e a r l y w i n t e r 1987

in f o u r o f t h e same d i s t r i c t s , w it h 42 o f t h e same s c h o o l s .

teachers

and

the

In
20-year

addition,
period

the
were

Because c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g in e d u c a t i o n was n o t l e g a l

in Michigan u n t i l 1965, t h i s 2 0 - y e a r p e r i o d in c l u d e d t h e e a r l i e s t as

12
well

as t h e l a t e s t c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e s e f o u r d i s t r i c t s .

Community

and

d istrict

1987

was

d istrict

was

considered

dem ographic

as

id en tified .

w ell.
(See

inform ation

No

from

individual,

C hapter

III

for

1967

school,
further

or

to

discussion

of

the

p r o c e d u r e s used t o com ple te t h e a t t i t u d e s u rv ey and a n a l y s i s o f th e
d ata.)

S i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e Study
As

indicated

in terest,

the

earlier,

first

the

s tu d y

th eo retical

has

and

two

the

p r im ar y
second

areas

of

em pirical.

C o n s t r a i n t s e x i s t e d in both a r e a s .

Theoretical C onstraints
Many a u t h o r s have r e c o g n i z e d
P a r s o n s ’ work (Boyd,

1983;

i n t e r p r e t e r as Jean H i l l s
Parsons’ concepts.

the d i f f i c u l t y

Willower,

1983).

and o b s c u r i t y

of

Even such a sta un ch

(1982) ad m it t e d t o g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y

with

Pa rs o ns (1977) h i m s e l f s t r e s s e d t h e p r e l i m i n a r y

and in c om pl et e s t a t u s o f h i s t h e o r e t i c a l framework.
M nrP

receiving
(A lex an de r,
functional
1983).

S n P r i f i r a i l
-

r

~

-

'

V

• v

P a r c n n c ’

>

•

new c r e d i b i l i t y
1985;

Savage,

im peratives

has

~ •

—

" •

w ith

r n n r o n t c

g

t h e work o f

1981).
not

v o n a vrl i n n

However,
yet

been

the
his

as

r h a n n o
3

a

U l

w

neofunctionalists
work on t h e

fruitful

four

(Willower,

Combining t h e s e c o n c e p t s with t h e c o u p l i n g paradigm o f Meyer

and Rowan (1983),

also lacking extensive empirical

s u p p o r t as y e t ,

allowed development o f an e x t e n d e d , p o t e n t i a l l y f r u i t f u l t h e o r e t i c a l
model, bu t one w i t h o u t much c u r r e n t e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t .

13
Em pirica l C o n s t r a i n t s
These

th eo retical

constraint.
1967

for

concerns

to

The s c a l e s in c l u d e d in t h i s

a specific

p u r p os e

not

They o b v i o u s l y measure so me th in g,
interpreted
teach ers.

led

r em a r k ab ly

a

related

s tu d y were c o n s t r u c t e d in

directly

related

to

this

study.

and t h a t something a p p e a r s t o be

consistently

over

ti m e

by

the

respondent

N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e y were used t o measure i n d i c a t o r s and t o

confirm t h e o r i e s
actually

f o r which t h e y were n o t d e s i g n e d .

measure what t h e y

question.

are

assumed t o

As Merton i n d i c a t e d , e m p i r i c a l

Whether th e y

measure

is

a continual

r e s e a r c h and s o c i o l o g i c a l

t h e o r y e x i s t in s y m b i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p (Merton, 19 6 8) .
is:

em pirical

The q u e s t i o n

Is t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h and t h e o r y a p r o d u c t i v e s y m b i o s i s ,

adva nt ag eo us t o each?
In a d d i t i o n , w h i l e t h e model a d d r e s s e s chang e, t h e a c t u a l
explore

change

only

in feren tially

q u e s t i o n s were as ked .
explore

their

because

-

-

-

-

own p e r c e p t i o n s

F inally,

-

.

sp ecific

change

T ea ch er s were n o t give n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o
of

change.

nprr pnti nn<; at two c n p r i f i r rmintc in timp
i

no

data

.

,------- . . . --------

certain

. . .

m ethodological

Rather,

th e y

reported

•

constrain ts

existed,

e x p e c t e d when two r e l a t e d s t u d i e s a r e com plete d 20 y e a r s a p a r t .

as
The

q u e s t i o n n a i r e had t o be redu ce d d r a m a t i c a l l y bec au se t e a c h e r s a r e no
l o n g e r w i l l i n g o r a b l e t o spend t h r e e hou rs ans wering q u e s t i o n s , th e
ti m e t h e o r i g i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e to o k t o com ple te in many c a s e s .
d istribution

was

requirem ents

regarding

fin an cial

less

resources

personal
staff

for

the

and

d irect

because

m eetings

and

of

study.

Perhaps

lack

of

The
union

larg e-scale

because

of

the

14
d i s t r i b u t i o n ch an g e s, c e r t a i n l y be ca use o f changed o v e r a l l
patterns

generally

were l e s s .

(Warwick & L i n i g e r ,

The o r i g i n a l

practical
large

B la lo c k

roadblocks

amounts

ex p licit

(1979)
to

response

rates

(See C h a p t e r I I I f o r s p e c i f i c

n o te d t h a t

data

m issing

assum ptions

variables.
In

of

the

s tu d y had a 79% r e s p o n s e r a t e , whereas t h e

second s t u d y had a 57% r e s p o n s e r a t e .
discussion.)

197 5) ,

response

in

collection,"

inform ation,

and

neglect

of

any s t u d y ,
the

g iv e n

research

requiring

"the

involves

im p licit

th eo retically

and

im portant

These c o n c e r n s a r e c e r t a i n l y t r u e f o r t h i s s t u d y .

addition,

the

data

analysis,

because

of

advances

s t a t i s t i c a l methods and i n computers o v e r t h e l a s t 20 y e a r s ,
more s o p h i s t i c a t e d now.

in

i s much

I f t h e 1967 s t u d y were done t o d a y , t h e raw

d a t a would be handled d i f f e r e n t l y .

Because o f t h e

nature

o f the

s t u d y , t h e 1987 d a t a were handled as c l o s e t o t h e 1967 p r o c e d u r e s as
possible.

As

usual

in

such

instances,

p r o c e d u r e s had been c o m p l e t e l y documented.
The

theoretical

concerns

are

not

all

relate

to

the

fit

related

D espite

these

concerns,

between
the

the

the

1967

Some had t o be su r m is e d .
to

the

c o m p le x it y o f t h e c o n c e p t s , w h i l e t h e e m p i r i c a l
co n ce r n s

of

difficu lty

and

and m e th o d o lo g i c a l

framework

study

has

was

clarified

and t h e

several

study.

potential

c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o make t o t h e f i e l d .

Theoretical Contributions
F irst,

the

theoretical

model

and

refined

with

respect to the four fu nctio ns.

With t h e a d d i t i o n o f t h e c o n c e p t of

tight

model

and

loose

coupling,

the

amenable t o e m p i r i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n .

was

expected

to

become more

15

Second, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f change and t h e model was examined
and

r e - e x a m in e d .

The

co n c e p t

that

the

opposite

of

change

is

s t a b i l i t y was e x p l o r e d e x t e n s i v e l y , as were o t h e r p o s s i b l e paradigms
such as s im p l e change/complex change.
enormous f o r t h e f i e l d .

The i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s a r e

I f th e fu n ctio n of th e sub u n it or th e type

o f l i n k a g e does i n f l u e n c e t h e e f f e c t o f p o s s i b l e change a g e n t s ,
i f the technical
linked

with

other

substantial
pressure

a c t i v i t y o f an i n s t i t u t i o n
indicators

change

for

the

in

the

change

in

that

product
must

i s l i k e l y t o be l o o s e l y

institution,

activity

be

and

increased

of

then,

the

to

make

in stitution,

greatly

and/or

l i n k a g e s must become i n t e n t i o n a l l y more t i g h t l y c o u p l e d .

the

Th is model

would i n d i c a t e t h a t t e a c h e r s would no t change i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y
unless

the

pressure

between t h e i r

for

change

cl a ss r o o m s

was

and t h e

rest

very

strong

of the

or

the

school

s t r u c t u r e were t i g h t e n e d g r e a t l y th r o u g h more formal

linkages

and d i s t r i c t
communications

and m o n i t o r i n g .
On t h e o t h e r hand,
associated
activity,

w ith

Ine very c o r e

many o f t h e n a t i o n a l ,

instruction

seem

in teractiv e

results.

changes

i f complex change r a t h e r th a n no change i s

in

doomed

of

state,

organization,
and l o c a l

to

failure,

or

Thus,

pressure

for

teach ers’ instructional

t h o s e changes

the

intended.

exploration of th is idea.)

(See t h e

at

the

technical

efforts

t o change

least

change

to

ve r y

would

practices,

but

not

concluding

chapter

mixed

result

in

necessarily
for

further

16
E i t h e r model

suggests

expressed

by

classrooms

im per vio us

reasons

educators

who

to

fo r the

find

frustration

teachers

change.

Our

frequently

nonresponsive

rapidly

chang in g

and

society

r e q u i r e s some change in t h e c o r e e d u c a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s and outcomes
and

also

requires

that

e f f i c i e n t as p o s s i b l e .

such

change

be

as

appropriate

and

as

We must u n d e r s t a n d t h e p r o c e s s o f change in

o r d e r t o meet t h e s e e x p e c t a t i o n s .

Em p iri ca l C o n t r i b u t i o n
Willower

(1982)

n o te d

that

important

areas

of

which had been n e g l e c t e d by a c c o un ts o f Weick (1978)
Rowan (1983) and which were c e n t r a l ,
groups.

This

w riter

t h e o r e t i c a l l y and,

attem pted

school

life,

and Meyer and

were t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s as

to

most e s p e c i a l l y ,

address

th is

em pirically,

neglect

both

fo r the teachers.

Although t h e u s e f u l n e s s may be somewhat l i m i t e d by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e
sample,

that

nevertheless,

is,

from

certain

one

state

clear

and

in

patterns

one

of

type

attitu d e

of

d istrict,

change

were

e x p l o r e d in t h i s s t u d y .

Summary
An e l a b o r a t e model
developed.

f o r e x p l o r a t i o n o f change t o

The model was used t o e x p l o r e two s e t s o f d a t a c o l l e c t e d

20 y e a r s a p a r t from 1,585 t e a c h e r s .
a

contribution

to

the

themselves c o n t ri b u te to
attitudes.

a sy stem was

The development o f t h e model i s

field

of

social

the

store

of

research.

The

knowledge r e g a r d i n g

findings
teacher

The c om b in at io n o f t h e two l e d t o c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t have

important im p lic a tio n s f o r th e f i e l d of education.

17

The model and i t s b a s i s in t h e l i t e r a t u r e a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e
f o l l o w i n g pa ges .

CHAPTER I I
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Introduction
The t h e o r e t i c a l
of

P arsons

framework f o r t h i s s tu d y was based on t h e work

and made t h r e e

p ri m ar y a s s u m p ti o n s:

(a)

that

systems

have s u b u n i t s t h a t a r e d e s i g n e d t o m a i n t a i n e q u i l i b r i u m and p r e v e n t
change, (b) t h a t change o c c u r s o n ly because o f unusual e nv iro nm en ta l
p r e s s u r e o r heavy i n t e r n a l s t r a i n and t e n d s t o be c o n s t r a i n e d w i t h i n
subunits

of

the

system,

and

(c )

that

there

are

at

least

four

im p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t must be e x e r c i s e d in any system in o r d e r
for

that

system

functions

to

survive.

d ifferen tly ,

D ifferent

depending

on

systems

perfo rm

membership,

goals,

these
and

en vi ro nm en t.
In t h i s s t u d y , t h e w r i t e r assumed t h a t th e s t r u c t u r e o f p u b l i c
schools

has

includes

two

the

m ythologies,

main

components:

ritu als,

and t h e

the

formal

classificatio n s,

technical

activity

structure,

and

which

in stitu tio n al

structure,

which

includes

t h e s p e c i f i c goal a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e system, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n (Meyer &
Rowan,

1983).

(1977)

concept

The
of

pattern-maintenance,
w ith

the

formal
the

instrum ental

whereas

co n s u m m a to r y

structure

the

is

associated

functions,

technical

functions,

system

18

with

adaptation

activity
goal

Parsons’

is

and

associated

attainm ent

and

19
integration.

The

subunits

cou pl ed and c l o s e l y l i n k e d ,

of

the

formal

structure

whereas t h e s u b u n i t s

are

tightly

of the technical

a c t i v i t y a r e l o o s e l y cou pl ed and l i g h t l y r a t h e r th a n t i g h t l y l i n k e d .
Change o c c u rs d i f f e r e n t l y in t h e two components bec a u se o f t h e
differences

in t h e t y p e s o f l i n k a g e s .

change in t h e environment o r

In t h e

formal

structure,

a

in one s u b u n i t o f t h e system s p r e a d s

r a p i d l y t o t h e o t h e r s u b u n i t s and i s e a s i l y mo ni to red as t h e s p re ad
occurs.

In

the

technical

activity

s u b u n i t may have no e f f e c t a t a l l
The formal
the

component,

a

on o t h e r s u b u n i t s

change

in

(Weick,

one

1979).

s t r u c t u r e has more c o n t a c t w ith t h e environ me nt th rou gh

linkage o f the

subunits

th an does

the technical

activity,

so

t h a t changes in t h e environment may a l s o have l i t t l e o r no e f f e c t on
the technical

a c t i v i t y s u b u n i t s even i n d i v i d u a l l y ,

o t h e r th a n t h o s e

d i r e c t l y in vo l v ed w ith t h e en vi ron m ent .
A hypothetical
theoretical

set

construct.

of

examples

In t h e formal

may

serve

structure,

to

clarify

adaptation

this
is

the

i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Parsons (19 7 4) , which has t h e most
d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith t h e environment in which t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i s
placed.

The d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s r o l e might v e r y well

of adaptation.

be one

C e r t a i n l y , many o f th e c e n t r a l d e p a r t m e n t s and s t a f f

members h a v e d i r e c t

resp o n sib ilities

relations

the

department,

s e c t i o n s , f o r example.

pe r s o n n el

in

th is

department,

area--the
and t h e

public

financial

The p r i n c i p a l s , on t h e o t h e r hand, may have

fewer d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

in r e l a t i o n t o t h e en v i ro n m en t.

are responsible fo r the pattern-maintenance of the i n s t i t u t i o n
as

such,

are

somewhat cu sh io ne d from t h e

political

and

They
and,

financial

20

pressures

of

the

e n v i ro n m e n t.

N evertheless,

according

to

this

t h e o r e t i c a l model, t h e y a r e t i g h t l y coup le d as a u n i t t o t h e r e s t o f
t h e formal s t r u c t u r e s u b u n i t s , t h e f i n a n c i a l o f f i c e s , and so on, and
thus

they

tend

to

adapt

th eir

pattern-m aintenance

activ ities

d i r e c t l y based on i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e s e o t h e r s u b u n i t s .
The t e c h n i c a l
construct,

do

a c t i v i t y su b u n its, according to t h i s th e o r e t i c a l

not

have

the

same

function of the organization,
directly

related

cards.

w it h

an

goal-attainm ent
( 1 97 4) ,

resources

For a school d i s t r i c t ,

by a d d r e s s i n g

The

a c c o r d i n g t o P arsons

t o t h e env iro n m en t,

p r o d u c t s going o u t .
be e x p l a i n e d

pattern.

interaction

coming

is

also

in

and

t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p might
as

concrete

as

report

The t e a c h e r s send home r e p o r t c a r d s , u s u a l l y a l l o f t h e same

f or ma t in a school o r d i s t r i c t , and may o r may no t g e t f e ed b a ck from
t h e p a r e n t s on t h e p a t t e r n s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l
the card.

I f t e a c h e r s do r e c e i v e f e e d b a c k ,

s t u d e n t i n d i c a t e d by
however,

a c c o r d i n g to

t h i s model, t h e y may o r may n o t a d j u s t t h e i r c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n
accordingly.

Even i f

feedback,

li n k a g e s

the

t h a t t h e f e ed ba ck w i l l

they

adjust

their

in te c h n ic a l

instruction

activity

n o t be l i k e l y t o

te n d

based on t h e

to

be so lo o s e

be s h ar ed w i t h many o t h e r

te a c h e rs or le v e ls of departments or schools.

Any m o d i f i c a t i o n

likely

Thus,

to

stop

goal-attainm ent
long-term

or

in

the

individual

function
w idespread

e n vi ro nm en ta l p r e s s u r e s .

has

classroom.

direct

change

e nv ir on m en ta l
is

lik ely

to

is

although

th e

ex ch a n g es ,

no

resu lt

from

21
The second

function,

from en v i ro n m e n ta l
te a c h e r s ’ social

that

pressures,

of

integration,

according

interactions

to

is

Parsons.

may c h a n g e

also

cu sh ion ed

For example,

in dividually

but

are

u n l i k e l y t o change o v e r a l l because o f e n v ir o nm en ta l p r e s s u r e s .
A th eo retical

framework

for

the

effect

of

environm ental

p r e s s u r e s on changes in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s shown in F i g u r e 2 . 1 .

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
yL

S u b u n it s s e r v i n g t h e
adaptation function
S u b u n it s s e r v i n g t h e
pattern-maintenance
function

P a rt o f the
Formal
Structure

ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
S u b u n it s s e r v i n g t h e
goal-attainm ent function
|

I

pik. S u b u n it s s e r v i n g t h e
|_______ } i n t e g r a t i o n f u n c t i o n

P a r t o f th e
T e c h n ic a l
A ctivity

No c o u p l in g
Figure 2.1:

Four i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in r e l a t i o n s h i p
t o t h e envi ron me nt.

In t h e f o l l o w i n g pages t h e co n c e p t o f change and t h e c o n c e p t o f
s t r u c t u r e a r e r e vi e w e d ,

both from t h e P a r s o n ia n p e r s p e c t i v e .

o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s with i t s
then addressed.

two school

Each

indicators

is

22
The Concept o f Change
While

P ars ons

has

been

criticized

for

r e g a r d i n g t h e o r i e s o f change (Mohan & Wilke,
he d i d d e l i n e a t e

his

lack

of

clarity

1980; Wal lac e,

some c o n c e p t s t h a t may s e r v e as

the

1967),

basis

d i s c u s s i o n o f change ( B o u r r i e a u d , 1981; Savage, 198 1) .

for

a

He r e g a r d e d

s t a b i l i t y , m a in te n a n ce o f t h e s t a t u s quo, as a b a s i c f u n c t i o n in a
s o c i a l sy stem in a l l

areas

( P a r s o n s , 19 77 ).

In f a c t ,

he s t a t e d

"a

s t a b l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n t e r a c t i v e p r o c e s s , t h a t i s , one in e q u i l i b r i u m ,
tends

to

continue

unchanged"

(1951,

p.

251).

H is

theory

of

m o t i v a t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s and t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e in r e l a t i o n
to the

internal

s tr u c tu re of the

as s u m p ti o n , h i s "law o f i n e r t i a "
When a m a j o r
Parsons,

stru ctu ral

social

system was b u i l t

(p. 482) .
change

does

t h e change i s e v o l u t i o n a r y - - t h a t

1973; Savage, 1981).

on t h i s

occur,

is,

according

an advance

Such change i s l i k e l y t o r e s u l t

to

(Parsons,

in i n c r e a s e d

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and u p gr ad in g in t h e use o f a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s .
In a d d i t i o n ,
a s o c i a l syst em.
served

Pa rs on s a d d r e s s e d bo und ar y -m a in te n an ce a s p e c t s o f
Not o n ly must t h e p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e f u n c t i o n s be

by s p e c i f i c

schools,

bu t

the

relation

to

sy stem.

That i s ,

in stitu tio n s

w ithin

the

system ,

c o n s t a n c y o f p a t t e r n must a l s o

changes

in

the

en vi ron m ent ,

at

the

be m a i n t a i n e d

the

t h e ways systems res po nd t o

i.e .,

the

boundary
changes

of

in
the

in t h e

env ironm ent must a l s o be c o n s i s t e n t .
The t h e o r e t i c a l

problem o f change,

for

Parsons,

th e n

becomes

why, gi v e n a c e r t a i n change in t h e r e l e v a n t c o n d i t i o n s , t h e c o n s t a n t
pattern th a t

is the

point of reference

is

altered

or

fails

to

be

23

altered
w riter

in

a certain

addressed

way.

why,

Using t h i s

g iv e n

the

Parsonian

change

in

construct,

relevant

conditions

im pl ie d by t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s ’ b a r g a i n i n g
t h e development o f t h e t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t ,

the

constant

this

unit

and

pattern,

as

r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s in 1967, had o r had n o t a l t e r e d
in t h e e n s u i n g 20 y e a r s .

The S t r u c t u r a l B asis
Pa rsons d e f i n e d
units

and

analytical

a system’ s s tr u c t u r e

the

subunits.

The

concept

"structure"

level

the

co n c e p t

"function"

th a n

p a r a l le l to th a t of "process"
the respect

as

in which t h e

(Parsons,

state

The f u n c t i o n s o f a system,

is

at

and

1971, p.

or stru c tu re

then,

patterns

of
a

the

lower

approximately

103).

Process

is

o f a system ch an ge s.

a r e performed by a c o m b in at io n of

s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s .
More

sp ecifically ,

exploration

addressed

in

the

organizational

this

s tu d y

was

structure

defined

s y s t e m a t i c arr ang em ent o f o p e r a t i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s
t h e school

ap pr o a c h in g

differentiation,
on t h e

the

the

Hill

study

of

the

formal,

that constitute

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

(Organ & Hamner, 1982).
of

as

in

of these

(1968) note d t h a t t h e r e a r e two ways
an

organization

and

its

functional

by emphasis on t h e temporal p has es and by emphasis

structural

units.

The

latter

emphasis

was

used

in

this

instrum ental,

that

study.
P arsons
is,

(1951)

i n c l u d e d two p a t t e r n s ,

s e r v i n g as t h e means,

the

and t h e consummatory,

in v o l v e d w ith

the

24

end o r c o m p l e t i o n .

He h y p o t h e s i z e d f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s .

shown

four

before,

attainm ent,

the
(c)

functions

are

(a)

pattern-m aintenance,

and

adaptation,
(d)

(b)

As
goal

in teg ratio n .

i n s t i t u t i o n may be d ev el o p ed f o r one o f t h e f o u r a r e a s .

An

In t h e c a s e

of the schools, pattern-m aintenance for the so ciety is the area, fo r
example.

I n t e r n a l l y , however, ev er y i n s t i t u t i o n , no m a t t e r what i t s

a r e a o f p u r p o s e , must have s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s t h a t s e r v e a l l
four

im perative

subunit

may n o t

address

each

of

functions.
serve

all

them

Although
these

form ally,

id e n tit y of the s p e c if ic

any

functions
that

individuals

is,

in t h e

individual
equally

structural

w ell,

independently
organization.

it

must

of

the

Fig u re

2 . 2 p r e s e n t s P a r s o n s ’ f o u r f u n c t i o n s , showing t h e p a t t e r n s and e n v i ­
ronmental r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

Environmental
R elationship

Instrum ental/
Means

Consummatory/
Ends

D irect
env iro n m en ta l
relationship

A d a p ta t io n

Goal a t t a i n m e n t

Internal
nondirect
relationship

Pattern-maintenance

Integration

F ig u r e 2 . 2 :

Four i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in t h e s o c i a l system.
(Based on H i l l , 1968.)

25
Linkages
For many y e a r s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s were assumed t o be
bureaucratic.

A bureaucratic

r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s ,

structure

is

rational,

w ith w r i t t e n

based on a s y s t e m a t i c d i v i s i o n o f l a b o r in a

h i e r a r c h i c a l form, w ith a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ( E t z i o n i , 1964; Weber, 1975).
Then

B la u

(1974),

differences

Etzioni

between

nonprofessional

bureaucratic

prim ary o r g a n iz a tio n a l
However,

as

and

Hall

structures

organizations.

o r g a n i z a t i o n s was d e s c r i b e d

structures.

(1964),

(1968)

in

noted

the

professional

and

The h i e r a r c h y
at

least

activ ities
education,

dual,

in

professional

w it h

se co n d ar y

and

d e a l t w ith through d i f f e r e n t

especially

elementary

education,

was r e g a r d e d as s e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l , t h a t i s , based on t r a i n i n g o f l e s s
than

five

years,

not

addressing

1i f e - a n d - d e a t h

issues,

and

not

c r e a t i n g o r a p p l y in g knowledge b u t communicating i t ( E t z i o n i , 1964).
Sem iprofessional
hierarchies

w ith

professional

bureaucracies
more

direct

were

characterized

supervision

and

less

by

flatter

autonomy

b u r e a u c r a c i e s , though l e s s s u p e r v i s o r c o n t r o l

than

and more

autonomy t h a n in n o n n r o f p s s i o n a l h i i r p a n r v a r i e s (Myers, 1973).
•»

*

Recently,

\

the organizational

d e s c r i b e d ve ry d i f f e r e n t l y .
can

loose

assemb lag es

retain

a c r o s s time t o be r e c o g n i z e d ,

/

has

been

Weick (1979) asked t h e q u e s t i o n :

How

sufficient
labeled,

was t h e co n c e p t o f l o o s e l y coup le d
Simon (19 6 9) .

structure

t

«/

of education

sim ilarity

and

and d e a l t w i t h ?

s y st em s ,

permanence
His answer

based on t h e work o f

Using General Systems Theory in a d d i t i o n t o t h e o r i e s

of bureaucracies

and w i t h

approach

an

regarded

less

organization

emphasis
as

on

composed

ratio n ality ,
of

many

th is

parts

or

26

clusters

of a c tiv ity

depe ndi ng on t h e

grou ps

nature

that

of the

are

tightly

tasks

or

and t h e

loosely

control

co u p l e d ,

structures.

P ar s o ns (1951) had e a r l i e r n ot e d t h e te n d e n c y t o r e e q u i l i b r a t i o n of
a sy stem

following

syst em.

He had

relevant
change

also

respects
in

one

su b u n its.

the

introduction
no te d

the

exceedingly

subunit

Weick

would

(1979)

of

change

possibility

to

of

a

a

part

sy stem

loosely integrated"

(p.

have

effect

less

concluded

or

th at

no

of

the

"in

the

496),

education

where

on o t h e r

is

such

an

organizational stru c tu re .
Such a system was n o t r e g a r d e d n e g a t i v e l y by Weick b ec a u se i t
bestow s

net

im portant

advantages

function

adaptability,

on t h e

for

the

sensitivity,

s y s t e m . The

the

other

coupling,

hand,

offered

and

may

advantages

responsiveness,

sm aller, sh o rter-te rm so lu tio n s.
on

p articip an ts

and

more

serve

include
capacity

to

fads,

for

M e t c a l f ( c i t e d in Wi llowe r, 1982),
a l i s t of

disadvantages

i n c l u d i n g e x a g g e r a t i o n o f t h e im po r ta nc e o f l o c a l

responsiveness

an

fr agm en ted

policy

making,

of loose
events,

in c o m p le t e

and

s c a t t e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n , poor mechanisms f o r d e c i s i o n making r e g a r d i n g
which a d a p t a t i o n s t o p e r p e t u a t e ,

failure

t o communicate new i d e a s ,

and i n t e r n a l s u b u n i t s t r u c t u r e and s t r u c t u r a l r i g i d i t i e s .
Meyer and
structures
legitim ate.

Rowan

that
As

serve
in

(1977)
to

n o te d

define

Parsons’

the

emergence

various

model,

examples o f t h i s t y p e o f i n s t i t u t i o n .

roles

they

of

institutional

as

rational

identified

schools

and
as

They i n d i c a t e d t h a t s p e c i f i c

b u r e a u c r a t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s were d ev el op ed t o

support t h i s

purpose.

27
The emphasis was p l a c e d on t h e p r o c e s s o f e d u c a t i o n unde r a s o c i a l l y
standardized s e t of in s ti tu ti o n a l

c a t e g o r i e s , n o t on t h e p r o d u c t i o n

p r o c e s s e s o f e d u c a t i o n (Meyer, S c o t t , & De al, 1983).

In c o n t r a s t to

the

the

technical

core

and

turns

educational
te ch n ica l

organization,
its

back

organization
activ ity

conforming t o

the

which
on

"faces

the

buffers

occurring

institutional

toward

environm ent"
its

at

in

formal

the

core

(p.

technical
411),

structure
and

en vi ro n m en t.

from

concentrates

In t h e

ca s e

the
the
on

of the

e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l en vi ron m ent i n c l u d e s t h e
community u n d e r s t a n d i n g s .
B u i l d i n g on t h e s e i d e a s , Meyer and Rowan (1983) s u g g e s t e d t h a t
educational
formal

bureaucracies

organization

curriculum ,

is

students,

are

personnel-certifying

responsible
and

for

ritual

teachers.

agencies.

classifications

These

elem ents

of

The
of
the

o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system, a r e t i g h t l y co u p l e d .
However, s c h o o l s have l e s s c o n t r o l
tional

activities

structure

of

mythology has

and t h e o u t p u t s .

the

instructional

been e s t a b l i s h e d ,

o v er t h e t e c h n i c a l / i n s t r u c ­

To s u s t a i n t h e l o o s e l y coupled

areas,
with

the

core,

an i n s t i t u t i o n a l

as su m pt io n s

o f "good f a i t h , "

c o n f i d e n c e in t h e t e a c h e r as p r o f e s s i o n a l .
S e r g io v a n n i (1984) d e s c r i b e d t h e dual s t r u c t u r e by a r g u in g t h a t
s c h o o l s a r e t i g h t l y cou pl ed by t h e symbolic and c u l t u r a l
o f t h e e x c e l l e n t p r i n c i p a l , who s t i r s
works

toward

"the

in teg ratio n

a r t i c u l a t i o n o f key c u l t u r a l
a

school

and

the

linking

and

leadership

" t h e human c o n s c i o u s n e s s "
enhancing

o f meaning,

and
the

s tra n d s t h a t i d e n tif y th e substance of
of

persons

in vo l v ed

in t h e

school’s

28
activ ities

to

v isib ility ,

them "

(p.

8).

com municating

C ultural

educational

leadership
v ision,

includes

presiding

at

cere mon ial f u n c t i o n s , and d e v e l o p i n g and r e i n f o r c i n g symbols.
This

structure

contrasted,

co u pl ed s u b u n i t s o f i n s t r u c t i o n .

by S e r g i o v a n n i ,

w it h

the

loosely

Tea che rs a r e gi v e n a g r e a t deal of

c l a s s r o o m freedom in r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l

training

and

e x p e r i e n c e and t h e g r e a t v a r i e t y o f i n d i v i d u a l needs and s i t u a t i o n s .
Webb

(1983)

described

loose co upling,

activ ity .

insularity,

he s a i d ,

is

to

The

quit,

of

structure,

function

of

i s t o as s u a g e t e a c h e r u n c e r t a i n t y .

decrease

institutional

or t r a n s f e r

runn ing

w it h

disruption

of the

little

with

the

in terch an g eab ility

psychological

t e a c h e r i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o th e
absent,

instructional

fr om t h e p e r s p e c t i v e

technical

function

the

school

teacher

The s o c i a l

by

school.

of

making

no

They can

be

disruption.

Every

t e a c h e r i s a u n i t , and a l l u n i t s a r e f u n c t i o n a l l y i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e .
Assuming t h i s

the o ry does,

in

fact,

describe

schools,

actual

changes a r e more l i k e l y t o o c c u r in t h e formal s t r u c t u r e th a n in t h e
instructional

a c t i v i t i e s c r outcomes.

examples o f t h i s
clusters

are

pattern.

Meyer and Rowan (1383) c i t e d

The i n t e r n a l ,

protected

fr om

both

loosely

internal

coupled

to tal

en v iro n m en ta l p r e s s u r e s and t h e r e f o r e change l i t t l e .
Ston e (1984) s t a t e d ,
schools

seem

activity

system

and

As E b e r t s and

"Reformers and ref or ms come and go, y e t p u b l i c

impervious

to

significant

and

positive

change"

(p.

x iii).
The

structural

basis

f u n c t i o n ( s e e F ig u re 2 . 3 ) .

of

schools,

then,

is

dual,

based

on

The t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e

29
goal-attainm ent

function

pattern-maintenance

in

attainm ent functions
function a c t i v i t i e s .
core of

the

the

are

the

system

society.

loosely

are

The

co u p l ed ,

designed

subunits
as a r e

to

support

serving

the

goal-

integration-

The lo o s e c o u p l i n g p r o v i d e s s t a b i l i t y f o r t h e

sy stem.

pattern-maintenance

of

On t h e
and

other

hand,

instrum ental

adaptation,

have

formal

functions,

structures

with

t i g h t l y cou pl ed s u b u n i t s in o r d e r t o conform t o t h e s t a n d a r d s o f t h e
en v i ro n m en t.
fostering

of

Because

mu st

understandings,

pur po se
in

sym bolically

the

of

the

the

the

related

the

educational

ex pectations,

to

the

maintain

goal-attainm ent

Buffer
Formal S t r u c t u r e

Technical

Activity

N
V

I

Adaptation

Goal a t t a i n m e n t

R
0
N

PatternMaintenance

Integration

With t i g h t l y
co u p l ed , changing
units

With l o o s e l y
co u p l e d , s t a b l e
units

M
E
N
T

F ig u r e 2 . 3 :

the

a buffer

i n t e g r a t i o n f u n c t i o n s t o m a i n t a i n c o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y .

r

the

But beca use o f t h e c o m p le x it y

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n must a l s o

subunits

institution,

society,

reflect

o f t h e e n vi ro nm en t.

o f t h a t en v i ro n m en t,
allow s

the

pattern-maintenance

organization

th a t

of

The f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s in t h e school
as a s o c i a l system.

and

30

In

the

follow ing

en vi ro nm en ta l

aspects

section,

and school

the

specific

indicators

th eo retical

are discussed

and

as th e y

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

The F u n c ti o n s and T h e i r I n d i c a t o r s
In r e l a t i o n t o t h e en v i ro n m e n t, t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
subsy st em,
(H ills,

has

four

1968).

It

probl em s,
has

parallel

needs

for

to

the

viewed as a

internal

instrum ental

functions

capacities,

for

m a i n t a i n i n g consummatory r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f o r becoming i n t e g r a t e d i n t o
the

larg er

c o m m u n it y ,

O rganizations
integration,

mu st

and

for

m aintain

m aintaining

means

legitim ation

which t h e y a r e a p a r t .
or a l l

and

in

for

relation

I f a change o c c u rs

value

commitments.

procurem ent,
to

that

disp o sal,

supersystem

in t h e en v i ro n m en t,

of
any

o f t h e p a r t s o f t h e subsystem must change t o m a i n t a i n t h e s e

means ( P a r s o n s , 1961).

Unions--The Environmental Change I n d i c a t o r
P ar s o ns mentioned l a b o r u nio ns as one example o f t h e r i s e
voluntary a s s o c ia tio n s ,
1981).

V o lu n ta ry

a major e v o l u t i o n

associations

are

those

in o ur
that

society

have

of

(Savage,

an e x e c u t i v e

s t a f f , w ith t h e s t a f f depending on t h e s u p p o r t and c o n t r i b u t i o n s of
t h e members.

He r e g a r d e d uni on s as i m p o r t a n t v e h i c l e s

f o r making

g r i e v a n c e s and demands, t h e n e e d - d i s p o s i t i o n s o f t h e members,
t o b u s i n e s s and government.

known

The " j o i n e r s o f such a s s o c i a t i o n s a r e

analo go us t o d e p o s i t o r s , " ac c o r d in g t o P ar s o ns (1969, p. 6 1 ) .
have " l e n t t h e i r names" t o t h e a s s o c i a t i o n and i t s l e a d e r s ,

They

thereby

31
increasing

the

influence

society.

P arsons

o f t h e group on o t h e r grou ps w i t h i n

(1963)

indicated

that

"politically

the

organized

collectivities

. . . can p r o b a b ly s e r v e as a g e n t s o f c r e a t i v e s o c i a l

change

by v i r t u e

m a in ly

of

this

ty p e

c r e a t i o n o f i n c re m e n t s o f new power"
voluntary

associations

that

have

change by i n f l u e n c e and by power.
the s p ecific
system i s

env iro nm en ta l

the

rise

of

(p.

mechanism,
60).

potential

Unions,

for

then,

causing

unions,

the
are

societal

For t h e p u rp os e o f t h i s

change l i k e l y t o

of teacher

namely,

study,

l e a d t o change in t h e

made l e g a l

in

Michigan

in

1965, and t h e su b se q u en t development o f t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s .

A d a p t a t i o n and I t s Two I n d i c a t o r s :
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n and Community
Participation
With c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h as t h e in d e p en d en t en v i ro n m e n ta l
indicator,
functions

change

s u b u n i t s in v ol ve d in s e r v i n g each o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e
must be examined.

The f i r s t

function,

adaptation,

was

d e f i n e d by Pa rs on s (1973) as t h e development o f modes o f a d a p t a t i o n
not s p e c if i c to
coping

with

particular

a wide

ran ge

e n vi ro nm en ta l
of

exigencies.

exigencies

but u s e f u l

Subunits

serving

in
the

a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n a r e d e s i g n e d t o p r o v id e c o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y
o v e r ti m e

(H ill,

1968).

These

adaptive

p u rs u e a v a r i e t y o f system and u n i t g o a l s .
in advance t o a p a r t i c u l a r g o a l .

subunits

can

be

used

to

They a r e no t committed

In a n o t h e r way o f e x p r e s s i n g t h a t

l a c k o f p a r t i c u l a r commitment o f a d a p t i v e s u b u n i t s ,

Johnson

(1975)

s a i d t h e s e s u b u n i t s p r o v i d e t h e f a c i l i t i e s needed by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n
f o r goal a t t a i n m e n t .

32
Two school i n d i c a t o r s were i d e n t i f i e d in t h i s s t u d y as r e l a t e d
to

the adaptive

function.

participation.

They a r e

centralization

As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,

the

and community

indicators

associated

w i t h t h e a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n a r e assumed t o be t i g h t l y co u p l e d ,
is,

strongly linked.

that

The change i n d i c a t o r i s l i k e l y t o have a more

d i r e c t and r a p i d l y d i f f u s e d e f f e c t on s u b u n i t s a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e s e
two i n d i c a t o r s .
C entralization

is

the

P ar s o ns

(1977)

identified

creating

a concentration

concentration represents

first
forces

indicator
in

society

of opportunity
a shift

to

be

that

considered.
seemed

to

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

in t h e s t r u c t u r e

of the

This

relation

S h i l s (1984) r e f e r r e d t o as t h a t between c e n t e r and p e r i p h e r y .
shift

be

The

i s l i n k e d w it h t h e e v o l u t i o n a r y p r o c e s s e s o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

and i s

termed c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .

toward

shifts

associated

in

with

the

Pa rs ons

opposite

also

n ot e d

direction.

dedifferentiation.

As

some t e n d e n c i e s

D ecentralization

discussed

by

Kochen

is
and

Deutsch (1 98 0) ,
Impressed by t h e i n c r e a s e d c a p a c i t i e s o f modern transport, and
communication, some o b s e r v e r s have con cluded t h a t t h e t h r u s t o f
t e c h n o l o g i c a l development by i t s e l f w i l l promote e v e r more
c e n t r a l i z e d p a t t e r n s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n in many f i e l d s . . . . Some
have ad v oc a te d g r e a t e r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n as a v a l u e , hoping f o r
g a i n s in power, p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , and e f f i c i e n c y .
With equal
p a s s i o n , o t h e r s have adv oc a te d d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n t o b r i n g about
g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t o i n d i v i d u a l and community ne eds , (pp.
1- 2)
E tzioni
authority
less

is

(1964)
held

centralized

centralization

in d icated

th at

by t h o s e lowe r
the

coul d

organization
be r e l a t e d

the

in t h e
is.

either

more

authority
He

to

decision-m aking

the

structure,

suggested
k in d s

of

that

the
low

decisions

33

referred

to

and

aut o no my

given

approved

upward

to

the

centralization

w it h

(a)

level

unit

h ea ds ,

of

the

executive.

or

to

subunits.
the

(c)

norms,
the

(b)

the
the

degree

of

level

of

educational

personality

of

the

The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s p e c i a l i z e d s e r v i c e u n i t s

increasing c e n tr a li z a ti o n ,

according to E tz io n i.

c e n t r a l i z e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s a l lo w f o r l e s s
less

increasing

He a s s o c i a t e d

cultural
and

the

subunit

flexibility

but

more

enforcem ent o f 1a b o r - r e l a tio n s
centralization

(Etzioni,

1964)

experim entation
facilities

standards.
fits

very

leads

to

He c on cl ud ed t h a t

local

support

top

This

and

and

more

discu ssio n

closely

w ith

of

Parsons’

(1973) d e s c r i p t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e s s e r v i n g t h e a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n .
In r e l a t i o n t o t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y , c e n t r a l i z a t i o n was d e f i n e d as
the

shift

in

autonomy a t

decision-making
the

subunit,

the

powers

to

central

school

level.

office

S tr o n g

with

contracts

less
ar e

ex p ec te d t o i n f l u e n c e t h i s s h i f t bec ause (a) t h e y c r e a t e new c e n t r a l
office

roles

contract

w ith

special

devel op men t,

expertise

and

interpretation,

increase

the

d ifferen tiatio n

of

selection

for

example;

the y

and

(c)

facilities

and

designed

enforcement;

m anagerial
routinize

tasks,

(b)

for
th ey

personnel

procedures,

salary

l e v e l s f o r example, a c r o s s t h e d i s t r i c t r a t h e r t h a n by s c h o o l .
The o t h e r i n d i c a t o r r e l a t e d t o t h e a d a p t i v e f u n c t i o n i s t h a t o f
community p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

s t u d y , t o t h a t group o f c i t i z e n s ,
serve

on

councils

school-related

and

projects.

generally parents,

committees
This

refers,

and

group

frequently
serves

as

in

this

who r e g u l a r l y
volunteer

for

interpreter

of

34
environm ental
community.
the

values

the

school

They have a f o r m a l ,

school,

which

d istrict-lev el
representing
check

to

m irrors

board

the

against

and

abu se s

of

values

but l e s s p o w e r f u l,

the

fid u ciary

o f education.

"outside

school

They

interests"
power

of

are

the

r e l a t i o n s h i p to

relatio n sh ip

society

(Savage,

to

of

the

responsible

for

and t o

1981).

act

Pa rs on s

as

a

(1977)

e x p l a i n e d t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r e n t r u s t i n g

to

a

represents

a

subcomplex t h e i n t e r e s t and r i g h t s o f t h e whole.
This
cere mon ial

in d icato r

is

function.

Meetings

Appointm ents

and

also

schedules

tig h tly
are
are

linked

arranged,
made.

and

w ith

Just

formal

dropping

agend as.
in

to

a

cl a s s r o o m i s r e g a r d e d in most s c h o o l s as u n a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o r on a
c itiz e n ’s part.
relationship

to

Thus,
the

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

goal-attainm ent

function

has
of

little

the

direct

school

but

r a t h e r s e r v e s as a b u f f e r between t h e env ironm ent and t h e c o r e , th e
i n s t r u c t i o n o c c u r r i n g in t h e s c h o o l .
Figure
adaptive

2.4

shows

fu nction,

relationship.

the

serving

two
as

indicators
a

associated

th e o re tic al

summary

w ith

the

of

the

35
Function: Adaptation
C o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y o v e r time
in r e l a t i o n t o t h e env ironm ent

Indicators:

C entralization
Adaptation to th e
d i s t r i c t environ me nt

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
A d a p t a t i o n t o t h e school
community envi ron me nt

T i g h t l y cou pl ed w i t h i n
t h e school s e t t i n g .

Figure 2.4:

The f i r s t o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
and i t s i n d i c a t o r s .

P a t t e r n Maintenance and t h e
P r i n c i p a l ’s Authority
The second i n s t r u m e n t a l

function,

pattern-m aintenance,

i s more

complex in meaning bec au se i t r e f e r s t o c u l t u r e and c u l t u r a l v a l u e s .
Pattern-maintenance

refers

c o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y

to

the

im po rta nc e

of

maintaining

the

over time o f t h e s u b u n i t s o r s t r u c t u r e of

t h e system in r e l a t i o n t o t h e i n t e r n a l v a l u e s and e x t e r n a l i n p u t s t o
the

system

ma in te na nc e

(H ill,

1968).

as

processes

the

Johnson
that

(1975)

define

common v a l u e s t h a t g u id e and l e g i t i m a t e

and

explained
m aintain

action w ithin

p atterna

the

set

of

system.

For him, v a l u e s a r e s h ar ed c o n c e p t i o n s o f what p e o p l e sh ou ld s t r i v e
f o r and what t h e y sh oul d a v o i d .

As with each o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e

f u n c t i o n s , p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e can be app roached s t r u c t u r a l l y as d id
H i l l o r in te rm s o f p r o c e s s as d e s c r i b e d by Joh nso n.
Mohan
latency,

(1980)

emphasized

as t h e p e r i o d s

l a t e r papers,

P arsons

pattern-m aintenance

between goal

(1973)

also

attainm ents.

emphasized t h i s

in

term s

of

In one o f h i s
latency

aspect.

36
He s t a t e d t h a t t h e c o n c e p t i s " l a t e n t w it h r e s p e c t t o t h e o p e r a t i v e
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e system"
of maintaining

the

(p. 1 3 ) .

integrity

He used t h e a n al o gy from b io l o g y

of the

species-gene

pool.

For him,

p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e s e r v e s two p u r p o s e s f o r t h e syst em , d i s t i n c t i o n
and

continuity.

Johnson,

he

In

his

explained

article,
th at

w ritten

after

H i l l and b e f o r e

pattern-m aintenance

d efines

the

d i s t i n c t i v e n a t u r e o f t h e system in c o n t r a s t w ith t h e envi ron me nt as
w ell

as

m aintaining

de vel opm ent al

co n tin u ity ,

patterns,

including

o ve r t i m e .

the

continuity

Pattern-maintenance

is

of

" a t th e

same time c o n t r o l l i n g and i n s u l a t e s " (p. 1 3 ) .
Two a s p e c t s o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l
in

this

first,

study
the

as

indicators

organizational

instructional

leadership.

of

the

were c o n s i d e r e d

pattern-maintenance

management

authority

In g e n e r a l ,

and

organizational

function:

sec ond ,

management is

r e f e r r e d t o in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
the

principal

organization.

to

make

decisions

that

further

the

the

goals

of

of
the

The s e l e c t i o n , p la ce m e nt , and e v a l u a t i o n o f s t a f f and

s t u d e n t s a r e examples o f t h i s t y p e of d e c i s i o n .
Based on t h e work o f Meyer and Rowan (19 83) ,
a r e r e g a r d e d as c l a s s i f i c a t o r y ,

these decisions

sy mb oli c, and r i t u a l .

They r e f l e c t

t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f s o c i e t y o f what i s a "good" e d u c a t i o n a l
and s e r v e as t h e b u f f e r f o r t e c h n i c a l
organization.

As H i l l

system

a c t i v i t y occurring w ithin the

(1968) e x p r e s s e d i t when e x p l i c a t i n g P a r s o n s ’

theory,
Sin ce e d u c a t i o n i s s o c i a l i z a t i o n in t h e c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n of
t h e s o c i e t y and s i n c e t h e v a l u e system o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a
c o n c e p t i o n o f a good school w i t h i n what i s e v a l u a t e d as t h e

37
good s o c i e t y , both t h e c o n t e n t o f e d u c a t i o n and t h e r e l a t i o n
between t h e e d u c a t i o n a l u n i t and o t h e r s o c i e t a l u n i t s w i l l be
r e l a t i v e t o t h e s o c i e t a l v a l u e p a t t e r n , (p. 98)
The p r i n c i p a l
concept

of

is

r e s p o n s i b l e f o r making s u r e t h e

"good"

and

is

given

the

power

to

school
ensure

fits
it

this

in

the

m a n a g e r ia l c a p a c i t y .
P ar s o n s

(1951) s a i d t h a t " t h e e x p r e s s i o n

aspect of leadership

r o l e s i n v o l v e s t h e p r o j e c t i o n o f common v a l u e s on t h e l e a d e r so t h a t
l o y a l t y t o t h e v a l u e s and l e a d e r a r e

indistinguishable"

(p.

He a l s o emphasized t h e d i f f u s e n e s s o f t h e l e a d e r s h i p r o l e .
the

basic

purpose of

maintenance,

this

the

educational

statement

is

in stitu tio n

especially

true

of

is

school

38 4) .
Because

patternleaders.

T h e i r e x p r e s s i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s always key.
While modern power, f o r Pa rs o ns ( 1 9 51 ) , im p li e d a c t i o n w i t h i n a
bureaucratic

settin g

and,

more

sp ecifically ,

the

ab ility

to

s a n c t i o n , p u n is h , and rew ard , P arsons (1963) added,
I t i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e t o d e f i n e power as a g e n e r a l i z e d medium
o f d e t e r r e n c e , b u t r a t h e r o f m o b i l i z i n g t h e p er fo rm a nc e o f
b in d i n g o b l i g a t i o n , w it h t h e c o n d i t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e
im position o f n egative s a n c t i o n s - - i n the s i t u a t i o n a l
case,
" p u n i s h m e n t " - - i n t h e c a s e o f noncompliance.
The i n t e n t i o n o f
ego, however, i s n o t t o p u ni s h but t o s e c u r e p er f o r m a n c e , (p.
45)
Power

is

the

b asis

for

the

organizational

m a n ag em e nt

of

the

principal.
Pa rs ons
addressed

later

a second t y p e

influential
attitudes

(1963)

leadership
and

necessarily

opinions

rational)

also

dev el o pe d

of le a d e r s h ip .
that
of

involves

others

action"

( p.

Th is
"having

th r o u g h
38).

a second
type
an

concept,

emphasized

the

effect

on

the

(though

not

intentional
For him,

which

influence

was a

38

symbolic means o f p e r s u a s i o n .
the

second

and

instructional

third

He dev el o pe d f o u r t y p e s o f i n f l u e n c e ,

types

most

leadership.

d ifferen tial,

and

The

in teg rativ e

relevant
types

to

are

the

discussion

p olitical,

in terp retatio n .

of

fiduciary,

The

fid u ciary

ty p e i n v o l v e s t h e im po rta n ce o f s u b j e c t i n g t h e r e s o u r c e a l l o c a t i o n s
o f t h e s yst em t o t h e norms and v a l u e s o f t h e sy ste m , and t h e f o u r t h
type

refers

to

the

balancing

of

the

l o y a l t i e s o f the system’s a c to rs

appeals

of

the

differential

to varied values.

Both o f t h e s e

a r e assumed t o be in v o l v e d in i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p .
The two a s p e c t s o f a u t h o r i t y ,
the

early

Greeks

(M itchell,

power and i n f l u e n c e , go back to

1983).

They r e l a t e d

the

ability

to

t h r e a t e n a c t i o n t o t h e f i r s t and t h e s u b s t a n c e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r and
ro le of the

individual

t o t h e se cond.

These d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s

fit

c l o s e l y with those of Parsons.
S c ir e l li’s

(1986)

work

explained

the

difference

theory.

He

described

on

between

vol u n t a r i s t i c
power and

voluntaristic

action

influence

action

as

in

that

of organization.

S cirelli

form w i t h t h e p r o f e s s i o n s .
case te a c h in g ,

has

This ty p e

form r a t h e r th a n t h e c o e r c i v e form

specifically

associated

the

collegial

The form al lo w s t h e p r o f e s s i o n s ,

in t h i s

t o m a i n t a i n autonomy and i n t e g r i t y and t o p r o v i d e a

more g e n e r a l i z e d b a s i s

fo r the nonauthoritarian

of

following

others.

Parsons’

which

q u a l i t a t i v e w o r l d l y ends and s h a r e d symbols and norms.
of action leads to the c o lle g ia l

fu rth er

(See

the

section

disc u ssio n of the t e a c h e r ’ s p rofessional

for
role.)

social

integration

further

theoretical

The i n s t r u c t i o n a l

39
leadership

of the p r in c i p a l,

then,

is

not

based

on power b u t

in t h i s

framework,

on

i n f l u e n c e , p e r s u a s i o n r a t h e r th a n c o e r c i o n .
In stru ctio n al

leadership

includes,

the

p o l i c y and development o f c u r r i c u l u m as well as t h e methodology and
content of in s tru c tio n .

Again, based on t h e work o f Meyer and Rowan

(19 83) , t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a r e a l s o r i t u a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , s e r v i n g t o
reinforce

the

good

faith,

the

logic

of

confidence,

necessary

to

s u s t a i n t h e system.
F i g u r e 2 . 5 shows t h e p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e f u n c t i o n

in r e l a t i o n

t o t h e two a u t h o r i t y i n d i c a t o r s in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

Function: Pattern-Maintenance
C o n t i n u i t y and s t a b i l i t y o f v a l u e s o ve r
time in r e l a t i o n s among t h e u n i t s

Organizational
Management
(Power)

Indi cators:

Instructional
L e a d e r s h ip
(Influence)

Both a r e r e g a r d e d
as t i g h t l y coupled
in t h e school s e t t i n g .

Figure 2.5:

The second o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and
it s indicators.
(Based on H i l l s , 1968, and Meyer
& Rowan, 1983 .)

As d i s c u s s e d
community
tional

earlier,

participation,

lead ersh ip ,

adaptation

and

all

of the

indicators,

organizational

a s s o c i a t e d w ith th e

pattern-m aintenance,

formal s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e school

are

centralization,

management,

and

instrum ental
regarded

as

in stru c­

functions,
part

and a r e t i g h t l y c o u p l e d .

of

the

Based on

40

t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e t y p e s o f l i n k a g e s and th e
p r o c e s s o f change, t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s a r e more l i k e l y t o have changed
o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s ,

i n f l u e n c e d by c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h ,

consummatory f u n c t i o n s ,

th a n a r e t h o s e

l o o s e l y coupled i n d i c a t o r s d i s c u s s e d in t h e

next section.

Goal A t ta in m e n t and t h e
T ea ch er as P r o f e s s i o n a l
The

follow ing

discussion

addresses

the

two

consummatory

f u n c t i o n s , which a r e assumed t o be in v ol ve d w it h a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f
lin k a g e , lo o se ly coupled.
includes

two

teacher

p articip atio n

in

The consummatory g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t f u n c t i o n

professional

decision

role

making.

indicators,
Goal

autonomy

attainm ent

has

and
b ee n

d e s c r i b e d as t h e p r o c e s s o f d e f i n i n g common g o a l s w i t h i n t h e v al u e
sy ste m,
goals

determining
(Jo hn so n,

(H ills,

1975)

1968 ).

facilitate
oriented

relationships

behavior

(1973)

sy stems t o

capacities
is

and

in d uc in g

or g r a t i f i c a t i o n

Pa rs o ns

"needs o f a c t i o n
env ironm ent

priorities,

discussed

establish

and

of the
specific,

in

the

attainm ent,

Thus,

relation
goal

structures

system t o

toward
to

specific

and

do t h i s "

and s h o r t - t e r m

as

which

14 ).

relation

the

system-

processes
(p.

in

these

environment

attainm ent

relatively

en vi ronment when compared w ith a d a p t i v e ,
activities.

action

Goalto

th e

l o n g e r te rm , more g e n e r a l

in P a r s o n s ’ example o f t h e s p e c i f i c i t y o f goal

a hungry,

mobile animal

establishes

s o u r c e s and g a i n s c o n t r o l o f food o b j e c t s .

c o n t a c t w ith

food

41
Goal a t t a i n m e n t in t h i s s t u d y was a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e t e c h n i c a l
activ ity

of

professional
roles.

the

school

role.

and,

Pa rs ons

therefore,

had

much

to

w ith
say

the

abo ut

Keeping in mind t h e r e s e r v a t i o n s o f E t z i o n i

(1970),

and

others

sem iprofessionals,

that

teachers,

nevertheless,

esp ecially

Parsons’

teach er’s
professional

(19 6 4) , Ja ck so n
elem entary,

explorations

shed

are
some

l i g h t on t h e t e a c h e r ’ s r o l e in goal a t t a i n m e n t .
Every r o l e ,
obligations.

for

P arsons

(19 51 ),

has

a pattern

of

solidarity

Most o f t h e s e o b l i g a t i o n s a r e c o n t i n g e n t on s p e c i f i c

s itu a tio n a l conditions th a t influence expectations of a l t e r s

and o f

ego.

o f th e

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y means conforming w it h t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s

collectivity.

The p o t e n t i a l

for role c o n flic t

is

f a c t t h a t each a c t o r has a p l u r a l i t y o f r o l e s .
occur

in

the

p articu lar

area

of

pattern

conformity,

expected

or

strain
lack

of

in

inherent

in th e

Two main problems
conforming

clarity

w it h

the

regarding

the

no rm at iv e p a t t e r n .
Par sons (1970, 1973) emphasized t h a t t h e n o r m a t iv e p a t t e r n f o r
p r o f e s s i o n a l s i s c l e a r l y one o f autonomy.
is

the

freedom t o

p erf orm r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

classroom

situation

W illower

(1982)

threshold.
rather

related

That i s ,

h ig h t h r e s h o l d

re a c h e d .

and

based

on

teacher

Autonomy in t h i s c o n t e x t
as

individual
aut o no my

appropriate
teacher
to

the

to

the

decisions.
concept

of

t e a c h e r s have cl a s s r o o m autonomy as long as a
of unacceptable

values

or

behaviors

is

not

On t h e o t h e r hand, t e a c h e r s can and w i l l w i t h h o l d s u p p o r t

f o r t h e a d j u s t m e n t s o f t h r e s h o l d by t h e p r i n c i p a l
e i th e r th a t the principal

i f th e y p e r c e i v e

has wrong v a l u e s o r u s e s honor and shame

42

inappropriately

(M itchell

& Spady,

198 3) .

The

autonomy

of

the

t e a c h e r i s one r e s u l t o f t h e good f a i t h d e s c r i b e d by Meyer and Rowan
(1983) and as such i s a p a r t o f t h e t e c h n i c a l

a c t i v i t y b u f f e r e d by

t h e formal s t r u c t u r e .
Classroom autonomy i s
addressed

in

th is

the

study.

o nl y t y p e o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
The

aut o no my

of

the

autonomy

professional

o r g a n i z a t i o n o r group from o u t s i d e r e g u l a t i o n ( J a c k s o n , 1970) i s not
i n c l u d e d e x c e p t as i t r e l a t e s t o t h e s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t la n g u a g e .
One theme o f many e x i s t e n t i a l
aut o no my

( M a n n in g ,

deracionation,

1973).

They

m assificatio n ,

co m p le x it y and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n

the

coupling

long

ru n ,

the

of

the

tech n ical

routinization

and

relates

see

fr om

of society .

initial

to

the lo ss

deindividuation

resultin g

t h i s would be l o s s o f autonomy.
in

w riters

the

In t h e

of
and

in creasin g

school

setting

While t h e s e a u t h o r s may be c o r r e c t
hypothesis

activ ities

d ifferentiation

built

assumed
in

a

into

that

the

school
a

loose

makes

the

strong

contract

u n l i k e l y t o have had a c o n s i s t e n t n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on t h i s

indicator

as y e t .
In a d d i t i o n ,

goal

a t t a i n m e n t o c c u r s th ro u g h t h e

decision

making

im p lie d

in

the

collegial

action.

P ars on s (1970) s a i d , f o r example,

forms

of

they

are

considerable

involved
autonomy

in

co llectiv e

[from o t h e r

voluntaristic

"The p r o f e s s i o n s c l e a r l y

do no t te n d toward a b u r e a u c r a t i c ty p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
as

participative

decision

groups]"

(p.

b u t , so f a r

making,

856).

The

claim
other

43
aspect of the teacher professional

role

in t h i s

s t u d y was one o f

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c o l l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n making, what Pa rs o ns c a l l e d t h e
" c o l l e g i a l " p a t t e r n (p. 8 5 6 ).

Thi s a s p e c t o f t h e r o l e i s r e l a t e d t o

decisions affecting

t h e perf or ma nce o f t h e p o s i t i o n

study,

related

only

those

instructional

decisions.

to

d irect,

F ig u r e

2.6

and,

for this

in -th e-classro o m

shows

the

third

and/or

im perative

f u n c t i o n and t h e school i n d i c a t o r s in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

F u n c t i o n : Goal A t ta in m e n t
The development o f and a c t i v i t i e s toward t h e
system’ s goals

Indicators:

Classroom Autonomy

P articipative
D e c is io n Making

Loosely co u p l ed .

F ig u r e 2 . 6 :

The t h i r d o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and
it s indicators.

I n t e g r a t i o n and t h e Two I n d i c a t o r s :
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n and Tension in
S t a f f Rel a t i on s h i ps
The f o u r t h
functions

function

in P a r s o n s ’ model

is th at of integration.

Integration

r e l a t i o n s among u n i t s ( H i l l s , 1968).
integration
emo tio nal

as

the

processes

relations.

of the

four

im perative

is g ra tific a tio n

Mohan and Wilke (1980) d e f i n e d

maintaining

appropriate

"An i n t e g r a t e d s o c i a l

social

Parsons

increasing

(1973)

explained

differentiation,

the

in teg ratio n
natural

and

system i s one in which

t h e r e i s mutual a c c e p t a n c e o f u n i t s in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s "
20).

in

by

evolution

noting
in

a

(p.
th at

complex

44

system ,

wo ul d r e s u l t

in

increasing

co n flict

w ith o u t m ediating

mechanisms, t h o s e a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e i n t e g r a t i v e f u n c t i o n .
(1951)

said

the

integrative

s o c i a l sy stem f a l l

foci

of the

functional

P arsons

problems o f a

i n t o two c l a s s e s , t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e l i m i t s o f

p e r m i s s i v e n e s s f o r t h e s e l f - o r i e n t a t i o n and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
of the in t e g r a ti v e function c o l le c t iv e l y ,

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and so on.

He i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e most fundamental p r o c e s s e s o f s o c i a l

control,

s u p p o r t , p e r m i s s i v e n e s s , and r e s t r i c t i o n o f r e c i p r o c a t i o n , a r e found
in

the

n or m al

integrated

processes

sy st em .

Parsons,

to

both

The
the

of

in teractio n

integrative
different

in

an

function

ro les

of

in stitu tio n ally

refers,
one

then,

for

and

the

actor

coordination of behavior of d i f f e r e n t in d iv id u a ls.
The two i n d i c a t o r s
were j o b

satisfaction

in d icato rs

refer

a s s o c i a t e d w it h
and t e n s i o n

to

the

in

integration

staff

individual’s

m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h e work, t h e t e c h n i c a l

in

this

stu dy

relationships.

o rien tatio n

activities,

These

toward

and

and tow ard t h e i r

f e l l o w p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t o r s in t h e system ( S i l v e r , 19 83 ).
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n

i s t h e com b in at io n o f t h o s e

basic

needs

growth i n d i c a t o r s t h a t a t t r a c t and keep t h e a c t o r s / t e a c h e r s
job.
that

Herzberg
this

h y g ie n e .

( 1 9 66 ) ,

c o m b in at io n
Motivation

based
is

on e x t e n s i v e

actually

aspects

research,

two c a t e g o r i e s ,

of the

job

situation,

and

on t h e

hypothesized

motivation
when

and

present,

fu lfill

t h e a c t o r ’ s need f o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l g ro w th.

fu lfill

t h e a c t o r ’ s p a i n - a v o i d a n c e needs on t h e j o b b u t te n d t o be

extrinsic

to

the

work

itself.

While

their

Hygiene a s p e c t s

abs en ce

is

painful,

45
d issatisfy in g ,
categories

th eir

seem

to

presence
represent

is

not

two

satisfy in g .

d ifferen t

These

classes

two

of

the

t e a c h e r / a c t o r ’ s work e x p e r i e n c e , a c c o r d i n g t o S i l v e r (19 83 ).
There i s a c l e a r a f f i n i t y between Maslow’ s h i e r a r c h y o f needs
and H e r z b e r g ’ s c a t e g o r i e s
(cited

in S i l v e r ,

1983)

of job
regarded

factors
needs

(Silver,

1983 ).

Maslow

as o r g a n i s m i c d e f i c i e n c i e s

t h a t g e n e r a t e t e n s i o n w i t h i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l in t h e s e n s e t h a t system
d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n g e n e r a t e s t h e system goal
Smelser

(19 85) .

Thus,

both

the

attainm ent,

goal-attainm ent

according to

and

integration

f u n c t i o n s a r e r e l a t e d in t h a t t h e y a r e consummatory.
Integration
( H i l l s , 1968).

also

refers

to

the

mutual

support

of

the

units

This a s p e c t i n c l u d e s , t h e n , t h e s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

d e f i n e d as t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t r u s t , r e s p e c t , and warmth on t h e p a r t
o f t h e s t a f f and t h e i r p o s i t i v e

awareness o f

interdependence

( s ee

F ig u r e 2 . 7 ) .

F u n c ti o n :
Integration
The p r o c e s s e s m a i n t a i n i n g a p p r o p r i a t e
s o c i a l and emotional r e l a t i o n s .

Indicators:

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

Tension in
S ta ff Relationships

Loosely co u p l e d .

F ig u r e 2 . 7 :

The f o u r t h o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
and i t s i n d i c a t o r s .

G e t z e l s and Guba (1957),
theory,

indicated

that

each

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

system

has

a

social

systems
and

a

46

p s y c h o l o g i c a l e n t i t y , t h e nom ot he ti c and t h e i d i o g r a p h i c di m e n s io n s .
One

of

the

elem ents

dispositions,

of

the

psychological

which a r e t h e o r i e n t a t i o n s

is

th at

toward s o c i a l

of

need-

objects

and

t h e t e n d e n c i e s t o behave in a p a r t i c u l a r way toward t h o s e o b j e c t s .
The o b j e c t s in t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n d i c a t o r a r e o t h e r s t a f f members,
the individual

t e a c h e r s ’ t e n d e n c i e s toward a c t i o n v i s - a - v i s

others

( S i l v e r , 1983).

Framework Summary
In summary, t h e t h e o r e t i c a l
structural
others.

functionalist

basis

built

on

the

work

of

Pa rsons

and

Systems a r e assumed t o have f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s t h a t

must be s e rv e d by t h e p r o c e s s e s
order

framework f o r t h i s st u d y assumed a

for

the

system

to

and s t r u c t u r e s

survive.

Change

of the
occurs

subunits
when

a

in
new

env iro nm en ta l f o r c e o r an i n t e r n a l s t r a i n o c c u r s t o which t h e system
i s u na bl e t o a d j u s t th r o u g h i t s usu al mechanisms.

The n a t u r e o f t h e

l i n k a g e s between s u b u n i t s f a c i l i t a t e s o r i n h i b i t s such change.
This
associated

framework i d e n t i f i e d
w ith

each o f t h e

and examined two school

four

functions.

were c o n s i d e r e d f o r each o f t h e e i g h t

Nominal

indicators.

indicators
definitions

The i n d i c a t o r s

were th e n p l a c e d in t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e f u n c t i o n with which t h e y a r e
associated.

The framework i s

presented

p r o v i d i n g a summary o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p
the in d ic a to rs .

in d e t a i l
between t h e

in

Figure 2.8 ,

functions

and

47
SOURCES FOR CHANGE

Time:

1967-1987

L e v e l : Secondary
and Elementary

D is tric t Identity

Contract Strength
1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I

LINKAGE

Formal S t r u c t u r e
( t i g h t l y coup le d)

CHANGE

EDUCATIONAL

Intearation
1 . Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
0

T o n e l nn

t w i u t wn

-i »-*
in

<*4- ■TT
t,a 1 1

3

i

relationships

“ ■
“h
-5
O

c

-o

O
O

Pattern-Maintenance
P r in c i p a l’s auth o rity
1. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
management
2. I n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d ­
ership

INSTRUMENTAL - ( ) - De

Goal A tt a in m e n t
Teacher’s p rofessional
r o l e in
1. I n s t r u c t i o n a l
autonomy
2. P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
instructional d eci­
sions

INSTITUTION

Adaptation
1. C e n t r a l i z a t i o n
2. Community p a r t i c i p a ­
tion

T ec h n ic al A c t i v i t y
( l o o s e l y c ou p l ed )

) - CONSUMMATORY

NO CHANGE
j

Figure 2.8:

T h e o r e t i c a l framework a p p l i e d t o p o t e n t i a l
empirical p a tte rn s fo r t h i s study.

CHAPTER I I I
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction
Although t h e r e does n o t a p p e a r t o be any s t u d y , o v e r t i m e , t h a t
s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d t h e c o n c e p t s and i n d i c a t o r s in c l u d e d in t h i s
study,

many s t u d i e s a r e d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o s p e c i f i c p a r t s o f t h i s

study.

Th ere a r e s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e c o n c e p t s o f change and o f

organizational
in d icato rs

linkages.

of

centralization,

union

There

are

stren g th ,

studies

addressing

school-level

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

the

d ifferen ces,

the p r i n c i p a l ’s au th o rity ,

t e a c h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
In t h e f o l l o w i n g p a g e s ,
i s reviewed on t h r e e l e v e l s :

each o f t h e s e c o n c e p t s
(a )

a r evi ew o f t h e g e n e r a l

a s s o c ia te d with the concept or i n d i c a t o r ,

concept

or

indicator

specifically

studies

(b) a r e v ie w o f s t u d i e s of

t h e co n c e p t o r i n d i c a t o r in t h e school s e t t i n g ,
the

and i n d i c a t o r s

and (c ) a r ev ie w o f

related

to

teacher

unions

and/or c o n tra c ts .

Change
Two p r ob le m s ,

unit

size

change s t u d i e s (Hunt, 1972).

and

duration,

are

evident

in

most

In a d d i t i o n , most o f t h e r e s e a r c h has

a d d r e s s e d pla nne d change r a t h e r th a n t h e n o r m a l / n a t u r a l

change t h a t

o c c u r s as ac t o r s/ m e m b e r s a t t e m p t t o m a i n t a i n t h e e q u i l i b r i u m o f th e

48

49
s ystem.

The

extensive

s tu d y v e r y d i f f i c u l t .

indications

complexity

of

the

and

change

size

of

modern

However,

patterns

organizations

the

found

studies

in

make

do p r o v i d e

organizations

and

s p e c i f i c a l l y in e d u c a t i o n a l syst ems as w e l l .

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Change
As d i s c u s s e d

in White and Bednar (1 9 86 ),

most

change s t u d i e s

have appro ac hed change th r o u g h t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f Kurt Lewin’ s Force
Field Analysis.
lo c k ed

Lewin assumed t h a t

between d r i v i n g

sy stems

and r e s t r a i n i n g

were

forces.

in

equilibrium ,

Change o c c u r s

by

i n c r e a s i n g t h e d r i v i n g f o r c e s , d e c r e a s i n g t h e r e s t r a i n i n g f o r c e s , or
b o th .
Several

studies

resistance

to

chang e.

identified

that

serve

h av e

addressed

Among
to

reduce

inv olvement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
resources,

the

methods

main
the

of

reducing

organizational
resistance

indicators

are

(b) s t r o n g l y f e l t need ,

the

(a )
(c)

group

a de qu a te

(d) esteemed s p o n s o r , and (e) pl a n o f a c t i o n (Hunt, 1972;

White & Bednar, 19 8 6) .

The p o r t o f e n t r y f o r t h e change a l s o makes

a d i f f e r e n c e (Hunt, 197 2).
Watson and K l e i n , both in 1967 ( c i t e d in Hunt, 1972), con cluded
separately
in ertia.
More

that

to

change

is

functional

in

Hannan
mo de rn

and

Freeman

so cieties

(1984)
favor

argued
reliab le,

o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a high l e v e l o f i n e r t i a .
that,

and

not

just

Judd and Milburn (1980) found s u p p o r t f o r t h a t c o n c l u s i o n .

recently,

pressures

resistance

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

that

selection

accountable

These r e s e a r c h e r s found
i n e r t i a i n c r e a s e s with

50
organizational
research

on

age and s i z e .
change,

Beer

stated

th at

re s e a rc h e rs are very c e r t a i n .

( 1 9 80 ) ,
there

in

is

his

one

r ev ie w

thing

of

th e

of

w h ic h

O r g a n i z a t i o n s do change when

under

p r e s s u r e and r a r e l y change when t h e y a r e n o t .
Each

of

the

organizational
change

from

perspective,

a leadership

( 1 9 67 ) ,

Reddin

propo se d

the

studies

in

leadership

studies

( 1 9 70 ) ,

cited

b u t many s t u d i e s
perspective,

and L i k e r t

C on ti ng enc y- Ba se d
Canada,

Belgium,

training

approached

of

have
as

(19 61) .

Model
and

such

those

Leadership,

in

He

group

The key i n d i c a t o r s were t h e l e a d e r ’ s m o t i v a t i o n a l
d e g r e e o f power t h e s i t u a t i o n

t h e outcomes e x p e c t e d .

an

considered
of

Fiedler

for

example,

based

on

c on cl ud ed
change

his
that

patterns.

patterns

allowed t h e l e a d e r .

emphasized t h e c o m p le x it y o f change.

from

also

Fiedler,

elsewhere.

made no d i f f e r e n c e

change

and t h e

In a d d i t i o n ,

he

Change does n o t always l e a d t o

Hunt (1972) and Luthans

(1977) had s i m i l a r

findings.
The g e n e r a l

organizational

t h e c o n c e p ts e x p l o r e d by P a r s o n s .

studies

have s u p p o r t e d

t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o change,

in an o r g a n i z a t i o n

in o r d e r t o a c h i e v e change.

im p o rt a n c e o f

en v i ro n m e n ta l

situational

aspects.

pressure or in ternal

They
strain

of

F in d in g s i n d i c a t e d t h e n e c e s s i t y

o f overcoming t h e e q u i l i b r i u m a c t i v i t i e s ,

the

several

aspects--in

presented

the

They s t r e s s e d

F iedler’s

necessity

b e f o r e change o c c u r s .

term s,

for

the
the

external

They documented

t h e c o m p le x it y o f t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h e n e e d - d i s p o s i t i o n of
the

actors

and s u b u n i t

collectivities

in v o l v e d

in

change.

confi rm ed t h e im por tan ce o f v a l u e s in t h e change p r o c e s s .

They

51

Change From t h e School P e r s p e c t i v e
In summarizing t h e r e s u l t s
d istricts

in

the

U nit ed

o f t h e i r own s t u d i e s o f 76 school

States

and

development p r o j e c t s were o c c u r r i n g ,
and Schmuck in Oregon and Ba s s in
Miles,

Canada where
as well

organizational-

as t h e work o f Runkel

and Gross

in

New York,

Fullan,

and T a y l o r (1980) s t r e s s e d f o u r r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r s u c c e s s f u l

school

change:

existence

of

(a )

to p

management

organizational

i n s i d e change a g e n t .

support,

pr oblems,

Scheinfield

and

(b)

(d)

funding,

stim ulation

(c)

of

an

(1980) d e s c r i b e d a s tu d y o f two

l a r g e urban d i s t r i c t s t h a t found t h a t t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s must e x i s t in
the three central

a s p e c t s o f school l i f e ,

organizational

clim ate,

and

in

the

sim ultaneously,

f o r change in t h e school

in t h e c l a s s r o o m ,

school/com m unity
organization

in th e

relatio n s

to

occur

at

the classroom l e v e l .
C o r b e t t (1982) found t h a t t h e r e t e n d s t o be an e x t e n s i v e drop
o f f in t h e amount o f change t h a t p e r s i s t s .
m aintain

changed

incentives
Because
principal

such

of

as

teacher

verbal

p ractice

w ith

encouragement

isolation,

according

effectiv e

and w r i t t e n
to

this

in trin sic

compliments.

researcher,

the

i s t h e pr im ar y s o u r ce f o r t h e s e i n c e n t i v e s .

G oodlad’ s

(1983)

emphasized s e v e r a l
evidence

classroom

P r i n c i p a l s were a b l e to

of

summary

of

his

study

conclusions

a s p e c t s o f t h e change p r o c e s s .

variation

in

school

and

c l a ss r o o m

r e l a t i o n s h i p s but l i t t l e

evidence of v a r ia t i o n

and c u r r i c u l u m c o n t e n t .

He found t h a t

also

He r e p o r t e d much
climate

and

in

in t e a c h i n g methods

h i s d a t a on 1,350 t e a c h e r s

52

indicated th a t te a c h e r s ’ professional

values c lo se ly re fle c te d

b r o a d e r e x p e c t a t i o n s and v a l u e s o f s o c i e t y .
of

no

change

as

stagnation

and

the

He r e g a r d e d t h e s t a t e

d isin teg ratio n .

He

found

a

" s i p h o n i n g o f f " ( p . 554) o f e n e r g i e s t o a c t i v i t i e s u n r e l a t e d t o t h e
main i n t e r e s t s
vital

en er g y

and a c t i v i t i e s
in

of schooling.

non-goal-attainm ent,

T h i s consummation o f

according

to

Goodlad,

makes

change o r renewal in t h e c l a ss ro o m much more d i f f i c u l t .
Two r e c e n t s t u d i e s t h a t examined change in t h e

instructional,

t e c h n i c a l - a c t i v i t i e s s u b u n i t s o f t h e s c h o o l s , t h e Rand s tu d y (1975)
and

the

Brookings

resulting

study

from f e d e r a l

(19 75 ),

found

intervention

where changes d id o c c u r ,

little

programs.

evidence
Their

of

change

conclusions,

confirm ed t h o s e o f F u l l a n e t

al.

(1980),

w ith emphasis on management s u p p o r t and a c t i v e s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

Teach er Unions and Change
In te rm s o f t h e t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t i t s e l f ,
(1979)

found e v i d e n c e o f change in c o n t r a c t

and 1975.

In s t u d y i n g

the

contracts

found t h a t t h e change was uneven.

of

McDonnell
strength

and Pascal

between 1970

133 d i s t r i c t s ,

they

also

S ev er al o t h e r s t u d i e s were found

t h a t documented t h e p a t t e r n in p r o v i s i o n s f o r d i s t r i c t s bu t t h a t did
not

address

change

in p r o v i s i o n s

(Eberts

& S to n e ,

1984;

Joh ns on ,

1984).
Willower (1982) found t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e b a r g a i n i n g u n i t ,
in terms o f s i z e and i n f l u e n c e , d i d no t r e l a t e t o p e r c e i v e d changes

53
in d i s t r i b u t i o n o f power w i t h i n t h e syst em .

This study,

ten years

i n t o c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , found l i t t l e p e r c e i v e d change.

Summary o f Change S t u d i e s
In

sum m arizing

the

change

patterns

found

in

general

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t u d i e s , in school s t u d i e s , and in c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h ,
s e v e r a l o f t h e f u n c t i o n a l i s t and n e o - f u n c t i o n a l i s t p e r s p e c t i v e s seem
to

be

confirmed.

Second,
or

F irst,

there

is

strong

resistance

i f change o c c u r s i t w i l l o c c u r un e v e n l y .

sponsorship

participation

is
of

a
the

key

ingredient

system

members

to

change.

Third, le ad ersh ip

in

change.

Fourth,

is

necessary

for

active

change

to

occur.

Linkages
The

concept

of

linkages

and

lo o sely

or

tig h tly

coupled

o r g a n i z a t i o n s has been e x p l o r e d f o r many y e a r s .

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Linkages
Nord (1976) d e s c r i b e d t h e

as su mp ti on s o f such

studies.

te rm system r e f e r s t o an e n t i t y w ith i n t e r d e p e n d e n t p a r t s "

"The

(p. 298) .

The p a r t s a r e l i n k e d so t h a t change in one p a r t a f f e c t s o t h e r p a r t s .
Systems

are

divided

into

op en

system s,

which

respond

to

the

en v i ro n m e n t, and c l o s e d s y st em s , which do n o t .
Nord (1976)
B ritish

firm s,

technological

a l s o d e s c r i b e d t h e Burns and
in

which

in n o v a t i o n

it
were

was

found

associated

Stalker

s tu d y o f 20

that d iffere n t

rates

of

with d i f f e r e n t

k in ds o f

54
organizational
of

100

structures.

E nglish

m anufacturing

im p o r ta n c e o f d i f f e r e n t
varied

with

technology

the

of
to

in Nord,

found

gro u ps

production

Magnusen

using th e se id e as.

firm s

functional

type

advances

relationships.

Woodward’ s ( c i t e d

th at

the

and t h e i r

sy ste m .

1976)

relativ e

relationships

She

also

related

organizational

structures

him self

14 m a n u f a c t u r i n g

studied

st u d y

and

power
f ir m s

He co n cl ud ed t h a t l i n k a g e s v a r i e d i n t e r n a l l y in

n o n r o u t i n e , h i g h - v a r i e t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s by f u n c t i o n o f t h e sub sys te m.
L ikert
prescriptive

(1976)

w rote

approach

cross-functional

to

business

extensively
organizations

about
assumed

teams and m a t r i x

the

most

effective

linkage

the

structure

and

was

to

structures.

and t h e b e s t t y p e ,

His

necessity

organizations

t h e l i n k a g e problems i n h e r e n t in h i e r a r c h i c a l
were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o f o u r t y p e s ,

linkages.

of

solve

Systems

System 4,

therefore

had

the

most

In summary, t h e s e a u t h o r s and r e s e a r c h e r s te n d e d t o f i n d

some

fl exible.

relatio n sh ip
a
V I

j U I I

th ey

l & U V

a*>
c
I V I I J

between
UIIM

associated

function

and

«.n + ^ i »
> r i i h c w r f nmr

n^

*1 | O i l

VI

i l l

O U V v j

V O VI IIV

organizational

linkages,
avpa *
i wi ^
V i ^jUII l 4 V l t

both

■
»An r
I V I I V f

effectiv en ess

as

Tn
*■ I I

between
mnn v
tj

I I I UI

aacap
v u v v v

measured

by

p r o d u c t i v i t y w ith t h e f u n c t i o n s and t y p e s o f l i n k a g e s .

Linkages in t h e School S e t t i n g
With s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o t h e school

setting,

recent

studies

have found some e v i d e n c e t o c o n f i r m t h e c on ce p t o f both l o o s e
t i g h t c o u p l i n g in t h e school
f o r example,

organization.

Rowan (1982)

in h i s s t u d y o f 30 C a l i f o r n i a d i s t r i c t s

and

reported,

o v e r t h e 1930

55
to

1970 p e r i o d ,

likely

to

have

that

personnel

and f i n a n c i a l

been

d ifferentiated,

while

functions

were more

instruction

was

less

likely.
Meyer,

Scott,

adm inistrators
practices.

Co le ,

and

In ti 1i

and t e a c h e r s

(1978)

in

about school

1978

ru les,

asked

school

p o licies,

and

They found low c on s en s us and conc lu ded t h a t s c h o o l s were

loo sely coupled.
Abramovitz and Tenenbaum (1 9 78 ), r e p o r t i n g in t h e same p e r i o d ,
drew s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s .
principals,

In t h e i r 1978 st u d y o f s e co n da r y school

Abramovitz and Tenenbaum found t h a t

high s c h o o l s

are

less

d ifferentiated,

"organizationally,

more p a r t i c i p a t o r y

and more

l o o s e l y s t r u c t u r e d th a n some p e o p l e cla im" (p. 5 8 ) .

They i d e n t i f i e d

t h e p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s as t h e pr im ar y a c t o r s .

They n ot e d t h a t

"some r u l e s e x i s t f o r t e a c h e r s ,

bu t n o t in

The formal s t r u c t u r e d i d r e l a t e ,
the

school’ s

instructional

course o f f e r in g s
co n cl u de d ,

for

complexity.

study,

that

important

example,

aspects

adm inistrative

m atters."

t o some a s p e c t s o f

Schools

d i d have more d i f f e r e n t i a t e d

however,

organization,

in t h i s

instructional

with

staff.
of

the

more v a r i e d
The a u t h o r s
high

structure,

school

rules,

and

o t h e r c o o r d i n a t i o n mechanisms, were no t c o nn ec te d t o each o t h e r .
Recently,
t o st u d y t h e

H erriott
difference

and F i r e s t o n e

(1984)

between e l e m e n t a r y

used Weick’ s c o n c e p ts
and s e c o n d a r y

schools.

They conc lu ded t h a t e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s conformed more c l o s e l y t o t h e
image

of

loosely

a

rational

coupled.

ac co un ted

for

bureaucracy,

They

indicated

by s t r u c t u r a l

whereas
that

differences

s e co nd ar y

the
such

schools

differences
as

the

were

might

be

division

by

56

department

at

the

secondary

s e co nd ar y s c h o o l s .
and d i f f e r i n g

level

and

the

larger

size

of

th e

They a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e age o f t h e s t u d e n t s

sex c o m p o s i ti o n

of the

two l e v e l s

of faculty

might

have i n f l u e n c e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s .
Hannaway and S p r o u l s ,
existed

between

in

1979,

adm inistration

and

c o nc lu d ed t h a t

l o o s e co u p l in g

instruction.

They

t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n by t h e i r f i n d i n g t h a t c e n t r a l
adm inistrators

did

not

have

much

s u p p o r te d

o f f i c e and b u i l d i n g

in flu en ce

on

each

o th er’s

a c t i v i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y in i n s t r u c t i o n .
In
demands

1981,
of

Rowan

the

adm inistrative
relationship

found

a

positive

institutional
staff

envi ron me nt

relativ e

to

between demands o f

measures o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l

relationship
and

enrollm ents

institutional

control.

th e loo se, decoupled, t h e o r e t i c a l

the

between
size

and

a

framework f i t .

the

negative

en vi ro nm en t

He t e n t a t i v e l y

of

the

and two

conc lu ded

that

The d i f f i c u l t y of

o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s made h i s f i n d i n g s ve ry t e n t a t i v e .

Linkages and t h e Classroom
Wilson and C o r b e t t
m i d d le ,

and

high

(1983)

schools

studied

over

a

linkages

three-year

in

14 e l e m e n t a r y ,

period.

They

used

" l i n k a g e s " as a more n e u t r a l te rm th a n " l o o s e c o u p l i n g s " and f ocu se d
on i n t e r n a l
within-school

school

patterns.

linkages

They con cl ud ed t h a t

such t h a t one p a r t

able to fun ctio n independently of another.

of the

t h e r e were many
organization

was

The E n g l is h Department,

f o r example, would have few l i n k a g e s w it h t h e Mathematics Department

57
in many s c h o o l s .

They

said

that

change

is

unlikely

to

be

very

w id es pr ea d where o n ly lo o s e l i n k a g e s e x i s t bec au se t h e p r e s s u r e f o r
change i s n o t ev e n l y s p r e a d a c r o s s t h e u n i t s .
These r e s e a r c h e r s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t i g h t

cultural

structure

and

i n t e r p e r s o n a l l i n k a g e s i n c r e a s e t h e amount o f i m p le m e n ta t io n o f new
classroom p r a c t i c e s .

They a l s o found t h a t s t r i c t

rule

en f o r ce m en t

and l i m i t e d i n d i v i d u a l d i s c r e t i o n i n c r e a s e d t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f change
im p l e m e n t a t i o n .

They a l s o conc lu ded t h a t t h e problem o f change in

l o o s e l y l i n k e d s c h o o l s can be overcome by use o f t e m p o r a r y t i g h t l y
cou pl ed sy st em s .
Cuban (1984) s u g g e s t e d t h a t an as sumpti on t h a t t i g h t l y coup le d
o r g a n i z a t i o n s can p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t c h i l d r e n ’ s academic per forma nce
i s b a s i c t o t h e e f f e c t i v e s c h o o ls movement.

While "no one knows how

t o grow e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s " (p. 131), Cuban no te d t h a t t h e e f f e c t i v e
s c h o o l s l i t e r a t u r e a d v o c a t e s p o l i c i e s f o r school d i s t r i c t s t h a t l e a d
to

a

tighter

coupling

attainm ent

function,

functions.

(These

between

and

the

organizational

formal

goals,

structure,

the

the

goal-

instrum ental

f u n c t i o n s were assumed t o be c o u p l e d ,

in

this

s t u d y , f o r most s c h o o l s . )

In a d d i t i o n , Cuban s a i d t h a t t h e r e l i a n c e

in

literatu re

the

effective

schools

is

on

top-down

patterns

of

im p le m e n ta t io n .

He s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h i s s e r v e s as a c o u n t e r - i m a g e t o

the

"loosely

schools

present

as

study,

both

linked,

amorphous

images were assumed t o

enterprises."
be t r u e ,

In

the

d epe ndi ng on

which f u n c t i o n was a d d r e s s e d .
Deal
elementary

and

C elotti

schools,

(1980),

found

that

in

their

cl a ss r o o m s

s tu d y
were

of

103

C alifornia

autonomous

units.

58

The l a c k o f l i n k a g e

within

s c h o o l s te n d e d

to b u ffe r the subunits

from o u t s i d e demands, t h e y co n cl u de d .
Rosenblum and Louis
s c h o o l s t h a t t h e more

(1981)

found in t h e i r work w ith 52 r u r a l

t i g h t l y linked the

l e v e l o f im p le m en ta t io n o f change in

school was, t h e g r e a t e r

the

the

classroom.

Summary o f Linkage S t u d i e s
In g e n e r a l , t h e s t u d i e s seemed t o show some c o n n e c t i o n between
the linkages

and change

in

indicate th a t in stru ctio n
areas.

Howe ver ,

definitions

the

school

They a l s o

i s somehow d i f f e r e n t l y

d ifficu lty

and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

instruction,

settings.

adm inistration,

and

l i n k e d th a n o t h e r

variatio n

in

operational

in t h e u n i t o f s t u d y ,

and so on,

seemed to

make s t r o n g e r

the

school,

conclusions

unjustified.

The Environmental Force
The development o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g
r e p r e s e n t e d a major s h i f t
as well

in t h i n k i n g

as an o r g a n i z e d formal

organizations

(Perry,

197 0) .

in t h e p u b l i c

ab out s e r v i c e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,

a t t e m p t t o change t h e
The

sector

union

contract

structure

s e rv e d

as

of
th e

c o d ific a tio n of t h i s attempt.
Michigan

was

an

early

leader

in

collective

bargaining

education.

The p r o c e s s began i t s formal development in 1947.

same y e a r ,

both t h e American F e d e r a t i o n o f Te a ch er s

N ational

Education

A ssociation

(NEA)

began

to

in
That

(AFT) and t h e
take

national

59
p o s i t i o n s on c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g

in e d u c a t i o n .

The e a r l y

1950s

saw a formal commitment t o t h e b a r g a i n i n g p r o c e s s on t h e p a r t o f t h e
AFT, w i t h t h e NEA f o l l o w i n g in 1962.
Wisconsin
public

passed

sector

in

the

1959.

first

mandatory b a r g a i n i n g

By 1966-67,

13 s t a t e s

had

law f o r
at

school d i s t r i c t w i t h a c o l l e c t i v e l y b a r g a i n e d c o n t r a c t .
fiv e years l a t e r ,

45 s t a t e s had a t l e a s t

the

least

one

By 1972-73,

one such d i s t r i c t

and 26

s t a t e s had p u b l i c - s e c t o r n e g o t i a t i o n s l e g i s l a t i o n .
Michigan

pa s s ed

its

initial

in t h i s

legislation

in

1965.

d istricts

in c l u d e d

districts

t o t a k e ad v a n t a g e o f t h e 1965 l e g i s l a t i o n .

The

s t u d y were among t h e e a r l i e s t

Michigan had t h e most d i s t r i c t s

four

Michigan

By 1966-67,

in t h e Un ited S t a t e s r e p r e s e n t e d by

c o l l e c t i v e bargaining (237).
Five

years

ag re e m e n ts .

later,

383

d istricts

in

M ichigan

had

such

Only New York had grown f a s t e r o r f u r t h e r d u r i n g t h o s e

f i v e y e a r s , from 8 d i s t r i c t s t o 476 (NEA, 1974).

Michigan a l s o le d

t h e n a t i o n in work s t o p p a g e s , 43 in 1969-70 (Ne al, 1971).
While

the

e x p a n s io n

occurred

e d u c a t o r s embraced c o l l e c t i v e
example,
the

1981;

bargaining

in 1976, 14,072 d i s t r i c t s ,

Un ited

States,

NAESP,

had c o l l e c t i v e

1984).

In

th r o u g h o u t t h e

1980,

public

in g r e a t e r

sector,

numbers.

For

89% o f t h e 15,85 8 d i s t r i c t s
b a r g a i n i n g agre em ent s
w h il e

50% o f

all

(Angel 1,

public-sector

employees belonged t o u n i o n s , more th a n 75% o f t h e t e a c h e r s d i d .
1960 t h e r e were f i v e
strikes

1971).

in

26 s t a t e s .

teacher

strikes.

In 1969-70 t h e r e

In 1976 t h e r e were 138

(NEA,

in

In

were 180

1974;

Neal,

60

Bef or e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , t e a c h e r s were r e p r e s e n t e d a t th e
s t a t e and n a t i o n a l l e v e l s by a s s o c i a t i o n s , t h e NEA, AFT, and o t h e r s .
However,

salaries,

fringe

benefits,

and

working

e s t a b l i s h e d a t the lo c a l l e v e l , with l i t t l e
While t h e

first

union e x p e r i e n c e s o c c u r r e d

conditions

were

i n p u t from t h e t e a c h e r s .
in

larger

urban

areas,

s m a l l e r d i s t r i c t s soon f o l l o w e d ( J e s s u p , 1985; N e a l, 1971).
Many a u t h o r s ( A n g e l l , 1981; J e s s u p , 1985; J o hn so n, 1984; NAESP,
1980)

in d icated

development

of

th at

u ni on s

the
in

public

public

was

education,

most u n h a p p y

w ith

perceiving

a

loss

the
of

e d u c a t o r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m and co nc er ne d t h a t "money was t h e o n l y r e a l
issue"

(Jessup,

1985,

p.

to the

e a r l y s t u d i e s ( J e s s u p , 1985;

19 6 8) ,

were

not j u s t

13).

The r e a l

salaries,

i s s u e s , however,

N ea l, 1971; P e r r y , 1970; S h i l s ,

b u t heavy work l o a d s ,

a r b itr a r y treatm ent,

and a s e n s e o f p o w e r l e s s n e s s .

arose

societal

from

general

trends

such

s o c i o e c o n o m i c a l l y c ha ng in g com munities,
c o n ce r n s
p artially

were

also

influenced

bureaucratized

by

according

as

and r a p i d

structure

and

These co nce rn s

population

organizational

educational

unfair

growth,

inflation.
problems

itself.

The
in

th e

Th ere

was

a m b ig u it y and c o n f l i c t in t h e r o l e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s as t h o u s a n d s o f
new e d u c a t o r s e n t e r e d t h e f i e l d .
o f t h e i r day in n o n p r o f e s s i o n a l
often
F ede ral

viewed
and

and t r e a t e d
state

as

legislation

T e a c h e rs t h o u g h t t h e y s p e n t much
or supervisory a c t i v i t i e s

somehow o n ly
and

i n f l u e n c e t h e work o f both g ro u p s .

f u n d in g

partially

and were

professional.

requirements

began

to

61
Jessup
teacher

(1985)

described

w elfare,

du e

the

process,

early
and

organizational

goals

professionalism .

as

Teachers

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y saw t h e l o g i c o f u n i o n i z a t i o n i n i t s shock v a l u e .
They

also

thought

th at

affiliatio n

o r g a n i z a t i o n s would l e n d s t r e n g t h
believed t h a t,

by o r g a n i z i n g ,

w ith

state

to t h e i r local

and

national

struggles.

t h e y c o u l d have a p o s i t i v e

They

influence

on e d u c a t i o n as a whole w h i l e p e r s o n a l l y improving t h e i r l o t s .
Many s t u d i e s have been completed t h a t a t t e m p t e d t o document t h e
e f f e c t o f u nio ns on t h e e d u c a t i o n a l
these

studies

are discussed

in stitu tio n .

in d e t a i l

at

the

The f i n d i n g s from
end o f each

of

the

following s e c tio n s .

The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
With

the

bargaining,
activ ity

environm ental

two

indicators

areas

serving

Indicators

force

were
the

id en tified

identified

four

for

im perative

as

each

co llectiv e
of

the

four

functions.

The

l i t e r a t u r e r ev ie w o f t h e s e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s i n c l u d e d any r e l a t i v e l y
recent

studies

on

the

same

topics

where

the

definition

of

the

v a r i a b l e was r e l a t e d t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n s used in t h i s s t u d y , w he th er
o r n o t t h e s e p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s in c l u d e d l o n g i t u d i n a l i n f o r m a t i o n .
Each o f
studies

the

as well

eight

indicators

as s t u d i e s

that

has

viewed t h e

setting.

For most o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s ,

completed

that

unions.

The f o l l o w i n g

was s p e c i f i c a l l y
section

been

at

related

addressed
indicator

least

by g e n e r a l
in

a school

one s t u d y has been

to

the

effect

summarizes

the

findings

of

teacher
of

those

62
s t u d i e s t h a t app eared t o d e f i n e t h e i n d i c a t o r s in te rm s most s i m i l a r
t o t h o s e used f o r t h i s s t u d y .

C entralization
Silver
decision

(1983)

making

defined

w ithin

centralization

an

as

organization

the

is

extent

done

at

to

the

which

highest

adm inistrative level.

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n moves e x p e r t i s e away from t h e

decision-making e f f e c t

and makes p a r t i c i p a t i o n

less

likely

w ea k ,

(Kochen & Deu tsc h,

negative

centralization.

1980).

co rrelatio n
Silver

Silver

between

concluded

in

that

decision

(1983)

making

described

bureau cratizatio n
bureaucratic

a

and

organizations

te n d e d t o dev el o p t h e r u l e s and p r o c e d u r e s t h a t e n s u r e d a p p r o p r i a t e
d e c i s i o n s a t lower l e v e l s .
In

studying

52

h ig h

s c h o o l s , Rosenblum

(1981)

c e n t r a l i z a t i o n was in d e p en d en t o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

found

that

control.

The

l o c u s o f a u t h o r i t y can be high w i t h i n t h e s c h o o l , a t c e n t r a l o f f i c e ,
a t b o th , o r a t n e i t h e r .
districts,

Johnson (198 4) ,

a l s o found t h a t

formal

in h e r s t u d y o f u n i o n i z e d

centralized

d e c i s i o n making had

v e r y l i t t l e e f f e c t on a c t u a l school p r a c t i c e s in many c a s e s .
and Glenn

(1 9 86 ),

ont h e

from

school

setting

the

autonomy

existed.

example t h o s e
School

of

other

o ffice.

The

the

t h e North

v er y con cerned about t h e i r
prin cip als

found t h a t

the

were

the le ss

decisions

During

Board A s s o c i a t i o n

hand,

mid-1970s,

Central

(ERS,

made,

several

A ssociation

1980),

found

further

bla med

the

loss

on

court

to

for

American

principals

perceived lo ss o f a u t h o ri ty

away

teacher

studies,

and t h e

that

W al te r

were

central

decisions,

63
governmental
found

mandates,

supporting

and

evidence

te n d e d t o have l i t t l e

teacher
of

this

bargaining.

Heddinger

perception

in

that

(1978)

principals

inv olvement in b u d g e t - p l a n n i n g a r e a s , compared

to previous times.
During
national

the

trend

same
to

period,

decentralize

development o f more s i t e
(ERS,

198 0) .

however,

there

decision

authority

as

a p pe a r ed

making

reported

and

to

to

be

a

enc our ag e

by t h e

principals

Large and medium-sized systems were most l i k e l y

to

have such d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s .
Turni ng t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f union e f f e c t on c e n t r a l i z a t i o n ,
Johnson

(1984)

found

adm inistration

in a l l

however,

most

that

a

trend

toward

six d i s t r i c t s

respondents

centralization

she s t u d i e d .

regarded

this

improvement in e q u i t y and needed o r d e r .
th at

cen tralized

researchers
the

found t h a t

day-to-day

principal:
restricted

contract

and

cen tralizatio n

of

school

o rg anizational

m oderated
of

the

or

forces

cen tralizatio n

decision

m a ki n g

the

was

as

(1985)
the

such c e n t r a l i z a t i o n d i d n o t

operation

Strong

was

contract

She emphasized,

trend

Jessup

adm inistration

of

simp ly
also

found

nor m.

Both

seem t o

affect

authority

w ithin

the

trends.

regarded

an

of

schools

Thus,
as

the

the

useful

in

p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s , r a t h e r th a n a s t r u c t u r e f o r e n f o r c i n g r u l e s .
In summary, c e n t r a l i z a t i o n does a p p e a r , based on t h i s r e v ie w of
the l i t e r a t u r e ,
the

t o be an a d a p t i v e s t r u c t u r e ,

flex ib ility

changes

while

necessary

buffering

to

the

maintain
classroom,

tightly

change
the

as

coupled,

with

the

env ironm ent

technical

activities,

64
from

change.

The

goal-attainm ent

function

is

able

to

maintain

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

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
An other

indicator

serving

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
history
social

of

community

issues,

participation

the

adaptive

function

is

that

of

McCormick (1 97 8) , in h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e

participation

n ot e d t h e

in

decisions

t r e n d toward l e s s d i r e c t

structures.

She

indicated

that

regarding

major

and more formal
the

increase

in

p o p u l a t i o n ac c ou n te d f o r t h i s t r e n d .
S a l i s b u r y (1980) w r o te about two h i s t o r i c a l
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in s c h o o l s in t h e United S t a t e s :

s tr ea m s f o r c i t i z e n
(a) t h a t s c h o o l s a r e

in need o f change and t h a t t h e involvement o f c i t i z e n s w i l l
the

performance

participant

of

w ill

the

benefit

have t r a d i t i o n a l l y

schools,
th ro ugh

and

personal

need

for

th at

growth.

involvem ent

and

individual

A dm inistrators
has

benefits

informed and more s u p p o r t i v e

S a l i s b u r y emphasized t h a t t h e r e a l
citizen

the

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

f o r t h e s c h o o l s in d e v e l o p i n g b e t t e r
citizens.

(b)

improve

the

tension

desire

of

between t h e

teachers

and

a d m in is tr a t o r s to maintain th e s t a b i l i t y of th e educational order is
n a t u r a l and has always e x i s t e d .
Br ei v og el
on two l e v e l s ,
their

children

decision-making

and S t e r l i n g

(1976)

th a t of the parents
and

that

processes

Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

of
that
then,

discussed
in t h e

parents
affect

citizen

participation

learning experiences

and

other

citizens

the

education

of

in

of
the

children.

i s t h e invo lve men t o f an i n d i v i d u a l ,

65
n o t employed

in t h e

school,

in

activities

w it h

either

s t u d e n t s o r w it h a school committee o r program.

individual

For t h e p u r p o s e o f

t h i s s t u d y , o n ly t h o s e s t u d i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e l a t t e r were e x p l o r e d .
E pstein
reported

an

structure.

(1984,

1985)

increased

th at

parents

understanding

These p a r e n t s

more p o s i t i v e l y .

found

te n d e d

to

of

found

role

individual

and

teachers

In t h e S a l i s b u r y (1980) s t u d y , more th a n h a l f t h e

personal

particip atio n .
S alisbury

school’s

evaluate

r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d b e i n g more inf or m ed.
also

the

who p a r t i c i p a t e d

and

social

F ifty-nine

study,

however,

Some o f t h e s e r e s p o n d e n t s

benefits

percent

in

of

such

the

who r e p o r t e d

decision-making

respondents

changed

in

attitu d es

the
also

r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r a t t i t u d e s were l e s s p o s i t i v e .
Many a u t h o r s

have p r e d i c t e d

severe

strain

in

the

educational

image b e c a u s e o f t e a c h e r u n i o n s

and t h e

co llectiv e-b arg ain in g

process

Fantini,

1975;

These

authors

1970;

(Angel 1,
Thompson

differences

in

1981;

ERS,

& Ziemer,

1980;
1975 ).

perceptions

of

appropriate

between t h e c i t i z e n s and t h e t e a c h e r s .
would t e n d t o s u p p o r t t h i s p e r c e p t i o n .

P e r r y & Wildman,
have

citizen

no te d

the

participation

Recent G al l u p p o l l s

(1965)

Two p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s ,

f o r example, th o u g h t t h a t p a r e n t s s h ou ld have t h e most i n f l u e n c e on
what

is

sh o u ld

taught,
have

the

whereas
most

24% o f t h e
influence.

parents

th o u g h t

T hirty-three

that

percent

parents
of

the

t e a c h e r s b e l i e v e d t e a c h e r s s h ou ld s e l e c t t h e t e x t b o o k s , whereas 11%
o f t h e p a r e n t s t h o u g h t t e a c h e r s sh ou ld s e l e c t t h e t e x t b o o k s .
E b e r t s and Stone (1984) s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d

"growing p u b l i c

con ce rn " o v e r t h e e f f e c t o f un io n s on p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n .

They s t a t e d

66

that,

in

forming

public" (p. 1 ).
research.

unions,

"teachers

have

raised

the

ire

of

the

They d i d n o t , however, document t h e " i r e " in t h e i r

However, a 1978 NAESP s tu d y (ERS, 1980) d i d i n d i c a t e t h a t

62% o f t h e p r i n c i p a l s

perceived c o l le c t iv e

n e g a t i v e e f f e c t on p u b l i c o p i n i o n .

bargaining

as

having

a

A p p a r e n t l y p r i n c i p a l s have f e l t

t h e i r e a d d r e s s e d by E b e r t s and S to n e.
In

summary,

the

literatu re

tended

to

address

p a r t i c i p a t i o n w ith p e r s p e c t i v e s t h a t c l e a r l y f i t
function o f th e
and

institution:

responsiveness

of

improving t h e

the

with the

perceived

in stitu tio n

co m m u n it y
adaptive

p er fo rm a n ce

(S alisbury,

C o n trad icto ry evidence e x i s t s f o r the u sefu ln ess

1980).

o f more community

p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e improvement o f a t t i t u d e s o f t h e community,

but

clear

the

evidence

does

exist

that

such

participation

changes

r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t o t h e s c h o o l s and m e d i a t e s d i r e c t
comm unit y/cla ssroom a c c e s s .

Some e v i d e n c e o f a r e l a t i o n s h i p between

union a c t i v i t y and community a t t i t u d e s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n modes a l s o
exists.

The P r i n c i p a l ’ s O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Le a d e rs h ip
Authority

is

legitim ate

power,

that

is,

power

vested

in

a

p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n o r p o s i t i o n and r e c o g n i z e d as such by t h e w i e l d e r
of the

power,

those

system

(Organ

& Hamner,

p o w e r,

accepted

expenditure

of

by

o v e r whom i t

all

resources

is

wielded,

1982).

Because

the

p articip an ts,

to

enforce

and

authority

ob e d i e n c e

it

others
is

in

the

legitim ate

requires

little

when compared with

67

other

types

of

power.

N evertheless,

acceptance of the ord ers

of the

the

authority

tension

person

between

the

and t h e n a t u r a l

d i s l i k e o f t h e s u b o r d i n a t e in g i v i n g up freedom o f a c t i o n has some
c o s t in ti m e and en er g y

(Nord,

1976).

main f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e syst em .
assists

in

coping

w ith

c o h e r e n c e bec ause i t
individual

in

the

time

Such a u t h o r i t y s e r v e s

four

I t r e d u c e s human v a r i a b i l i t y .

It

lags.

is positional

position.

It

maintains

organizational

and so can o u t l i v e t h e s p e c i f i c

Last,

authority

unexercised

i n v e s t e d i n o b l i g a t i o n s t h a t t h e "boss" may c o l l e c t l a t e r
Hamner, 1982).

becomes
(Organ &

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p i s assumed

t o be such an a u t h o r i t y p o s i t i o n .
For many y e a r s r e s e a r c h e r s have n o te d d i f f e r e n c e s
au th o rity

exercised

in

the

p rivate

o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Blau, 1974; E t z i o n i ,
service
the

agencies,

where

these

sector

1964).

as

professionals

p articip atio n

in

decision

e x p e c te d

making,

professional

In h o s p i t a l s and s o c i a l

researchers

employees

and

between th e

studied
more

hence

such

authority,

autonomy

the

and

d il e m m a

more

of

the

professional adm inistrator.
Isherwood
secondary

and Hay

schools,

(1973),

identified

in

th eir

two

types

s tu d y
of

of

bureaucracy

adm inistrators,

in
the

a u t h o r i t a r i a n ty p e w it h components o f high c e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i t h i n t h e
school,

ru les,

standardization,

professional

type

com petence.

Because

semiprofessional

w ith

high

schools

organizations

and

div isio n
ha ve

im personality,
of

labor

generally

(Etzioni,

1964),

and

been
the

and

the

tech n ical

regarded

ass um pti on

as
has

68

been t h a t

most

and

the s k i l l s

that

closer

to

the

p rofessions.

t e a c h e r s have l e s s autonomy tha n o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s
and

personality t r a i t s

ad m inistrator,
Thus,

the

the

p rin cip al,

au th o ritarian

authoritarian principal.

of

teach ers

than

may

in

call

ar e

other
for

an

At any r a t e , many s t u d i e s have p o i n t e d ou t

" t h a t wide v a r i a t i o n s e x i s t e d among and w i t h i n school
need f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n

teachers

o f t h e formal

systems" with

ro le of the p rincipal

(DESP,

1968, p. 5 3 ) .
In t h i s same 1968 s t u d y , 2,261 e l e m e n t a r y p r i n c i p a l s were asked
whe ther th e y were viewed as (a) t h e p u b l i c l y r e c o g n i z e d head o f t h e
school w ith c o n s i d e r a b l e a u t h o r i t y t o p l a n , o r g a n i z e , and a d m i n i s t e r
i t s e d u c a t i o n a l programs; (b) t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e head o f t h e s c h o o l ,
a s s i g n e d p r i m a r i l y t o c a r r y ou t t h e p o l i c i e s o f t h e c e n t r a l

office;

o r (c) n e i t h e r encouraged no r a u t h o r i z e d t o proceed i n d e p e n d e n t l y to
a l t e r t h e s c h o o l ’ s program in any s i g n i f i c a n t manner.

The m a j o r i t y

of the respondents

Th is

finding

authority

by th e

represented

indicated the f i r s t

a significant

increase

alternative.

in p e r c e i v e d

p r i n c i p a l from a s t u d y done in 1948.
In h i s
authority.
those

of

authority
executive.

1962 s t u d y ,

Peabody examined p e r c e p t i o n s

His f i n d i n g s
t h e DESP

for

in 20 e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s were s i m i l a r t o

study.

b as e was t h e

of bases

The

authority

most f r e q u e n t l y
of p o sitio n

as

reported
the

Rules and r e g u l a t i o n s pla yed l i t t l e r o l e .

top

formal
internal

69
W h i le

prin cip als

leadership
several

activities

studies

reflective
1980).

of

tended
as

most

indicated
the

to

im p o r t a n t

that

priority

regard

the

th eir

in

the

actual

(Abramovitz

More time and more a c t i v i t i e s

in stru ctio n al
school

ti m e

spent

& Tenenbaum,

in v o l v e d t h e

setting,
was

no t

1977;

ERS,

organizational

management a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s c h o o l .
Recent

studies

at

both

the

elementary

and

s e co nd ar y

levels

(Ebben & Fulmer, 1985; E b e r t s & S to n e, 1984; J e s s u p , 1985; Joh nso n,
1984; McDonnell

& Pascall,

loss

principal

of

formal

1978;

Smith,

authority

due

1985)
to

have

indicated

collective

some

bargaining.

Among t h e a r e a s in which some change a p p e a r s t o have o c c u r r e d a r e
resource

allo catio n s,

personnel

organizational decisions.

decisions,

and

in stru ctio n al

S p e c i f i c examples a r e t e a c h e r t r a n s f e r s ,

t e a c h e r n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l d u t i e s , and c l a s s s i z e .
Both J e s s u p (1985) and Johnson (1984) s t r e s s e d t h a t t h e s c h o o l s
were o n ly p a r t i a l

bureaucracies

before

unionization.

Principals’

a u t h o r i t y and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were always ambiguous.
They f ound t h e

situation

not y r e a t l y

different

after

Because o f wide v a r i a t i o n in s c h o o l s and d i s t r i c t s ,

unionization.

even where some

a c t u a l l o s s o f formal a u t h o r i t y had o c c u r r e d t h e a u t h o r i t y c o n t i n u e d
t o be assumed by p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s .
As

Johnson

(1984)

noted,

a lleg ia n ce to the p rin cip al

teach ers

and school

generally

felt

th a n t o t h e u n io n ,

more

so th e y

d i d not f o r c e compliance w i t h c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s e x c e p t in s p e c i f i c
cases.

Many p r i n c i p a l s

used c o n t r a c t s

to

clarify

unusual

i n s t a n c e s and o t h e r w i s e proceeded as b e f o r e .

issues

o n ly

in

One p r i n c i p a l

70

had l o s t a u t h o r i t y in t h e same d i s t r i c t where a n o t h e r had l o s t none,
except

on p a p e r .

One p r i n c i p a l

viewed

much o f

the

contract

as

me rel y c o d i f i c a t i o n o f p a s t d i s t r i c t p r a c t i c e s , whereas a n o t h e r saw
t h a t same c o n t r a c t as new and l i m i t i n g .
In

summary,

represents

the

positional

w ith

flows,

the

organizational

formal

authority

some p e r s o n a l

depending

on

of

management
the

school

elements.

The

en v i ro n m e n ta l

forces,

but

of

the

and,

principal

as

such ,

a u t h o r i t y ebbs
rem a in s

the pattern-maintenance function of the

institution

is

as

The p i c t u r e

these

forces

affect

the

system.

and

r em a r k ab ly

s t a b l e based 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 and t e a c h e r s .

outside

is

Thus,

s e r v e d even
research

f i n d i n g s show i s ve r y c l o s e t o t h a t p r e d i c t e d by S e r g io v a n n i (1 9 84 ),
Meyer

(1982),

Rowan

(1984),

and

o th ers,

w ith

the

principal

m a i n t a i n i n g a m ys ti que o f a u t h o r i t y .

The P r i n c i p a l ’ s I n s t r u c t i o n a l
L e a d e r s h ip
Many o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r s d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y have n ot e d a n o t h e r
ty p e o f a u t h o r i t y th a n t h a t based on p o s i t i o n ( B la u, 1974; E t z i o n i ,
1964; Organ & Hamner,
authority

1982).

Peabody ( 1 9 6 2 ) , f o r example, d i v i d e d

i n t o t h a t which i s

formal

and t h a t which i s

functional.

Formal a u t h o r i t y i n c l u d e s t h a t which i s h i e r a r c h i c a l and p o s i t i o n a l ,
whereas f u n c ti o n a l
experience,
giving

and

orders

functional

au th o rity

human
w ith

includes p ro fe s s io n a l

relations

giving

sk ills.

advice.

a u t h o r i t y as c u l t u r a l

Blau

S tarr

com petence,

(1964)

(1982)

r a t h e r th a n s o c i a l .

contrasted

referred

to

Getzels

and

71
Guba

(1973)

authority

discussed

and t h e

From t h e

the

personality

in stitu tio n al

perspective

of th is

relationship

relationship

study,

the

to

to

functional

formal

authority.

principal’s

instructional

l e a d e r s h i p s e r v e s as f u n c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y based on t h e e x p e r t i s e and
experience o f the individual
role.

As

reported

in

p r i n c i p a l r a t h e r th a n t h e power o f t h e

the

Peabody

study,

the

most

frequently

r e p o r t e d f u n c t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y bas e i s competence.
In

C u ttita ’s

principals,

(1982)

study

of

40

elementary

and

s e co nd ar y

he found t h a t formal d e c i s i o n s ac c o u n te d f o r 74% o f t h e

observed

decision-m aking

behaviors

of

co n flict

reso lu tio n

technical

com petence/program

and

acc o un te d f o r n e a r l y a l l
seemed t o

the

p rin cip al,

t h e rem a in in g b e h a v i o r s .

c o n f ir m t h e d i v i s i o n

of the

Thus,

whereas
change

h i s s tu d y

p r i n c i p a l ’ s experience

into

two a s p e c t s .
In

summary,

p u rp o s e s f o r t h e

the

principal

institution,

t h e second f u n c t i o n a l

appears

the f i r s t

and p e r s o n a l .

to

serve

formal

two

important

and p o s i t i o n a l

In t h e d e s i g n f o r t h i s

and

study,

t h e s e two a s p e c t s were assumed t o be d i s t i n c t bu t t o s e r v e t h e ssnie
pattern-m aintenance function.

T ea ch er Autonomy
The two i n d i c a t o r s i n c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y t h a t were r e g a r d e d as
serving
a u to no m y

the
and

goal-attainm ent
teacher

group

function

were

particip atio n

individual
in

decision

teacher
making.

P r o f e s s i o n a l autonomy i s a t o p i c t h a t has been s t u d i e d e x t e n s i v e l y .

72
As mentioned in t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

framework, one o f t h e norms of

t h e p r o f e s s i o n a l r o l e i s t h a t o f autonomy, f r e e from o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
restrain ts

(Abrahamson,

p rofessional
membership

1967).

train in g ,
in

organization.

the

Thi s

extensive

autonomy
evidence

p ro fessio n al

is

earned

of

by

long

ex p ertise,

and

certificatio n

and

licensing

A sense o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the c o l l e c t i v i t y is also

im p li e d (Abrahamson, 1967; Guy, 1985; P a r s o n s , 195 9) .
Many r e s e a r c h e r s have found t h a t t h e l e v e l o f autonomy d e s i r e d
and e x p e r i e n c e d by p r o f e s s i o n a l s
M erton,

for

exam ple,

found

professionals

regarding

work

w ithin
two

fields

is

d ifferen t

autonomy

not c o n s i s t e n t .

orien tatio n s

(Abrahamson,

19 6 7) .

of
The

o r i e n t a t i o n toward t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n seemed t o be r e l a t e d t o l i m i t e d
autonomy, whereas o r i e n t a t i o n

toward t h e

w it h h i g h e r v a l u e s p l a c e d on autonomy.
Seiber

in

1960

completed

studies

d i v i s i o n (Abrahamson, 1967).

p r o f e s s i o n was a s s o c i a t e d

Barnes in 1967 and Katz and

that

seemed

to

confirm

this

In a f o l l o w - u p , Abrahamson found t h a t ,

among 175 r e s e a r c h s c i e n t i s t s ,

t h e r e was n o t as h ig h a r e l a t i o n s h i p

between d e s i r e t o do b a s i c r e s e a r c h and v a l u e d autonomy as e x p e c t e d .
As s c i e n t i s t s became o l d e r and more e x p e r i e n c e d ,

t h e y were allowed

more autonomy.
Many

researchers

h av e

found

o r g a n i z a t i o n s termed s e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l
Simpson & Simpson,
control

patterns

1969 ).
was

the

less

au t o n o m y

( F ie d s o n ,

1973;

in
Scott,

those
1959;

Among t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r t h e h i g h e r
p r e d o m i n a n tl y

female

c o m p o s i ti o n

of

th e

sem iprofessions.

Fied so n (1973) revie wed an e x t e n s i v e s tu d y o f t h e

ethical

and

codes

licensing

procedures

of

professional

73

o r g a n i z a t i o n s , n o t i n g t h a t such autonomy does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s e r v e
to

further

high s t a n d a r d s

of professional

service.

t h a t such autonomy p r e c l u d e s chec ks f o r q u a l i t y .

He i n d i c a t e d

N e v e r t h e l e s s , most

a u t h o r s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t autonomy i s e x p e c t e d t o s e r v e t h e g o a l attainm ent
activity

function

and t h e

of the

quality

organization,
of

products

furthering

of

that

the

technical

activity

(Etzioni,

1967; Merton, 1964; P a r s o n s , 1959).
L ortie
authority

(1975)
in

n ot e d t h a t

school
the

systems

a u to n om y

of

p olitical

vulnerability

in h ib its the full
school

level,

teach er.
of

the

formal

might

be

legal

expected

He p o i n t e d
t h e board

and

allocation

to

m itigate

o u t , however,

members and

the

th at

the

superintendents

a s s e r t i o n o f t h e s e l e g a l l y he l d powers.

At t h e

L o r t i e con cl ud ed t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y system r e l i e s

low -constraint decisions
t e a c h e r autonomy.

and v a r i a b l e zo ni ng b a l a n c e s ,

Lortie c ite d several

studies,

of

on

which al lo w

i n c l u d i n g McDowell

in Chicago and Trask in M a s s a c h u s e t t s , which seemed t o s u p p o r t h i s
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p r i n c i p a l s te n d t o accommodate t h e t e a c h e r s ’ wishes
f o r l o o s e n e s s in c l a s s r o o m s u p e r v i s i o n ( L o r t i e , 1969).
Several
perspective.

studies

Many p r i n c i p a l s

new t e a c h e r s ,
teachers.

(NASSP,

and h a l f
In

a s tu d y

1968,

have

supported

th is

i n d i c a t e d t h e y seldom o r n e v e r r a t e d

in d icated

they

never

ofteacher-evaluation

Pohland (1979) i n d i c a t e d t h a t o f
purposes f o r e v a lu a tio n ,

1978)

rated

continuing

practices,

Wood

and

t h e f o u r most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned

one was f u n d a m e n t a l l y d i f f e r e n t

from t h e

74
other three.
one

was

instructional,

p er fo r m a n ce .
d i d not

Three were o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ,
to

help

f o r example t e n u r e ,

teachers

improve t h e i r

They found t h a t t h e e v a l u a t i o n

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

while

teaching

instrum ents g en era lly

Evaluation

practices

address

in stru c tio n infrequently.
Lortie
reward

(1969)

for

c on cl ud ed t h a t

many t e a c h e r s .

autonomy s e r v e s

C ha s e’ s

(1985)

as

study

an i n t r i n s i c

indicated

that

t e a c h e r s were g e n e r a l l y s a t i s f i e d w it h t h e amount o f autonomy th e y
had.

The freedom t o

differing

points

s e l e c t methods

and m a t e r i a l s

o f view was p e r c e i v e d

as

and

ve r y high

to

present

by t e a c h e r s .

Ch as e’ s f i n d i n g s would seem t o co nf ir m L o r t i e ’ s e a r l i e r p e r s p e c t i v e .
When

considering

collective

the

bargaining,

change o v e r t h e

area

of

researchers

25-year

period.

autonomy

have
The

found

and t h e
little

autonomy o f t h e

a dv en t

of

evidence

of

teacher

is

s t i l l f i e r c e l y m a i n t a i n e d , a c c o r d i n g t o Johnson (1 98 4) .
In

summary,

teachers

have

autonomy and

have m a i n t a i n e d

that

autonomy in t h e f a c e o f l e g a l and union changes t h a t might t h r e a t e n
this

aspect

of

their

experience.

Musi

researchers

believe

this

autonomy i s an i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t o f t h e g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t f u n c t i o n
the school.

of

Some r e s e a r c h e r s b e l i e v e t h e autonomy s e r v e s a reward

f u n c t i o n o r no p o s i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n s t e a d .

Teacher P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
D e c is io n Making
Many a u t h o r s have e x p l o r e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
d e c i s i o n making t o
1977).

In a d d i t i o n ,

the

effectiveness

of the

organization

(Likert,

such p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s r e g a r d e d as t h e r i g h t o f

75

a professional

(Etzioni,

such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

is

1969).

As w i t h

expected to

termed s e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l .

be

autonomy,

less

in

the

those

organizations

Merton (1957) l a i d t h e groundwork f o r such

as s u m p ti o n s when he n o te d t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l s come t o
d e c i s i o n s a r e t o be made based on t h e i r work,
p articipate

fit

the

th at

the

organization,
process

realize

and

the
the

exigencies
longer

more
more

the

active
the

of

the

situation.

p rofessional

he/she

is

and

ethos

goals

in
of

that

and t h e c l o s e r th e y

in t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s t h e more t h e i r

form ulations
concluded

amount o f

the

abstract

Merton
works

also

in

the

decision-making

the

w o r kp la ce

are

accepted.
P a r t i c i p a t i o n f i n d i n g s in t h e school s e t t i n g , however, have no t
reflected

such

Imber (1 9 80 ),

a clear

or

b e n e f i t s as h i g h .
the p a r tic ip a tio n
little

pattern.

Duke,

Showers,

in t h e i r s t u d y o f f i v e s e co nd ar y s c h o o l s ,

t e a c h e r s saw t h e p o t e n t i a l

saw

positive

and

found t h a t

c o s t o f such invo lve men t as low and t h e

But th e y were h e s i t a n t t o become i n v o l v e d bec a u se
addressed d i r e c t

lik elih o o d

th at

instruction

th eir

infrequently.

involvem ent

wo u ld

They

make

a

difference.
DeRoche (1982)

found t h a t

principals

assumed an a u t h o r i t a r i a n

manner in f a c u l t y m e et in g s even as t h e y ag re e d t h a t t h e d i s c u s s i o n
method

would

be

best.

Thus,

while

principals

refrained

from

i n t r u d i n g on t e a c h e r autonomy, t h e y a l s o te n de d n o t t o en co u r a g e t h e
t y p e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n assumed f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s .

On t h e o t h e r hand,

Cuban (1984) p o i n t e d out t h a t e s t a b l i s h i n g a s t a f f c o n s e n s u s o v e r an

76
instru ctio n al

agenda

literature.
n o t deal

decision

a

high

for

effective

based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s ,

instructional

and t e a c h e r s

issues,

in n o n i n s t r u c t i o n a l

making

p rin c ip a l’s

priority

Faculty meetings,

with

p articip ate

was

in

role,

a

school

into

d iscussions.

may a c t u a l l y

that

which

is

be

schools

may simply

may n o t wish t o
P articip atio n

divided,

formal

and

as

that

is

in
the

which

is

technical.
Teachers
participation

indicated
aspect

of

th at
th eir

they

felt

strongly

professionalism

in

about

Jessup’s

the

(1985)

s t u d y , b u t t h e y p e r c e i v e d l i t t l e change in a c t u a l p r a c t i c e from 1969
to

1979.

T ea ch er

w elfare

decisions

were

perceived

to

have more

p a r t i c i p a t i o n , whereas a l l o t h e r t y p e s o f d e c i s i o n s were n o t .
Eberts

and

Stone

(1984)

found

that

both

union

and

nonunion

t e a c h e r s p l a c e d t h e same w ei g h t on t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

They a l s o

found t h e t e a c h e r s who f e l t

te n d e d t o

s t r o n g l y abo ut p a r t i c i p a t i o n

be l e s s s a t i s f i e d w it h t h e i r working e n v i ro n m e n t.
Johnson
participation.
in

which

(1984)

found t h a t

She a l s o found,

provisions

for

such

a d v i s o r y comm it tee s

promoted

staff

however, t h a t t h e r e were i n s t a n c e s
com mittees

were d e t r i m e n t a l

bec a us e

th e y s e t l i m i t s t h a t were i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e complex needs o f t h e
schools.

P e l l i c a n (1980) wro te about t h e new model o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n

a d v oc a te d by t h e AFT, which c r e a t e d t e n s i o n between t h e t e a c h e r as
bureaucrat-participant

and t h e

teacher

as

professional.

He found

t h a t d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r had o f t e n been e l i m i n a t e d
in t h e s e a r c h f o r group p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
concerns.

in c o n f i r m a t i o n o f J o h n s o n ’ s

77

Participation

in d e c i s i o n making i s

the p ro fessio n al,

r e g a r d e d as

b u t t h e p a t t e r n s o f such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

l e s s c l e a r th a n t h e p a t t e r n s

f o r autonomy.

has

advent

been

changed

apparently

has

participation

the

w ith

been

the

away

rather

than

from
in

the

the

of

of

a r e much

I f such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

the

unions,

individual

amount

right

of

to

the

change

formal

group

participation.

The

d e s i g n o f t h i s s tu d y assumed t h a t such p a r t i c i p a t i o n was i n v o l v e d in
the professional

r o l e o f t h e t e a c h e r and,

as s u ch , was p a r t o f t h e

g o a l-a tta in m e n t fu nction of the school.

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
Organ and Hamner (1982) d e f i n e d j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n as a p e r s o n ’ s
attitude

toward

indicator
levels,

the

including

job.
a

Job

com b in ati on

satisfaction
of

many

is

a

v er y

satisfactions

i n t r i n s i c and e x t r i n s i c , p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l .

complex
on

many

Despite

many e f f o r t s t o prove o t h e r w i s e , j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n has n o t been found
t o be a s s o c i a t e d w it h p r o d u c t i v i t y (Organ, 1977; Vroom, 1964).
G all up

polls

as well

as many o t h e r

studies

have found t h a t ,

b e f o r e 1970, most w or ker s were s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r j o b s
Hamner,

1982 ).

However,

(Organ &

t h e r e does seem t o be e v i d e n c e t h a t j o b -

s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s have d e c r e a s e d s i n c e t h e n .

Smit h, R o b e r t s ,

and

Hulin ( 1 9 7 6 ) , f o r example, found a s l i g h t d e c r e a s e in e v e ry a r e a o f
the country except the Southeast.
The s c h o o l - l e v e l

findings

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

a r e many

and v a r i e d .

S i l v e r (1983) r e p o r t e d on two s t u d i e s o f p u b l i c s c h o o l s

that

direct

had

a

relevance

to

Herzberg’ s

more

general

studies

78

dividing job s a tis f a c tio n

into

those

aspects

and t h o s e t h a t were me rel y m a in ten an ce

that

were m o t i v a t o r s

indicators.

Unfortunately,

agreement on which component o f jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n
aspect

has

n o t been c o n s i s t e n t ,

leading

falls

i n t o which

Hoy and Miskel

(1978)

to

s u g g e s t a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l model i n c l u d i n g m o t i v a t i o n , hy g ie n e , and
ambient i n d i c a t o r s .

The s c a l e used in t h e s t u d y d i s c u s s e d in t h i s

work i n c l u d e s items from each o f t h e s e a s p e c t s .
S e r g io v a n n i and C ar v er (1980) r e p o r t e d on C ha s e’ s s t u d y , which
found t h a t t e a c h e r s ’ j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n depended t o a l a r g e e x t e n t on
the q u a lity of the p r i n c i p a l s ’ le ad ersh ip .

Bidwell (1965) i n d i c a t e d

t h a t t h e t e a c h e r s ’ j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n depended on t h e e x t e n t t o which
t h e i r e x p e c t a t i o n s o f t h e p r i n c i p a l matched t h e a c t u a l
the p rin c ip a l.

behaviors of

Both o f t h e s e e a r l y s t u d i e s found a high d e g r e e of

satisfaction.
A r e c e n t d i s c u s s i o n by Webb (1983) s u g g e s t e d t h a t some changes
in

the

p attern s

of

teacher

O c c u p a t io n a l s t a t u s and s o c i a l

job

satisfactio n

are

occurring.

standing of te ach ers are decreasing,

and t h e i r l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y f o r advancement i s i n c r e a s i n g .

These

problems l e a d t o an e s t r a n g e m e n t with t h e i r work f o r many t e a c h e r s ,
a c c o r d i n g t o Webb.
When

addressing

job

satisfaction

in

relation

to

the

u nio n,

E b e r t s and Stone (1984) found l e s s j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith u n i o n i z e d
teachers

but

regarded

the

finding

r a t h e r t h a n a con sequence o f ,
Paschall

as

a possible

explanation

c o lle c tiv e bargaining.

for,

Vornberg and

(1984) found t h a t a f t e r t e n y e a r s o r more o f membership in

79
a t e a c h e r s ’ u n io n , t e a c h e r s te n d e d t o e x p r e s s more j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
The r e s e a r c h e r s con cl ud ed t h a t t h e l e n g t h o f ti m e i n t h e union was
required

to

be s e v e r a l

years

before

the

bargaining

process

coul d

mature and a f f e c t j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
In

general,

then,

job

satisfaction

for

teachers

complex i n d i c a t o r t h a t a p p e a r s t o be d e c r e a s i n g

as

is

a

very

the c o l le c t iv e

b a r g a i n i n g i n c r e a s e s , b u t t h a t d e c r e a s e may have no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o
unions, r a t h e r r e f l e c t i n g th e general p a t t e r n s o f jo b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
Job

satisfactio n

reflects

the

in teg ratio n

function

o r g a n iz a ti o n , and, d e s p i t e g r e a t environm ental

of

the

pressures,

such

s a t i s f a c t i o n a p p e a rs t o v a r y more by age and sex t h a n by s i t u a t i o n .
The

evidence

regarding

the

effect

of

s a t i s f a c t i o n i s s c a n t y and u n c l e a r .
(1978) a r e c o r r e c t ,

contract

lan g ua g e

on

job

I f Herzberg o r Hoy and Miskel

t h e e f f e c t may well

be d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t

aspects of job s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Tension in S t a f f R e l a t i o n s h i p s
While s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been i n c l u d e d as one component
of

job

satisfactio n

in

addressed

staff

w ith

in teg ratio n

the

most

relationships

perception of t r u s t ,
and t h e i r

positive

awareness

of

stu d ies,
as

function.

respect,

and

separate
S taff

present

study

indicator

relatio n sh ip s

interdependence.

tensions

among

are

Conversely,

teachers

also

associated

and warmth on t h e p a r t o f t h e

aw areness o f

conflict

a

the

and

the
staff
the

between

t e a c h e r s and t h e p r i n c i p a l has been r e g a r d e d as s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s
(Sergiovanni

& S tarratt,

1983;

S ilv er,

1983).

A gain,

many

80
researchers

(Fiedler,

1984;

Hershey

& B la n c h a r d ,

1983;

Humphrey,

1985) have found t h a t t h e t y p e and q u a l i t y o f l e a d e r s h i p a f f e c t t h e
re la tio n s h ip s of the s t a f f .
School

s t u d i e s seem t o have conf irm ed t h i s c o n n e c t i o n .

studies

(ERS,

related

to

1980)

fou nd ,

differing

id en tified

ten

f o r example,

principal

substantive

that

behaviors

dim ensions

teacher

by l e v e l .
of

tru st

These

loyalty
Such

th at

was

studies
teachers

i n v e s t e d i n p r i n c i p a l s (ERS, 1980).
L ittle

research

is

available

on s t a f f

relationships

as

such.

However, in t h e r e c e n t works on u n i o n i z a t i o n , p r i n c i p a l / t e a c h e r s o r
t e a c h e r / t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s were e x p l o r e d e x t e n s i v e l y .
in J e s s u p ’ s
peers

and

u n io n .

(1985)

study

principals

had

indicated
changed

their
little

relationships
after

the

T h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w ith s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and

were viewed

T ea ch er s
w it h

a dv en t

th eir
of

the

board members

as t h e same o r worse.

Johnson (1984) found t h a t t e a c h e r s

still

gave t h e i r

strongest

a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e i r school and p r i n c i p a l s r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e u n i o n s .
She

found

that

teachers

avoided

literal

contract

enforcement

to

av oi d c o n f l i c t .
E b e r t s and

Stone

(1984)

found

th at

84% o f t h e

teachers

r es p o n d in g i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y had s u p p o r t i v e p r i n c i p a l s .

However,

t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s as well as p e e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o
be q u i t e as p o s i t i v e in u n i o n i z e d d i s t r i c t s .
In summary, no s t u d y was found t h a t documented a c t u a l
in

staff

post

relationships.

facto

by

teachers

The few changes
during

interviews

changes

described

were

reported

and d i d

not

involve

81

pre/post

data.

The

findings

that

were

available

did

appear

to

s u p p o r t t h e as s e s s m e n t o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s as s t a b l e , based somewhat on
p r in c ip a ls ’ leadership

styles

and s e r v i n g

an

integrative

function

fo r the school.

Co nc lu sio n
Many o f t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d seemed t o o f f e r
fo r the appropriateness
C h ap t er

II.

Studies

of the
conf irm ed

management and t e c h n i c a l
was

found

that

used

theoretical

framework d e s c r i b e d

differences

activity,

supporting evidence

in

structure

f o r example.

Parsons’ theory,

his

However,

concepts

in

between
no s tu dy

o f change

and

f u n c t i o n , and t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Weick and Meyer and Rowan on dual
s t r u c t u r e s and l i n k a g e s t o e x p l o r e l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a .
The

m ajor

pattern s

of

findings

as

they

relate

to

th is

t h e o r e t i c a l framework were:
1.

Change.

change.

There

is

strong

resistance

to

organizational

To have change, s t r o n g l e a d e r s h i p and a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n

o f t h e membership a r e n e c e s s a r y ,

but,

even t h e n ,

change w i l l

oc cu r

un ev en ly .
2.

L i n ka ge s .

They seem t o
formal

3.

vary by f u n c t i o n .

structure

activity,

Linkages va ry

and management

in sub sys te ms

of

In t h e c a s e o f t h e
are

d ec ou pl ed

organizations.
schools,

from t h e

the

technical

instruction.
C en tralizatio n.

d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n help the

The p r o c e s s e s

of

cen tralizatio n

system ad ap t t o en v i ro n m e n ta l

Such a d a p t a t i o n s o c c u r f r e q u e n t l y and r a p i d l y .

and

pressures.

82

4.

Community

participation.

h e l p s t h e school

Community

a d a p t t o e n vi ro nm en ta l

participation

ch an g e s,

also

and t h e n a t u r e o f

such p a r t i c i p a t i o n may change as w e l l .
5.

P rin c ip a l’s authority.

of authority.
to

The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

the te c h n ic a l

classroom.

P r i n c i p a l s have a t l e a s t two t y p e s

activ ity

of

The i n s t r u c t i o n a l

a u th o rity is not d i r e c t l y
the

school

as conducted

linked

in

l e a d e r s h i p may o r may n o t be.

the
L ittle

change a p p e a r s t o have o c c u r r e d in t h e p a t t e r n s o f a u t h o r i t y ,
on t h e s e s t u d i e s .
more l i k e l y
th a t the

to

Where i t d i d o c c u r ,

change.

Both r o l e s

t h e management r o l e was th e

serve

symbolically to

co n f ir m

school r e f l e c t s s o c i e t a l e x p e c t a t i o n s .

6.

Teach er p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m .

classroom

autonomy

as

a

The t e a c h e r has a g r e a t deal

professional.

While

d e c i s i o n making i s a l s o a norm f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l s ,
very

based

little.

d ifferen tiated
participation

Where

it

does

by c o n t r a c t
a p p e a rs

to

occur,

it

p ro visions.

have

changed

ve ry

of

participation

in

in f a c t i t o cc u r s

is

ro u tin ized

N either
much

in

and

a u to n om y

nor

the l a s t

20

years.
7.

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

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

may have l e s s e n e d s l i g h t l y .

is g en era lly

high

but

The co n c e p t o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n has a t

l e a s t two and p e r h a p s more components and i s d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e d by
a v a r i e t y o f v a r i a b l e s such as age and sex.
8.

Staff

relationships.

S taff

relationships

ap p e a r t o

vary

somewhat from school t o school and have changed l i t t l e a t t h e school
level a f t e r the in tro d u c tio n o f c o l l e c t i v e bargaining.

83
9.

Some d i f f e r e n c e

in

change

pattern s

maye x i s t

between

e l e m e n t a r y and s e co nd ar y s c h o o l s .
I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t few o f t h e p a t t e r n s were c l e a r or
consistent.

In t h e

study i s d escrib e d .
study

are

described

l i t e r a t u r e r e v ie w .

following

chapter,

Then, in C h a p t e r
and

related

for

this

V, t h e p a t t e r n s found in

this

to the

the

methodology

patterns

found in

the

CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY

Introduction
In

fall

U niversity
principal

1967,

Philip

graduate

Marcus

students

opinion

survey

f i n d i n g s from t h i s

in itial

and

a

began

team

an

of

Michigan

extensive

in f i v e Michigan

school

s u r v e y were examined in

State

teacher

districts.

and
The

the d i s s e r ta t io n s

o f two o f t h e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , C a t h e r i n e Smith (1976) and C h a r l e s
Given ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and were r e f e r r e d t o in some o f t h e a r t i c l e s w r i t t e n
by

Dr.

Marcus.

No com ple te

discussion

or

findings

summary was

p u b l i s h e d , however.
In f a l l 1986,
research

team

to

Dr. Marcus

began work w i t h a c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r

r e p li c a t e the

s tu d y

after

20

years.

In itial

r e s p o n s e s were a f f i r m a t i v e from each o f t h e same f i v e d i s t r i c t s ,
the

team began t h e p l a n n i n g

chapter

describes

the

for

a fall

m ethodology

1987 r e p e a t

for

th is

study.

1987

and
This

study

and

co m par iso ns in methodology between t h e two s t u d i e s .

A ct i o n Plan
The team began by d e v e l o p i n g a g e n e r a l a c t i o n pl a n t o c o v e r t h e
18 months t h e

s tu d y was e x p e c t e d

to

take.

As w it h

p l a n s , t h e sequen ce s were m o d i f ie d as work p r o g r e s s e d .

84

most

action

85
The o r i g i n a l

a c t i o n p la n in c l u d e d an e x t e n s i v e e x p l o r a t i o n

of

f e a s i b i l i t y f o r t h e s t u d y , as well as a s tu d y p i l o t t o be cond uct ed
in

a d istrict

not

asso ciated

w ith

the

actual

study

itse lf.

M o d i f i c a t i o n s in t h e i n s t r u m e n t s and p r o c e d u r e s were p l a n n e d ,
on t h e s e p r e l i m i n a r y s t e p s .

based

A n a l y s i s p r o c e s s e s were i d e n t i f i e d

t h e a c t i o n p l a n , as were e x p e c te d f o l l o w - u p s t e p s .

in

(See Appendix A

f o r com plete Ac tion P l a n . )

Exploration of F e a s ib i lit y
The e a r l i e r s t u d y i n c l u d e d many q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g what were,
in

1967,

t h e major

issues

in Michigan

education.

The 1987 team

r e c o g n i z e d t h a t many o f t h e s e i s s u e s were no l o n g e r m a jo r , whereas
new i s s u e s

had

arisen .

rep resen tativ es

A ccordingly,

te a m

o f t h e M ichigan School

members

called

on

Bo ard A s s o c i a t i o n ,

the

Michigan A s s o c i a t i o n o f Elementary and Middle School P r i n c i p a l s , and
t h e Michigan Educ atio n A s s o c i a t i o n t o r evi ew t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and
s u g g e s t added t o p i c s .

The f i r s t m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t and

methods was based on t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s .
Following
eight

this

principals:

modification,
three

male,

the

five

two b l a c k .

questionnaire
f e m a le ;

elementary;

six white,

interpreted

t h e t e rm i n o l o g y where p o s s i b l e

instrument

changes

designed

f e a s i b i l i t y o f the study.

to

secondary,

to

four

address

in

educational

A second m o d i f i c a t i o n o f

and methods th e n o c c u r r e d .

were s p e c i f i c a l l y

g iv e n

They reviewed t h e q u e s t i o n s and

la ng uag e had o c c u r r e d o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s .
the

four

was

the

Both o f t h e s e

rev ie ws

appropriateness

and

86
In a d d i t i o n ,
districts

the labor re p re s e n ta tiv e s

were c o n t a c t e d .

Again

the

from each o f t h e

discussion

centered

five

on

the

f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e s t u d y from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f c o l l e c t i o n methods,
i n s t r u m e n t s e n s i t i v i t y , and union s u p p o r t .

The r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from

f o u r o f t h e f i v e d i s t r i c t s were most s u p p o r t i v e .

The f i f t h d i s t r i c t

was j u s t e n t e r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y b a r g a i n i n g s e s s i o n s f o r a t h r e e y e a r c o n t r a c t and was much l e s s c o m f o r t a b l e w ith t h e s t u d y .

Design o f t h e Study
Following
literatu re

the

re vi e w ,

discussion
the

on

research

feasibility

team con cluded

and

a

preliminary

that

a substantial

number o f t h e s c a l e s in t h e 1967 s tu d y were a p p l i c a b l e t o d a y .

The

team th e n

the

scales,

deve lo ped

general

research

based on t h e l i t e r a t u r e

h y p o th e se s

r ev ie w .

for

each

of

(The h y p o th e s e s used f o r

t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n were used as one s e t o f t h e g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s e s . )

D i s s e r t a t i o n Hypotheses
As i n d i c a t e d in e a r l i e r c h a p t e r s ,

each o f t h e two components,

formal s t r u c t u r e and t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t y , was assumed t o have s e v e r a l
in d icato rs.
dependent

Each

variab le,

in v estig ated
definitions
sp ecific

theoretical
and

through

of

the

each

use

of

indicators

v aria b les.)

The

variable
a

associated

cen tralizatio n

and co m mu n it y
and

scale.

formal

two

au th o rity

was

associated

was

the

the

a

list

adaptive
and

a

em pirically

included

p articip atio n ,

w it h

Appendix

C for

structure

w ith

then

(See

and Appendix

in dicato rs:

p rin cip al’s

indicator

B for
of

the

four

function,

two w i t h

pattern-m aintenance

the

the

function,

87

organizational
technical
w ell:

m a nag em en t

activity

the

and

in stru ctio n al

i n c l u d e d two f u n c t i o n s w it h

function

of

goal

attainm ent

re la te d to teacher professionalism ,
the

function

of

in teg ratio n

w ith

lead ersh ip .
four
the

The

indicators
two

indicators

autonomy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

w ith

the

as

in d icato rs

of

and

staff

r e l a t i o n s h i p s and j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
The u n i t o f a n a l y s i s was t h e
in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .
years,

The f i n a l

F o r ty - tw o s c h o o l s were

The in d e p en d en t v a r i a b l e s i n c l u d e d t h e two

1967 and 1987,

secondary.

school.

as well

as

the

two

levels,

elementary

and

The f o u r d i s t r i c t s a l s o s er v ed as in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s .
in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e , c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h , was t o be s t u d i e d

i f the d i s t r i c t s
scales.

did,

in f a c t ,

prove t o v a r y on any o f t h e

eight

(See Appendix D f o r d e s c r i p t i o n o f c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h . )

The

hypotheses,

procedures,

and

analyses

com plete d

for

the

s t u d y a r e d e s c r i b e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g p age s.
The f i r s t q u e s t i o n t o be a d d r e s s e d i s w h eth er change o c c u r r e d .
Bas ed

on

the

th eo retical

model,

the

follow ing

two

research

h y p o th e s e s were f o r m u l a t e d :
H y p o th e s is 1 : The f o u r i n d i c a t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w it h t h e formal
s t r u c t u r e - - c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , community p a r t i c i p a t i o n , t h e p r i n c i ­
p a l ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p - w i l l have changed.
These
coup le d

indicators

subunits

routinized
pressures

four

of

the

are

structure

com munications
for

change.

environm ent--the federal

assumed

All

and
of

and s t a t e

to

be

amenable,

formal
the

aspects

of

tightly

bec a us e

of

formal,

m onitoring,

changes

initiativ es;

in
the

the

to

outside

educational

industrial

and

88

technical

d e v e lo p m en ts ;

the

legal

decisions;

and t h e

dem ographic,

p o l i t i c a l , and s o c i a l changes - a r e assumed t o have had an impact on
the four in d ic a to rs .
H ypothesis 2 ;
The f o u r i n d i c a t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
the
t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t y - - t e a c h e r a u t o n o m y and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
d e c i s i o n making, t e a c h e r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , and l e v e l o f s t a f f
t e n s i o n - - w i l l remain unchanged.
These f o u r i n d i c a t o r s a r e assumed t o be a s p e c t s o f s u b u n i t s o f
the

structure

which,

lo o sely coupled.
communications

bec a u se

Thus,

of

the

functions

the four in d ic a to r s ,

and m o n i t o r i n g ,

are

less

they

w ith

amenable

serve,

less
to

are

formalized

e n vi ro nm en ta l

p r e s s u r e s on a c o n s i s t e n t o r w id es p r ea d b a s i s .
The

second

ac c ou nt f o r t h e

question

to

be a d d r e s s e d

chang e.

Based on t h e

is

which

theoretical

variables

may

model

the

and

f i n d i n g s o f p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , h y p o th e se s were d e v e l o p e d .
H y p o th e s is 3 : Time i t s e l f w i l l a c c o u n t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r ­
t i o n o f t h e change f o r any v a r i a b l e t h a t has changed.
The 20 y e a r s
society.
In

from 1967 t o 1987 were momentous y e a r s

Major demographic changes and p o l i t i c a l

addition,

legal

decisions,

legislation,

and

in

our

swings o c c u r r e d .
economic

patterns

made s p e c i f i c changes in t h e c l i e n t e l e and d e l i v e r y systems o f t h e
schools.

Desegregation, special education,

and compe nsa tory e d u c a ­

t i o n were j u s t a few o f t h e waves o f re f o r m o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g t h i s
period.

F i n a l l y , t h e ag in g o f t h e d i s t r i c t s , t h e b u i l d i n g s , and t h e

s t a f f made such a g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s l i k e l y .

89
H y p o th e s is 4 : D i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y w i l l a cc o un t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t
p o r t i o n o f change i n any v a r i a b l e t h a t has changed.
While s i z e ,

locale,

and g e n e r a l

s t a t u s were h e l d c o n s t a n t

for

t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d , o t h e r f o r c e s were e x p e c t e d t o make each
o f t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s r e a c t d i f f e r e n t l y t o e n v i ro n m e n ta l

pressures.

The d i s t r i c t s had d i f f e r e n t l e a d e r s h i p ; d i f f e r i n g c u l t u r a l ,

ethnic,

and r a c i a l

and had

patterns;

d i f f e r e n t b as es f o r t h e i r

economies;

adop te d d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs and c u r r i c u l a .
H y p o th e s is 5 :
School l e v e l , e l e m e n t a r y o r
a cc o u n t f o r a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n o f change
t h a t has changed.
In

school

literatu re,

the

stru ctu res

secondary, w ill
in any v a r i a b l e

of

secondary

e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o ls a r e assumed t o be somewhat d i f f e r e n t .
school

studies

have found l e s s

bureaucracy,

more

and

Secondary

professionalism ,

more h i g h l y e d u c a t e d t e a c h e r s , more male t e a c h e r s , l a r g e r e n r o l l m e n t
size,

and

less

job

satisfaction

(S e r g io v a n n i

& S tarratt,

1983;

S i l v e r , 1983).
The t h i r d q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e s t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e change.
t h e change in

the

predicted

direction?

The f o l l o w i n g

Is

h y p o th e s e s

were f o r m u l a t e d t o a d d r e s s t h a t i s s u e :
H y p o th e s is 6 :

The amount o f c e n t r a l i z a t i o n w i l l

Increases

technological

com puter,

in

a l lo w

for

r e s o u r c e s from c e n t r a l
programs
1980).

require

tighter
office.

tighter

capability,

m o n i to r in g
Judicial

monitoring,

as

of

most
human

decisions
well

increase.
especially
and

the

financial

and l e g i s l a t i v e

(Kochen

& Deu tsc h,

90

H y p ot h es is
decrease.

7:

The

amount

of

community

participation

will

The amount o f t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e r e q u i r e d f o r d e c i s i o n making
has

increased,

specific

leading

areas.

In

to

addition,

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n
and working mothers

more

decision

the

amount

has d e c r e a s e d

(McCormick,

w it h

1978).

making
of

by

time

experts

available

single-parent

Finally,

in
for

fam ilies

some r e s e a r c h e r s

have seen s p e c i f i c e n vi ro nm en ta l i n f l u e n c e s such as u n i o n i z a t i o n and
j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s as r e d u c i n g t h e a c t u a l number o f d e c i s i o n s t o be
made ( A n g e l l , 1981; P e r r y & Wildman, 1970).
H y p ot h es is 8 :

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l management w i l l d e c r e a s e .

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s
w ill

decrease

as

centralization

the

role

in

organizational

same e n v i r o n m e n t a l

and d e c r e a s e

community

d a i l y a d m in is tra tio n o f th e school.

management
forces

th at

participation
F ede ral

activities
in crease

influence

and s t a t e

the

initiativ es

make added paperwork and c r e a t e f i e l d s o f e x p e r t i s e n o t p r e v i o u s l y
existing.

Thus, t h e p r i n c i p a l ,

e x p e rtis e , will
In

addition,

have l e s s

the

with l e s s time and no s p e c i a l i z e d

involvement in u i ^ o n i ^ c i t i u n a i niaiiagernefit.

number o f d e c i s i o n s

required

may be

red u ce d

as

p o l i c i e s , laws , and r e g u l a t i o n s a r e dev el o p ed ( E b e r t s & S t o n e , 1984;
ERS, 1980).
H y p ot h es is 9 :
Instructional
actual

ti m e

I n s tru c tio n a l leadership will decrease.
leadership

(C uttita,

1982).

already

has l e s s

With l e s s

of

time t o

the

p rin c ip a l’s

spend bec a us e o f

91
le g islatio n ,

the

principal

has

less

opportunity

to

exercise

in stru c tio n al leadership.
(It

is

autonomy,

im portant

teacher

to

note

that

participation

in

four

in d icato rs--teach er

decision

making,

teacher

job

s a t i s f a c t i o n , and s t a f f t e n s i o n s - - w e r e ex p ec te d t o remain unchanged.
Thus, no d i r e c t i o n o f change was h y p o t h e s i z e d . )
Finally,

the question of teacher c o n tra ct

s t r e n g t h as r e l a t e d

t o t h e changes i d e n t i f i e d was a d d r e s s e d .
For t h o s e

formal

structure

indicators,

tightly

coupled,

the

f o l l o w i n g h y p o th e s e s were f o r m u l a t e d :
H y p o th e s is 1 : There i s a d i r e c t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h .
Because o f t h e t e nd en cy o f s t r o n g
d ifferentiate,
ex p e c t e d

to

contract.

many o f
be

the

procedures

centralized

after

contracts
of

the

the

to

routinize

d istrict

development

and

would

of

a

be

strong

Johnson (1984) and J e s s u p (1985) both found such t r e n d s

in t h e i r s t u d i e s o f union e f f e c t on t h e s c h o o l .
H y p o th e s is 2 : There i s a d i r e c t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p
community p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h .
As

contracts

become

strong,

more

of

the

areas

between

that

were

d i s c r e t i o n a r y on t h e p a r t o f school s t a f f , and t h e r e f o r e p o t e n t i a l l y
adaptable

based on community p r e s s u r e ,

p r o c e d u r e s and l e s s
and

student

evident

amenable t o m o d i f i c a t i o n .

p la ce m e nt .

results,

E b e r t s and Stone

the

become p a r t

S in ce

community

and t h e

Examples

less.

1978 NAESP s tu d y

formal

are

participation

community p a r t i c i p a t e s

(1 98 4) ,

o f the

Myers
(cited

staff

has

less

(19 73) ,
in

1980) a l l n o te d t h e community t e n s i o n s c r e a t e d by t h e c o n t r a c t .

ERS,
No

92
study

was

found,

participation.

however,

(For

th at

further

documented

discussion

of

a

these

lessening

of

studies,

see

Ch ap te r I I . )
H y p o th e s is 3 : There i s a d i r e c t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m an age me nt a u t h o r i t y and
contract strength.
S tro n g c o n t r a c t s r o u t i n i z e t h o s e p e r s o n n e l a c t i v i t i e s t h a t used
t o be p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l .
(1 98 4) , J e s s u p
all

found

(19 85) , Johnson (19 84) ,

some

evidence

of

loss

E b e r t s and Stone

and Ebber and F u l n e r

of

authority

due

to

(1985)

collective

b a r g a i n i n g , e s p e c i a l l y in t h e a r e a o f p e r s o n n e l d e c i s i o n s .
H y p o th e s is 4 : There i s a d i r e c t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between
t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p a u t h o r i t y and c o n t r a c t
strength.
Strong

contracts

ro u tin ize

those

classificatio n

system s

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , t e a c h e r working hour s and
instructional
so

on.

versus n o n in s tru c tio n a l

They

dev el op me nt .

also

routinize

Jessup

(1985)

the
and

duties,

c la s s scheduling,

procedures
Johnson

used

(1984)

for

and

curriculum

found

that

some

i n s t r u c t 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 s had been a f f e c t e d by c o l l e c t i v e
b a r g a i n i n g as w e l l , f o r example, s t u d e n t g r o u p in g .
Because each
cou p le d

and

of these

amenable

to

indicators

the

was

assumed

e nv ir on m en ta l

to

pressure

be
of

tightly
contract

s t r e n g t h , t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s were a l l assumed t o have changed o v e r t h e
20-year period.
For t h o s e t e c h n i c a l

activity

indicators,

f o l l o w i n g h y p o th e se s were f o r m u l a t e d :

lo o sely coupled,

the

93
H y p o th e s is 5 : Te a c h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , as i n d i c a t e d by t e a c h e r
autonomy, w i l l n o t change in r e l a t i o n t o c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h .
T ea ch er autonomy, a n o t h e r goal o f union devel op men t, lo o k s very
much t h e

same as

studies.

it

Johnson

did

20 y e a r s

(1984),

for

ago,

according

example,

found

to

most

little

recent

evidence

of

change in p a t t e r n s o f autonomy.
H y p o th e s is 6 : Te a ch er p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m , as i n d i c a t e d by t e a c h e r
p a r t i c i p a t i o n , w i l l n o t change in r e l a t i o n to c o n t r a c t
strength.
While t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as one
o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e development o f t e a c h e r u n i o n s ,
teacher

p articip atio n ,

as

viewed

by t h e

t e a c h e r , w i l l have changed v er y l i t t l e .
found l i t t l e

evidence o f e f f e c t

in f a c t t h e

individual

classroom

J e s s u p ( 1 9 8 5 ) , f o r example,

from t h e

establishm ent

of teacher

u n io n s .
H y p o th e s is 7 : Job s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l
contract strength.
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
note,

however,

satisfaction
Therefore,

found

that

te n d

if

hy g ie ne t y p e .

that

is

unlikely

contract

to

be

to

chang e.

provisions

hyg ie ne

n o t change in r e l a t i o n t o

factors

that

It

is

might

rather

important
influence

than

seemed

to

tie

job

satisfiers.

any items changed th e y would be e x p e c t e d
Vornberg and P a s c h a l l

to

to

be th e

(1984) completed t h e o n ly s tu dy

job-satisfaction

chang es

to

contract

la n g u a g e , and t h e y found a v e r y s l i g h t i n c r e a s e in j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
which seemed t o c o n t r a d i c t g e n e r a l p a t t e r n s o f d e c r e a s e s .

94
H y p ot h es is 8 .
S t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s and t h e l e v e l
w i l l n o t change in r e l a t i o n t o c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h .
While
formal,

staff

relationships

especially

those

might

between

the

be

expected

principal

to

of

tension

become

and t h e

more

teachers,

b ec a us e o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s d e s c r i b e d in t h e c o n t r a c t s , t h e g r i e v a n c e
procedures

for

co n sisten tly

example,

in

changed.

fact

this

Johnson

area

(1984)

is

also

found

not

th at

easily

the

or

actual

p r i n c i p a l / t e a c h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p , f o r example, had changed ve ry l i t t l e
even though c o n t r a c t lan g ua ge s p e c i f i c a l l y a d d r e s s e d some a s p e c t s o f
th a t relationship.
All

of these four

indicators

a r e assumed t o

remain

unchanged

even though some o f t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e t o them.
They w i l l no t change bec a u se t h e y a r e l o o s e l y c o u p l e d , and t h e r e f o r e
en vi ro n m en ta l c h a n g e s , i . e . ,

c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h , a r e u n l i k e l y t o have

any e f f e c t on them.
The f o l l o w i n g
and s c a l e s

section

contains

and t h e methods t h a t

a discussion

were

used

for

of the

variables

c o m p le ti o n

of

s u r v e y , as well as t h e methods used t o a n a l y z e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n .

the
All

o f t h e e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n was based on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model.

The V a r i a b l e s
The

independent

v ariab les.

in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

Time was

the

first

The y e a r 1967 was t h e f i r s t o r second y e a r

o f c o l l e c t i v e l y b a r g a i n e d c o n t r a c t s in a l l f o u r d i s t r i c t s .
20 y e a r s l a t e r ,

schools

By 1987,

each d i s t r i c t had con ducted a t l e a s t seven co m pl ete

b a r g a i n i n g p e r i o d s w it h seven formal c o n t r a c t s .
42

variab le

studied

had

existed

for

20

years

Thus,
unde r

each o f t h e
collective

95
bargaining.

The two p o i n t s o f t i m e ,

1967 and 1987,

were used t o

r e p r e s e n t two p i c t u r e s o f t h e s c h o o l s ’ s t r u c t u r e and e x p e r i e n c e as
p e r c e i v e d by t h e t e a c h e r s .
During
occurred

that

that

period,

also

had

many o t h e r
a

potential

effect

s t r u c t u r e s in d i s t r i c t s and s c h o o l s .
flowed and ebbed.

environm ental
on

and th e n i n c r e a s e d g e n e r a l l y .

large-scale
to

mass

Peak s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n had o c c u r r e d ,

i m m ig r a ti o n ,
media

Women had become

Unemployment had d e c r e a s e d

and t h e o v e r a l l p o p u l a t i o n had begun ag i n g .

e x po s ur e

educational

P o s t s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n had become t h e e x p e c te d

a l a r g e p a r t o f t h e g e n e r a l work f o r c e .

and

the

had

S t a t e and f e d e r a l fu n d in g had

norm f o r i n c r e a s i n g p e r c e n t a g e s o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n .

m igration,

changes

were

the
all

I s s u e s such as massive

technological

developing

revolution,

during

those

20

years.
Each o f t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s
of these

i s s u e s and ch ang in g p a t t e r n s .

large-scale
district

s t u d i e d was a t t h e vangu ard o f many

population

had

extensive

shifts,

but

expanding

Each d i s t r i c t

w it h
and

then

industries,

ag ai n w it h v a r y i n g i n d u s t r i e s .

of

and

federal

programs,

categorical

monies

groups.

d o w n s i z in g
Each was t h e

for

special

but t h e programs th e m s e lv e s v a r i e d g r e a t l y

to d i s t r i c t .
pr ograms.

stage

varying

experienced

in

Each
major

recipient
and

pilot

from d i s t r i c t

One d i s t r i c t emphasized magnet and community e d u c a t i o n
Another d i s t r i c t

Language programs.

dev el o pe d

large

English

As

a

Second

A t h i r d worked very hard on l e a r n i n g s t y l e s and

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Theory I n t o P r a c t i c e programs th r o u g h s t a f f i n s e r v i c e .
A nother went w h o l e h e a r t e d l y i n t o g i f t e d and e a r l y c h i l d h o o d p r o j e c t s

96
d u r i n g t h e s e 20 y e a r s .

The 42 s c h o o l s had been i n c l u d e d i n a t t e m p t s

t o implement t h e s e programs.
While ti m e was t h e f i r s t in d e pe nd en t v a r i a b l e s t u d i e d , d i s t r i c t
was t h e seco nd .

Because o f t h e many e nv ir on m en ta l

f o r c e s and t h e

v a r i e d d i s t r i c t r e s p o n s e s , d i s t r i c t s were ex p ec te d t o have d i f f e r i n g
r a t e s and d i r e c t i o n s o f change in t h e e i g h t dep en d en t v a r i a b l e s ( t h e
structural

indicators)

if

change o c c u r r e d .

The

identity

of

the

d i s t r i c t in which a school was l o c a t e d might well be t h e main s o u r c e
of the v a r ia tio n .
The t h i r d in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s t u d i e d was t h e l e v e l o f t h e 42
schools.

Researchers

(Abramovitz & Tenenbaum,

1978)

had h y p o t h e ­

s i z e d in p r e v i o u s works t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s might v ar y based
on

level,

w it h

school l e v e l ,
based

on

level

more

differentiation

f o r example.
(Silver,

and

c o m p le x it y

at

the

high

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n a l s o app ea re d t o vary
1983).

If

level

v a r i a t i o n , r a t h e r than time or d i s t r i c t ,

was t h e

source

of

the

th e n d i f f e r e n c e s in school

s t r u c t u r e would seem t o have major i n f l u e n c e on change p r o c e s s e s and
outcomes

in r e l a t i o n

io env iro n m en ta l

in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s

forces.

was c o n s i d e r e d th r o u g h

Each o f t h e s e t h r e e
analysis

of

variance

techniques.
The f o u r t h in d e pe nd en t v a r i a b l e s t u d i e d was c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h .
C o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h was reviewed f o r a l l
the 20-year period.

o f the four d i s t r i c t s

o ve r

Th is re v ie w was based on t h e model d ev el o pe d in

a 1980 Rand s t u d y , in which c o n t r a c t s were d e f i n e d as s t r o n g i f th e y
contained

provisions

not

expected

on

the

basis

of

the

local

s i t u a t i o n and as weak i f th e y f a i l e d t o c o n t a i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s one

97

would

expect

on

the

basis

of

the

same

local

indicators.

Two

r e s e a r c h e r s u s in g t h e same Rand s c a l e revie we d each o f t h e c o n t r a c t s
fo r the four d i s t r i c t s

i n t h i s st u d y and i n d e p e n d e n t l y a s s i g n e d t h e

s c o r e s f o r each noncompensation b a r g a i n i n g domain.

The r e s e a r c h e r s

revie wed a t o t a l o f 29 c o n t r a c t s f o r t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s o v e r t h e 20
years.

The in d e p e n d e n t w e i g h t i n g s d i f f e r e d on o nl y two p r o v i s i o n s

in

set

one

of

contracts.

(See

Appendix

E for

a

list

of

the

b a r g a i n i n g domains r e v i e w e d . )
Based on t h e s e r e v i e w s , each d i s t r i c t was a s s i g n e d two c o n t r a c t
strength

scores.

strength

in

seven

1967.

contract

period

The f i r s t

The second

strength

following

score represented the

the

scores

first

score
in

represented

each

contract.

d istrict

initial

contract

the

mean o f

for

the

One d i s t r i c t

mean

the

20-year
in

this

s t u d y was found t o be w i t h i n one s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e mean f o r
the

151

contracts

in t h e

Rand s t u d y .

Two d i s t r i c t s ’ means

w i t h i n t h e to p 20% o f Rand s t u d y c o n t r a c t s .

One d i s t r i c t ’ s mean was

w i t h i n t h e to p 5% o f t h e 151 c o n t r a c t s in t h e Rand s t u d y .
four d i s t r i c t s

in t h i s

were

Thus, t h e

s tu d y rang ed from av e r a g e t o v er y s t r o n g

in

p a t t e r n s o f c o n t r a c t la ng uag e when compared w ith t h e p a t t e r n s found
i n t h e 1980 Rand s t u d y .

Table 4.1 shows t h e r a t i n g s

d i s t r i c t s f o r t h e 29 c o n t r a c t s ,

for the

four

i n d i c a t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t c a t e g o r y in

r e l a t i o n t o t h e Rand s t u d y c o n t r a c t s .
Planned

com parisons

contract strength p a tte rn s .

were

then

developed,

based

on

th ese

(See t h e Method o f A n a l y s i s s e c t i o n f o r

f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e d e s i g n o f t h e pla nned c o m p a r i s o n s . )

The

98
rationale

f o r the

varied

the

eight

in

pla nne d com parisons was t h a t ,

patterns

structural

o f change

indicators,

then

if

the

districts

in t h e de p en d e n t v a r i a b l e s ,
further

exploration

s h o u ld

the
be

con du ct ed t o s e e i f t h e s c h o o l s v a r i e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d by
consideration of co n tra ct stren g th .
were

identified,

the

en v i ro n m en ta l

I f such p a t t e r n s
effect

of

the

of v a ria tio n

introduction

of

v a r y i n g p a t t e r n s o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g would be i n d i c a t e d .

T ab l e 4 . 1 . - - R a t i n g s o f c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h f o r t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s . 3

1967

D istrict

1
2
3

4

1987

Score

Rating

Score

.09
.18
.46
.09

AV

.21
.12
.30
.30

S
VS
AV

Ra ti n g

S
AV

S
s

aR a t i n g s a r e based on t h e Rand s c a l e a p p l i c a t i o n u s i n g 151
c o n t r a c t s in 151 d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d in 1970 and in 1975.
AV =
A v e r a g e , w i t h i n 1 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e mean o f t h e 151
c o n t r a c t s ; S = S t r o n g , w i t h i n t h e t o p 20% o f t h e 151 c o n t r a c t s ; VS =
Very S t r o n g , w i t h i n t h e t o p 5% o f t h e 151 c o n t r a c t s .

Tabl e 4 . 2 p r o v i d e s a summary o f t h e in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s
the s t a t i s t i c a l

and

a n a l y s i s used f o r t h e i r c o n s i d e r a t i o n in r e l a t i o n t o

t h e dep en d en t v a r i a b l e s .

99

Tabl e 4 . 2 . --The in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s .

Variable

S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis

V ariation

Time
D istrict
Time
Contract stren g th

1967, 1987
1 th r o u g h 4
El em en t ar y , se co n da ry
Average t o v e r y s t r o n g

The d e p e n d e n t

v ariab les.

A nalysis o f v ariance
Analysis of variance
Analysis of variance
Planned co m par is ons

The e i g h t

dependent

variab les,

r e p r e s e n t e d by e i g h t s c a l e s o f t e a c h e r p e r c e p t i o n s , were d e s i g n e d t o
explore the eig h t
chapters.

structural

indicators

and

procedure

in t h e

previous

Tabl e 4 . 3 shows t h e s e e i g h t v a r i a b l e s more s p e c i f i c a l l y .

Each o f t h e s c a l e s was used
worded

discussed

placed
has

on e

in

the

same

exception.

in

both

order
One

studies,

for

item

both
on

w it h

each

studies.

the

item
This

instru ctio n al

l e a d e r s h i p s c a l e was a t t h e bottom o f a page in t h e 1967 s t u d y and,
when t h e

questionnaires

it em

off.

cut

Thus,

r e du ce d in one d i s t r i c t

were
the

reproduced,

number

of

several

responses

in a few s c h o o l s

copies
to

in 1967.

thai

had
iiem

that
was

Mean r e s p o n s e s

were used f o r a n a l y s i s o f t h a t it e m .
The f o l l o w i n g pages p r o v i d e a more s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e
i n s t r u m e n t development and t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s c a l e s .

100

T a b l e 4 . 3 . --The d ep en d e nt v a r i a b l e s .

Scale

Topics

Range o f
P o s s i b l e Sco res

C entralization

The l e v e l o f invol vem ent o f
central o ffice representatives
in school d e c i s i o n s

5-25

Community
P articipation

The l e v e l o f i n f l u e n c e and
inv o lv em en t o f p a r e n t o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n s and community i n t e r e s t
gr ou ps in school d e c i s i o n s

5-25

Organizational
Management

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s a u t h o r i t y in
school management a r e a s

6-30

Instructional
L e a d e r s h ip

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e v e l o f
i n f l u e n c e in i n s t r u c t i o n a l
decisions

5-25

Autonomy

The t e a c h e r ’ s l e v e l o f a u t o n ­
omy in t h e cl as sr o om

5-25

P articipation

The t e a c h e r ’ s amount o f p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in i n s t r u c t i o n a l
d e c i s i o n making

9-45

Job S a t i s ­
faction

The t e a c h e r ’ s l e v e l o f s a t i s ­
f a c t i o n in a l l a r e a s o f
wo r k 1Fi9 c o n d i t i o n s

15-65

Relationships

The l e v e l o f t e n s i o n s between
t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and among t e a c h e r s

8-40

101

The Instrumen t-De velo pm ent P ro ce s s
The o r i g i n a l
included several
much

lik e

additional

the

instrument
subitems.

had n e a r l y

related

many o f which

The p r i n c i p a l s ’ q u e s t i o n n a i r e was very

t e a c h e r s ’ , w ith

items

200 i t e m s ,

to

many

school

item s

id en tical

structure,

and

so

but

w ith

on.

The

f o l l o w i n g s t a g e s were completed in t h e r e v i s i o n o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t .
Stag e 1 :

Items were d e l e t e d t h a t had e x c e p t i o n a l l y low r e l i a ­

b i l i t y in t h e o r i g i n a l

s tu d y o r t h a t co u ld n o t be i n t e r p r e t e d .

In

a d d i t i o n , t h o s e items t h a t were o u t d a t e d in t e r m i n o l o g y o r no l o n g e r
r e l e v a n t were a l s o d e l e t e d .
Stag e

2:

organizations
They

Discussions
and

suggested

offensive.

State
items

were

he l d

Department
that

they

w ith

of

leaders

Ed uc a tio n

did

not

of

the

union

representatives.

understand

or

found

They a l s o s u g g e s t e d items t h a t might be added, bas ed on

current issues.
S tag e
districts

3:
no t

Ei g ht

educators

in v ol ve d

in

the

com plete t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
also

were

offensive

interviewed
item s.

questionnaire

was

to

The
still

at

the

s tu d y

d istrict
in

any

way,

They i n d i c a t e d t h e
ascertain

average

level,

tim e

required

approxim ately

were

ti m e

inappropriate,

from t h r e e
asked

required

misleading,

to

com plete

75 m i n u t e s .

The

to
and
or
the

three

s e co n da r y and f i v e e l e m e n t a r y e d u c a t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s
were very i n t e r e s t i n g
For

example,

adm inistrators

the
and

bu t note d

o riginal

some c o n f u s i o n s

instrum ent

departm ent

heads

had
in

and

inaccuracies.

included

many

places.

assistan t
At

the

102
elementary l e v e l ,

such p o s i t i o n s

seldom e x i s t ,

y et th e se educators

t h o u g h t many e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s would mark t h e most n e g a t i v e c h o i c e
rather

th a n

leaving

that

were " no t i n f l u e n t i a l

it em b l a n k .

at all"

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s

in c u r r i c u l u m m a t t e r s ,

t h e r e were no p r i n c i p a l ’ s a s s i s t a n t s .

assistants

true

These r e s p o n d e n t s

some h o s t i l i t y might be g e n e r a t e d from t h i s s i t u a t i o n ,

bec au se

indicated

based on t h e

assumed ig n o r a n c e o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r s r e g a r d i n g school s t r u c t u r e .
S tag e

4:

The

instrument

was

piloted

in

a

total

d istrict.

Although t h e r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h i s p i l o t was low, 39%, t h e t e a c h e r s
and p r i n c i p a l s who d i d com ple te i t made many h e l p f u l
addition,
sions

t h r e e t e a c h e r s were i n t e r v i e w e d t o d i s c u s s t h e i r

and

interpretations

f e ed b a ck and t h e r e s u l t s
revised.
for

comments.

of

the

of t h i s

instrum ent.
pilo t,

Three forms were now d e v e l o p e d ,

se co n da ry

teachers,

and

one

for

t e a c h e r s ’ q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were i d e n t i c a l
departm ent

the

heads

and

assistan ts.

Based

In

im pres­

on

their

i n s t r u m e n t was

a ga i n

one f o r p r i n c i p a l s ,

elementary

teachers.

except fo r the
A gain,

the

one
The

addition

of

p rin cip als’

q u e s lio n n a ire mirrored the t e a c h e r s ’ except fo r c e r t a i n

structural

q u e s t i o n s t h a t were added.
At t h e o u t s e t o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t m o d i f i c a t i o n , t h o s e s c a l e s were
i d e n t i f i e d t h a t were r e l a t e d t o t h e h y p o th e se s o f t h i s s t u d y .

These

s c a l e s were n o t m o di f ie d in any way d u r i n g t h e i n s t r u m e n t r e v i s i o n s ,
w it h two e x c e p t i o n s .

F irst,

wherever t h e q u e s t i o n had r e f e r r e d t o

t h e PTA, t h e a d d i t i o n a l p h r a s e " o r o t h e r p a r e n t a d v i s o r y gr oup s" was
added beca use none o f t h e f i v e now have PTAs.

103
The

topic

areas,

centralization,
original

and community,

s t u d y and a l l

to p i c with

authority,

the

professionalism ,

all

had more th a n

relationships,
one

item in

had more tha n one in t h e 1987 s t u d y .

s m a l l e s t number o f su b it e m s was t h a t

the
The

o f community

p a r t i c i p a t i o n bec ause t h i s was n o t a major i s s u e in 1968.

Scale R e l i a b i l i t y
Because t h e number o f items p e r s c a l e te n d e d t o
beca use t h e o v e r a l l r e l i a b i l i t i e s f o r t h e i n i t i a l
somewhat low,
during

the

reliab ility
indicated,

the research

development
for

those

of

be small

s tu d y te n d e d t o be

team reviewed a l l

items

and a l l

the

instrum ent.

Tabl e

4.4

used

present

scales

t h e y were n o t h i g h .

in

the

A covariance

and

matrix

scales

shows

the

study.

As

was

to

used

a s c e r t a i n r e l i a b i l i t y , based on Cro nbach’ s t e s t f o r a l p h a .

Ta bl e 4 . 4 . - - R e l i a b i l i t y p a t t e r n s .

R eliability
Scale

C entralization
Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Le a de r s hi p
Autonomy
Professional P a rtic ip a tio n
Satisfaction
R elationships

1QC7
l/UI

100-7
t J'J i

.65
.56
.71
.68
.70
.55
.84
.78

.55
.54
.76
.75
.61
.67
.79
.77

104
Factor Analysis o f Scales
Factor

analysis

dev el o pm en t.

was

F irst,

all

determine c l u s t e r i n g s .
that

clustered

w it h

were wit hd raw n.
each o f t h e

com plete d
it em s

Items

on

on

on t h e

o th e r nonscale

two

the

levels

instrum ent

previously

items

of

the

competed

identified

rather

than

scale

scale

to

scales
items

A s e r i e s o f f a c t o r a n a l y s e s was t h e n c on du ct ed f o r

eight

scales

used

t o measure t h e

t o a d d r e s s t h e u n d e r l y i n g d im en sio ns
two s t u d y y e a r s .

and t h e i r

Factor a n a ly s is of th e

responses

provided

the

among t h e

it em s in each

underlying f a c t o r s .

in itial

scale

variables

consistency

scales

exploration

individual

dep en de nt

of

in

the

based on t h e 1967
interrelationships

in term s o f t h e p o s s i b l e

The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S o c i a l S c ie n c e s

(SPSS-X v e r s i o n ) was used w ith t h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s :

S te p

Option

Terminology

1. P r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e
c o r r e l a t i o n matrix

C o r r e l a t i o n between
variables

R factoring

2. E x t r a c t i o n o f
in itia l factors

Inferred facto rs

Common f a c t o r
solution

3. R o t a t i o n t o t e r m i ­
nal f a c t o r s - varimax r o t a t i o n

Uncorrelated f a c t o r s

Orthogonal
factors

The p a t t e r n s r e s u l t i n g from t h i s a n a l y s i s were i n t e r e s t i n g and,
in g e n e r a l ,

not s u rp ris in g .

th a n t e n it em s in l e n g t h ,
provide

in d icato rs

M o r r i s , 1978).

for

Because most o f t h e

s c a l e s were l e s s

t h e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s co u ld o n ly be used to
possible

in terp retatio n

(Fitz-G ibbon

&

105
Most o f t h e s c a l e s a n a l y z e d had two f a c t o r s , a l t h o u g h in n e a r l y
e v e r y c a s e one f a c t o r was much s t r o n g e r t h a n t h e
purposes o f t h i s
underlying f a c t o r .

study,

other.

For th e

an e i g e n v a l u e o f one o r more i n d i c a t e d

an

Ta b l e 4 . 5 shows t h e r e s u l t i n g p a t t e r n s .

Ta b l e 4 . 5 . - - P a t t e r n s i n d i c a t e d by f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f t h e e i g h t
s c a l e s used i n t h e s t u d y .

E i g en v al u e
Scale

No. o f
Factors

General To p ic s o f
P ossib le Facets

1967

1987

C entralization
(5 it em s)

2

Influence
Information

2.1
1.5

2.3
1.4

Community P a r t .
(5 it em s)

2

Interference
Information

1.8
1.3

1. 8
1.4

O r g a n iz . Manag.
(8 it em s)

2

S taff d isc ip lin e
General

2.6
1.2

3.0
1.2

I n s t r u c . Lea der .
(5 it em s )

2

A ctivities
Relationships

2. 2
1.0

2.5

Autonomy
(6 it em s )

1

Classroom autonomy
C u r r i c u l a r autonomy

2.5

2.0
1.0

Prof. P art.
t r ix.----'
{V 1LttlHb j

2

Influence
Information

1.9
1.2

2.0
1.2

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
(13 it e m s )

4

Status
Conditions
Money
Profession

3.9
1. 3
1.2
1.1

3.5
1.3
1.2

Relationships
(4 it em s )

2

Ten si on s among
teachers
O thers

1.5

1.7

1. 0

1. 0

106
As i n d i c a t e d in t h e t a b l e ,
cen tralizatio n
(influence)

in

S ergiovanni

by p o s i t i o n
much t h e

t h e r e s p o n d e n t s seemed t o

(inform ation

same way d e s c r i b e d

& S tarratt,

1983),

S taff

d iscu ssio n s of the types of a u th o rity .
also s p l i t ,
exchange)

by

and

Peabody

(1982),

and

person

(cited

in

others

in

Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n was

al o ng n e g a t i v e ( i n t e r f e r e n c e )

lines.

exchange)

separate

and p o s i t i v e

Based on t h e work o f P arsons

(information

(1977),

the

sp lit

might be seen as two s i d e s o f t h e f i d u c i a r y c o i n .
Two v a r i a b l e s were used t o r e p r e s e n t t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s a u t h o r i t y .
The o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

management s c a l e s p l i t

a r e a s o f management and o t h e r a r e a s .

between t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y

While a l l t h e it em s r e l a t e d t o

p e r s o n n e l and p r o c e d u r e s , t h e c e r t i f i c a t i o n
Meyer and Rowan ( 1 9 83 ) ,

a c t i v i t i e s d e s c r i b e d by

the perceived negative

has an i n f l u e n c e on t h e t e a c h e r ’ s p e r c e p t i o n .
authority

variable,

instructional

or p o s itiv e

The o t h e r p r i n c i p a l ’ s

leadership,

appeared

to

s i n g l e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r in 1987 but two f a c t o r s in 1967.
factor

is

r e la te d to the p r i n c i p a l ’ s s p e c ific support

a c t i v i t y , and t h e second i s r e l a t e d t o th e y e n e r a l
principal

on

classroom

discussed

by C u t i t t a

activity.

(cited

in

E t z i o n i , 1969) as well as o t h e r s .

Th is
ERS,

split

1980)

aspect

and

have

a

The f i r s t
of

teacher

influence of the
reflects
Lortie

concepts
(cited

These a u t h o r s s u g g e s t e d t h a t

in
the

pr im ar y i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l , as ad v o c a te d by t h e
teachers,

is

to

evaluate often,
The i n s t r u c t i o n a l
e x p e c te d t o

leave

them

alone

in

the

classroom,

p r o t e c t t e a c h e r s from o u t s i d e p r e s s u r e ,

i.e.,

no t

and so on.

i n f l u e n c e o f t h e p r i n c i p a l , on t h e o t h e r hand, i s

i n v o l v e such c o n c r e t e b e h a v i o r s

as t h e

sharing of the

107
latest

research,

the

provision

encouragement o f d i s p l a y s ,

of

sample

pe r f o r m a n c e s ,

m aterials,

and so on.

praise

and

Thus, t h e two

f a c t o r s would be e x p e c t e d in d e s c r i b i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p .
The

four

representing

v a ria b le s discussed
tig h tly

coupled

units

above were
of

the

described

organization.

as
The

f o l l o w i n g f o u r v a r i a b l e s r e p r e s e n t t h o s e u n i t s d e s c r i b e d as l o o s e l y
co u p l ed .
The
teacher

two

scales

role

for

particip atio n

associated

the

in

pur po se

w ith
of

instru ctio n al

technical

this

activity

s tu d y

decision

were

making.

autonomy and r i g h t s s c a l e was found t o be a s i n g l e
and a n e a r l y s i n g l e f a c t o r in 1987.
had two f a c t o r s ,

and

the

autonomy

and

The

teacher

factor

in 1967

The t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n s c a l e

i n f l u e n c e and i n f o r m a t i o n exchange,

in

a pattern

s im ila r to t h a t described for c e n t r a li z a ti o n .
Those
function

scales
for

included

the

relationships.

as

representative

organization

While

the job

were

of

job

the

integration

satisfactio n

sa tisfa c tio n scale

included

and
four

f a c t o r s , t h e f i r s t f a c t o r was t h e s t r o n g e s t by a s u b s t a n t i a l amount.
Th is s c a l e c o u l d be e x p e c te d t o s p l i t , based on t h e work o f Herzberg
( c i t e d in S i l v e r ,

1983), S er g io v a n n i and Carver ( 1 98 0) , and o t h e r s ,

bu t in f a c t t h e s c a l e app ea red t o be much c l o s e r t o a s i n g l e - f a c t o r
s c a l e th a n e x p e c t e d .
app ea red

to

have

ac co unt ed f o r a
a p pe a r s s p l i t
classroom.

two

While t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , s t a f f t e n s i o n s , s c a l e
underlying

factors,

ag ai n

the

first

factor

s u b s t a n t i a l amount o f t h e v a r i a n c e . This s c a l e a l s o

based on t h e

dista n ce the

role is

from t h e

regular

108

As i n d i c a t e d in t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n , t h e r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y
o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s i n t h e s c a l e s over t h e 20 y e a r s based on
the

two

factor

analyses,

1967 and 1987,

was

clear.

The

factor

s t r u c t u r e was t h e same f o r f o u r s c a l e s in both a n a l y s e s , as were t h e
eigenvalues.

For t h e o t h e r f o u r , minor changes o c c u r r e d .

Sample S e l e c t i o n
The

o riginal

districts.

samplein c lu d e d

schools

in

f i v e M ichigan

The f i v e d i s t r i c t s were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f

t h e i r demo gra phi cs , as w ell as t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f t h e i r union
experience.

For example,

t h e y were a l l

regarded

as

m iddle-sized

d i s t r i c t s w ith s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t s ran gi n g from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 15,000
t o 45,000 in 1967.
to

$ 5, 7 2 5 .

days.

The minimum s t a r t i n g s a l a r i e s ranged from $5,300

The c o n t r a c t s

required

from 184 t o

187

teacher

d u ty

Of t h e 83 d i s t r i c t s n a t i o n a l l y r e p o r t e d by t h e NEA (1968) t o

be o f com parable s i z e ,

including these fiv e d i s t r i c t s ,

t h e av er a ge

b e g i n n in g s a l a r y was $5,222 and t h e duty days ranged from 180 t o 189
I V I

C sC fi/
VV/V

rs ^
V I

f

K o
UHW

^ 4 r + w !
U l ' 9 1 ’1

I V W ^ t

IIIC

^ 4
I I VC

4 •>> 4 4- 4
1
I M I W I O I

4 4 <• +
U I Ol>l

p a t t e r n s t h a t were ve ry c l o s e t o t h o s e o f d i s t r i c t s

^

^ U
CIICII)

U - J
11 C l U

of sim ilar size

across the nation.
Each o f t h e f i v e d i s t r i c t s had j u s t completed a formal c o n t r a c t
p r o c e s s d u r i n g t h e two p r e v i o u s y e a r s .
w i t h t h e AFT.

One d i s t r i c t was a f f i l i a t e d

Three were a f f i l i a t e d with t h e NEA.

One hel d j o i n t

membership.
A feasibility
rep resen tativ es

interview
of

the

was

five

conducted

d istricts.

in

spring

Each

of

1986

with

them

was

109

e n c o u r a g i n g , b u t i t was n ot e d t h a t two o f t h e f i v e would be e n t e r i n g
contract
given.

discussions

soon.

No formal

permissions

were

sought

or

The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s recommended a l a t e f a l l

survey.
In

fall

1987,

four

formal

approvals

superintendents or t h e i r designees.
The

demographic

were

received

fr om

The f i f t h d i s t r i c t d e c l i n e d .

characteristics

of

the

four

d istricts

that

remained in t h e s t u d y a r e shown in Tabl e 4 . 6 .
In t h e o r i g i n a l
districts

study,

on a s t r a t i f i e d

53 s c h o o l s were s e l e c t e d from t h e f i v e

random sample b a s i s .

was by l e v e l , e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y .

Sch ool s were th e n s e l e c t e d

randomly w i t h i n each d i s t r i c t a t each l e v e l .
one

school

study.
The

S u b s t i t u t e s c h o o l s were randomly s e l e c t e d by l e v e l

by s i z e .

study
in

the

d istrict

had

included

42

study.

Appendix

been

schools

closed

in

the

since

at least
original

included

each

As e x p e c t e d ,
the

1987

in

The s t r a t i f i c a t i o n

four

F presents

d istricts

the

school

still

size

and

response p a t t e r n s .
The o r i g i n a l s tu d y had an 80% r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e t e a c h e r s in
t h o s e 53 s c h o o l s .
not

usable

toward t h e

for

response

im portant

this

s t u d y bec au se

end o f t h e

response r a t e
these

However, a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f r e s p o n s e s were

to

substantially

v er y

represented
rates

were

skipped,

1967 q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

a p p r o x i m a t e l y 70% o f t h e

were t h e goal

recognize
less

long

pages

that

for

the

response

th a n t h o s e 20 y e a r s ago

The u s a b l e

sample.

current

rates

especially

in

(Warwick

study,
general

While
it

is
are

& Lininger,

110

T a b l e 4 . 6 . - - D i s t r i c t d em og rap hic s.

D istrict
Variable
1

2

3

4

$16,145
$29,183

$13,930
$2 6,478

$17,275
$26,400

Average
teacher
salary

1976
1984

$18,013
$33,085

Sala ry rank
in s t a t e

1976
1984

22
13

77
76

208
140

157
155

Pupilteacher
ratio

1976
1984

1/17
1/21

1/24
1/2 5

1/23
1/2 9

1/22
1/22

D istrict
enrollment

1976
1987

18,250
12,400

40,250
32, 000

34 ,000
23,000

20,000
14,700

D istrict
number o f
schools

1967
1987

30
25

53
54

63
62

34
34

Percent
m inority

1967
1980

5 students
l%a

33%
43%

15%
17%

24%
39%

S o u rc e s :

Michigan S t a t e Board o f E d u c a ti o n . Michigan K-12 School
D i s t r i c t s Ranked bv S e l e c t e d F i n a n c i a l Da ta. 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 .
n..1*l - x . ' _

D U I i e t l l l

lo l

*

IUIH *

i

_
_
_
__

Ldll^lliy.

u* - I. ‘ ----------

r j . _ jl_

r> . . . . .

m i l M Q d f l

OLdLtl

DUdTU

i

r

UI

r

i

LUUCd"

t i o n , 1984.
Michigan S t a t e Board o f E d u c a ti o n . Rankings o f Michigan
P u b l i c High School D i s t r i c t s bv S e l e c t e d F i n a n c i a l Data.
1 97 6-7 7. B u l l e t i n 1012. Lan si ng: Michigan S t a t e Board
o f E d u c a t i o n , 1977.
P a t t e r s o n ’ s American E d u c a ti o n . 1988 E d i t i o n .
E d u c a ti o n a l D i r e c t o r i e s , 1987.
aD i s t r i c t 1 had a l a r g e Middle E a s t e r n p o p u l a t i o n .

Illinois:

Ill

1 97 5) .

The u s a b l e r e s p o n s e r a t e f o r t h e 1987 s t u d y was 51% i n t h e

42 s c h o o l s .

Table 4 . 7 shows t h e r e s p o n s e p a t t e r n s by d i s t r i c t and

by p e r c e n t a g e o f t o t a l sample.

Tabl e 4 . 7 . - -R es pon se p a t t e r n s by d i s t r i c t and y e a r .

1987

1967
D istrict

1
2
3
4
Total

No. o f
Respondents

% o f Tot al
Response

No. o f
Respondents

% o f Tot al
Response

260
330
225
246

25
31
21
23

158
116
126
124

30
22
24
24

1,061

100

524

100

The 1987 e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s ’ r e s p o n s e r a t e was s l i g h t l y h i g h e r
th a n ttie se co n da ry t e a c h e r s ’ r e s p o n s e r a t e ,

Tahlo
A fl • — Dacnnnoo >"a+o kw
t
J 1 n\jnl
M
W 1V

1• w

Level

El ementary
Secondary

1 MW
W

1S
>* V 1 J

as shown in Tabl e 4 . 8 .

19S7 St'.idv
J
I

^ W
Mvl

•

Number Responding

% o f P o s s i b l e Responses

240
284

53.7
4 7 .8

112
Method o f D i s t r i b u t i n g t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
During
explained

the

the

original

study,

s tu d y d u r i n g

researchers

went

a f a c u l t y m e e ti n g ,

q uestio n n aires r ig h t then.

to

each

school,

and pa s s ed

out the

They r e t u r n e d t o p i c k them up t e n days

later.
Thi s method i s no l o n g e r f e a s i b l e bec a us e many o f t h e s c h o o l s
no l o n g e r have r e g u l a r

f a c u l ty meetings,

t h e i r agendas z e a l o u s l y .

and t h o s e

t h a t do guard

The number and l e n g t h o f such m e e ti n g s i s

now cov er e d in t h e t e a c h e r s ’ c o n t r a c t in most d i s t r i c t s .
financial

and p er s o n n el

resources

required

by t h i s

A ls o , t h e

method

are

no

longer av ailab le.
The method o f d i s t r i b u t i o n used f o r t h e 1987 s t u d y was:
1.
to

each

The i n i t i a l
teacher

letters

and

describing

principal

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d i s t r i b u t e d .

at

t h e s tu d y were d i s t r i b u t e d

least

two

days

before

the

The l e t t e r s in c l u d e d t h e s p o n s o r s h i p

i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and t h e t e l e p h o n e number o f t h e
S o c i a l S c i e n c e Research Bureau.
2.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were t h e n d i s t r i b u t e d t o

the teacher
3.
envelopes

b a r g a i n i n g u n i t in each sample s c h o o l .

T e a c h e rs
attached

team p ic k e d

each member o f

and

principals

to the

returned

instrum ents.

the

questionnaires

A member o f t h e

up t h e package o f e n v e l o p e s from t h e school

in

research
o f f ic e of

each school and answered q u e s t i o n s o f f a c u l t y .
4.

Follow-up was con du ct ed two weeks f o l l o w i n g t h e p i c k - u p by

both school o f f i c i a l s and r e s e a r c h team members.

113
5.

A th a n k- yo u l e t t e r was s e n t t o e v e r y s t a f f member o f eve ry

school i n t h e sample two weeks a f t e r t h e f o l l o w - u p .
letter,

( F ol lo w in g t h a t

s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s were r e c e i v e d . )

Method o f A n a l y s i s
Th is s t u d y in v o l v e d a c om p ar at i ve a n a l y s i s o v e r time
quasi-experimental

model.

While t h e a n a l y s i s was n o t d e s i g n e d

e s t a b l i s h ca u s e and e f f e c t ,
the o rig in a l
section.

research

u s in g

a
to

i t d i d al lo w some c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g

questions

suggested

in

the

in tro d u cto ry

The main d i f f i c u l t y t h a t was a d d r e s s e d w ith t h e model was

cell size.

The f o l l o w i n g s t e p s were co m p lete d:

S te p 1:

Review d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r each school f o r each

it em t o (a) d e s c r i b e t h e sample and (b) check f o r o u t l i e r d a t a .
Step 2:
for

each

of

Review r e l i a b i l i t y
eight

scales

for

coefficients
1967

data,

to

and f a c t o r

analysis

establish

internal

r e l i a b i l i t y and u n i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f s c a l e s f o r use w it h 1987 d a t a .
Ste p 3:

Complete e i g h t two-way a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e

(ANOVAs)

( d i s t r i c t l e v e l ) w it h y e a r s e r v i n g as t h e r e p e a t e d me asu re , based on
t h e model shown in F ig u r e 4 . 1 .

The two-way ANOVA i s an e x t e n s i o n o f

t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e and i s d e s i g n e d t o compare s e v e r a l
independent v a r ia b le s ,
hypothesis
variable,

tested

was

taking
th at

other
the

indicators

group

means

in t h i s c a s e a s c a l e s c o r e , a r e e q u a l .

into
of

account.
the

The

dependent

Thus, t o t e s t each

o f t h e h y p o th e s e s s t a t e d in t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r , us in g
e i g h t s c a l e s , e i g h t two-way ANOVAs were r e q u i r e d .

114

D istrict:
L ev e l:

Year

A
T ot al
E l . Sec.

B
T ot al
El . Sec.

C
T ot al
E l . Sec.

D
T ot al
El . Sec.

1967
1987

Figure 4.1:

Step

4:

Follow ing

comp ari so ns were
Ta b l e 4 . 9 ) .

Model f o r two-way r e p e a t e d - m e a s u r e
analysis of variance.

th e n

the

tw o- w ay

c om p le te d ,

based

ANOVA,
on

planned

contract

strength

the

(s ee

The p la nn ed comparisons were based on t h e p r e l i m i n a r y

an aly sis of the c o n tra c t provisions of the four d i s t r i c t s
and D).

pairw ise

(A, B, C,

An a n a l y s i s o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e c o n t r a c t s o f each of

four

co m pl ete d .

d istricts

for

1970,

19 7 5 ,

1980,

Appendix F i n c l u d e s a s p e c i f i c

and

1985

process

was

also

description

of

a n a l y s i s o f Lhe c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s .
As i n d i c a t e d by t h e pla nned comparison f o r m a t ,

D istrict

t h e s t r o n g e s t c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n in t h e e a r l y y e a r s
t h a t s t r e n g t h in t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r c o n t r a c t s .
had t h e weake st e a r l y

and m a i n t a i n e d

D i s t r i c t D, however,

c o n t r a c t b u t dev el o pe d t h e

c o n t r a c t lan gu ag e o v e r t h e n e x t f o u r c o n t r a c t s .

C had

second

strongest

D i s t r i c t B began in

t h e mi ddle and ended in t h e m id d le , whereas D i s t r i c t A began in th e
mid dle b u t grew weaker o v e r t h e f o u r l a t e r c o n t r a c t s .

As i n d i c a t e d

in t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f s t u d y h y p o t h e s e s , s t r e n g t h o f c o n t r a c t la nguage

115
Tabl e 4 . 9 . - - P l a n n e d co m p ar is o n s.

Year

Comparison Based on
C o n t r a c t R a t in g o f S t r e n g t h

Centralization

1967
1987

A=B, A<C, A>D
B=D, B>A, B<C

Community
Participation

1967
1987

A=B, A<C, A>B
B=D, B>A, B<C

Organizational
Management

1967
1987

A=B, A>C, A<D
B=D, B<A, B>C

Instructional
L e a d e r s h ip

1967
1987

A=B, A>C, A<D
B=D, B<A, B>C

Autonomy

1967
1987

A=B, A<C, A>D
B=D, B>A, B<C

Participation

1967
1987

A=B, A<C, A>D
B=D, B>A, B<C

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

1967
1987

A=B, A>C, A<D
B=D, B<A, B>C

Relationships

1967
1987

A=B, A<C, A>D
B=D, B>A, B<C

D i s t r i c t S c a l e Means

Formal S t r u c t u r e

Te c hn ic al A c t i v i t y

was e x p e c t e d t o be a measure o f e n vi ro nm en ta l p r e s s u r e s f o r change.
The

pla nn ed

variable

of

comparison
d istrict

would

was

be

found

used
to

be

o n ly
a

if

the

significant

v a r i a t i o n f o r any o f t h e e i g h t dep en d en t v a r i a b l e s .

in de p en de nt
source

of

I f d i s t r i c t was

n o t a s o u r c e , th e n t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s , w h at ev e r t h e i r s t r e n g t h ,
cou ld be assumed t o have e q u a l ,

little,

o r no impact on t h e e i g h t

116
indicators for all four d i s t r i c t s .

Then c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h would not

be amenable t o a s t u d y o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s

in t h e change p r o c e s s .

T a b l e 4 . 9 shows t h e pla nn ed comp ari so ns as t h e y were d ev el op ed f o r
use

if

d istrict

indicator.

was

found

to

be

a

source

of

variation

for

any

CHAPTER V
THE STUDY FINDINGS

Introduction
This

chapter

surveys.

contains

Four q u e s t i o n s ,

the

findings

based

from

the

1967 and

1987

on t h e h y p o t h e s e s ,

were asked

for

depe nde nt v a r i a b l e s ,

the o rg an iz a­

each o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s :
1.

I s t h e r e change in t h e
tional indicators?

2.

Lf

so ,

which

in d e p e n d e n t

variables

may

a cc ou nt

for

the

changes?
3.

I s t h e change in t h e d i r e c t i o n p r e d i c t e d ?

4.

Does t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h have any r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e
p a t t e r n s o f change?

Findings Using O riginal

H yD0 i. h6S es -- Ge ne raI Approach

The o r i g i n a l h y p o th e s e s d i v i d e d t h e i n d i c a t o r s i n t o two g r o u p s ,
the

formal

structure

p r e d i c t e d t o change,
were l o o s e l y
eight

linked

in d icato rs

categories.

indicators,
and t h e

technical

and p r e d i c t e d
was

addressed

The p r e d i c t e d

which

to

were

activity

remain

based

direction

tightly

on

indicators,

stable.
these

o f chang e,

linked

and
which

Each o f t h e
two

general

where change was

p r e d i c t e d t o o c c u r , was d e r i v e d from t h e e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e as t h e
h y p o t h e s e s were d e v e l o p e d .

117

118
The t h r e e

variables

c o n s i d e r e d were

time,

that

is

1967

and

1987, t h e l e v e l s o f s e c o n d a r y and e l e m e n t a r y , and t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s
in which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d .

Again, t h e u n i t o f s t u d y was

t h e s c h o o l , in t h i s c a s e 42 s c h o o l s .
The f i r s t

s t e p in r e v ie w i n g t h e f i n d i n g s was c o n s i d e r a t i o n

of

t h e p a t t e r n s from t h e two-way r e p e a t e d - m e a s u r e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e
f o r each o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s .
a t a l p h a = . 01 .

The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e t

Thus, any change i d e n t i f i e d was v er y u n l i k e l y t o be

t h e outcome o f chance b u t some a c t u a l
fied.

changes might n o t be i d e n t i ­

A r ev ie w o f t h e w i t h i n - s u b j e c t e f f e c t s t o c o n s i d e r p o s s i b l e

th r e e - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s was c o n d uc te d.

I f no such

interaction

was

fo un d, two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s were c o n s i d e r e d .

I f no s i g n i f i c a n t two-

way i n t e r a c t i o n s

as

considered.
variation,

were

identified,

th e n ti m e

I f ti m e was found t o
th e n

the

a main e f f e c t

be s i g n i f i c a n t

betw een-subject-effects

as

analysis

a source
was

was
of

reviewed

f o r p a t t e r n s o f d i s t r i c t and l e v e l e f f e c t .
Where s i g n i f i c a n t
further

steps

sources

of

were u n d e r t a k e n .

variation

was

comp ari so ns

found

were

to

be

con du ct ed

of
based

identified,

Means were e x p l o r e d

d i r e c t i o n and d e g r e e o f t h e p a t t e r n s .
variable

were

In a d d i t i o n ,

sig n ifican ce,
on

the

to

study

two
th e

i f the d i s t r i c t

planned

previous

pairw ise

a s s ig nm e nt

of

t e a c h e r - c o n t r a c t - s t r e n g t h measures f o r each d i s t r i c t .

Formal S t r u c t u r e I n d i c a t o r s
C entralization
The f i r s t i n d i c a t o r i d e n t i f i e d as p a r t o f t h e formal s t r u c t u r e ,
w ith t i g h t l y l i n k e d u n i t s , was t h a t o f c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .

Schools were

119
e x p e c te d t o have g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e from c e n t r a l o f f i c e th a n 20 y e a r s
ago

because

of

ro u tin izatio n ,

reg u latio n s,

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n was p r e d i c t e d t o be g r e a t e r a t
t h e s e co n da r y l e v e l ,

and

technology.

t h e e l e m e n t a r y th a n

as w e l l , w it h e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s

r e g a r d e d as

s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l , and more l i k e l y t o be women w it h l e s s e d u c a t i o n .
C e n t r a l i z a t i o n was a l s o p r e d i c t e d t o v ar y from d i s t r i c t t o d i s t r i c t
because

of

variatio n s

in

cu ltu re,

h isto ry ,

programs, and u n i o n i z a t i o n p a t t e r n s .
contract

provisions

were

predicted

race,

lead ersh ip ,

Those d i s t r i c t s w ith s t r o n g e r
to

have

higher

centralization

th a n t h o s e w i t h weaker c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s .
A r ev ie w o f t h e e f f e c t s w i t h i n f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n d i c a t e d no
significant
found

to

be

th r e e - w a y o r two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s .
significant.

When

considering

Time was
the

also

between

school

e f f e c t s , no v a r i a b l e was found t o be t h e s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n ,
a l p h a = .0 1 .

Tabl e

5.1

shows

the

specific

m ultiple

not

with

analysis

of

variance p a tte rn s fo r the c e n tr a liz a tio n in d icato r.
Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s , c e n t r a l i z a t i o n d i d n o t v a r y .
of

the

patterns

of

means

for

cen tralizatio n

A revie w

indicated

that

c e n t r a l i z a t i o n remained t h e same o v e r ti m e in each d i s t r i c t a t each
l e v e l , as shown in F i g u r e s 5.1 and 5 . 2 .

2 .7

2.6

□ Elementary
X

Secondary

2 .5
M ean
v a lu e

2 .4

2 .3

2.2

2. 1

i

i

1967

i

i

i

i

i

3.971

1975

19 79

1983

1987

Y ear

Note: Elementary n=30
Secondary n=12

Figure 5 .1 :

Mean p a t t e r n s f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n by y e a r and by l e v e l .

2.7

2 . 6-

0

District 1

o

District 2

□

District 3

K

District 4

2.5M ean

2.32 . 2INS

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Note: District 1,n=9 District3,n=12
District 2,n=12 District4,n=9

Figure 5.2:

Mean patterns fo r c e n tra liz a tio n by year and by d is t r ic t .

122

Ta bl e 5 . 1 . --Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n .

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

2 .2 6
.44
.07
.00
.01

34
1
3
1
3

.07
.44
.02
.00
.00

6.65
.35
.06
.06

.014
.788
.802
.979

1.7 0
.48
.22
.10

34
3
1
3

.05
.16
.22
.03

3 .2 2
4.45
.64

.035
.042
.593

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

Note:

Level o f s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t a t a l p h a = .01 •

The s p e c i f i c means f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n a r e n ot e d in Ta bl e 5 . 2 .

Ta b l e 5 . 2 . - - P a t t e r n o f means f o r c e n t r a l i z a t i o n by d i s t r i c t and
by y e a r and l e v e l .

Year and1 l e v e l
1967

D istrict

1
2
3
4
All

Note:

1987

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

2.127
2. 43 8
2.36 9
2.40 8
2.349

2.373
2.460
2.473
2.430
2.434

2.209
2.444
2.395
2.415
2.373

2. 2 7 8
2.5 00
2.5 90
2.557
2.4 94

2.50 3
2.533
2.707
2.703
2.612

2.353
2. 50 8
2.61 9
2.606
2.52 8

This s tu d y i n c l u d e d 42 s c h o o l s , 12 s e co n da r y and 30 el e m e n ­
tary.

123
S inc e d i s t r i c t was n o t found t o be a s o u rc e o f v a r i a t i o n ,

no

p a i r w i s e comparisons were c o n s i d e r e d .
In

summary,

centralization.

change

did

not

occur

There was no more c e n t r a l

in

the

level

of

o f f i c e i n f l u e n c e in t h e

o p e r a t i o n o f t h e school i n 1987 th a n t h e r e was in 1967.

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
The s c a l e reviewed t o a d d r e s s t h e second i n d i c a t o r ,
p articip atio n ,

was

also

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
schools,

was c o n s i d e r e d

expected
as

part

tightly

to

of

id en tify

change.

formal

structure

the

linked

community

and s u s c e p t i b l e

A gai n
of

to

the

change.

Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n was p r e d i c t e d t o have become l e s s

o v e r th e

20-year period

patterns

as r e g u l a t i o n s ,

routinization,

have i n f l u e n c e d such p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
most

evident

in

those

Participation

at

the

and

family

This p a t t e r n was e x p e c t e d t o be

d istricts

w ith

elementary

level

strong
was

contract

predicted

provisions.
to

be

higher

th a n a t t h e second ary l e v e l bec a us e o f s m a l l e r sc ho ol-community s i z e
and s t u d e n t a n p ;
A r ev ie w
indicated
However,

no

of

the

effects

sig n ifican t

ti m e was found t o

between school e f f e c t s ,

indicator.

of variance

for

three-w ay

community

or

two -w ay

be s i g n i f i c a n t .

participation
in teractio n s.

When c o n s i d e r i n g

th e

no v a r i a b l e was found t o be t h e s o u r c e of

v a r i a t i o n , with a l ph a = .01 .
analysis

w ithin

Ta bl e 5 . 3 shows t h e s p e c i f i c two-way

patterns

for

the

com mu nit y p a r t i c i p a t i o n

124

Tabl e 5 . 3 . --Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r community p a r t i c i p a ­
tion.

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

df

MS

1.6 8
2.3 8
.05
.00
.27

34
1
3
1
3

.05
2.38
.02
.01
.09

48 .1 5
.35
.19
1.8 2

.000*
.788
.669
.161

3.7 6
.51
.70
.10

34
3
1
3

.11
.17
.70
.03

1.5 5
6.34
.30

.219
.017
.825

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r
Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

Sig. of F

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01.

Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s ,
f o r community p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
community

participation

time was t h e o n ly s o u r c e o f

variation

A r ev ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means f o r

indicated

an

increase

over

time

in

each

d i s t r i c t a t each l e v e l , as shown in F i g u r e s 5 . 3 and 5 . 4 .
The s p e c i f i c

means

for

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

are

n ot e d

in

Sin ce d i s t r i c t was n o t found t o be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n ,

no

Tabl e 5 . 4 .

p a i r w i s e comparisons were con du ct ed .
In summary, change o c c u r r e d in community p a r t i c i p a t i o n
the opposite d ir e c t io n to th a t p re d ic te d .

but

in

There was more community

participation

i d e n t i f i e d by t e a c h e r s in 1987 tha n t h e r e was in 1967.

The s o u r c e o f

t h i s v a r i a t i o n was ti m e r a t h e r th a n d i s t r i c t o r l e v e l .

2.7

2.6

2.5-

M ean
V a lu e

□

Elementary

M

Secondary

2.32 . 2-

2 . 1-

2 . 0-

1.9
1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.3:

Mean patterns fo r comnunity p a rtic ip a tio n by year and by le ve l.

2.7

2.5<•> District 1

M ean
V a lu e

2.3-

o

District 2

□

District 3

X

District 4

2 . 2-

ro
cn

2 . 1-

2.0

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.4:

Mean patterns fo r comnunity p a rtic ip a tio n by year and by d is t r ic t .

127
Table 5 .4 .--P attern o f means fo r community p a rtic ip a tio n by d is t r ic t
and by year and le v e l.
Year and Level
D istrict

1987

1967

1
2
3
4
All

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

2.10 5
2.09 8
2.2 46
2.29 8
2.184

1.893
1.810
2.14 0
1.997
1.960

2.034
2.026
2.219
2.1 98
2.120

2.533
2. 46 8
2.729
2.423
2.55 0

2.407
2.167
2.327
2.533
2.359

2.491
2.393
2.628
2.460
2.495

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management
The t h i r d i n d i c a t o r i d e n t i f i e d as p a r t o f t h e formal s t r u c t u r e ,
w ith

tightly

linked

p r i n c i p a l ’ s formal
field

of

including

choices

units,

was

organizational

a u t h o r i t y was e x p e c t e d
was

legislation

expected
and

to

judicial

to

be redu ce d

management.

decrease

The

bec au se

the

by s o c i e t a l f o r c e s ,

decisions.

This

pattern

was

p r e d i c t e d t o be e s p e c i a l l y e v i d e n t in t h o s e d i s t r i c t s w it h s t r o n g e r
contract provisions.
organizational

The se co n da ry l e v e l was p r e d i c t e d t o have l e s s

m a nag em en t t h a n t h e e l e m e n t a r y

level

since

the

l a t t e r had been found in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t o be more b u r e a u c r a t i c .
A r ev ie w o f t h e

effects

within

i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e e - w a y

for

organizational

management

o r two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s .

f o r t h i s i n d i c a t o r , ti m e was n o t found

A lso,

t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e o f

v a r i a t i o n a t a l p h a = .0 1 , as i n d i c a t e d in Table 5 . 5 , which p r e s e n t s
the

sp ecific

organizational

three-w ay

analysis

management.

With

of

variance

no s i g n i f i c a n t

p attern s
effects

for

w ithin,

128

between

school

effects

were

addressed

and

not

found

to

be

s i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01 .

Tab le 5 . 5 . --Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l manage­
ment.

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

.38
.05
.03
.01
.01

34
1
3
1
3

.01
.05
.01
.01
.00

4.31
.91
.60
.29

.046
.444
.445
.836

.27
.02
.01
.01

34
3
1
3

.01
.01
.01
.00

.78
.63
.39

.515
.433
.758

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

Note:

Sig. o f F

Level o f s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t a t a l p h a = .01.

A r ev ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management
d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e unchanged p a t t e r n c l e a r l y , as shown in F i g u r e s 5 . 5
and 5 . 6 .
The s p e c i f i c means f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

management a r e n o te d

in

T ab l e 5 . 6 .
Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s , t h e r e was no v a r i a t i o n in t h e l e v e l o f
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management o v e r t i m e .

2.0
1.9

□

Elementary

X

Secondary

1 . 8-

M ean
V a lu e

1 .7

1.6

1.5
1.4

1---------------------------1--------

1967

1971

1975

1----------------------------1--------------------------- 1--------

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.5:

Mean patterns fo r organizational management by year and by le v e l.

2.1
2 . 0-

<j> District 1
o

District 2

□

District 3

X

District 4

1.9-

M ean
1 . 8-

—

1.7

1 . 6-

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.6:

Mean patterns, fo r organizational management by year and by d is t r ic t .

131
Table 5 .6 .--P attern o f means fo r organizational management by
d is t r ic t and by year and le v e l.
Year and Level
D istrict

1987

1967

1
2
3
4
All

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

1.777
1.779
1.811
1.75 8
1.784

1.737
1.743
1.777
1.720
1.744

1.764
1.769
1.803
1.745
1.773

1.7 5 8
1.647
1.71 0
1.71 8
1.702

1.773
1.720
1.670
1.680
1.711

1.763
1.665
1.699
1.705
1.705

I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip
The f i n a l
structure

was

i n d i c a t o r d e s c r i b e d as p a r t o f t h e formal management
instructional

leadership.

Instructional

leadership

was p r e d i c t e d t o have a lower l e v e l over ti m e w ith t h e same s o c i e t a l
i n f l u e n c e s o f l e g i s l a t i o n and j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s , f o r example.
pattern
w ith

was e x p e c t e d

strong

contract

to

be e s p e c i a l l y
language.

evident

in

Instructional

those

This

d istricts

lead ersh ip

was

e x p e c te d t o be h i g h e r a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y th a n t h e s e c o n d a ry l e v e l ,
w ith e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s r e g a r d e d as l e s s e x p e r t l y t r a i n e d and l e s s
professional.
A r ev ie w o f t h e e f f e c t s w i t h i n i n d i c a t e d no th r e e - w a y o r twoway i n t e r a c t i o n s where a l p h a = .01 .

Time was a l s o n o t a s i g n i f i c a n t

source

between

Ta b le

of
5.7

variation.
shows

the

The

effects

two-way

in stru c tio n al leadership.

analysis

of

were

th e n

variance

considered.
findings

for

132
Table 5 .7 .--Two-way analysis o f variance fo r in s tru c tio n a l leader­
ship.
Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

.76
.00
2 .1 3
.02
.02

34
1
3
1
3

.22
.00
.71
.02
.01

.02
3.19
.10
.03

.892
.036
.758
.992

4 .8 0
1.0 6
2.3 4
3 .2 2

34
3
1
3

.14
.35
2.34
1.07

2.51
16.5 9
7.61

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

.076
.000*
.001*

* S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01 .

A r ev ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l
d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t change v er y c l e a r l y ,
in F i g u r e s 5 . 7 and 5 . 8 .

leadership
as

shown

However, d i s t r i c t s d i d v a r y by l e v e l ,

and

l e v e l s o v e r a l l were d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r .
D i s t r i c t 3, which d i d chang e, had h i g h e r means in 1987 a t both
e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y l e v e l s ,

as shown i n Ta bl e 5 . 7 .

Note t h a t

t h e mean o f a l l s c h o o l s in t h e sample in 1967 was 3 . 4 7 5 and in 1987
i t was 3 . 4 7 3 , as i n d i c a t e d in Ta b le 5 . 8 .
Bas ed

on

these

p attern s,

no

l e a d e r s h i p was i d e n t i f i e d o v e r t i m e .
va r y by l e v e l ,

however,

variatio n

in

in stru ctio n al

Instructional

l e a d e r s h i p d id

and an i n t e r a c t i o n w ith l e v e l

was found when time was h e l d c o n s t a n t .

and d i s t r i c t

3.7

□

Elementary

X

Secondary

3.5
M ean

3.4-

3.33.2-

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.7:

Mean patterns fo r in s tru c tio n a l leadership by year and by le v e l.

3.8

3.6<3> District 1
3.5M ean
V a lu e

3.4

o

District 2

□

District 3

X

District 4

3.3

3.23.1-

1967

197 i

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.8:

Mean patterns fo r in s tru c tio n a l leadership by year and by d is t r ic t

135

Table 5 .8 .--Patterns o f means fo r in s tru c tio n a l leadership by
d is t r ic t and by year and le v e l.
Year and Level
D istrict

1967

1
2
3
4
All

1987

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

3. 4 9 8
3. 80 4
3. 36 6
3.702
3.591

3.693
3.293
2.403
3.3 50
3.185

3.563
3.676
3.125
3.585
3.475

3.24 0
3.53 4
3.932
3.4 58
3.57 9

3.563
3.0 00
2.9997
3.260
3.20 5

3.34 8
3.401
3.69 8
3.392
3.473

Of t h e f o u r i n d i c a t o r s i d e n t i f i e d w it h t h e formal
the org an iz atio n ,
1987:

community

increase

as

o n ly one changed s i g n i f i c a n t l y
participation.

predicted,

community

somewhat une xp ec ted f i n d i n g .
the p r i n c i p a l ’s ro le
ti m e .

and t h i s

variation

1967 and

centralization
did

did

increase,

not
a

i n d i c a t o r a s s o c i a t e d with

s t r u c t u r e was change found over

leadership varied

was c o m p l i c a t e d

between

participation

In n e i t h e r

in t h e formal

Only i n s t r u c t i o n a l

While

s t r u c t u r e of

by an

by l e v e l

or d i s t r i c t ,

interaction

between

the

two, l e v e l and d i s t r i c t .

T ec h n ic al A c t i v i t y I n d i c a t o r s
Autonomy
The
activity

first

in d icato r

id en tified

o f s c h o o l s was autonomy.

as

part

Autonomy,

of

the

described

tech n ical
as

loosely

l i n k e d , was p r e d i c t e d not t o have changed o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s and not
to

v ar y

by

district

or

level.

Tea che rs

were

e x p e c te d

to

be

136

insulated

from s o c i e t a l

pressures

and changing

patterns

in

other

u n i t s o f t h e system.
A r ev ie w o f t h e e f f e c t s w i t h i n i n d i c a t e d no t h r e e - o r two-way
in teractio n s.
variation.

Time was

However,

no

found

to

be

between-subject

a sig n ifican t
sources

of

source

of

variation

at

a l p h a = .01 were i d e n t i f i e d , as i n d i c a t e d in Tabl e 5 . 9 .

T ab l e 5 . 9 . --Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r autonomy.

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

1.87
.49
.18
.07
.22

34
1
3
1
3

.05
.49
.06
.07
.07

8.92
1.11
1.31
1 .3 6

.005*
.358
.260
.273

1.54
.39
.05
.20

34
3
1
3

.05
.13
.05
.07

2 .8 4
1 .2 0
1 .5 0

.053
.280
.23?

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01 .

Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s ,

time was t h e o n ly s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n

in t h e l e v e l o f t e a c h e r autonomy.

A r e v ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means

f o r autonomy i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e amount o f autonomy i n c r e a s e d f o r a l l
districts

a t both e l e m e n t a r y and se co n da ry l e v e l s ,

as i n d i c a t e d

F i g u r e s 5 . 9 and 5. 1 0.
The s p e c i f i c means f o r autonomy a r e shown in Tabl e 5 . 1 0 .

in

3.7

3.6-

□

Elementary

X

Secondary

3.5
M ean

3.4-

3.33.2

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5 .9:

Mean patterns fo r autonomy by year and by le v e l.

3.8

3.73.6

<s> District 1
o

District 2

□

District 3

X

District 4

3.5M ean

3.4-

co

CO

3.33.2-

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.10:

Mean patterns fo r autonomy by year and by d is t r ic t .

139
Table 5 .1 0 .--P attern o f means fo r autonomy by d is t r ic t and by year
and le v e l.
Year and Level
D istrict

1987

1967

1
2
3
4
All

S in ce

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

3.37 3
3. 2 19
3.312
3. 30 5
3.29 5

3.03 3
3.393
3. 5 20
3.29 7
3.311

3. 26 0
3.26 3
3.36 4
3.30 2
3.29 9

3.377
3. 71 6
3.4 76
3.583
3.55 0

3.263
3.497
3.427
3.477
3.416

3.33 9
3.651
3.46 4
3. 5 48
3.511

d istrict

was

not

found t o

be

a significant

source

of

autonomy

in

v a r i a t i o n , no p a i r w i s e comp ari so ns were c o n s i d e r e d .
In

summary,

change

occurred

in

the

level

c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e p r e d i c t i o n o f no ch ang e.
higher level

o f autonomy in 1987 th a n

of

Teachers in d ic a te d a

in 1967.

The s o u r c e o f t h e

v a r i a t i o n was t h e 2 0 - y e a r ti m e span r a t h e r th a n d i s t r i c t

or level

differences.

Professional P a rtic ip a tio n
The

second

technical

activ ity

in d icato r,

professional

p a r t i c i p a t i o n , was p r e d i c t e d t o remain unchanged o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s .
Loosely

linked,

the

level

of

professional

participation

was

not

e x p e c te d t o be i n f l u e n c e d by t i m e , d i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y , o r l e v e l .
A r e v ie w o f t h e e f f e c t s w i t h i n f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l

participation

i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t th r e e - w a y o r two-way i n t e r a c t i o n .

Time was

140
not found to be a s ig n ific a n t source of v a ria tio n , as shown in Table
5.11.

No s ig n ific a n t e ffe c ts between were found at alpha = .01.

Table 5 . 1 1 .--Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i ­
pation.

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

1.5 5
.31
.08
.00
.08

34
1
3
1
3

.05
.31
.03
.00
.03

6.88
.59
.03
.59

.013
.625
.868
.623

1 .2 8
.04
.15
.18

34
3
1
3

.04
.01
.15
.06

.31
4 .1 0
1 .5 5

.818
.051
.220

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

Note:

Level o f s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t a t al p h a = .01.

B as ed

on

these

p attern s,

no

source

of

variatio n

for

p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was found ( s e e F i g u r e s 5.11 and 5 . 1 2 ) .
The s p e c i f i c means f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e shown in
Tabl e 5 . 1 2 .
S in c e d i s t r i c t was not found t o be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n ,

no

p a i r w i s e com parisons were revie we d.
In summary, p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was p r e d i c t e d t o remain
unchanged, and no change d id o c c u r in p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

3.1

3.0-

□

Elementary

X

Secondary

2.9M ean
2 . 8-

2.72 . 6-

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.11:

Mean patterns fo r professional p a rtic ip a tio n by year and by le v e l.

3.1
3 . 0-

<•> District 1
o

District 2

□

District 3

*

District 4

2 . 9M ean

2.7ro

2 . 6-

2.5
1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.12:

Mean patterns fo r professional p a rtic ip a tio n by year and by d is t r ic t .

143
Table 5.1 2 .--P attern o f means fo r professional p a rtic ip a tio n by
d is t r ic t and by year and le v e l.
Year and Level
1967

D istrict

1
2
3
4
All

1987

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

2.843
2.763
2.812
2.742
2.789

2.773
2.683
2.647
2.64 0
2.686

2.819
2.743
2.771
2.70 8
2.760

2.78 0
2.88 3
2. 9 88
3 .0 2 0
2.921

2.957
2.807
2.693
2.867
2.831

2.839
2.864
2.914
2.969
2.895

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
The

overall

job

satisfactio n

of

the

teachers

was

also

c o n s i d e r e d a l o o s e l y l i n k e d t e c h n i c a l component o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
and

therefore

less

amenable

to

forces

of

change.

Thus,

job

s a t i s f a c t i o n was p r e d i c t e d t o remain unchanged.
A r ev ie w o f t h e e f f e c t s w i t h i n i n d i c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e e way o r two-way i n t e r a c t i o n .
source of v a r i a t i o n .
interactio n

was

Time was

found t o

be a s i g n i f i c a n t

When e f f e c t s between were r e v ie w e d , no two-way

found,

but

level

was

a

significant

source

of

v a r i a t i o n , as i n d i c a t e d in Tabl e 5. 13 .
Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s ,
v a r i a t i o n fo r job s a t i s f a c t i o n .
indicated
districts.

a decrease

in

job

both time and l e v e l

were s o u r c e s o f

A r ev ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means
satisfaction

o ve r

ti m e

in

all

four

The p a t t e r n s a l s o i n d i c a t e d a c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r l e v e l

of satisfaction

a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y r a t h e r th a n t h e

( s e e F i g u r e s 5.13 and 5 . 1 4 ) .

se co nd ar y l e v e l

3.7

3.6-

□

Elementary

X

Secondary

3.5M ean

3.4-

3.33.2-

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.13:

Mean patterns fo r job s a tis fa c tio n by year and by le v e l.

3.7

3.6- -

O

District 1

o

District 2

□

District 3

M

District 4

M ean

3.33.23.1
1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.14:

Mean patterns fo r job s a tis fa c tio n by year and by d is t r ic t .

146
Tabl e 5 . 1 3 . --Two-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e f o r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Source o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

1.77
.48
.06
.11
.03

34
1
3
1
3

.05
.48
.02
.11
.01

9.16
.41
2.10
.17

.005*
.743
.157
.916

1. 86
.30
.46
.45

34
3
1
3

.05
.10
.46
.15

1.8 3
8.39
2 .7 4

.159
.007*
.058

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

* S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01 .

The

specific

means

for

job

satisfaction

are

shown

in

Table

5.14.

Tab le 5 . 1 4 . - - P a t t e r n o f means f o r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n by d i s t r i c t and
by y e a r and l e v e l .

Year and Level
D istrict

1
2
3
4
All

1967

1987

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

3.553
3.603
3.584
3.555
3.57 8

3.547
3.290
3.110
3.370
3.329

3.551
3.525
3.466
3.493
3.507

3. 33 8
3.323
3. 40 8
3.23 5
3.3 34

3.44 7
3.30 3
3.07 0
3.14 7
3.242

3.374
3.31 8
3.324
3.206
3.30 8

147
S inc e d i s t r i c t was n o t found t o be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n ,

no

p a i r w i s e comparisons were co n du ct ed .
In

summary,

the

remain unchanged,

level

bu t

of

job

in f a c t

it

satisfaction
went down.

v a r i a t i o n were found t o be time and l e v e l .
four

d istricts

was

reduced

over

was

predicted

The s o u r c e s

of

to
th e

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n in a l l

ti m e.

The j o b

satisfaction

of

se c o n d a ry t e a c h e r s was l e s s th a n t h a t o f e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s in both
y e a r s , 1967 and 1987.

R elationships
The

final

technical

activity

indicator,

staff

relationships,

was a l s o ex p ec te d t o have remained unchanged beca use i t was r e g a r d e d
as l o o s e l y l i n k e d and l e s s a c c e s s i b l e t o f o r c e s o f change.
A revie w

of

the

analysis

of

variance

for

this

indicator

i n d i c a t e d no w i t h i n - s u b j e c t t h r e e - w a y o r two-way i n t e r a c t i o n s .
was

found

Proceeding

to
to

be t h e
the

sig n ifican t
effects

source

between,

no

of

Time

variatio n

within.

significant

two-w ay

i n t e r a c t i o n was found between d i s t r i c t and l e v e l o r f o r d i s t r i c t or
l e v e l , w it h a l p h a = . 01 .

Tabl e 5.1 5 p r e s e n t s t h e p a t t e r n s

o f th e

m ultiple analysis of variance fin dings.
Based on t h e s e p a t t e r n s ,
of v aria tio n for re la tio n s h ip s .

time was t h e on ly s i g n i f i c a n t

s o u rc e

A revie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f means

i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e l e v e l o f t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n c r e a s e d
o v e r t i m e , as shown in F i g u r e s 5.1 5 and 5 . 1 6 .

2.8
2.7-

□

Elementary

M

Secondary

2 . 6M ean
V a lu e

2 . 5-

2.3
2.2

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.15:

Mean patterns fo r re la tio n s h ip s by year and by le v e l.

2 . 9 - j ------

2 . 8 ------

2.7---<£ District 1
2 . 6 -------

M ean
V a lu e

2 . 5 -------

o

District 2

□

District 3

X

District 4

2.4--I— *

-P *

VO

2.3--2 . 2 ------

2 . 1H

i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1—

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

Y ear

Figure 5.16:

Mean patterns fo r re la tio n s h ip s by year and by d is t r ic t .

150
Table 5 .1 5 .--Two-way analysis o f variance fo r re la tio n sh ip s.
Sou rce o f V a r i a t i o n

SS

df

MS

F

Sig. of F

Within
Error
Year
D i s t r i c t by y e a r
Level by y e a r
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l
and y e a r

3.6 2
1.32
.78
.15
.04

34
1
3
1
3

.11
1. 32
.26
.15
.01

12.4 2
2 .4 3
1 .4 4
.12

.001*
.082
.238
.947

2.4 4
.22
.24
.77

34
3
1
3

.07
.07
.24
.26

1.0 2
3.30
3.59

.397
.078
.023

Between
Error
D istrict
Level
D i s t r i c t by l e v e l

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t a t a l p h a = .01.

The

specific

means

for

the

level

of

tension

in

the

staff

r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e shown in Tabl e 5,.16.

T ab le 5 . 1 6 . - - P a t t e r n o f means f o r t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s by
d i s t r i c t and by y e a r and l e v e l .

Year and Level
1967

D istrict

1
2
3
4
All

1987

Elem.

Sec.

All

Elem.

Sec.

All

2.642
2.182
2.107
2. 29 8
2.27 5

2.523
2.463
2.637
2.460
2.521

2.602
2.252
2.240
2.352
2.345

2.623
2.64 0
2. 6 89
2.77 5
2.6 78

2.387
2.583
3.010
2.840
2.705

2.544
2.626
2.769
2.797
2.686

151
S in ce

d istrict

was

not

found t o

be a

significant

source

of

level

of

v a r i a t i o n , no p a i r w i s e comparisons were rev ie w e d.
In

summary,

change

occurred

over

time,

w it h

the

t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d .
Change
associated

was
w it h

id en tified
technical

for

three

activity,

of

the

contrary

to

four

in d icato rs

predictions.

each c a s e , ti m e was a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .
job

satisfaction,

level

also

was

a

source

of

In

In one c a s e ,

variation,

with

elementary te a c h e rs in d ic a tin g a higher level of s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Summary o f P a t t e r n s o f F in d in g s
Of t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s , s i x showed e v i d e n c e o f change.
six,

time

was

a significant

indicator

had

any

other

s o u r ce

s o u r ce

of

of

the

variation.

variation.

d i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y as a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .

No

In a l l

Only

one

indicator

had

Table 5 .1 7 c o n t a i n s a

summary o f t h e f i n d i n g s in comparison w i t h t h o s e p r e d i c t e d .

F u r t h e r E x p l o r a t i o n o f F in di ng s
Sources o f V a r i a t i o n
Because t h e a l p h a l e v e l was s e t a t

.01 , t h e s i x i n d i c a t o r s can

be c o n f i d e n t l y s a i d t o have changed and s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e s o f t h e
v ariatio n

to

have

b ee n

id en tified .

Howe ver ,

it

confidently stated

t h a t no o t h e r s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n

those

this

in c l u d e d

indicated

in

some p a t t e r n s

study.
of sources

Further
that

r ev ie w
were

no t

of

cannot
exist,
the

even

findings

significant

t h a t might be r e g a r d e d as s i g n p o s t s f o r f u t u r e s t u d y .

be

bu t

These were

152
c a s e s where t h e l e v e l

o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was between a l p h a = .01

and

a l p h a = .05 .

Tabl e 5 . 1 7 . --Comparison o f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s w ith p r e d i c t e d f i n d i n g s .

Indicator

Predicted
Change

Predicted
Source

Actual
Change

Actual
Source

+

Time
Level
D istrict

0

None

Time
Level
D istrict

+

Time

Time
Level
D istrict

0

None

Time
Level
D istrict

0

None
Level
D ist. :
Level

Formal S t r u c t u r e I n d i c a t o r s
C entralization

Community
Participation

Organizational
Management

-

-

Instructional
Le a d er s h ip

T ec h n ic al A c t i v i t y I n d i c a t o r s
Autonomy

0

None

+

Time

Professional
Participation

0

None

0

None

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

0

None

-

Tension in S t a f f
Relationships

0

None

+

Key:

+
0

= increase
= decrease
= stable

Time
Level
Time

153

F irst,
Five o f t h e

t h e p a t t e r n o f s o u r c e s o t h e r th a n ti m e was c o n s i d e r e d .
six

indicators

that

changed had some i n d i c a t i o n

level

mi gh t have some inv ol vem ent in t h e v a r i a t i o n s ,

tw o ,

in stru ctio n al

actually

found

to

leadership
be

a

and j o b

significant

b u t f o r only

satisfactio n ,

source

of

that

was

level

variation.

For

i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , a two-way i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s t r i c t and
l e v e l was a l s o i d e n t i f i e d .

Four o f t h e s i x had some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t

d i s t r i c t might have some involvement in t h e v a r i a t i o n s .

Ta bl e 5.18

contains these p a tte rn s .

Table 5 . 1 8 . - - P a t t e r n s o f b e t w e e n - s u b j e c t s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n o t h e r
t h a n ti m e f o r t h e s i x chang in g i n d i c a t o r s .

So urc es o f Change t o Co ns id er
f o r F u r t h e r S tu dy 3

Indicator

Time, D i s t r i c t , and Level
Level
Time
D i s t r i c t by Year, D i s t r i c t ,
and Level
uistrici
Time
None
D i s t r i c t by Level

C entralization
Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management
I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip
M
ULUI I UI I I j r

Professional P a rtic ip a tio n
Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
Tension in S t a f f R e l a t i o n s h i p s

a Sources where a l p h a = g r e a t e r th a n .01 but n o t more th a n .05.

Unchanged I n d i c a t o r s
Second,
change

the

patterns

sig n ifican tly

in dicato rs,

for

over

the

tim e

cen tralizatio n ,

three
were

indicators
review ed.

o rg anizational

that
All

did
of

management,

not

these
and

154

instructional
tested

leadership,

between

p la y e d a p a r t
cen tralizatio n
leadership

had

.01 and
in t h e
and
a

had ti m e as

.05
small

in

a source

significance.

of

Thus,

amount o f v a r i a t i o n

organizational

complicated

set

of

variation

ti m e may have

that

management.
interactions,

that

occurred

for

In stru ctio n al
bu t

again

so

l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n o c c u r r e d t h a t s o u r c e s c o u l d n o t be a s c e r t a i n e d with
confidence.
The c o n c l u d i n g c h a p t e r e x p l o r e s t h e s e f i n d i n g s
t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model and t h e l i t e r a t u r e .
f u r th e r research are also discussed.

in r e l a t i o n

to

Specific suggestions for

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS

C h a p t e r VI b e g i n s w ith a r ev ie w o f t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
based on t h e f o u r q u e s t i o n s asked a t t h e o u t s e t o f t h i s work.
chapter
relation

then

p r o ce e d s

w ith

to the th e o re tic a l

an o v e r a l l
model.

r ev ie w o f

the

Fo llo w in g t h i s

The

patterns

discussion,

in
th e

f i n d i n g s f o r each o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s a r e reviewed in comparison
w ith

previous

Im plications
addressed.

findings
for

the

discussed

field

of

in

the

education

literatu re
generally

review .
are

also

F i n a l l y , s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e work a r e c o n s i d e r e d .

Review o f F in d in g s and C o n cl us io ns
Four q u e s t i o n s were asked
empirical

in itially

and a d d r e s s e d d u r i n g

study designed to explore th e p a t t e r n s

educational

in stitu tio n .

The

answers

to

the

o f change in t h e

these

questions

are

summarized in t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s .

Is There Change?
Four o f t h e e i g h t

i n d i c a t o r s were p r e d i c t e d t o

i n d i c a t o r s d i d , in f a c t , change.
d i d not a l l

chang e.

Four

However, t h o s e p r e d i c t e d t o change

change, and some o f t h o s e p r e d i c t e d t o remain unchanged

d i d , in f a c t , change.

Co n cl u si o n s t o be re a c h e d i n c l u d e :

155

156
1.

Change has o c c u r r e d

t h e s e 42 s c h o o l s .

in some a r e a s o f school

The a r e a s

structure

a r e community p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,

in

teacher

autonomy, t e a c h e r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n and t h e l e v e l o f t e n s i o n in s t a f f
relationships.

In a d d i t i o n ,

i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p v a r i e d bu t did

n o t change o v e r t i m e .
2.
in

Change has n o t o c c u r r e d in o t h e r a r e a s o f school

these

42

schools.

organizational

The

management

as

p rin c ip a l’ s instructional

stab le

areas

exercised

leadership,

are

by t h e

as well

structure

cen tralizatio n ,
principal

and

the

as 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 making.
3.

Hypotheses

structural

pred ictin g

change

or

stab ility

c o n c e p t s o f l i n k a g e s and f i n d i n g s

based

from p r e v i o u s

on

single­

t im e s t u d i e s proved a c c u r a t e f o r o n l y two o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s ,
community p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

I f So. Which V a r i a b l e s Mav
Account f o r That Change?
Three v a r i a b l e s - - t i m e ,
be s o u r c e s

variation

any v d r i a l i u n

fur

In a d d i t i o n ,

level,

s h o u ld d i s t r i c t

for

any o f t h e

and d i s t r i c t - - w e r e

identified
prove t o

eight

for

the

predicted

eight

indicators.

be a s i g n i f i c a n t

indicators,

contract

to

source

of

strength

was

those

four

i d e n t i f i e d as a f o u r t h v a r i a b l e t o be e x p l o r e d .
One

source

in d icato rs
satisfaction,
Level
for

of

th at

variation,

changed.

level

was

also

and d i s t r i c t by l e v e l
in stru ctio n al

time,

For

one

found

to

was
of

found
these

for

in d icato rs,

be a s o u r c e

of

job

variation.

were found t o be s o u r c e s o f v a r i a t i o n

leadership.

This

in d icato r,

in stru ctio n al

157
leadership,

d i d n o t change o v e r t i m e ,

however.

C o n cl u si o n s t o be

r eac hed i n c l u d e :
1.

Time,

institutional

including
patterns

all

over

the
the

chang in g
20-year

general

period

societal

studied,

and

was

the

prim ary s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n f o r t h o s e f o u r a r e a s o f school s t r u c t u r e
t h a t changed.
or level

Time d i d n o t i n t e r a c t w it h t h e v a r i a b l e s o f d i s t r i c t

as might be e x p e c t e d from p r e v i o u s s t u d y f i n d i n g s .

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

That

the d i s t r i c t

i d e n t i t y , d id n o t i n t e r a c t w it h t h e f o r c e s o f ti m e t o make a r e a s o f
t h e school s t r u c t u r e change d i f f e r e n t l y in d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s .
did d if f e r e n c e s

in

structure

between t h e

elementary

Nor

and s ec on dar y

l e v e l s i n t e r a c t w ith t h e f o r c e s o f time t o a d j u s t change p a t t e r n s .
2.

L e v e l . and t h e i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n c e s

e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y ,

in s t r u c t u r e between

i s n o t a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n f o r t h r e e of

t h e f o u r a r e a s o f school s t r u c t u r e t h a t d i d change o v e r time in t h i s
study.

Level

is

a

source

of

variation

for

job

Secondary t e a c h e r s were c o n s i s t e n t l y l e s s s a t i s f i e d
even

teachers

ev er yo ne .

as

overall

Level

is

job

also

satisfaction

a source

of

was

satisfaction.

th a n e l e m e n t a r y

becoming

variation

in

less

for

instructional

l e a d e r s h i p , which d i d n o t change o v e r ti m e.
3.

D i s t r i c t , and t h e assumed a n d / o r documented d i f f e r e n c e s

cu ltu re,

history,

districts,

leadership,

and

programs

in

the

four

i s no t a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n f o r any o f t h e s i x a r e a s of

school

structure

source

of

leadership.

race,

in

that

variation

did
in

change

in

interaction

this
w ith

study.
level

D istrict
for

is

a

instructional

158

4.

V a r i a t i o n s in c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h in t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s ,

av era ge

to

very

strong

teacher

co n tracts,

when

are

compared

not

w it h

sources

of

other

d istricts

variatio n

for

with

the

six

i n d i c a t o r s t h a t d i d change in t h i s s t u d y .

Whatever t h e v a r i a t i o n s

in la ng uag e in t h e t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t s ,

impact o f t h e c o n t r a c t s

the

from

must e i t h e r be z e r o o r must be g e n e r a l i z e d a c r o s s t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s
r a t h e r th a n s p e c i f i c t o each bec au se d i s t r i c t

identity

itself

was

n e v e r found t o be a s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n .

Were t h e Changes in t h e
D irections Predicted?
Because
accurate,

only

the

two

answer

of
to

the
this

eight

change

question

is

Thus, t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l
those

indicators

that

changed

as

hypotheses

somewhat

proved

complicated.

be a d d r e s s e d in t h r e e s e t s ,

predicted,

those

that

did

not

change a l t h o u g h t h e y were p r e d i c t e d t o chang e, and t h o s e i n d i c a t o r s
t h a t d i d change a l th o u g h t h e y were p r e d i c t e d t o remain s t a b l e .
1.

Two

professional

of

the

ind icato rs,

participation,

changed as

co m m u n it y
predicted.

p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was ex p ec te d t o and d i d ,
u n c h a n g e d , com mu nit y p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
i n d i c a t e was d e c r e a s i n g ,
(See t h e
p attern s.)

following
The

However,

w h il e

in f a c t ,

remain

which t h e l i t e r a t u r e

would

in t h i s s tu d y was found t o have i n c r e a s e d .

sections

quality

p articip atio n

of

for

an e x t e n s i v e

such

v e r s u s anta gon ism, was n o t s t u d i e d .

discussion

participation,

helpful

of

these

support

and

159
2.

Two o f t h e

in d icato rs,

management and i n s t r u c t i o n a l
ov er t h e 20 y e a r s .

the

p r in c ip a l’ s organizational

leadership,

were e x p e c t e d t o d e c r e a s e

These i n d i c a t o r s remained s t a b l e .

c o n f ir m s t h e f i n d i n g s o f Johnson (1983) and J e s s u p

This f i n d i n g

(1985) t h a t ,

in

most s i t u a t i o n s ,

p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s t o g e t h e r t e n d t o do what

they

no

always

contract

did,

language,

m atter

what

the

societal

bec a us e such r o u t i n i z a t i o n s

forces,
and

including

new p r o c e d u r a l

r e s t r i c t i o n s or o th e r r o u t i n i z a t i o n s served p rim a rily t o affirm p ast
practice.

Thi s

finding

contradicted

the

single-tim e

studies

of

p r i n c i p a l s ’ p e r c e p t i o n s o f changes in t h e i r r o l e s (ERS, 1980).
o f t h e s e two i n d i c a t o r s ,
and between d i s t r i c t s

One

i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , d i d va ry by l e v e l

by l e v e l ,

although

no change o v e r ti m e was

identified.
3.

Four o f t h e i n d i c a t o r s - - t e a c h e r autonomy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n

in d e c i s i o n making, t e a c h e r j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n , and t h e l e v e l o f s t a f f
t e n s i o n - - w e r e h y p o t h e s i z e d as s t a b l e ; t h u s , no d i r e c t i o n f o r change
was p r e d i c t e d .
f ^

vhv

^

■Son

However, t h r e e o f t h e f o u r d i d chang e.

l . l *%

uiivvHvii

predicted,
literatu re.
same

n uo

based

^ ^ ^ o V* A

I-

***

u i I i ci c u t

on p r e v i o u s

Te a ch er s

autonomy l e v e l s

in
and

^ U

i i wiii

« «

^ U *1 4-

u n c t u v i i

single-tim e

previous
less

M A A S 'S

c nc

studies

individual

In two c a s e s

studies
have

J

ui i a t

U •< • t ^

nuui u nave

reported
indicated

in

The av er a g e

in o t h e r f i e l d s

or

p a r t i c i p a t i o n , based

on

age o f t e a c h e r s i s o l d e r ,

more

tho ug h,

autonomy and

stablep articip atio n

and

and s t u d i e s

have i n d i c a t e d more autonomy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n

more e x p e r i e n c e d o r more e d u c a te d w o r k e r s .

th e

less

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f f e d e r a l and s t a t e l e g i s l a t i v e r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
so on.

U n A M

u c c ii

for

Thus, t h e s e f i n d i n g s o f

reflect

the

more

general

160

patterns

regarding

au t o n o m y

and

p articip atio n

job

satisfaction

but

co n trad ict

s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s in e d u c a t i o n .
In

the

other

two

cases,

and

the

level

of

t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e change was t h a t
which would have been p r e d i c t e d from t h e l i t e r a t u r e had change been
predicted.

Job s a t i s f a c t i o n was l e s s in 1987 th a n in 1967, and th e

l e v e l o f t e n s i o n in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s had i n c r e a s e d .

Does T ea ch er C o n t r a c t
Have Anv R e l a t i o n s h i p
P a t t e r n s o f Change?

Strength
to the

No c l e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith c o n t r a c t lan gu ag e was i d e n t i f i e d
this

s tu d y

for

conclusions

any

sh ould

of

the

be

eight

indicators.

considered:

(a)

No

Three

in

alternative

relationship

exists

between s t r e n g t h o f c o n t r a c t lang uage and changes in t h e i n d i c a t o r s
that

did

change;

or

(b)

i d e n t i f i e d bec au se o f

Such a r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s

f la w s in t h e s t u d y , i n c l u d i n g

bu t

was

not

ani n a p p r o p r i a t e

model o f c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h , i n a p p r o p r i a t e sample s e l e c t i o n , a n d / o r a
to o c o n s e r v a t i v e a l p h a s e t t i n g ;
existence

rather

language

rath er

introduced
then,

is

since

expected

to

unionization.

than

the
all

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

If

introduction

strength.

than

the

variable
four

change

o r (c )

strength

sim ilarly
in

fact,

made

regarding

the

the

change

in

unionized,

where

change

change n e a r l y

relationship

of

contract

were

f o u r i n d i c a t o r s where change o c c u r r e d .
be

of

influencing

d istricts

They d i d ,

the

the

in

contract
language

indicators,

they
was

i s one of

might

related

be
to

tandem on a l l

No c o n c l u s i v e s t a t e m e n t s can
of

change

and

strength

of

161

contract

w ithin

the

confines

of

th is

study.

For

a

fu rth er

d i s c u s s i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e r e a d e r s h o u ld r ev ie w t h e
n e x t two s e c t i o n s , which a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e s from t h e t h e o r y and th e n
from t h e b a s i s o f r e l a t e d s t u d i e s .

The T h e o r e t i c a l Model
The t h e o r e t i c a l model f o r t h i s s tu d y was complex and i n t r i c a t e .
Se v e r a l p a r t s o f t h e model s e r v e d t o i l l u m i n a t e t h e f i n d i n g s o r ,
some c a s e s ,
aspects,

the

findings

the findings

co m p l i c a t e d model.

served to

c o n fi r m t h e model.

seem t o c o n t r a d i c t o r c o m p l i c a t e

In t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ,

In

a

in
few

an a l r e a d y

each o f t h e f i n d i n g s

i s a d d r e s s e d from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model.

Concept o f Change
Fundamental t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l model used in t h i s s tu d y i s t h e
co n c e p t o f i n e r t i a .
change i s f o r c e d .

S o c ia l syst ems te n d t o remain unchanged u n l e s s
In f a c t ,

maintain s t a b i l i t y .

t h e system i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n e d to

I f change i s f o r c e d ,

t h a t change i s l i k e l y to

be e v o l u t i o n a r y .
In t h i s s t u d y , change o c c u r r e d in f o u r o f t h e e i g h t s t r u c t u r a l
a r e a s s t u d i e d , y e t none o f t h e changes co u l d be a t t r i b u t e d d i r e c t l y
to

e nv ir on m en ta l

pressures

unless

e n vi ro n m en ta l

d i s t r i c t s was assumed t o be t h e same.

pressure

se co n da ry

and

elementary

level,

all

In most c a s e s where v a r i a t i o n

o c c u r r e d , time was t h e most e v i d e n t s o u r c e o f t h e v a r i a t i o n .
case,

for

an

internal

aspect

In one
of

the

i n s t i t u t i o n r a t h e r th a n an e n vi ro nm en ta l p r e s s u r e , was a s i g n i f i c a n t

162'
s o u r c e o f change.

In one c a s e ,

level

s i g n i f i c a n t source of v a r i a t i o n ,

and d i s t r i c t

by l e v e l

was a

bu t t h e i n d i c a t o r had n o t changed

over time.
C o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h was used in t h i s s t u d y t o r e p r e s e n t a major
en v i ro n m e n ta l

change

expected

to

f o r change on t h e i n s t i t u t i o n .
source

of

variation

where

introduce

variation

varied

four d i s t r i c t s

have r e s u l t e d

change w it h

d istrict

as

the

pressure

With d i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y e x p l o r e d as a

p r e s s u r e whose e f f e c t
s ho uld

en v i ro n m e n ta l

occurred,

from d i s t r i c t

source

to

any

e n vi ro nm en ta l

d istrict

in

variations

of

such

in

among t h e
patterns

variation.

of

D istrict

i t s e l f was n o t i d e n t i f i e d as a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e o f v a r i a t i o n f o r
any o f t h e e i g h t
that variations
changes

in

indicators

in t h i s

study.

Thus,

the

conclusion

in c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h have had no v a r y i n g e f f e c t on

the

in stitu tio n

is

assum ption

th at

eight

structural

w arranted.
the

This

contract

aspects

of

conclusion

language

did,

the
is

educational
based

in

on

fact,

the
vary

s i g n i f i c a n t l y and t h a t t h e a n a l y s i s used i d e n t i f i e d t h a t v a r i a t i o n .
Thi s

c o n c l u s i o n does

not

imply t h a t

contract

lan g ua ge

has

had no

e f f e c t , o n ly t h a t t h e e f f e c t d i d n o t va ry in t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s .
Two a l t e r n a t e
warranted.

and

e ve n

stronger

conclusions

may

also

be

E i t h e r t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f t e a c h e r u n i o n s , and any o t h e r

en v i ro n m e n ta l change o v e r t h e l a s t 20 y e a r s , has had no i n f l u e n c e on
the

change

occurring

in

the

schools,

or

the

effect

of

such

en v i ro n m e n ta l p r e s s u r e s i s so even on t h e school d i s t r i c t s t h a t t h e
change a p p e a r s uniform f o r t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s o v er time r a t h e r tha n
d i s t i n c t by d i f f e r i n g

amounts o r t y p e s o f en v i ro n m e n ta l

pressures.

163

For

example,

the

e n vi ro nm en ta l

pressures

may

have

become

more

un ifo rm t h a n p r e v i o u s l y assumed as t h e l e v e l o f d e c i s i o n has become
higher.

That

is,

federal

and

state

laws

and

requirements

and

j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s a r e now t h e s o ur ce o f much o f t h e p r e s s u r e r a t h e r
th a n

local

political

experienced

decisions.

sim ilarly

in

Thus,

each o f t h e

the

com po sit e

pressure

four d i s t r i c t s .

The second

c o n c l u s i o n co u l d be f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d , u s i n g t h e t h e o r e t i c a l
by

suggesting

d istricts
adaptive

that

is

the

boundary

so p e r m e a b l e

function

to

so r a p i d l y

of

the

systems

environm ental

for

served

model,

all

pressures

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

is

four

and

the

th at

the

e n vi ro nm en ta l p r e s s u r e s a r e c u s h io n e d .

Change th e n becomes a slow,

comp osi te

rather

internal

environm entally

process

attributable

over

time

process

th a n

hypothesized

the
in

discrete,

this

study.

Linkages
D i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e s t r u c t u r e were assumed t o have d i f f e r e n t
types o f lin k ag es.
of

the

technical

The l o o s e c o u p l i n g was a s s o c i a t e d with s u b u n i t s
activity

functions,

a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e formal s t r u c t u r a l

while

tight

coupling

f u n c t i o n s o f t h e system.

was
The

model assumed t h a t d i f f e r e n t s u b u n i t s would change o r n o t change in
d iffering patterns.

These d i f f e r e n c e s were ex p e c te d t o be r e l a t e d

to the types of couplings.
In f a c t ,
six

four of the eig ht

indicators

theoretical

that

model.

p r e d i c t e d t o change.

indicators

changed were p r e d i c t e d
Three

that

did

not

changed.
not

to

change,

Three o f t h e
change
however,

in

the
were

C e n t r a l i z a t i o n has been d e s c r i b e d with v a r y in g

164
linkages.

One o f t h e t h r e e , however, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management, has

been c o n s i s t e n t l y d e s c r i b e d in t h e l i t e r a t u r e as t i g h t l y r a t h e r than
lo o se ly coupled.

I n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , t h e o t h e r i n d i c a t o r , may

o r may n o t be t i g h t l y co u p l e d ,
seems t o
that

lean

b u t t h e co ns en su s o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e

in t h a t d i r e c t i o n

linkage

and t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

based on f u n c t i o n .

One obvious

model

assumed

c o n c l u s i o n might

be

t h a t t h e co n c e p t o f c o u p l i n g as a s s o c i a t e d o r n o t a s s o c i a t e d with
change in an e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i s i n a p p r o p r i a t e .
A c l o s e r lo ok a t t h e l i t e r a t u r e
t h i s study,

however,

as well

as t h e f i n d i n g s

s u g g e s t s two a l t e r n a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s .

from

F irst,

t h e c o n c e p t o f l i n k a g e s may n o t y e t be d e f i n e d c a r e f u l l y enough to
be f r u i t f u l
studies.

in a t h e o r e t i c a l
For

example,

model

pe rh ap s

used as t h e b a s i s o f e m p i r i c a l

curriculum

cou pl ed but t h e r o l e o f t h e t e a c h e r i s n o t .
a m atter of ro le d e f in i ti o n ,
older.

The r o l e

attainm ent
m a in te n a n c e .

of

of

loosely

T e a c h e r s may s im pl y, as

may be t i g h t l y

linked

to

organization,

which

is

the

As s o c i e t y s h i f t s ,

org anizational

are

have i n c r e a s i n g autonomy as th e y grow

teacher

function

practices

m an age me nt and

the ro le s h i f t s .
in stru ctio n al

the

goal-

p attern -

Perhaps both th e
leadership

of

the

principal

a r e a s p e c t s o f a l o o s e l y cou pl ed s u b u n i t o f t h e system,

the

of

role

the

principal.

Or

pe rh ap s

the

p r i n c i p a l ’s

role

is

t i g h t l y l i n k e d bu t so c o n s t a n t l y m o di fi ed t h a t i t c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d
as

in

a

steady

state

of

constant

change.

At

any

rate,

the

d e f i n i t i o n may be t h e i s s u e .
Second,
actual

bec ause

change

may

alpha
have

was

set

occurred

at
th at

.01

for

was

this

not

study,

id en tified

some
as

165

significant.
set at

. 0 5,

A r ev ie w o f t h e p a t t e r n s o f change, i f a l p h a had been
i n d i c a t e s t h a t might well

be t h e c a s e

( s e e Ta b le 6 . 1 ) .

However, t h e p a t t e r n s a t a l p ha = .05 do n o t c l e a r l y f i t t h e l i n k a g e
d i v i s i o n s i n t h e model e i t h e r .

And t h e number o f s t a t i s t i c a l

completed f o r t h e volume o f i n d i c a t o r s
at

tests

i s so g r e a t t h a t w it h a l ph a

.05 t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f i d e n t i f y i n g a change as s i g n i f i c a n t where

no change o c c u r r e d i s t o o h i g h .

T h e r e f o r e , w h i l e a co m b in at i o n of

d e f i n i t i o n problems and s i g n i f i c a n c e - l e v e l
work,

no

clear

conclusion

about

the

problems may well

concept

of

linkage

be a t

in

this

t h e o r e t i c a l model co u l d be drawn.

I m p e r a t i v e F u n c ti o n s
The t h e o r e t i c a l model p o s i t e d f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s
system.

in t h e

The i n d i c a t o r s e x p l o r e d in t h e s tu d y were s e l e c t e d because

t h e y i l l u m i n a t e d e i g h t a s p e c t s o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l system t h a t seemed
to

fall

earlier,

clearly

under t h e s e

four

im perative

functions.

As noted

t h e co n c e p t o f t h e f o u r i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s had no t been

found t o be u s e f u l

as t h e b a s i s f o r e m p i r i c a l

r e s e a r c h in p r e v i o u s

attempts.
In t h i s c a s e , t h e i n d i c a t o r s a s s o c i a t e d w ith s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n s
d i d seem t o change o r n o t change in r e l a t i o n t o each o t h e r and t h a t
function.
in d icated

Tabl e
in

participation,
or

increased.

lead ersh ip ,

6.1

the

presents

tab le,

both

this

association

cen tralizatio n

in d ic a to rs of the adaptive fu n ctio n ,
Both

organizational

in d icato rs

visually.

management

and

As

commu nity

remained s t a b l e

and

instructional

a s s o c ia te d w ith th e p a tte rn -m a in te n a n c e

166

Table 6 .1 .--P atterns o f change from study fin d in g s.
Predicted
Patterns

Pattern at
Alpha = .01

C entralization

Increase
Time
Level
D istrict

No chanae

Community
P articipation

D ecrease
Time
Level
D istrict

Increase
Time

Increase
Time
Level

Organizational
Management

Decrease
Time
Level
D istrict

No chanae

Decr eas e
Time

Instructional
L e a d e r s h ip

Decr eas e
Time
Level
D istrict

No chanae
Level
D i s t r i c t by
Level

D ec rea se
D istrict
by Time

Teache r
Autonomy

No change

Increase
Time

Increase
Time
D istrict

Teach er
P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
D e c i s i o n Making

No change

No chanae

Increase
Time
Level

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

No change

Decr eas e
Time
Level

D ec rea se
Time
Level

Tension in S t a f f
Relationships

No change

Increase
Time

Increase
Time
D istrict
by Level

Indicator

P attern at
Alpha = .05

Increase
Time
Level
D istrict

167
function,

remained

participation

in

goal-attainm ent

stable.

Both

decision
function,

teacher

autonomy

and

making,

indicators

associated

remained

stable

increased.

or

s a t i s f a c t i o n decreased while s t a f f te n sio n in c re ased ,
cha ng e s.

teacher
w it h

the

The job

complimentary

Both t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s were a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e i n t e g r a t i o n

function.

Although

direction

predicted,

the

indicators

they

did

did

change

not
in

always

tandem

change
with

in

the

the

other

i n d i c a t o r a s s i g n e d t o t h e same f u n c t i o n .
Thus,

the

concept o f

more e x p l o r a t i o n .

change found in t h i s
would

co ul d

stay

and,

and f r u i t f u l

study.

be e x p e c t e d
stable.

pattern-m aintenance
values

if

organizational

function

of

a system m e r i t s

C e r t a i n l y , t h e f u n c t i o n s s er ve d by t h e i n d i c a t o r s

p r o v id e an i n t e r e s t i n g

tion

im perative

the

In

to

of

In d ica to rs serving the adaptive func­
remain

fact,

function

explanation of the p a tte rn s

stable

they

or

did.

role

so t h e

Indicators

a r e d e s ig n e d

p rin c ip a l’s

change

to

w it h

management and i n s t r u c t i o n a l

serving

the

stab ility

of

indicators

of

promote
its

two

system

leadership

serves

that

f u n c t i o n w e l l , t h e s t a b i l i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s m ys ti qu e may well be
p a r t of t h a t p a ttern -m ain ten an ce.
stable.
in

the

Thus,

these

indicators

remained

E x p e r i e n c e may well be a c o n t r i b u t i n g p a r t o f e f f e c t i v e n e s s
goal-attainm ent

experience,

function.

as t h e t e a c h e r s

in t h i s

Therefore,

teachers

w it h

more

study gained over th e 20-year

p e r i o d , may have more autonomy and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i s i o n making
as a l o g i c a l

r e s u l t of the technical

a c t i v i t y needs o f t h e system.

The i n t e g r a t i o n f u n c t i o n o f t h e system may n o t have been s e r v e d as
well in 1987 as i t had been in 1967; th u s j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n was going

168

down w hi le s t a f f t e n s i o n s went up.
ou r

society,

where

the

Again, t h i s f u n c t i o n may m i r r o r

integration

function

may n o t

be

as

well

served o v e r a l l.

Overview o f C o n cl u si o n s Regarding
t h e T h e o r e t i c a l Model
In summary, t h e t h e o r e t i c a l
components.
p r o v id e d

model

in c l u d e d

some v e r y f r u i t f u l

The i d e a s o f change as d i s c u s s e d by t h e f u n c t i o n a l i s t s

a

helpful

basis

for

the

empirical

explorations.

The

d i v i s i o n o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m ’ s s u b u n i t s i n t o f o u r groups based
on t h e i m p e r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f P arsons and t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h o s e
functions

proved

helpful

i d e n t i f i e d in t h e s t u d y .

in

analyzing

the

p attern s

of

change

However, t h e co n c e p t o f d i f f e r i n g l i n k a g e s

a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e f u n c t i o n s and r e l a t i n g t o t h e p a t t e r n s o f change
d i d n o t seem t o be as u s e f u l .

The I n d i c a t o r s
The e i g h t

indicators

were

explored

extensively.

In

several

c a s e s t h e f i n d i n g s were s u r p r i s i n g .

C entralization
F in d in g s

from r e c e n t

studies

on c e n t r a l i z a t i o n

were

somewhat

c o n t r a d i c t o r y b u t , in g e n e r a l , seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t r e n d was
toward more c e n t r a l i z a t i o n (ERS, 1980; J e s s u p , 1985; Joh ns on , 1984).
The f i n d i n g s

in t h i s

decentralization
sized

d istricts

s t u d y would not

policies
appear

note d
to

(ERS,

have

co n f ir m
1980)

that

pattern.

especially

counteracted

the

The

in

mi dd le-

trend

toward

169
c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , a t l e a s t in t h e f o u r m i d d l e - s i z e d d i s t r i c t s in c l u d e d
in t h i s s t u d y .
Johnson
unrelated

(1984)

to

indicated

unionization

occurring over time,

as

that
such

such
but

trends
simply

a p a t t e r n Weber (1975)

Some o f t h e t e a c h e r s

Johnson

interviewed

might
a

w ell

natural

trend

might have p r e d i c t e d .

indicated

the

trend

was

toward needed o r d e r r a t h e r th a n r e l a t e d t o c o n t r a c t la n g u a g e .
t e a c h e r s ’ s u g g e s t i o n was conf irm ed by t h i s
w ith

stronger

centralization

contract

language

th a n d i s t r i c t s

were

be

study,

not

The

where d i s t r i c t s

found

to

w it h weaker la n g u a g e .

have

more

In f a c t ,

the

f o u r d i s t r i c t s d id n o t v ar y s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r in t h e i r
levels of c e n tra liz a tio n ,

as r e p o r t e d by t h e t e a c h e r s

1987.

did

Secondary s c h o o l s

not

in 1967 and

vary from e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s

in

th e ir patterns e ith e r.

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n
No p r e v i o u s s t u d y was found t h a t i n d i c a t e d a g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of
changing
changing

levels

of p artic ip a tio n ,

structures

structures.

While

literatu re,

for

such

a general

S alisbury

(1980)

bu t McCormick

participation,
p a t t e r n was
noted

the

(1978)

toward

not

did
more

id en tified

poten tial

find
formal
in

in crease

th e
in

t e n s i o n s between such p a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e d e s i r e s o f e d u c a t o r s t o
m aintain

s t a b i l i t y . Many a u t h o r s have

tension

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

hypothesizing
districts.

more

and/or

to

predicted
the

in creasin g

and e x p l o r e d t h i s

level of
tension

in

unionization,
strong-union

170
In f a c t ,
increased

in t h i s

over time

in

elementary schools.
to

the

formal

study the
all

level

o f community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

four d i s t r i c t s

for

both

se co n d ar y

and

The l e v e l o f such p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be r e l a t e d

structures

discussed

by McCormick

(1978),

bu t

no

c o n t r a c t lan gu ag e in t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d d e f i n e d o r a d d r e s s e d
that participation.
wi d el y

based

on

While t h e o v e r a l l

the

contract

contract

analysis,

the

lan gu ag e d i f f e r e d

level

of

community

p a r t i c i p a t i o n did not.
E b e r t s and Stone

(1984)

id en tified

o v e r t h e e f f e c t o f un io n s on p u b l i c

growing p u b l i c

education.

indignation

Such conc er n may

ac c o un t f o r t h e i n c r e a s e d community p a r t i c i p a t i o n o v e r t i m e .

I f so,

t h e conce rn i s even and w id es p r ea d r a t h e r th a n a s s o c i a t e d w ith th e
specific

environm ental

effect

of

unionization

on

individual

d istricts.

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Management
Many s t u d i e s
school

districts

have
in

indicated

the

amount

wide v a r i a t i o n s
of

organizational

r e la te d to the au th o rity of the principal
management a c t i v i t i e s .
continuing
Smith,

loss

1985 ).

within

and among

management,

as

(DESP, 1968; ERS, 1980) in

In a d d i t i o n , r e c e n t s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d a

of th is

type o f a u t h o r i ty

(Ebben & F u l n e r ,

1985;

The l o s s has been d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d t o c o l l e c t i v e

bargaining g en era lly
have a t t r i b u t e d t h e

( E b e r t s & S to n e,
loss

to

increasing

1984; J e s s u p ,

1985).

centralization

O th er s

specifically

caused by t h e adven t o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g (ERS, 1980 ).

However,

both Johnson (1984) and J e s s u p (1984) n o te d t h a t such a u t h o r i t y and

171
organizational

responsibility

no te d t h a t where an a c t u a l

have

loss

always

been

o f formal

ambiguous.

They

au th o rity occurred,

the

p r i n c i p a l s o f t e n c o n t i n u e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e a u t h o r i t y anyway.
From t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e s c h o o l s in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y ,
change

in

the

level

of

the

p r in c ip a ls ’ organizational

a u t h o r i t y had o c c u r r e d o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s .
did

not

va ry

either.

by

d istricts

or

between

the

and

level

secondary

The a d ve nt o f c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g had made no change in

t h i s a r e a o f t h e school o r g a n i z a t i o n .
though

management

In a d d i t i o n ,
elementary

no

increasing

cen tralizatio n

Th is p a t t e r n was found even

had

occurred

in

each

of

the

d i s t r i c t s studied.
How might

the

perception

of

change

in

these

other

previous

s t u d i e s be e x p l a i n e d when no change was found in t h i s s tu d y ?
the

prin cip als

principals

reporting

before the

change

in

the

a d v en t o f c o l l e c t i v e

earlier

Few of

studies

bargaining.

w ere

They were

p e r c e i v i n g change as t h e y remembered t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s a u t h o r i t y when
they

were

teachers.

In

the

current

study,

the

reporters

t e a c h e r s r e v ie w i n g c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n s in 1967 and 1987.

were

Thus a r o l e

change and memory d i s t o r t i o n were no t a s p e c t s o f t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y .
An other

explanation

might

be

that

the

formal

structure

of

th e

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management has changed in s o c i e t y and in t h e o v e r a l l
in stitu tio n
schools,

the

behavior.
to-day

of

education,
formal

but,

structure

as

exercised

may

not

be

in

the

reflected

individual
in

actual

Informal r o l e s and s t y l e s may have more i n f l u e n c e on day-

activ ities,

so,

o v erall,

organizational-management a c t i v i t i e s

the

p r in c ip a l’s

has remained t h e

au th o rity
same.

in

S inc e

172

this

study

addressed

o n ly

management a u t h o r i t y ,

the

actual

a change in t h e

levels

of

organizational -

s tr u c tu re w ithout

an a c t u a l

change in b e h a v i o r s might n o t have been i d e n t i f i e d .
At any r a t e ,

the actual

management a c t i v i t i e s

of a principal

n o t been i n f l u e n c e d by
The

findings

would

level o f a u th o rity

level

seem t o

in o r g a n i z a t i o n a l -

was s t a b l e o v e r t i m e and had

or d i s t r i c t

c o n f ir m

in t h e

many o f

sample s t u d i e d .

Sergiovanni’s

(1983)

perceptions of the p r i n c i p a l ’ s ro le .

I n s t r u c t i o n a l L e a d e r s h ip
An oth er a s p e c t o f t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s r o l e ,
is

instructional

leadership.

Th is

in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y ,

aspect

appears

to

be based on

p e r s o n a l i t y and competence r a t h e r t h a n r o l e a u t h o r i t y ( S e r g i o v a n n i &
S tarratt,

198 3) .

for

one-fourth

abo ut

with

three-fourths

found

th at

C uttita

of the

for

indicated

instructional
authors

who

Sm ith,

1985)

(1982)

found t h a t

activities

of

this
the

aspect

principal

organizational

management.

more

tim e

or

less

ac c ou nt ed

was

No
being

compared
study

was

spent

on

l e a d e r s h i p b eca use o f o r a f t e r u n i o n i z a t i o n .
predicted

loss

of

authority

(Ebben

to

be

referring

to

appeared

p rin c ip a l’s role.

However,

& Fulmer,

both

areas

1985;
of

the

Th is a s p e c t o f t h e r o l e d i d n o t show a r e d u c t i o n

o v e r time in t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y d e s p i t e t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s .
The i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p o f t h e p r i n c i p a l has a l s o remained
stable.

D ifferences

instructional

leadership

were
at

found
the

between

elementary

the
and

level
secondary

of

such

levels,

173
however.

A d i f f e r e n c e was n o t i d e n t i f i e d

between d i s t r i c t s .

But

i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p p a t t e r n s d i d v a r y among d i s t r i c t s by l e v e l .
Thus,

a

p r in c i p a l’s

strong
role

case

has

has been made

remained v e r y s t a b l e ,

from en v i ro n m e n ta l i n d i c a t o r s .
the

result

larger

of

th a n

different

size

in

of

elementary

d istricts

study

w ith

that

little

the

influence

Any v a r i a t i o n by l e v e l may have been

school,

w ith

schools,

or

for

this

s e co n da r y
of

princip als

schools

differing

at

generally

expectations

d ifferen t

in

lev els.

The

p r i n c i p a l ’ s l e v e l o f a u t h o r i t y in t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management o f a
school o r t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l
over

tim e,

w ith

no

l e a d e r s h i p o f a school

evidence fo r the

effect

of

has no t changed
environm ental

pressures.

Autonomy
The a c t u a l autonomy o f t h e c l a ss r o o m t e a c h e r has been found in
p r e v i o u s works t o have remained r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e d e s p i t e t h e advent
of

collective

bargaining

and

other

1985; Jo h n so n , 1984; L o r t i e , 1969 ).

e nv ir on m en ta l

changes

(Chase,

Te a ch er s have m a i n t a i n e d t h e i r

autonomy, and p r i n c i p a l s have s u p p o r t e d t h a t m a in te n a n c e .
The r e s p o n s e s o f t h e t e a c h e r s in t h i s s tu d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t ,
fact,

the

level
not

of

teacher

associated

autonomy

identity

of

time.
the

This

was

however,

and t h e r e f o r e no p a t t e r n o f v a r i a t i o n based on c o l l e c t i v e

by school l e v e l e i t h e r .

the

over

increase

b a r g a i n i n g was d e m o n s t r a t e d .

w it h

increased

in

d istrict,

The i n c r e a s i n g autonomy d i d n o t vary

174
S in c e

the

previous

studies

cited

did

no t

have

longitudinal

i n f o r m a t i o n b u t dep ended, i n s t e a d , on t h e memory o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ,
t h e i n c r e a s e in autonomy found in t h i s
c o n tra d ic tin g previous f in d in g s .

s t u d y c a n n o t be r e g a r d e d as

The i n c r e a s e may be r e l a t e d t o t h e

i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e t e a c h e r s t h e m s e l v e s ,
Abrahamson
that

the

(1967)
older

U nfortunately,

in

the

his

a pattern

study o f research

scientists

were,

the

the parameters of t h i s

identified

scientists.

more

by

He found

autonomy t h e y

had.

s t u d y d i d n o t al lo w f o r t h e

i n c l u s i o n o f t e a c h e r age as an in d e p en d en t v a r i a b l e in t h e a n a l y s i s .

Professional P a rtic ip a tio n
in D e c is io n Making
While p r i n c i p a l s
as

indicated

teacher

previous

participation

the m s e lv e s
(Duke,

in

refrained

were

Showers,

pattern
P ellican,

is

not

by

they

decision

sure

chang in g
1980 ).

studies,

in

& Imber,

from i n t r u d i n g

such

type

te n de d

making

(ERS,

participation

1980).

on t e a c h e r autonomy
not

198 0).

was

Some i n d i c a t o r s

rather

th a n

to

amount

enco ur ag e
Te a ch er s

that

im p o r t a n t

exist

that

(Joh nso n,

the

1984;

The change p r e d i c t e d was from i n d i v i d u a l t o group

participation.
The l a t e r
study a l l

contracts

had la ng uag e t h a t

teacher p a rtic ip a tio n ,
language

than

particip atio n
d istricts

for

o th ers.
did

not

the

four

d istricts

would f a l l

un d er t h e

reviewed

in

this

head in g o f

such

b u t some o f t h e c o n t r a c t s had much s t r o n g e r
In

fact,

change

no m a t t e r what t h e

which s c h o o l - l e v e l d i v i s i o n .

fr o m

however,
1967

to

the
1987

level
for

of

such

all

four

s t r e n g t h o f t h e c o n t r a c t lan gu ag e or

175

Cuban
part

of

(1984)

such

Movement.

n ot e d

that

educational

such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

movements

resu lt

pressures

the

an

im p o r ta n t

E ffective

Schools

L i k e r t (1977) adv o ca te d such p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a p p r o p r i a t e

for e ffe c tiv e organizations.
the

as

was

of

of

such

The s t a b i l i t y in p a r t i c i p a t i o n may be

advocacy,

routinization.

w h ic h

serves

to

also

may be

the

It

counteract
result

of

the
the

i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e t e a c h e r s , as i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , a v a r i a b l e
no t in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
Job s a t i s f a c t i o n
generally

and

1980; Webb,

for

has been found t o be d e c r e a s i n g

teachers

1983).

specifically

While E b e r t s

s a t i s f a c t i o n in union d i s t r i c t s ,
that

unionization

initial

transition

satisfaction
/ Hnv/

resulted
period.

in

( S e r g io v a n n i

and Sto ne

(1984)

& Carrier,

found

less

jo b

P a s c h a l l (1984) found some e v i d en ce
greater

job

satisfaction

after

th e

Some conc er n abo ut t h e b r e a d t h o f jo b

as a c o n c e p t has been e x p r e s s e d

fi. M i c l / o l

f o r workers

by many r e s e a r c h e r s

1Q7Q\

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y te n d t o c o n f i r m t h e p r e v i o u s o v e r a l l
pattern s.

Job

satisfactio n

d i s t r i c t s studied.
four d i s t r i c t s
th a n 15 y e a r s .

decreased

over

tim e

in

all

four

The d e c r e a s e o c c u r r e d o v e r t i m e even though a l l

had been in v o l v e d in c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g f o r more
Thus,

this

u n i o n i z a t i o n has a p o s i t i v e
Vornberg and P a s c h a ll

study c o n t r a d i c t s
e f f e c t over t i m e ,

(1984) work.

Again,

the p o s s i b i l i t y
as

that

i n d i c a t e d by t h e

t e a c h e r age may be t h e

176
source of the decrease,

as has been i d e n t i f i e d

in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s

( S i l v e r , 1983 ).
While such j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n d e c r e a s e d ,

it

i s i m p o r t a n t t o no te

t h a t t h e r e was a c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n found f o r
t h e e l e m e n t a r y when compared w it h t h e s e co nd ar y l e v e l
studied.
ti m e

Thi s p a t t e r n r e f l e c t s

studies

result

of

faculty

(Silver,

1983).

differences

in

demo gra ph ics .

in b o th y e a r s

a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n found in s i n g l e ­
The d i f f e r e n c e

working

conditions

Elementary t e a c h e r s

by

level

or

are

a

may

difference

more l i k e l y

f em a le , w ith l e s s e x p e r i e n c e and l e s s t r a i n i n g .

be

to

a
in
be

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

may be s o u r c e s o f t h e v a r i a t i o n s in p a t t e r n s .

R elationships
The l e v e l o f t e n s i o n in p r o f e s s i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s was found t o
h av e

changed

introduction
however,
q uite

little

indicators

1985;

of unionization.

that

as

(Jessup,

Eberts

p e e r and p r i n c i p a l

p ositive
that

such

in

union

as

Johnson,

1984)

w ith

and Stone

(1984)

did

relationships
in

relationships

nonunion

are d ir e c tly

the
find,

d i d n o t seem t o be
d istricts.

Some

influenced

by th e

p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l were found (ERS, 1980).
Thi s s t u d y found a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e in s t a f f t e n s i o n s over
time.
all
of

No v a r i a t i o n by d i s t r i c t o r l e v e l was found, however.

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

and

Stone

(1984)

may

be

correct.

the

Jessup

S in ce

suggestions
(1985)

and

Johnson (1984) d i d n o t f i n d such an i n c r e a s e in t h e union d i s t r i c t s
they stu d ie d ,

per haps bec a us e t h e r e s e a r c h methods v a r i e d

from t h e

177
methods used f o r t h i s
n o t been

s t u d y o r bec a u se t h e i r

sample d i s t r i c t s

had

u n i o n i z e d as long as t h e f o u r in c l u d e d in t h i s s t u d y .

It

i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s t u d y showed e v i d e n c e
of overall

i n c r e a s e s in t e n s i o n b u t no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t r e n g t h o f

c o n t r a c t l a n gu ag e was r e l a t e d t o t h e v a r i a t i o n in t e n s i o n o v e r t i m e .

Overview o f C o n c l u s i o n s Regarding
S p e c i f i c I n d i c a t o r F in d in g s
One g e n e r a l

conclusion

i m p li e d

by many o f

the

studies

cited

t h a t i s a b s o l u t e l y n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t t h e a d v e n t o f
c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g and t e a c h e r u n i o n i z a t i o n
f a r - r e a c h i n g e f f e c t on d i s t r i c t and school

has had a s p e c i f i c ,

structure.

In f a c t ,

in

s e v e r a l c a s e s t h e union e f f e c t p r e d i c t e d by t h e l i t e r a t u r e has been
distinctly

different

from t h e

patterns

found

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

in

this

study.

a u t h o r i t y in e i t h e r o f t h e

p r i n c i p a l r o l e s was n o t found t o be t r u e in t h i s s t u d y .
eight

indicators,

d istricts

the

did not

th e 20 y e a r s .

differing

result

la n gu ag e

structural

And in a l l
in

the

four

development

o ve r

Thus, t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of t e a c h e r u n io n s may have a

generalized

effect

lead in g

more t e a c h e r

to

contract

in d i f f e r i n g

For

over

time

for

autonomy

C e r t a i n l y no s p e c i f i c o r d i f f e r i n g

union
for

districts,
all

for

unionized

e f f e c t was n ot e d

example,
teachers.

for d is tr i c ts

t h a t d i f f e r e d in c o n t r a c t la ng u a g e .
Many o f t h e

specific

findings

in

fin d in g s and/or conclusions of previous

this

s tu d y

studies.

varied

from t h e

These v a r i a t i o n s

may be e x p l a i n e d by v a r i a t i o n s in sampling methods o r by t h e l a c k of
l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a in t h e l i t e r a t u r e .

178

A second g e n e r a l

conclusion

to

be drawn

for

the

pattern

of

f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t memories o f change and p e r c e p t i o n s of
s t a b i l i t y o ve r ti m e f o r t h e s e i n d i c a t o r s must be c o n s i d e r e d s u s p e c t .
The f i n d i n g s from t h i s s t u d y were i n t e r p r e t e d v e r y c o n s e r v a t i v e l y t o
av oi d

identifying

a

pattern

as

significant

o c c u r r e d by chance ( a l p h a was s e t a t

.01).

that

had,

Thus,

in

fact,

change may have

o c c u r r e d where no s i g n i f i c a n t change was i d e n t i f i e d .

However, where

change was i d e n t i f i e d , such change can be c o n f i d e n t l y s t a t e d t o have
o c c u r r e d , based on t h e l o n g i t u d i n a l r e s e a r c h model and c o n s e r v a t i v e
interpretation.

Thus, when t e a c h e r s in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h o u g h t t h e

l e v e l o f autonomy had remained s t a b l e , y e t f o r a l l f o u r d i s t r i c t s in
t h i s study the level
significantly,
o nl y

is

the

o f autonomy was d e m o n s t r a t e d t o have i n c r e a s e d

t h e d i f f e r e n c e must be r e g a r d e d as
perception

of

cause,

that

is,

that

im portant.

Not

unionization

has

caus ed ch an g e s, u n s u p p o r te d by t h i s s t u d y ; t h e a c t u a l p e r c e p t i o n s of
s p e c i f i c change p a t t e r n s in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s t h a t sampled on a o n e ­
time

basis

are

also

called

into

question

r e s p o n d e n t s answer memory a n d / o r c a u s a l
t e a c h e r s have more,

less,

the

by

this

questions

study.

When

( f o r example,

same amount o f autonomy as t h e y

Do
had

b e f o r e u n i o n i z a t i o n ? ) , t h e f i n d i n g s may n o t d e m o n s t r a t e a n y t h i n g but
what t h e y p e r c e i v e abo ut t h e p a s t a t t h e ti m e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s .
Table 6 . 2 summarizes t h e p a t t e r n s o f c o n c l u s i o n s in t h i s
in comparison t o t h o s e o f p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s .

s tud y

179
Ta b l e 6 . 2 . --Summary o f p a t t e r n s and c o n c l u s i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c
indicators.

Indicator

N o n lo n g it u d in a l
P a t t e r n s From
Previous L i te r a t u r e

Longitudinal
Findings of
T h i s Study

C entralization

a. More c e n t r a l i z a t i o n
over time.
b. E s t a b l i s h m e n t o f
decentralization
policies.
c . More c e n t r a l i z a t i o n
o v e r time caused by
unionization.

a. C e n t r a l i z a t i o n
s t a b l e ov er t i m e .
b. No v a r i a t i o n by
d istrict.
c . No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
o r s e co n da r y l e v e l .

Community
Participation

a. Changing s t r u c t u r e
of p a r ti c ip a tio n .
b. I n c r e a s e d t e n s i o n s
caus ed by u n i o n i ­
zation.
c. No i d e n t i f i e d
i n c r e a s e in p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n gen­
erally.

a. I n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i ­
p a t i o n o ve r t i m e .
b. No v a r i a t i o n by
d istrict.
c. No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
and se co n da ry p a t ­
terns.

Organizational
Management

a. Less p r i n c i p a l s ’
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l man­
agement a u t h o r i t y
be ca us e o f u n i o n i ­
zation.
b. Less p r i n c i p a l s ’
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l man­
agement a u t h o r i t y
bec a us e o f c e n t r a l ­
i z a t i o n caused by
unionization.
c . Wide v a r i a t i o n
between s c h o o ls and
between d i s t r i c t s .
d. Loss o f formal
a u t h o r i t y but c o n ­
tinu in g exercise of
inf or m al a u t h o r i t y .

a. No l o s s o f a u t h o r ­
i t y over time.
b. No v a r i a t i o n
between d i s t r i c t s .
c. No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
and se co nd ar y
levels.

180
Table 6 .2 .--Continued.

Indicator

N o n lo n g it u d in a l
P a t t e r n s From
P r e v io u s L i t e r a t u r e

Longitudinal
F in d in g s o f
Th is Study

Instructional
L e a d e r s h ip o f
Principal

a . Loss o f formal
instructional lead­
ership authority
bec a u se o f u n i o n i ­
zation.

a. No l o s s o v e r t i m e .
b. V a r i a t i o n between
d i s t r i c t s by l e v e l .
c. V a r i a t i o n between
e l e m e n t a r y and
se co n d ar y l e v e l s .

Autonomy o f
Classroom
Teach er

a. S t a b l e p a t t e r n s .
b. S t a b l e p a t t e r n s
n o t i n f l u e n c e d by
unionization.

a. I n c r e a s e d autonomy
o v e r ti m e.
b. No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
and s eco nda ry
levels,
c. No v a r i a t i o n
between d i s t r i c t s .

Professional
Participation
o f Tea che rs

a. Type o f p a r t i c i p a ­
t i o n chang in g from
i n d i v i d u a l t o group
bec ause o f c o n t r a c t
language.
b. L i t t l e such p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n o cc u rs
despite intentions
and/or co n tra ct
la ng ua ge .

a. No i n c r e a s e in
participation
ov er ti m e .
b. No v a r i a t i o n
between d i s t r i c t s .
c. No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
and se co n d ar y
levels.

Job S a t i s f a c t i o n
o f Te a ch er s

a. D e c r e a s in g s a t i s f a c ­
tion generally.
b. D e c r e a s in g f o r
teachers.
c. Less s a t i s f a c t i o n
in union d i s t r i c t s .
d. I n c r e a s e d s a t i s f a c ­
t i o n in l o n g - t i m e
union d i s t r i c t s .

a. D ec r ea s in g ov er
time.
b. No v a r i a t i o n by
d istrict.
c. Higher f o r e le m en ­
ta r y than second­
ary.

181
Table 6 .2 .--Continued.
N o n lo n g it u d in a l
P a t t e r n s From
P r e v io u s L i t e r a t u r e

Indicator

S ta ff R elation­
s h i p s ( L e v e ls
o f Tens ion )

Longitudinal
F in d in g s o f
T h i s Study

a. I n c r e a s i n g o v e r
time.
b. No v a r i a t i o n by
d istrict.
c . No v a r i a t i o n
between e l e m e n t a r y
and se co n da ry
levels.

a . G e n e r a l l y unchang­
ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s .
b. Level o f t e n s i o n s
dep en d en t on p r i n ­
c i p a l’s personality.
c . High er t e n s i o n in
union t h a n nonunion
d istricts.

Imp!ications
This s tu d y has many i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e

field

of education,

some of which w i l l r e q u i r e c o n f i r m a t i o n in o t h e r s t u d i e s w h i l e o t h e r
i m p l i c a t i o n s cou ld be
from t h e f i n d i n g s

is

immed iatel y u s e f u l .

The o v e r a l l

one o f ve ry slow change powered by time

cu s h io n ed from s p e c i f i c e nv ir o nm en ta l p r e s s u r e s .
in

the

study

were

all

in

union

en v iro n m en ta l

changes

over

e n vi ro nm en ta l

changes

may have

compounded

effects

im p r e s si o n

but

had

the

20

d istricts
years,

affected

little

specific

While t h e s c h o o l s
th at

had

unionization

each

and

other
effect.

or

had
and

many
th e

may

have

Thus,

the

i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e change p a t t e r n s from t h i s s t u d y would seem t o be
a p p l i c a b l e t o e d u c a t i o n more g e n e r a l l y .

182
I m p l i c a t i o n s R e l a te d t o t h e
T h e o r e t i c a l Framework
D ifferent
d ifferently,
division

parts

o f an

e d u c a t i o n a l system do work and

as

ev i d e n c e d

by t h e

findings

of the

structure

by f u n c t i o n

from t h i s

appears

important co n sid e ra tio n than p reviously noted.
traditional
study.

to

study.

be

considering

The

a much more

D i v i s i o n by t h e more

c h o i c e s o f d i s t r i c t o r l e v e l was l e s s f r u i t f u l

When

change

i n t e n t i o n a l chang e,

in t h i s

function

must

be

considered.
Two i m p l i c a t i o n s
change

is

follow t h i s

more l i k e l y

to

occur

a s s u m p ti o n .

in

the

F irst,

direction

intentional

intended

ta rg e te d u n its of the s tr u c t u re share a function.

if

the

S in c e u n i t s with

one f u n c t i o n had d i f f e r e n t change p a t t e r n s and r a t e s o f change th a n
u n i t s w i t h a n o t h e r f u n c t i o n even in t h e

same d i s t r i c t s

same

crossing

levels

in

the

same

environments,

ap p e a r l i k e l y

to com plicate

participative

decision

im p lie d

in

the

d e v el op s i t e - b a s e d management in many d i s t r i c t s
Th is

change

boundaries

is
and

designed
is

clearly

functions

t h e change p r o c e s s

making

to

cross

within

school,
two

recent

d istrict,

in creasin g

to

study.

to

and

areas,

level

that

of

Subunits o f a d a p ta tio n ,

and community p a r t i c i p a t i o n ,
th is

efforts

i s a c a s e in p o i n t .

such as c e n t r a l i z a t i o n
according

would

d r a m a t i c a l l y . The

functional

p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e and t h a t o f a d a p t a t i o n .

and a t t h e

Subunits

are

stable

of

or

pattern-

m a in te n a n c e , such as t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management, have
remained s t a b l e .
sustained

The e f f o r t s tow ard s i t e - b a s e d management, even i f

ov er ti m e ,

would seem t o

have l i t t l e

chan ce o f

success

183
because

of

already

functions.
seem t o
On t h e

Stable

change

centralization

contradict
other

ex istin g

increasing

hand,

w ithin

and p r i n c i p a l ’ s

site-based

increasing

support s ite -b a s e d e f f o r t s

pattern s

authority

management,

for

community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

i f citizen

the

two
would

example.

might

well

invo lve men t were i n c l u d e d

in

t h e mo d el .
A nother

educational

innovation

th at

is

d i s c u s s e d would seem even more d i f f i c u l t t o

cu rren tly

implement b ec a u se

innovation cro sses fun ctio n al

a r e a s whose s u b u n i t s

opposite

directio n s.

idea

financial

rew ard s

areas

of

imperative

Units

in t h e s e two a r e a s changed d i f f e r e n t l y

d istricts

and

The

levels,

function,

w it h

negative.

In m e r i t pay p l a n s ,

increasing,
resented.

w hile

to

goal

one

stable

attached

set

another

of

of

T h i s may r e s u l t

in

even more

be

fraught

w ith

with

or

increasing
became

o f goal

more

autonomy

goal

attainm ent

staff

tension

w ith

or

attainm ent

teacher

system o f m e r i t

p eril,

two

s tu d y a c r o s s

levels

levels

least

in t h i s

specific

of

through

integration.

decreased

evaluation

at

in

and

indicators

But

to

includes

attainm ent

rewards.

the

specific

pay

the

a r e ch an gi ng

incentive

set

Thus, t h e e f f o r t toward an e f f e c t i v e
predicted

teacher

in t h e form o f m e r i t

rem aining

are

of

being

may

for

be

some.

pay would be

unpredicted

and

c o n t r a d i c t o r y outcomes l i k e l y even i f s u s t a i n e d o ve r t i m e .
The second i m p l i c a t i o n f o r i n t e n t i o n a l change in an e d u c a t i o n a l
organization

is

th at,

if

the

targeted

units

not

only

share

a

f u n c t i o n bu t a l s o i f r e l a t e d u n i t s w i t h i n t h e f u n c t i o n a r e a l r e a d y

184
moving in t h e same d i r e c t i o n , t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o n g - l a s t i n g change
in t h e d e s i r e d d i r e c t i o n i s i n c r e a s e d .
An example o f an e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n t h a t would be p r e d i c t e d
t o have l e s s chance o f s u c c e s s bec a us e o f t h e second ass u mp ti on

is

t h a t o f team t e a c h i n g .

Team t e a c h i n g would be a u n i t w i t h i n

the

goal-attainm ent

where t e a c h e r autonomy,

the

function

also

serving

g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t f u n c t i o n , i s i n c r e a s i n g a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f i n d i n g s of
t h i s study.

Thus, two change p a t t e r n s w i t h i n t h e same f u n c t i o n , one

intentional

and

other.

one

Efforts

unanticipated

or

perhaps

not,

toward

team

s lo w e r

positive

would

teaching

seem

to

contradict

each

would

be

likely

have

results

with

teacher

to

autonomy

a l r e a d y i n c r e a s i n g in t h e f i e l d .
In summary, change a g e n t s in an e d u c a t i o n a l

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

c o n s i d e r f i r s t t h e f u n c t i o n t h e change o b j e c t s e r v e s and second t h e
current directio n
same f u n c t i o n ,

o f change o f o t h e r t a r g e t e d

when p l a n n i n g

intentional

objects

change.

If

serving
the

targeted

u n i t s e r v e s more th a n one f u n c t i o n o r t h e o t h e r u n i t s

serving

same f u n c t i o n a r e chang in g

th e

toward

intentional

effort

may

inadequate.

in a c o n t r a d ic t o r y p a t t e r n ,

change may well

be w a s t e d

if

the

be w as te d .

tim e

allo tted

In
to

the

efforts

addition,
the

the

change

the
is

Time, in t h i s s t u d y , pla yed t h e key r o l e in t h e change

process.

Im plications Specific
t o Each I n d i c a t o r
None

of

the

findings

sp ecific

to

each

in d icato r

can

be

c o n f i d e n t l y g e n e r a l i z e d t o nonunion d i s t r i c t s , t o d i s t r i c t s in o t h e r

185

tha n t h e Midwest, o r f o r small r u r a l d i s t r i c t s .
chosen

for

further

the

study

studies.

however.

makes

The

in

C entralization

each

d istrict

has

routinize

some a c t i v i t i e s .

with

a

still

stable,

without

provide

insight,

according

to

the

is

a t each l e v e l

stability

is

despite

be e x p e c t e d

Computers may well

to

union

cen tralize

be a p a r t

capacity fo r c en tral

Many d i s t r i c t s

top-heavy

unwise

o v e r time

even as r e d u c t i o n s

are occurring.

do wnsizing

Thi s

w h ic h wo uld

w ith e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g

positions

remained

studied.

language,

s t o r a g e and r e t r i e v a l

may

The s t a b i l i t y

contract

p attern ,

generalizations

im plications

findings of t h i s study.
and

such

The s p e c i f i c sample

of

and
this

inform ation

in c e n t r a l - a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
are c u rre n tly

management

structure.

struggling
The

c e n t r a l i z a t i o n may be t h e r e s u l t o f d e c r e a s e d system s i z e ,

stable

increased

system c o m p l e x i t y , and system age, ba l a n c e d by i n c r e a s i n g t e c h n o l o g y
and r o u t i n i z a t i o n .

The i n c r e a s e d av e r a g e age and e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e

i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n t h e sy stem, a n d / o r ,
indicated;

as J o h n s o n ’ s (1984) t e a c h e r s

an e f f o r t toward needed o r d e r , may a l s o s e r v e t o b a l a n c e

t h e p r e s s u r e s f o r change.
Should change a g e n t s d e c i d e t o c e n t r a l i z e o r d e c e n t r a l i z e ,
e f f o r t would need t o be m a ss iv e , e x t e n s i v e ,
of

time

in

order

to

counterbalance

the

the

and o v e r a long p e r i o d
competing

pressures

for

change in t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o n .
Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n

increased.

That

i n c r e a s e may be th e

p r o d u c t o f o r t h e c a u s e o f t h e t e n s i o n s between community and school
described

by

researchers

(ERS,

1980; S a l i s b u r y ,

1983).

If

th e

186
n a t u r a l t e n s i o n s do in f a c t e x i s t ,
be e x p e c te d t o l e a d t o

th e n i n c r e a s e d i n t e r a c t i o n would

increased te n sio n .

On t h e

o t h e r hand,

if

i n c r e a s e d t e n s i o n e x i s t e d a p r i o r i , i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n based on
m i s t r u s t and demand f o r change might be a l i k e l y

result.

Either

way, t h e a s c r i p t i o n o f blame t o u n i o n i z a t i o n would seem t o be too
facile,

g iv e n

teachers

the

today

relations,

results

have

group

had

dynamics,

of

this

little
or

study.
or

no

Many

principals

train in g

in

community de vel opm ent .

and

com mu nit y
Given

the

i n c r e a s i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n , such t r a i n i n g would seem t o be i m p e r a t i v e .
T en s io n s a r e no t n e c e s s a r i l y n e g a t i v e o r u n h e a l t h y ,
to

such p a r t i c i p a t i o n

would

seem t o

and r e s i s t a n c e

be c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e

or

even

f a t a l t o c a r e e r s in e d u c a t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p .
The p r i n c i p a l ’ s

authority,

both

in

organizational

management

and in i n s t r u c t i o n a l l e a d e r s h i p , has remained s u r p r i s i n g l y s t a b l e in
the

four d i s t r i c t s

districts

or

levels

studied.

That

stab ility

fo r organizational

d id

n o t vary between

management.

Instructional

l e a d e r s h i p d i d v ar y by l e v e l and f o r d i s t r i c t by l e v e l
time.

The

negotiate

im plication

specific

is

that,

situations

w h il e

within

the

bu t n o t over

individual

principals

may

tw o-part

expectations

of

a u t h o r i t y , t h o s e e x p e c t a t i o n s , in p r a c t i c e , a r e t o d a y very much l i k e
t h e y were

20 y e a r s

ago.

would seem t o be s e r v e d
pressures

as

Thus,
very well

unionization.

The

the

pattern-maintenance

over t i m e d e s p i t e
p rin cip al’s

role

function

such o u t s i d e
appears

very

c o n g r u e n t w it h t h e n a t u r e o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l e n t e r p r i s e as a whole,
t h a t o f p a t t e r n main ten an ce and v al u e s t a b i l i t y .

187
A b a s i c change in t h a t r o l e , such as t h e move toward s i t e - b a s e d
management,
function

would

of

be

the

modification

of

in

some ways

ro le.

the

The

a direct

prediction

p rin c ip a l’s

role

with

contradiction
might

be

to

made

a m a in te n a n c e

the
that

function

would be r e s i s t e d s t r e n u o u s l y .
In one o f t h e d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d , t h a t , i n f a c t ,
has

happened.

T ea ch er s

targeted

for site-based

vote

through

or

activities,

to

in s e v e r a l

of the

proposed

management have r e f u s e d ,

inform al

behavior

p articipate.

Such

such
a

i s e x a c t l y what

as

pilot

th r o u g h

schools
a formal

passive-aggressive

behavior

was

explained

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as an u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o spend t h e time r e q u i r e d .
this

study

indicated

participate

the

teachers

in d e c i s i o n making.

were

already

giving

Perhaps t h e r e f u s a l

by
But

time

to

is r e l a t e d to

function.
Teacher
attainm ent,

p articip atio n
but

m odifications

the

v er y

in t h e i r r o l e s

second,

first,
an

m an age me nt

and t h e r o l e s

and

take

a

an i n t e n t i o n a l

intentional

v er y

long

wo ul d

make

goal
major

of the p rincipal

time

where

development

of

another

might

implement

if

included

and

easier

p rin c ip a l’s

role

to
is

o f which

role

will

unless

such

changes

change i n f u n c t i o n o f t h e r o l e and,

The model

statem ent

improved

i s t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f th e

pattern-maintenance function.
be

toward

Changes in t h e p r i n c i p a l ’ s r o l e would be e x p e c t e d t o be

d ifficu lt

involve,

targeted

site-based

t h e ma in te na n ce o f p a t t e r n s
principal.

is

a v er y
if

the

now f u l f i l l

role

to

serve

the

f o r s i t e - b a s e d management
clear
model
the

definition
includes

of
a

the

clear

pattern-maintenance

188

function.

I nd eed , t h a t may be t h e co r e o f t h e d i f f i c u l t y .

c u r r e n t r o l e would seem t o have t h e c r e d i b i l i t y
the pattern-maintenance function.

No o t h e r

required to

serve

C r e a t i o n o f a new r o l e would add

s i g n if i c a n tl y to the a d m in istrativ e c o s ts .

For example,

a school

s t r u c t u r e w it h a h e a d m a s t e r - t e a c h e r and m a s t e r t e a c h e r s t o s e r v e t h e
p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e f u n c t i o n and a p r i n c i p a l and a s s i s t a n t s t o s e r v e
the
w ork

adaptive

function

indicated

structures

w it h

professional
evol ved

a

might well

th at

p rofessional

more

coordinators

participation
very

be e f f e c t i v e .

sim ilar

groups
or

in d e c i s i o n

model

to

E tzioni’s

needed

to

have

facilitators

to

allow

making,

this

(1964)

and

parallel

hospitals

structure.

flat
for
have
The

expense would ap p e a r t o be very g r e a t , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , u n l e s s s c h o o l s
become v er y l a r g e .

At any r a t e ,

up t o t h i s p o i n t ,

the p r i n c i p a l ’s

r o l e has been v er y s t a b l e .
The t e a c h e r s ’ r o l e s
more a u t o n o m y b u t

have e v o l v ed i n t h e

stab le

particip ativ e

decision

im plications fo r te a c h e r tr a i n i n g are g r e a t .
autonomy,

t h e y become r e s p o n s i b l e

goal

attainm ent of the

th e n

becomes t h e

product.

20-year period,
making.

Initial

o nl y obv iou s method f o r

The

I f t e a c h e r s have more

in even g r e a t e r measure

in stitution.

and ongoing

ensuring

quality

for

the

training
o f the

T ea che r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y th r o u g h such methods as m e r i t pay

would seem doomed beca use t h e a c c o u n t a b i l i t y models c o n t r a d i c t
i n c r e a s i n g autonomy.
the

w ith

subject

the

Making s u r e t h e t e a c h e r has a f i r m g r a s p o f

and a c l e a r

understanding o f the

s t u d e n t when h e / s h e

c l o s e s t h a t c l a s s r o o m do o r has become i m p e r a t i v e .

189
I f t h e r o l e s have e v o l v ed be ca use o f t e a c h e r s ’ i n c r e a s i n g
r a t h e r than the in c re a sin g p ro fe s sio n a lism o f th e

field,

the

few y e a r s sh oul d s e e a ma jor s h i f t in t h i s change p a t t e r n .
c o h o r t age grou ps r e t i r e ,

age
next

As l a r g e

a c c o u n t a b i l i t y models, team t e a c h i n g ,

and

o t h e r p r o j e c t s might be e x p e c t e d t o become more f e a s i b l e .

T ea ch er

autonomy would th e n be e x p e c t e d t o r e t u r n t o

levels.

Te a ch er p a r t i c i p a t i o n

t h e low er 1960s

in d e c i s i o n making has

d e s p i t e t h e i n c r e a s i n g age o f t h e t e a c h e r s .
ap p e a r s

to

findings.
such

occur,
Th is

on

stab ility

participation

educational

based

refo rm

this

is

s tu d y

despite

previous

contract

recent

efforts

and

teacher-evaluation

stable

A r a t h e r l i m i t e d amount
and

and

remained

in

single-tim e

l a n gu ag e

supporting

many

districts

models,

which

toward

would

be

ex p ec te d t o s t r e n g t h e n such p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
The f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n
have l a r g e r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f i e l d .

and s t a f f t e n s i o n s a l s o

S t r o n g e r c o n t r a c t lan gu ag e

had no d i s c e r n i b l e e f f e c t on how t e a c h e r s f e l t

abo ut t h e i r working

c o n d i t i o n s , and t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t e a c h e r un ion s has not ap pea red
t o improve t h e t e a c h e r s ’ a t t i t u d e s

about t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s .

d i s t r i c t s and t h e u n io n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h them a p p e a r ,
study,

to

have s u b u n i t s

t h a t are serving

the

School

based on t h i s

integrative

function

l e s s well th a n in p r e v i o u s e r a s .
Once i n c r e a s i n g s i z e o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n might have been t h o u g h t
t o be a s o u r c e o f t h e d e c r e a s i n g l y p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s ,
t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d had d e c r e a s e d in s i z e .
s t u d y were l e s s p o s i t i v e
experience.

about most a s p e c t s

but each of

T e a c h e r s in t h i s

of th e ir

T h e i r age may be a s o u rc e o f t h e change.

professional
Our changing

190

society

may be a s o u r c e o f t h e change as t e a c h e r s f e e l t h e i r s t a t u s

threatened.
Whatever t h e s o u r c e s ,
findings

in o t h e r s t u d i e s

educational org an izatio n .
be

less

effectiv e

this

f i n d i n g and t h e many complimentary

i n d i c a t e an i m p o r t a n t c h a l l e n g e f o r

the

T e a c h e rs w it h l e s s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s may

teachers

and

are

certain ly

less

po sitiv e

spokespersons fo r education.

An i n s t i t u t i o n whose pr im ar y purpos e

is

of

the

pattern-m aintenance

society

cannot

afford

negative

spokespersons.
This
unions.

finding

also

indicates

a

strong

challenge

to

teacher

I f un ion s have n o t p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t e d working c o n d i t i o n s ,

t e a c h e r s may e v e n t u a l l y se e no r ea s o n t o s u p p o r t t h e u n io n s .
p a t t e r n has app ea re d t o o c c u r in o t h e r f i e l d s .

The s tu d y ad d r e s s e d

in t h i s p a p e r n e i t h e r c o n f ir m s no r d e n i e s t h e a c t u a l
unio ns on working c o n d i t i o n s ,
ab ou t c e r t a i n
the

patterns

of

e f f e c t o f th e

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

a s p e c t s o f working c o n d i t i o n s .

attitudinal

This

the

membership

For u n i o n s ,
would

however,

seem t o

be

an

important f a c e t of r e a l i t y .

Overview o f I m p l i c a t i o n s
fo r the Field
Degree o f u n i o n i z a t i o n ,
has had s u b s t a n t i a l l y l i t t l e

as

represented

by c o n t r a c t

la n g u ag e,

e f f e c t on s c h o o l s and d i s t r i c t s .

This

f i n d i n g in no way i m p l i e s t h a t changes have not o c c u r r e d o ve r a 20year

period

language.

in many o f

the

areas

Degree o f u n i o n i z a t i o n

directly

addressed

coul d n o t be

by c o n t r a c t

identified

as t h e

191
direct

source

of

the

c o n t r a c t la ng uag e
changes

as

ch an ge s,

however.

D istricts

in t h e a r e a s a d d r e s s e d had t h e

districts

w it h

little

or

w ith

strong

same p a t t e r n s

no c o n t r a c t

la ng uag e

in

of
th e

areas addressed.
Three i m p l i c a t i o n s might be c o n s i d e r e d .

F irst,

instead

of a

f o r c e f o r change, unions might be outcomes o f t h e same f o r c e s a c t i n g
on o t h e r

areas

unrelated

to

consistent
individual
effect,

of education.

practice.
effect

Second,

Third,

on

all

contract

unionization

d istricts

e f f e c t on each d i s t r i c t .

la ngu age might

might

rath er

than

At any r a t e ,

e i t h e r p r o d u c t i v e o r damaging,

have

need t o

a

be

a general
specific,

c l a im s o f union

be approached

very

cautiously.
Indeed, cl ai m s o f t h e e f f e c t o f any e nv i ro nm en ta l f o r c e need to
be approached c a u t i o u s l y .
changed
matter

in

the

what

The s c h o o l s in t h e f o u r d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d

same d i r e c t i o n

variations

in

in t h e

same a r e a s

environ me nt

had

consistently,

occurred

over

the

no
20

years.
Changes in e d u c a t i o n ,

as c o n s i d e r e d from t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s

s t u d y , a r e n e i t h e r i n e v i t a b l e n or u n l i k e l y .

Such changes do ap pe a r

t o be d i f f i c u l t t o ca u s e i n t e n t i o n a l l y , t o c o n t r o l , and t o p r e d i c t .

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r F u tu r e Study
Suggestions
theoretical
m ethodology.

for

framework,
Each

future
the
area

study
specific
is

fall

into

three

findings,

addressed

fr o m

t h e o r e t i c a l and th e n an e m p i r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e .

and
a

areas:
the

the

research

fu n ctio n alist

192
The

th eo retical

neofunctionalists

framework

merits

further
four

Parsons

consideration,

Studies

i n v o l v i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t so c l o s e l y
fu n ctio n alists

governmental
especially

agencies,

fru itfu l.

im perative

them selves,

and

unions,

functions

for

would

example

seem

The ea s y a s s ig n m e nt

of

and

p articularly

dealing

the

the

by

aspects

w ith

w it h

provided

to

the

and

the
th o s e

change.

associated

in d u stries,

pro mise
eight

to

be

subunits,
»

indicators

in

th is

study,

into

the

four

functions

and

the

i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e f u n c t i o n s and t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e
s tu d y might be t h e r e s u l t o f t h e t h e o r i s t ’ s i n t i m a t e knowledge of
the

educational

in stitution

other s e ttin g s .

If,

and

less

able

however, t h i s s t u d y ,

to
with

be

generalized

improvements,

be r e p e a t e d in o t h e r s e t t i n g s u s in g t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l
sim ilar patterns of findings r e s u lt,
powerful

inde ed

in

identifying

the

for
could

framework,

and

t h e framework i s e x c e p t i o n a l l y
underlying

sets

of

systemic

relations.
Linkages a l s o m e r i t f u r t h e r s t u d y .
expended on t i g h t n e s s
linkages

need

to

be

of definition.
carefully

Here t h e e f f o r t s h ou ld be
The v a r i a t i o n s

delineated

and

s u b u n i t s chosen f o r s t u d y c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d .
p r o d u c t i v e in f u r t h e r i n g t h e co n c e p t o f l i n k a g e s ,

of types

supported

and

of
the

T h i s s tu d y was not
providing n e i th e r

b e t t e r d e f i n i t i o n s no r f u r t h e r e m p i r i c a l s u p p o r t .
Each

of

the

eight

indicators

addressed

in

this

study

is

r e g a r d e d as a major component o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n and as such i s th e
subject of constant

investigation.

Such

investigation

has te nde d

n o t t o be l o n g i t u d i n a l o r in r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r components, however.

193

S tudies

in

iso latio n

educational

provide

in sig h ts

l e a d e r s when c o n s i d e r i n g

th at

are

sp ecific

helpful

issues,

to

but

the

p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e o r l a r g e r i m p l i c a t i o n s o f such s t u d i e s would seem
t o be l i t t l e .
Studies

o f educational

organizations

that

link

components

t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n u s i n g t h e o r i e s o f change a r e n eed ed .
studies

are e sp e c ia lly

needed.

Long-range

studies

of

of

Long-range
intentional

change would be e x c e p t i o n a l l y v a l u a b l e .
S p e c ific to t h i s
fruitful

study,

each o f t h e e i g h t a r e a s would p r o v i d e

s tu d y i f a d d r e s s e d l o n g i t u d i n a l l y w ith samples o f union and

nonunion,

urban and r u r a l ,

l a r g e and small

schools

and d i s t r i c t s .

The sample in t h i s s t u d y c o n t r o l l e d f o r each o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s , but
t h e y do need t o be c o n s i d e r e d in o r d e r f o r f i r m c o n c l u s i o n s
drawn.

In a d d i t i o n ,

t e a c h e r age and t h e

effect

of older

s io n a ls is a r e s e a rc h a re a t h a t is a l l but unexplored.

to

be

profes­

Explorations

comparing t h e se co n d ar y and e l e m e n t a r y l e v e l s would seem l e s s f r u i t ­
f u l , based on t h i s s t u d y .
Again,

specific

to

this

study,

the

approach t o t h e masses o f d a t a g e n e r a t e d
While

the

decision

statistical

tests

regarding the

selected

appropriate

appropriate
is

are

level

of

statistical

a key r e s e a r c h
fairly

issue.

standard,

significance

th e

was very

d ifficu lt,

and t h e r e s e a r c h e r may have e r r e d on t h e s i d e o f r i g o r .

Thus,

changes

the

o c c u r r e d by chanc e,
w ell

have

remained

described

are

exceedingly

b u t some s i g n i f i c a n t
un id en tified .

unlikely

sources

A study

of

to

of variation
the

lev els

h av e
may
of

194
sig n ifican ce selected fo r la rg e r scale sociological
patterns

of findings

interesting.

not

identified

as

s t u d i e s and t h e

significant

would

be most

How much i n f o r m a t i o n a bo ut o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s a r e

we r e a l l y l o s i n g in ou r a t t e m p t s t o be s t r i n g e n t ?
The q u e s t i o n o f a t t i t u d i n a l

studies

in g e n e r a l

change c l e a r l y m e r i t s much f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
much does memory r e f l e c t

reality?

past

of cu rren t perception

reality

changes

in

longitudinal
past.

or p a s t

perception

inform ation

For example,

When r e s p o n d e n t s

compare a c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n w it h t h e p a s t ,
reflection

as a p p l i e d

only,

not a r e f l e c t i o n

and

The r a p i d

retriev al

s t u d i e s much more p o s s i b l e and economical

S t u d i e s o f change i n v o l v i n g

longitudinal

more common and make such m e th o d o lo g i c a l
a c c e s sib le to study.

how

asked

to

t h e i r r e s p o n s e may be a

of r e a lity .

gathering

are

to

data

questions

of eith er
technical

are

m a k in g

th a n

in t h e

are

becoming

mean ingfu l

and

An approach t h a t c o n s i d e r e d r e p l i c a t e d s t u d i e s

as s e p a r a t e d a t a , e x p l o r i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e d a t a s e p a r a t e l y and
th e n

considering

interesting,

the

two

f o r example.

as

one

longitudinal

study,

might

be

Or an approach t h a t re v ie w e d many t y p e s

o f s t u d i e s on t h e same s u b j e c t from t h e m e th o d o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f view
might be i n t e r e s t i n g .
Finally,

the

overall

study

completed

by

i n c l u d e d many s c a l e s n o t in c l u d e d in t h i s p a p e r .

the

research

team

The d a t a g e n e r a t e d

f o r each o f t h e s e t o p i c s a l s o m e r i t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

195
Overview o f S u g g e s t i o n s
f o r F u r t h e r Study
T h i s s t u d y r a i s e d a g r e a t many q u e s t i o n s t h a t l e d t o i d e a s f o r
further research.

The t o p i c o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

change i s

so broad

and t h e e d u c a t i o n a l f i e l d so l a r g e t h a t t h i s s tu d y seems l i k e a very
small s t r a w i n t h e r e s e a r c h h a y s t a c k .
the

field

of

knowledge

and,

But each s t r a w c o n t r i b u t e s to

since

humans

seem

com m itted

to

o r g a n i z a t i o n , has some p o t e n t i a l f o r good.
Thi s s t u d y a t t e m p t e d t o use t h e s y m b i o t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between
sociological
(cited

theory

i n Winton,

and

1974)

study, successful

em pirical
to

or not,

further

research
the

described

field

of

by

Merton

knowledge.

Any

t h a t a t t e m p t s t h i s goal would seem t o be

valuable.

O v e r a l l Co nc lu sio n
Th is
structure
change

study
of

large

studied

institutions,
considered

addressed

fr om

functionalist

in stitu tio n s

was
four

the

collective
Michigan

the

of

o ve r

time.

social

bargaining.

school

view point

theories.

effect

d istricts

of T alcott

Data were g a t h e r e d

The
The

change
specific
structure

and

on

42

th e

social
of

th e

schools,

was

Parsons’ stru ctu ral
in 1967 when a l l

d i s t r i c t s were j u s t newly u n i o n i z e d and 20 y e a r s

later

four

in 1987 in

t h e same f o u r d i s t r i c t s .
Predictions

were made f o r

institutional

structure,

the e x istin g

literature.

four

sets

based

on

eight

indicators,

based on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l

subunits

of

framework and on

The e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s were o r g a n i z e d

Parsons’

four

im perative

th e

functions

for

in t o
an

196

organizational s tru c tu re .

The e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s d i d change o r remain

s t a b l e in complementary d i r e c t i o n s as t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l p a r t n e r s .
However,
of the
from

a system o f l i n k a g e s was a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d ,

i n d i c a t o r s were e x p e c t e d t o have d i f f e r e n t

the

other

hypothesized.

d ep end in g

on

the

tight

change p a t t e r n s

or

loose

coupling

This p a t t e r n was n o t found.

A re vi ew
variation

four,

and f o u r

of

the

indicated

eight

that

indicators

none

of

the

and

the

eight

sources

were

of

the

influenced

v a r i a t i o n s in d i s t r i c t i d e n t i t y o r t e a c h e r c o n t r a c t la n g u a g e .
one

of

the

eight

was

influenced

by

level,

with

p a t t e r n s d i f f e r i n g from t h e se co nd ar y p a t t e r n s .

the

by
Only

elementary

Nevertheless,

four

o f t h e e i g h t i n d i c a t o r s d i d change s i g n i f i c a n t l y o v e r t h e 20 y e a r s ,
w it h

time

School

itself

staff

in

centralization

as

the

the

most

42

frequent

schools

are

source

of

the

experiencing

and more community p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

variation.

to d a y

The p r i n c i p a l ’ s

r o l e in both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l management and i n s t r u c t i o n a l
has

remained

stable,

stable participation
ago.

They

also

however.

Te ac her s

picture

reported

of

more

leadership

autonomy

and

in d e c i s i o n making when compared with 20 y e a r s
less

job

t e n s i o n th a n was r e p o r t e d 20 y e a r s ago.
d etailed

have

stable

the

specific

satisfaction

and

more

staff

(Tab le 6 . 2 p r e s e n t s a more

changes

for

ea ch

of

the

eight

in

union

indicators.)
These p a t t e r n s

lead

to

the

conclusion

that

chang es

s t r e n g t h as t h e un ion s d ev el op ed d i d not r e l a t e t o t h e p a t t e r n s of
change found in s u b u n i t s o f t h e 42 s c h o o l s .

In f a c t ,

since the four

197
d i s t r i c t s d i d no t v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y from each o t h e r in any o f t h e
eight indicators,
and

even

no e n vi ro n m en ta l

th r o u g h o u t

the

four

i n f l u e n c e d change.

Thus,

the

are

four

districts

pressures

d istricts

that

co ul d

are not general
be

said

to

have

a second c o n c l u s i o n can be re a c h e d t h a t
not

responsive

to

specific

env iro nm en ta l

p r e s s u r e s , long te rm , c u s h i o n i n g t h e i r impact t h r o u g h u n i t s s e r v i n g
the adaptive function,

b u t do e x p e r i e n c e a co m p os it e p r e s s u r e over

time.
With time
that

is,

1967,

itself

as t h e

consistent

the four in d ic a to rs

then

age,

individuals,

the

becomes

age
a

source

are d i f f e r e n t

of

the

the

now t h a n

system s

more c r i t i c a l

of

and

issue

variation,

t h e y were

the

ag e

of

in
the

when s t u d y i n g change.

That i s s u e was not a d d r e s s e d in t h i s s t u d y .
Thus,

the

general

answers

to

the

questions

posited at

th e

be g i n n in g o f t h i s work a r e :
1.
tional

Is t h e r e change in t h e depe nde nt v a r i a b l e s ,
indicators?

Yes t h e r e

is

change

in

some

the o rg a n iz a ­
aspects of

th e

educational i n s ti t u t i on.
2.

If

change?

so,

which

Variables

in d e p e n d e n t

that

areas of the i n s t i t u t i o n ,
on,

ap p ea r

more

likely

variables

are l i k e l y

to

may ac c o un t

have

an

such as aging s t a f f ,
to

lead

to

change,

impact

for

over

legislation,
especially

that
broad

and so
if

th e y

complement a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g change p a t t e r n s .
3.
change

In which d i r e c t i o n does t h e change o cc u r ?
is

d ifficu lt

to

predict

but

seems

to

be

The d i r e c t i o n o f
re la te d to

th e

d i r e c t i o n o f change o c c u r r i n g in o t h e r a s p e c t s o f t h e system s e r v i n g

198

t h e same f u n c t i o n .

In t h e e d u c a t i o n a l

i n s t i t u t i o n ’s pattern
may a l s o be s p e c i f i c

institu tio n ,

m a in te n a nc e r o l e
to

for

bec au se o f t h e

society,

l a r g e r change p a t t e r n s

the

in

direction

society,

not

a

su b je c t of t h i s study.
4.

What

institution?

effect

might

the

change

or

changes

Again, t h e impact i s d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t .

have

on

C ertainly

t h i s s tu d y found t h a t p r e d i c t i o n s made in p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s abo ut t h e
impact o f changes caus ed by u n i o n i z a t i o n have n o t become r e a l i t y

in

many a s p e c t s o f t h e sy stem.
The b a s i c

premise,

that

social

change w i l l

have

v a r i e d e f f e c t on t h e s t r u c t u r e o f l a r g e i n s t i t u t i o n s
c l e a r l y c h a l l e n g e d by t h e r e s u l t s
scale

social

of th i s

change may indeed have

study.

an e f f e c t .

ov er t i m e ,

O verall,
But

s c a l e s p e c i f i c s o c i a l changes e x p e r i e n c e d in i n d i v i d u a l
were

no t

found t o

be

sources

of

variation.

a specific,

The

the

largesmaller

communities

four

districts

changed in p a r a l l e l f a s h i o n in a l l bu t one o f t h e a r e a s s t u d i e d .
t h a t one a r e a ,

is

In

an i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s t r i c t and l e v e l was found

but d i d no t change o v e r t i m e .
The i m p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t i n t e n t i o n a l
app roached

in a macro r a t h e r

th a n

movement t o e s t a b l i s h n a t i o n a l
a w ise a p p r o ac h .
also

a micro

The c u r r e n t

s t a n d a r d s in e d u c a t i o n may indeed be

b u t o n ly

if

t h e movements c l o s e l y

i d e a s and e x p e c t a t i o n s o f ou r s o c i e t y .
sty les

fashion.

O th er e f f o r t s t h a t i n v o l v e s t a t e - l e v e l agendas may

be e f f e c t i v e ,

political

change may well need t o be

influencing

change

reflect

the

The d a n g e r s o f s h o r t - t e r m
in

a macro

fashion,

thus

the

199
e n d a n g e ri n g
society,

the pattern-m aintenance function

must be c o n s i d e r e d .

Fortunately,

of education
even

for

our

such macro change

a p p e a r s t o r e q u i r e long p e r i o d s o f t i m e .
Ju dg in g from t h e p a t t e r n s found in t h i s s t u d y ,

education is a

v er y e f f e c t i v e n a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n in p r o v i d i n g p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e
f o r our s o c i e t y .

The i n s t i t u t i o n o n ly changes l o n g - t e r m w i t h s t r o n g

e v i d e n c e t h a t s o c i e t y ’ s p a t t e r n s a r e ch an g in g and s o c i e t y i s d e f i n e d
t o be l a r g e r th a n t h e l o c a l community.
do change,

t h e y change in tandem w ith r e l a t e d

d istricts.
this

When s u b u n i t s o f d i s t r i c t s
subunits of re la te d

This s t a t e m e n t i s t r u e even where t h e do cu m en ta t io n ( i n

case

teacher

contracts)

would

indicate

differences

should

occur.
If

these

studies,

they

im plications
would

are

explain

proven

the

many

to

been

assumed.

education,

that

same

and p r e s i d e n t s

organizations
from

The

of

is

true
the

correct

frustrations

E d u c a to r s have much l e s s l o n g - t e r m p o t e n t i a l
has

be

for

U nited

in

of

educators.

to control

change th an

leg islato rs,
S tates.

b oa r ds

assumed.

O th er

in stitu tio n s

pu rp os es in ou r s o c i e t y may change ve r y d i f f e r e n t l y .

of

Educational

can and do change b u t in a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t

usually

further

w it h

fashion

different

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INITIAL ACTION PLAN

200
I n i t i a l Action Plan
I.

I n i t i a l Exploration of F e a s i b i l i t y
A. P r e l i m i n a r y l i t e r a t u r e revie w w it h emphasis on p u b l i c
s e c t o r b a r g a i n i n g from 1966 t o 1986
B. F e a s i b i l i t y i n t e r v i e w s w ith l a b o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from t h e
f i v e proposed d i s t r i c t s
C. Review o f o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s and p r e p a r a t i o n o f summaries
D. I n t e r v i e w s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f r e l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,
i n c l u d i n g MEA, MFT, School Boards A s s o c i a t i o n , and S t a t e
Department o f Education

II.

Design o f Study
A. General h y p o t h e s i s development
B. Development o f d r a f t i n s t r u m e n t
1. Review o f o r i g i n a l q u e s t i o n s
2. I n i t i a l development o f a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s
3. Review o f i n s t r u m e n t with o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a ­
tives
4. Completion o f p i l o t i n s t r u m e n t
5. M o d i f i c a t i o n based on p i l o t
C. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f d i s t r i c t changes
1. Review o f d i r e c t o r i e s
2. D i s c u s s i o n w ith d i s t r i c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
3. D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f f i n a l sample s c h o o l s
D. Methodology e x p l o r a t i o n
1. E x p l o r a t i o n with o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
2. Review o f o r i g i n a l methodology
3. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f methodology
E. P r e p a r a t i o n o f formal p r o p o s a l / p r o p o s a l s
1. I n i t i a l development
2. Review w ith p r o j e c t team
3. Submission f o r approval

III.

Prelim inary Processes
A. Completion o f u n i v e r s i t y p r o c e s s e s
1. F i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t pla n
2. Human S u b j e c t s Committee approv al
B. D i s t r i c t p r o c e s s e s ( f i v e d i s t r i c t s )
1. N o t i f i c a t i o n o f s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s
2. Follow up w it h l a b o r r e l a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
3. Formal r e q u e s t s f o r p e r m i s s i o n
4. P e r m i s s io n s r e c e i v e d
C. Study p i l o t
1. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f p i l o t d i s t r i c t
2. S e l e c t i o n o f p i l o t sample o f p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s
3. D i s t r i b u t i o n and c o l l e c t i o n o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
4. Review o f f i n d i n g s and comments
5. Writ e up o f p i l o t

201
D.

E.
IV.

V.

VI.

V II .

I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and g a t h e r i n g o f r e l a t e d d i s t r i c t v a r i a b l e s
1.
Id e n tific a tio n of variables
2. C o l l e c t i o n o f d a t a
Ranking o f s t r e n g t h o f c o n t r a c t s ( p e r Johnson)

Im pl em ent ati on P r o c e s s e s
A. Survey o f s c h o o l s
1. C o n t a c t s w it h d i s t r i c t s r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
2. D i s t r i b u t i o n
3. C o l l e c t i o n
4. Follow up as needed
5. Final i n t e r v i e w s w ith f i v e p r i n c i p a l s and t e a c h e r s
s e l e c t e d randomly from t h e sample
6.
I n t e r v i e w s w it h d i s t r i c t o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p s
B. Development o f a n a l y s i s plan
Analysis Processes
A. Review o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e c e i v e d
B. E n t e r i n g o f r e s p o n s e s
C. I n i t i a l a n a l y s e s
D. P r e l i m i n a r y r evi ew o f f i n d i n g s and a d j u s t m e n t s o f s t a t i s ­
t i c a l procedures
E. A n a l y s i s
F. Review o f w r i t t e n comments
G. W rit e up o f i n t e r v i e w s
Repo rt P r e p a r a t i o n
A. O u t l i n e o f r e p o r t
B. P r e p a r a t i o n o f d r a f t s
C. Review o f d r a f t s
D. Completion o f r e p o r t s
E. P r e s e n t a t i o n
Study Follow Up
A. Summary o f f i n d i n g s t o each d i s t r i c t
B. P r e s e n t a t i o n o f f i n d i n g s t o each r e l a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n
C. P u b l i c a t i o n p r e p a r a t i o n , i f a p p r o p r i a t e

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF THE INDICATORS SPECIFIC TO THIS STUDY

202
D e f i n i t i o n s o f t h e I n d i c a t o r s S p e c i f i c t o Th is Study

FORMAL STRUCTURE INDICATORS:
Those a s p e c t s o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t a r e in v o l v e d in t h e r i t u a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
These
el e m e n t s o r s u b u n i t s o f t h e system a r e t i g h t l y c o u p l e d , t h a t i s ,
clo sely linked.
1. C e n t r a l i z a t i o n :
C o n c e n t r a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power in
the c en tral org an iz atio n .
Such c o n c e n t r a t i o n may be r e l a t e d to
e i t h e r t h e formal s t r u c t u r e , f o r example, s t a f f i n g and c u r r i c u l u m
p o l i c y , o r t o t h e t e c h n i c a l s t r u c t u r e , f o r example, methodology and
co n ten t.
Thus, c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d to th e
e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , i s t h e invol vem ent o f t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e g o v e r n i n g body, t h e school b o a r d , in t h e dayto-day o p eratio n o f th e schools.
(Note:
In some d i s t r i c t s t h e s e
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e c a l l e d " t h e c e n t r a l o f f i c e , " w hereas in o t h e r s
t h e y a r e r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e school b o a r d . " )
2. Community p a r t i c i p a t i o n : The p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s u p p o r t and
c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h e c o m m u ni ty t o w a r d t h e a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e
o r g a n i z a t i o n ’ s g o a l s as d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e r a t e s and t y p e s of
p a r tic ip a tio n of c i t iz e n s .
S p ecific to the educational i n s t i t u t i o n ,
community p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t h e invo lve men t o f c i t i z e n s s e r v i n g on
com mittees and c o u n c i l s , as v o l u n t e e r s , o r in c l a s s r o o m v i s i t s , in
the day-to-day o p eratio n of the school.
(Note:
The ty p e o r l e v e l
o f impact i s n o t a s s e s s e d . )
3.
P r i n c i p a l ’ s a u t h o r i t y : The o f f i c i a l l y r e c o g n i z e d r i g h t and
p o t e n t i a l c a p a c i t y o f t h e p r i n c i p a l t o make d e c i s i o n s p e r c e i v e d to
f u rth e r the goals of the organization.
Thi s formal and informal
a u t h o r i t y i n c l u d e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in both t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c and th e
p e r s o n a l l e a d e r s h i p a r e a s , such a s :
a. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l management
1) S t a f f i n g - - s e l e c t i o n , p la c e m e n t, e v a l u a t i o n
2) S t u d e n t - - p l a c e m e n t , s c h e d u l i n g
b.
Instructional leadership
1) C u r r i c u l u m - - p o l i c y , development
2) I n s t r u c t i o n - - m e t h o d o l o g y , c o n t e n t

203
TECHNICAL ACTIVITY INDICATORS:
Those e l e m e n t s in t h e s t r u c t u r e
r e l a t e d t o t h e t e c h n i c a l a c t i v i t i e s and o u t p u t o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n ,
the in s tru c tio n .
These s u b u n i t s a r e l o o s e l y c o u p l e d , t h a t i s , not
t i g h t l y l i n k e d , and a r e based on as s u m p ti o n s o f good f a i t h , t h e
professionalism of the teacher.
4. Te a c h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m :
The c o n d u c t , aims , and q u a l i t i e s
t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e a p e r s o n i n a l e a r n e d o c c u p a t i o n , in t h i s ca s e
e d u c a t i o n , r e q u i r i n g a high l e v e l o f t r a i n i n g and:
a. E x p ertise:
That a s p e c t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m i n d i c a t e d by
t r a i n i n g and e x p e r i e n c e .
b. Autonomy:
In t h e c l a s s r o o m , t h e freedom t o perform
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e s i t u a t i o n and based on
individual teacher decisio n s.
c.
P articipation:
That a s p e c t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m r e l a t e d
t o d e c i s i o n s made which a f f e c t pe rf or m a n ce o f t h e p o s i t i o n .
Thus, t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t e a c h e r s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e d a y - t o day d e c i s i o n s o f t h e school i s p r o f e s s i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
d. Professional p rid e:
P e r c e p t i o n s o f and p r i d e in t h e
role of the professional.

OTHER INDICATORS:
Those i n d i c a t o r s n o t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e
g oals of th e o rg a n iz a tio n but to th e in d iv id u a ls w ith in the
organization.
These s u b u n i t s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e a l s o l o o s e l y
coupled.
5. J ob s a t i s f a c t i o n : The c o m bi n at io n o f t h o s e b a s i c needs and
growth f a c t o r s t h a t a t t r a c t and keep t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s on t h e
job.
The s a t i s f a c t i o n r e c e i v e d from t h e r e m u n e r a t i o n and working
c o n d i t i o n s i s a key a s p e c t o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n .
6.
T ension in s t a f f r e l a t i o n s h i p s :
The l e v e l o f t r u s t ,
r e s p e c t , and warmth on t h e p a r t o f t h e s t a f f and t h e i r p o s i t i v e
awareness o f i n t e r d e p e h u e n c e .

APPENDIX C

THE VARIABLES

204
The V a r i a b l e s

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
Years
O v e r a ll c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h
(See Appendix F f o r
fu rth e r discussion)
Leve ls

1967

1987

.09-.46
( i n i t i a l scores)

.12-.34
(average of
4 contracts)

Secondary

Elementary

D istrict

1

th r o u g h

STRUCTURAL DEPENDENT VARIABLES:
Scale

Top ics

Range

C entralization

Centralization

5-25

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n

Parent Organization
and Community

5-25

P r in c i p a l’s Authority
O r g a n i z a t i o n Management
I n s t r u c t i o n a l Leadership

Authority
L e a d e r s h ip

6-30

Teach er P r o f e s s i o n a l i s m
Autonomy
Participation

Autonomy and R ig ht s
Participation

5-25
9-45

J ob S a t i s f a c t i o n

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

13-65

Relationships

Ten si ons

5-25

APPENDIX D

ITEMS LIST

205
Items L i s t

The r e s p o n s e c h o i c e s f o r t h e
Somewhat, S l i g h t , Not At A l l .

Scale:

scales

were:

Very

Great,

Great,

C entralization

1.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and i d e a s
about doi n g y o u r j o b w i t h members o f t h e school board?

2.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and i d e a s
w ith y o u r s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f s c h o o l s ?

3.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and i d e a s
w ith t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s s t a f f ?

4.

In g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e does t h e d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n ­
t e n d e n t have o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on i n y o u r school b u i l d i n g ?

5.

In g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e does t h e school board have
o ve r what a c t u a l l y goes on in y o u r school b u i l d i n g ?

Scale:

Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n

1.

To what e x t e n t do es p a r e n t - o r g a n i z a t i o n c r i t i c i s m o f c l a s s r o o m
o p e r a t i o n s i n t e r f e r e w it h e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ?

2.

To what e x t e n t does community c r i t i c i s m
i n t e r f e r e w ith e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s ?

3.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and i d e a s
wwvu b
v
v II
doing
y o u r j o b w itu p a r e n t s Oi m e c h i i urei i in y o u r
cla ss ro o m ?

4.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and i d e a s
about doing yo ur j o b w it h o f f i c e r s o f t h e p a r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n in
y o u r s c h o o l?

5.

How much say o r i n f l u e n c e do o f f i c e r s o f t h e p a r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n
in y o u r school have o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on i n y o u r school
building?

of

school

operations

206
Scale:

Organizational Management

1.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y as he
o r she needs in s p e a k in g t o a s t a f f member a b ou t bei ng l a t e o r
q u ittin g early?

2.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y as he
o r she needs in i n i t i a t i n g a c t i o n t o remove u n s a t i s f a c t o r y
staff?

3.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y
o r she needs i n d i s c i p l i n i n g s t a f f ?

as he

4.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y
o r she needs in i n i t i a t i n g a c t i o n t o promote s t a f f ?

as he

5.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y
o r she needs in g r a n t i n g a few hou rs o f f t o s t a f f ?

as he

6.

Does t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r school have as much a u t h o r i t y
o r she needs in chang in g s t a f f p r o c e d u r e s ?

as he

Scale:

I n s t r u c t i o n a l Leadership

1.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and id e a s
ab ou t do in g yo u r j o b with t h e p r i n c i p a l o f y o u r s c h o o l?

2.

In g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e does t h e p r i n c i p a l
o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on in y o u r school b u i l d i n g ?

3.

How f r e q u e n t l y does t h e p r i n c i p a l p r o t e c t f a c u l t y from p r e s s u r e s
of s tu d e n ts ’ parents?

4.

How f r e q u e n t l y does t h e p r i n c i p a l o b t a i n s t a f f - m e m b e r app ro val
on i m p o r t a n t m a t t e r s b e f o r e t a k i n g a c t i o n ?

5.

How f r e q u e n t l y does t h e p r i n c i p a l t r e a t a l l s t a f f members as h i s
or her equals?

have

207
Scale:

Teacher Autonomy

1.

How much emphasis s ho ul d s t u d e n t d i s c i p l i n e and t e a c h e r p r o t e c ­
tio n receive?

2.

How much emphasis s h o u ld t e a c h e r autonomy r e c e i v e ?

3.

How much emphasis s h ou ld academic freedom r e c e i v e ?

4.

How much emphasis s ho uld o p p o r t u n i t y f o r advancement and r e c o g ­
n itio n receive?

5.

How much

emphasis s h o u ld t r a n s f e r r i g h t s r e c e i v e ?

Scale:

Te a ch er P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n D e c i s i o n Making

1.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and id e a s
about doing y o u r j o b w ith o t h e r t e a c h e r s in y o u r s p e c i a l t y in
y o u r s c h o o l?

2.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and id e a s
abou t doing y o u r j o b w ith o t h e r t e a c h e r s n o t in yo u r s p e c i a l t y
in y o u r sc ho ol ?

3.

In g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do t e a c h e r s in y o u r school
have o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on in y o u r school b u i l d i n g ?

4.

In
g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do you p e r s o n a l l y
o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on in y o u r school b u i l d i n g ?

5.

In
g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do you have o v e r what
o t h e r t e a c h e r s in yo u r s p e c i a l t y in yo u r school a c t u a l l y do on
t h e i r jobs?

6.

In
g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do you have o v e r
d e p a r t m e n t heads i n y o u r school a c t u a l l y do on t h e i r j o b s ?

7.

To what e x t e n t do you exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , o p i n i o n s , and id e a s
abo ut do ing yo u r j o b w it h o f f i c e r s o f t h e l o c a l c h a p t e r o f yo ur
teacher organization (not the building re p re s e n ta tiv e s)?

8.

In
g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do t h e b u i l d i n g r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e MEA/MFT have o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on in
yo u r b u i l d i n g ?

9.

In g e n e r a l , how much say o r i n f l u e n c e do o f f i c e r s o f t h e l o c a l
ch ap ter of the te a c h e r o rg an iz a tio n (not th e b u ild in g r e p r e ­
s e n t a t i v e s ) have o v e r what a c t u a l l y goes on i n yo u r b u i l d i n g ?

have

what

208
Scale:

Job S a tisfaction

How s a t i s f i e d a r e you w ith each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g :
1.

The p r e s t i g e and r e s p e c t I r e c e i v e from t h e community.

2.

My t e a c h i n g l o a d .

3.

The amount o f autonomy g i v e n me by t h e p r i n c i p a l t o do my j o b .

4.

The f a i r n e s s w i t h
school b u i l d i n g .

5.

The s t u d e n t s w it h whom I have c o n t a c t .

6.

My f r i n g e b e n e f i t s .

7.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s I have w it h t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ’ s a s s i s t a n t s .

8.

The s u b j e c t s I t e a c h .

9.

My s a l a r y compared t o o t h e r s a t my l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n .

which

the

duties

are

distributed

10.

The f r i e n d s h i p s I d e v el op w i t h t h e p e o p l e a t work.

11.

The s i z e o f t h e c l a s s e s I t e a c h .

12.

The p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s unde r which I work.

13.

My v a c a t i o n s and f r e e ti m e .

Scale:

in

this

S ta f f Relationships

1.

What i s t h e amount o f d i s a g r e e m e n t o r t e n s i o n
and t h e p r i n c i p a l in yo u r sc h o o l?

between

teachers

2-.

What i s t h e amount o f d i s a g r e e m e n t o r t e n s i o n between
and nonacademic t e a c h e r s in y o u r s c h o o l?

academic

3.

What i s t h e amount o f d i s a g r e e m e n t o r t e n s i o n between
t e a c h e r s in yo ur s c h o o l?

gro up s of

4.

What i s t h e amount o f d i s a g r e e m e n t o r t e n s i o n between
w i t h i n t h e same s u b j e c t a r e a ?

teachers

5.

What i s t h e amount o f t e n s i o n between
teachers?

academic and e x t r a - d u t y

APPENDIX E

SAMPLE SCHOOL RESPONSE PATTERNS

209
Sample School Response Patterns

Pupils
1986

Administration

Instruc­
tional
Staff
1986

% Responding
in 1987 Study

D istrict 1
School (Secondary)
1
2
3
School ( El em ent ary )
1
2
3
4
5
6

1,200
525
1,419

4

2
4

295
442
232
378
256
770

59
25
64

69
57
55

14
18

71
55
45
33
58
74

11
18
12

35
256

Tota l

61%

D istrict 2
School (Secondary)
1
1
3
School (Ele men ta ry)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Total

2,07 0
830
915

760
363
536
653
448
310
293
491
435

5
3
3

.5
.5

85
35
40

31
46
45

30
13
18

20
31
44

21

20

16
12
10
17
15

75
42
70
47
27

312

38%

210

Pupils
1986

Administration

Instruc­
tional
S taff
1986

% Responding
in 1987 Study

D istrict 3
School (S econdary)
1
2
3
School ( El em ent ary )
1

2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

1,49 7
866
586

3
2
2

52
30
20

63
47
45

10

33
46
92
50
83
81
36
40
82

275
297
412
351
349

13
14
12
12

210

11

396
259
377

14
10
17
215

Total

58.6%

D istrict 4
School (S econdary)
1

1,742

79

L

/ /O

03

3

855

39

56
43
33

17
26
18
13
18
12

71
50
39
46
33
67

School (E le m en ta ry )
1

2
3
4
5
6

Total

375
576
390
295
399
269

1

2
1
1
1
1

257

48%

APPENDIX F

CONTRACT STRENGTH ANALYSIS

211
Contract Strength Analysis
The c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h a n a l y s i s was con duc te d u s i n g an a d a p t a t i o n
o f t h e work o f McDonnell and P as cal
o f t h e i r 1980 Rand s t u d y .

( 1 97 9) , d e s c r i b e d in Appendix C

These r e s e a r c h e r s a n a l y z e d two s e t s

d istricts

of

contracts

in 130 school

in 1970 and 151 school d i s t r i c t s

in 1975.

They i d e n t i f i e d and reviewed 11 key c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s .

They c a l c u l a t e d raw s c o p e / s t r e n g t h s c o r e s f o r each p r o v i s i o n in each
contract,

based on a t t a i n m e n t o r n o n a t t a i n m e n t o f t h a t p r o v i s i o n

in

comparison w it h a t t a i n m e n t o f t h a t p r o v i s i o n in t h e o v e r a l l sample.
The c o n t r a c t p r o v i s i o n s reviewed were:
1.

All g r i e v a n c e s s u b j e c t t o a r b i t r a t i o n .

2.

Te a ch er s can res p on d f o r m a l l y t o a d m i n i s t r a t o r ’ s e v a l u a t i o n .

3.

D u r at io n o f school day s p e c i f i e d .

4.

T ea ch er can e x c l u d e d i s r u p t i v e s t u d e n t s .

5.

T ea ch er can r e f u s e as s ig n m e n t o u t s i d e o f

grade or s u b je c t.

6.

Maximum c l a s s s i z e s p e c i f i e d .

7.

Only s e n i o r i t y and c r e d e n t i a l s d e t e r m i n e p r o m o ti o n.

8.

I n v o l u n t a r y t r a n s f e r s s e l e c t e d on s p e c i f i c c r i t e r i a .

9.

I n s t r u c t i o n a l p o l i c y committee e s t a b l i s h e d in each s c h o o l .

10.

R e d u c tio n -in -fo rce processes sp e lle d out.

11.

Minimum number o f a i d e s p e r c l a ss ro o m s p e c i f i e d .

Two

r e s e a r c h e r s reviewed a l l

in t h i s
statu s

study
of

each

from 1967 t o
provision

27 c o n t r a c t s o f

1987 i n d e p e n d e n t l y and
for

each

co n tract.

thefour d i s t r i c t s
identified
That

is,

the
they

in d e p e n d e n t l y d e c i d e d w h et h er t h e p r o v i s i o n was o r was not i n c l u d e d .

212

They t h e n compared t h e i r
one

provision

assigned
model.

in

nu merical

one

identifications.

of

scores

the

They d i s a g r e e d

27 c o n t r a c t s

to the

provisions,

reviewed.
ba se d

on

on only

They

th en

the

Rand

The t o t a l o f t h e s e s c o r e s on an i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r a c t d i v i d e d

by 11 was r e g a r d e d

as t h e c o n t r a c t s t r e n g t h s c o r e .

th e n compared w ith

t h e av e r a g e

r a ti n g s of average,

strong,

or

scores

in t h e Rand

ve ry s t r o n g .

98, f o r t h e s c o r e s and r a t i n g s in t h i s s t u d y . )

\

(See

That s c o r e was
s tu d y t o
Tabl e 4 . 1 ,

assign
page

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abramowitz, S . , and Tenenbaum, E. High School ’ 77: A Survey o f
P u b l i c Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s . Washington, D.C.:
N a ti o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a ti o n , 1978.
A le x a n d e r , J . C. N e o f u n c ti o n a l is m .
P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1985.

B ev er ly H i l l s , C a l i f . :

Sage

Angel 1, G. W. F a c u l t y and Te a ch er B a r g a i n i n g : The Impact o f Unions
on E d u c a t i o n . L e x i n g to n , Mass.: Lex ington Books, 1981.
B a l d r i d g e , J . V., and De al, T. The Dynamics o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l
Change in E d u c a t i o n . B e r k e l e y , C a l i f . : McCutchan, 1983.
Beer, M. O r g a n i z a t i o n , Change and Development: A Systems View.
S an ta Monica, C a l i f . : Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g , 1980.
B id w e l l, C. E. "The School as a Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n . "
In Handbook
o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s . E d i t e d by J . G. March. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1965.
B l a l o c k , H. M., J r .
C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and Measurement in t h e S o ci a l
S c i e n c e s . Be v er ly H i l l s , C a l i f . : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1982.
. P r e s i d e n t i a l A d d r e s s, "Measurement and C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n
Problems: The Major O b s t a c l e t o I n t e g r a t i n g Theory and
a
h c j c u i

U
t i l .

N
r u n e i

i u q i i

^.-*1
J U t i u i u w i L f l l

n ~ .
f\C V

mm

IC W

Blau, P. Exchange and Power in S o c ia l L i f e .
and Sons, 1964.
On t h e Natu re o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
s c i e n c e P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1974.

r

fct4t*U

11

New York:

New York:

B o u r r i c a u d , F. The S o c io l o g y o f T a l c o t t P a r s o n s .
s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1981.

.

r » m

r\ *

OOI” 2*t«

John Wiley

Wiley I n t e r ­

Chicago:

Univer­

Boyd, R. "To E r r Is Human, To F o r g iv e , P a r s o n i a n . " E d u c a ti 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 19 (S p r in g 1983): 120-22.
B r e i v o g e l , W. F . , and Gordon, I . J .
B u i l d i n g E f f e c t i v e Home-School
R e l a t i o n s h i p s . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1976.

213

214
Chase, F. S.
"How t o Meet T ea ch er E x p e c t a t i o n o f L e a d e r s h i p . "
A d m i n i s t r a t o r ’ s Notebook 1 , 9 (1953).
_________. "How 2,00 0 T ea ch er s View T h e i r P r o f e s s i o n . " J o u r n a l
o f E d u c a ti o n a l Research 79 (S e p te m b e r /O c t o b e r 1985): 12-18.
Corbett, J .
" P r i n c i p a l s ’ C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o M a i n t a i n i n g Change."
D e l t a Kappan 64 (November 1982): 190-92.

Phi

C r e s s w e l l , A. M., and Simpson, D. " C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g and Con­
flict:
Impacts on School Go vernance." E d u c a ti 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 ( F a l l 1977): 49-69.
Cuban, L. " T ran sf or mi ng t h e Frog I n t o a P r i n c e :
E f f e c t i v e Sch ool s
Re s e a rc h , P o l i c y and P r a c t i c e a t t h e D i s t r i c t L e v e l . " Harvard
E d u c a t i o n a l Review 54 (May 1984).
C u t t i t a , R. "The P r i n c i p a l ’ s Time." The Role o f t h e El ementary
School P r i n c i p a l . ERS Resea rc h B r i e f . A r l i n g t o n , Va.:
E d u c a ti o n a l Research S e r v i c e s , 1982.
DeBwoise, W. " S y n t h e s i s o f Research on t h e P r i n c i p a l as I n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l L e a d e r . " E d u c a ti o n a l L e a d e r s h ip 41 ( F e b r u a r y 1984): 1421.
Department o f Elementary School P r i n c i p a l s (DESP). The El ementary
School P r i n c i p a l s h i p in 19 68. Washington, D.C.: N at i o n al
Ed uc a tio n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1968.
DeRoche, R. "Teac her P a r t i c i p a t i o n in School D e c is io n m a k in g . " The
Role o f t h e El ementary School P r i n c i p a l . ERS Research B r i e f .
A r l i n g t o n , Va.: E d u c a ti o n a l Research S e r v i c e s , 1982.
Duke,_D. L . , and Showers, B. " T eac h ers and Shared D e c i s i o n Making:
ine Co s ts and B e n e f i t s o f I n v o lv e m e n t. " E d u c a ti o n a l Ad minis ­
t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 16 (W inter 1980): 93-106.
E b e r t s , R., and S to ne , J . Unions and P u b l i c S c h o o l s .
M ass.: D. C. Heath, 1984.
Edmonds, R. " E f f e c t i v e Sch ool s f o r t h e Urban P o o r ."
L e a d e r s h i p 37 ( O ct ob er 1979): 15-27.

L e x i n gt o n,

E d u c a ti o n a l

E d u c a ti o n a l Researc h S e r v i c e s . The Role o f t h e El ementary School
P r i n c i p a l . ERS Research B r i e f . A r l i n g t o n , Va.:
E d u c a ti o n a l
Researc h S e r v i c e s , 1982.
E p s t e i n , J . L. "Home and School Connection in Schools o f t h e
F u t u r e . " Peabody J o u r n a l o f E duc at ion 62 (Win ter 1985): 18-41.

215
_________, and Becker, H. J .
" T e a c h e r s ’ Reported P r a c t i c e s o f P a r e n t
In v o lv e m e n t. " E le me nt ary School J o u r n a l 83 (November 1983):
103-13.
E t z i o n i , A. Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n s .
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1964.

Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :

F a n t i n i , M. D. What’ s B es t f o r t h e C h i l d r e n ? Garden C i t y , N.Y.:
Anchor Books, Doubleday P u b l i s h i n g , 1975.
F i e d l e r , F. E. Improving L e a d e r s h ip E f f e c t i v e n e s s .
Wiley, 1984.
_________. A Theory o f L e a d e r s h ip E f f e c t i v e n e s s .
H i l l , 1967.

New York:

New York:

McGraw-

F i t z - G i b b o n , C . , and M o r r i s , L. How t o C a l c u l a t e S t a t i s t i c s .
An g ele s, C a l i f . :
Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1978.
F r i e d s o n , E . , ed. The P r o f e s s i o n s and T h e i r P r o s p e c t s .
F r a n c i s c o : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1973.
F u l l a n , M. The Meaning o f E d u c a ti o n a l Change.
C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1982.

New York:

Los

San

T ea ch er s

_________, and T a y l o r .
" O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Development in S c h o o l s :
The
S t a t e o f t h e A r t . " Review o f E d u c a ti o n a l Resea rc h 50 ( S p r in g
1980): 121-33.
G a l l u p , T.
"Gallup P o ll o f T ea che r A t t i t u d e s . "
( J a n u a r y 1985 ): 323 -30.

Phi D e l t a Kappan

G e t z e l s , J . W., and Guba, E. G. "Role C o n f l i c t and E f f e c t i v e n e s s :
An Em pir ica l S t u d y . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 19 (19 54 ):
1C4

7C

I W 1 ” / ^ •

_________. " S o c ia l B eh av io r and t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e s s . "
School Review 65 (W int er 1957): 423-41.

The

_________. "The S t r u c t u r e o f Roles and Role C o n f l i c t in t h e Teaching
S i t u a t i o n . " J o u r n a l o f E d u c a ti o n a l S o c io l o g y 29 ( 1 95 5) : 30- 40.
Goodlad, J . A P la c e C a l l e d Scho ol:
York: McGraw-Hill, 1984.

Prospects fo r the F u tu re .

New

Hannan, M. T . , and Freeman, J .
" S t r u c t u r a l I n e r t i a and O r g a n i z a ­
t i o n a l Change." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 49 ( A pr il 1984):
149-64.

216
Hannaway, J . , and S p r o u l l , L. S. "Who’ s Running t h e Show: C o o r d i ­
n a t i o n and Con tro l in E d u c a ti o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " A d m i n i s t r a ­
t o r ’ s Notebook 27 (May 1979).
H a r r i s , B. M. S u p e r v i s o r y Behav io r in E d u c a t i o n .
N .J.:
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1975.

Englewood C l i f f s ,

H e r r i o t t , R ., and F i r e s t o n e , W. "Two Images o f Sc hoo ls as O r g a n i z a ­
t i o n s : A Refinement and E l a b o r a t i o n . " E d u c a ti 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 20 ( F a l l 1984): 41-57.
Hershey, P.
"How Work Roles I n f l u e n c e P e r c e p t i o n . "
l o g i c a l Review 50 ( A p r il 1985): 242-52.

American S o c i o ­

_________, and B la n c h a rd , K. H. Management o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behav­
i o r : U t i l i z i n g Human R e s o u r c e s . 3rd ed. Englewood C l i f f s ,
N .J.:
Prentice-H all.
Her zbe rg, F. Work and t h e N at ur e o f Man.
P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966.

C l e v e l a n d , Ohio:

World

H i l l s , R. J .
" F u n c ti o n a l Requirements and t h e Theory o f A c t i o n . "
E d u c a ti 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 18 ( F a l l 1982): 36 -6 1.
Hoy, W. K., and M is k el , C. G. Ed u ca ti o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n :
Theory.
R es ea r c h , and P r a c t i c e . New York: Random House, 1982.
Humphrey, R. "Work Roles and P e r c e p t i o n . "
Review 50 (19 ) : 242-52.

American S o c i o l o g i c a l

Hunt, J . B. " P u b l i c Scho ols and t h e Community." In A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ’
and P o l i c v m a k e r s ’ View o f Community E d u c a t i o n . E d i t e d by L.
Decker. U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , M i d - A t l a n t i c C e n t e r f o r
Community Ed u ca ti o n , 1979.
J a c k s o n , R. B. "Schools and Community: A N ec es s ar y R e l e v a n c e . "
Ed uc a tio n C l e a r i n g House 44 (April 1970): 488-90.
J e s s u p , D. K.
1985.

T e a c h e r s . Unions and Change.

New York:

Praeger,

J oh n so n , B. F u n c t i o n a l i s m in Modern S o c i o l o g y . U n d e r s ta n d in g
T a l c o t t P a r s o n s . Mo rristown, N . J . : General T r a i n i n g P r e s s ,
1975.
J oh ns on , S. M. Teacher Unions in S c h o o l s .
Temple U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1984.

P hiladelphia, Pa.:

. "Teacher Unions in S cho ols : A u t h o r i t y and Accommoda­
t i o n . " Harvard E d u c a ti o n a l Review 53 (August 1983): 3 20- 26 .

217
Ju dd, C. M., and M ilb ur n , M. A. "The S t r u c t u r e o f A t t i t u d e Systems
in t h e General P u b l i c : Comparisons o f a S t r u c t u r a l Equat ion
Model." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 45 (August 1980): 627-43.
Kahn, R. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r e s s : S t u d i e s in Role C o n f l i c t and
A m bi g ui ty . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964.
Kochen, M., and D eu tsc h, K. W. D e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n : S k et c h es Toward a
R a t io n a l T h e o r y . Cambridge, Mass.: Ver lag A. Hain, 1980.
L i k e r t , R.
1961.

New P a t t e r n s o f Management.

New York:

McGraw-Hill,

_________, and L i k e r t , J . G. New Wavs o f Managing C o n f l i c t .
York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.

New

L o r t i e , D. S c h o o l t e a c h e r : A S o c i o l o g i c a l S t u d y .
s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1975.

Univer­

Lut han s, F.

Organizational Behavior.

New York:

Chicago:

McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Manasse, A. L. "Improving C o n d i t i o n s f o r P r i n c i p a l E f f e c t i v e n e s s :
P o l i c y I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Re se ar c h . El ementary School J o u r n a l
( U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago) 8 5, 3 (198 5) .
Manning, P. K. " E x i s t e n t i a l S o c i o l o g y . "
(S p r in g 1973): 200-25.

S o c i o l o g i c a l Q u a r t e r l y 14

Maslow, A. H. "Some B as ic P r o p o s i t i o n s o f a Growth and S e l f A c t u a l i z a t i o n P s y ch ol o gy ."
In P e r c e i v i n g . Behaving, and
Becoming. E d i t e d by A. H. Coombs. Washington, D.C.:
A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n and Curr icu lu m Development, 1962.
McDonnell, L . , and P a s c a l , A.
*

Mr i r .;r 3

Organized Te a ch er s in American
p - 1 -* f

.

D -,.,,!

1C7G

Merton, R. K. S o ci a l Theory and S o ci a l S t r u c t u r e .
Free P r e s s , 1968.

Glencoe, 11 1.:

Meyer, J . W.; S c o t t , W. R .; Cole, S . ; and I n t i l i , J . K. " I n s t r u c ­
t i o n a l D is s e n s u s and I n s t i t u t i o n a l Consensus in S c h o o l s . "
In
Environments and O r g a n i z a t i o n s . E d i te d by M. W. Meyer and
A s s o c i a t e s . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1978.
Meyer, M. W. " S iz e and t h e S t r u c t u r e o f O r g a n i z a t i o n s . "
S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 37 (August 1972): 434-40.

American

_________ , and Rowan, B. " I n s t i t u t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s :
Formal
S t r u c t u r e as Myth and Ceremony." American J o u r n a l o f S o ci o lo g y
(September 1983): 340-63.

218
_________. "The S t r u c t u r e o f E d u c a ti o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s . " In
Environments and O r g a n i z a t i o n s (pp. 7 8 - 1 0 9 ) . E d i t e d by M. W.
Meyer and A s s o c i a t e s . San F r a n c i s c o : J o s s e y - B a s s , 1978.
M i t c h e l l , D. E . , and Spady, W. G. " A u t h o r i t y , Power and L e g i t i m a ­
t i o n o f S o c ia l C o n t r o l . " E d u c a ti 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
19 ( Wi nt er 1983): 5-3 3.
Mohan, R. P . , and Wilke, A. S. Working P ap er s in C r i t i c a l Realism
and S o c i o l o g i c a l T h e o r y . New D e l h i : Concept P u b l i s h i n g , 1980.
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f Eleme nt ary School P r i n c i p a l s (NAESP).
S t a n d a r d s f o r Q u a l i t y Elementary S c h o o l s . R es to n , Va.: NAESP,
1984.
N a ti o n a l 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 . The S e n i o r
High School P r i n c i p a l s h i p . Re s to n , Va .: NASSP, 1958.
_________. The S e n i o r High School P r i n c i p a l s h i p .
NASSP, 1978.

Re s to n , Va.:

N a ti o n a l Educ atio n A s s o c i a t i o n . N e g o t i a t i o n Research D i g e s t (Wash­
in g t o n Research D i v i s i o n , NEA) ( J a n u a r y 1974): 15-16.
Neal, R. Avoiding and C o n t r o l l i n g T ea ch er S t r i k e s .
D.C.: Ed u ca ti o n a l S e r v i c e Bureau, 1971.

Washington,

Nie, N., e t a l . S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S o c ia l S c i e n c e s .
York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

New

Nord, W. R. Concepts and C o n tr o v e r s y in O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r .
S a n ta Monica, C a l i f . :
Goodyear P u b l i s h i n g , 1976.
Organ, D., and Hamner, W. C. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r .
Texas: Bu s in es s P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1982.

Plano,

P a r s o n s , T.
" C h r i s t i a n i t y and Modern I n d u s t r i a l S o c i e t y . "
E s t u d i a n t e S o c ia l (Harvard U n i v e r s i t y ) 1: 13-52.
_________. The E v o l u ti o n o f S o c i e t i e s .
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1977.

Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :

_________. "On B u il d in g S o c i a l System Theory:
Deadalus 99 ( F a l l 1970): 826-81.

A Personal H is to r y ."

_________.

Free P r e s s , 1951.

The S o c ia l Sy ste m.

Glencoe, 11 1 .:

_________. S o c i a l Systems and t h e E v o l u ti o n o f
York: Free P r e s s , 1977.

Ac tion T h e o r y .

New

219
_________. S t r u c t u r e and P r o c e s s in Modern S o c i e t i e s .
1 1 1 . : Free P r e s s , 1960.
_________. The System o f Modern S o c i e t i e s .
P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971.

Glencoe,

Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . :

_________, and H i l l s , R. J . Toward a S c i e n c e o f O r g a n i z a t i o n .
Eugene: C e n t e r f o r Advanced Study o f E d u c a ti o n a l A d m i n i s t r a ­
t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon, 1968.
P a r s o n s , T . , and P l a t t , G. The American U n i v e r s i t y .Cambridge,
Ma ss.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973.
P a r s o n s , T . , and S h i l s , E. A. Toward a General Theory o f A c t i o n .
New York: H arp er and Row, 1962.
Peabody, R. L. " P e r c e p t i o n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A u t h o r i t y :
A
Comparative A n a l y s i s . " A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c ie n c e Q u a r t e r l y 6 , 4
( 19 62 ) : 463-82.
P e l l i c a n o , R. R. "T eacher Unionism and B u r ea u c r ac y :
E du ca ti o n a l Forum 44 (March 1980): 305-19.

A Case S tu d y . "

P e r r y , C. The Impact o f N e g o t i a t i o n s in P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n .
W o r th i ng to n , Ohio: J o n e s P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970.
_________, and Wildman, W. The Impact o f N e g o t i a t i o n s in P u b l i c
E d u c a ti o n : The Evidence f o r t h e S c h o o l s . W or th i n g to n , Ohio:
C. A. Jon es P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970.
Rand C o r p o r a t i o n .
F ed er al Programs S u p p o r ti n g E d u c a ti o n a l Change.
Vol. IV: A Summary o f F in d in g s in Review. S a n t a Monica: Rand,
1975.
Reddin, W. J .
1970.

Managerial E f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Rosenblum, L . , and S e a s h o r e , K.
in an E d u c a ti o n a l C o n t e x t .

New York:

McGraw-Hill,

S t a b i l i t y and Change:
Innovation
New York: Plenum, 1981.

Rowan, B. "The E f f e c t o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d Rules on A d m i n i s t r a ­
tors."
In O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior in Schools and School D i s ­
t r i c t s . E d i te d by S. B. Bacharach. New York: P r a e g e r , 1981.
_________. "R esearch on E f f e c t i v e S c h o o ls :
A C a u t i o n a r y N ot e. "
E d u c a ti o n a l R e s e a r c h e r 12 (A pri l 1983): 24-31.
S a l i s b u r y , R. H. C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e P u b l i c S c h o o l s .
L e x i n gt o n, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980.

220
Savage, S. P. The T h e o r i e s o f T a l c o t t P a r s o n s : The S o c i a l R e l a ­
t i o n s o f A c t i o n s . London: Macmillan, 1981.
S c i r e l l i , D. " V o l u n t a r i s t i c A c t i o n . "
51 (December 198 6): 743-66.
S c o t t , W. R. , and Bla u, P. M.
C h a n d l e r , 1962.

American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review

Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s .

San F r a n c i s c o :

S e r v i o g a n n i , T. " L e a d e r s h i p and E x c e l l e n c e in S c h o o l i n g . "
t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p 41 (F e b r u a ry 1984): 4 -1 3.
_________, and C a r v e r , F. D. The New School E x e c u t i v e :
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . New York: H arper and Row, 1980.
S e r g i o v a n n i , T . , and S t a r r a t t , R. S u p e r v i s i o n :
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.

Educa­

A Theory o f

Human P e r s p e c t i v e s .

Shi 1s , E. A ., and W h i t t i e r , C. T. T e a c h e r s . A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and
C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . New York: Thomas Y. C r ow el l , 1968.
S i l v e r , P.
1983.

E d u c a ti o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

New York:

Harper and Row,

Simon, H. "The A r c h i t e c t u r e o f C o m p l ex it y ." P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e
American P h i l o s o p h i c a l S o c i e t y 106,6 (1969): 467 -82 .
Simpson, R. L . , and Simpson, I . H. "Women and B ur eau cr acy in t h e
Service P ro fessio n s."
In The S e m i p r o f e s s i o n a l s and T h e i r
O r g a n i z a t i o n . E d i t e d by A. E t z i o n i .
New York: Free P r e s s ,
1969.
S t a r r , P. The S o c ia l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f American M e d i c i n e .
York: Bas ic Books, 1982.

New

Thompson, A. G., and Ziemer, R. The Impact o f C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n in g
on C ur ric ul um and I n s t r u c t i o n . E v ans to n, 11 1. : NSBA, 1975.
Vornberg, J . , and P a s c h a l l , M. "Secondary P u b l i c School T e a c h e r s ’
S a t i s f a c t i o n With C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g . " J o u r n a l o f C o l l e c ­
t i v e B a r g a i n i n g in t h e P u b l i c S e c t o r 13,1 (198 4) : 85 -9 4.
Vroom, V. H.
W al lac e, W. L.

Work and M o t i v a t i o n .
Sociological Theory.

New York:
Chicago:

Wiley, 1964.
A l d i n e , 1969.

W a l t e r , L. J . , and Glenn, C. L. " C e n t r a l i z e d Decisionmaking
T h r e a t e n s T ea ch er Autonomy." E d u c a ti o n a l Horizons 64 ( Wi nt er
1986): 101-103.

221
Warwick, D. P . , and L i n i n g e r , C. A. The Sample Survey:
P r a c t i c e . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Theory and

Weber, Max. Essays in S o c i o l o g y . T r a n s l a t e d by H. H. G ert y and
C. W. M i l l s .
New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1975.
Weick, K. The S o c i a l Psychology o f O r g a n i z i n g .
Addison-Wesley, 1979.

Reading, Mass.:

White, D. D., and Bednar, D. A. U n de r s ta n d in g and Managing People
a t Work. Bo ston: A lly n and Bacon, 1986.
Wiersma, W., and H i n k l e , D. Applying S t a t i s t i c a l Concepts f o r t h e
B eh av i o ra l S c i e n c e s . Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979.
W il lo w er , D. J .
"School O r g a n i z a t i o n s : P e r s p e c t i v e s in J u x t a p o s i ­
tion."
E d u c a ti 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 18 (Summer 1982):
89-1 10.
Wilson, B. L . , and C o r b e t t , H. D. " O r g a n i z a t i o n and Change: The
E f f e c t s o f School Linkages on t h e Q u a n t i t y o f I m p l e m e n t a t i o n . "
E d u c a ti 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 19 ( F a l l 1983): 85-10 4.
Winton, C. A. Theory and Measurement in S o c i o l o g y .
M ass.: H a l s t e a d P r e s s , 1974.
Wood, C . , and Pohland, F.
gr ap he d )

"Community C o u n c i l s . "

Cambridge,

1979.

(Mimeo­