INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM I 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 UM I 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 m aterials (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 niversity M icrofilms International A Bell & H owell Information C o m p a n y 3 0 0 North Z e e b R o a d , Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 U SA 3 1 3 /7 6 1 - 4 7 0 0 8 0 0 /5 2 1 - 0 6 0 0 Order Num ber 9208817 A n assessm ent o f support by M ichigan public school teachers for structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerm ent Middlekauff, Elaine Stanley, Ph.D. Michigan State University, 1991 Copyright © 1991 by Middlekauff, Elaine Stanley. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 AN ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT MAY ACCOMPANY TEACHER EMPOWERMENT BY Elaine Stanley Middlekauff A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1991 ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT MAY ACCOMPANY TEACHER EMPOWERMENT By Elaine Stanley Middlekauff Purpose The researcher's purpose in this study was to assess the level of support Michigan public school teachers have for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. The goal was to examine collective and individual support by teachers using variables of gender, age, level of education, years of teaching experience, level of assignment and career satisfaction. Teacher empowerment is a concept which reformers suggest would enable teachers to act as professionals and would ultimately improve student learning. also change the basic school structure. Empowerment may The organizational structure of schools was divided into four dimensions: spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional. For each dimension there are: characteristics that have been ascribed to schools by reformers, a set of criticisms, and reform proposals that alter the existing structure. these school reforms to occur, teacher support, both For collective and individual, is crucial. Procedure A survey was developed using Chester Barnard's theory of authority. The criterion for acceptance was: teachers understood the concept, believed it was compatible with the purpose of schools, believed it was in their own best interest and were able to comply. Four school districts were selected by a Prism computer program. All school teachers in the selected districts were invited to participate in this study. Using a Likert scale, teachers rated statements about structural changes in each of the four dimensions. Two statements were developed to match each of the criterion. Results were tabulated using frequency of response, means, standard deviations, anovas, p-values and two tailed tests of significance. Major Findings 1. Surveyed teachers showed moderate support for proposed structural changes in the Spatial, Hierarchical and Functional Dimensions. 2. Teachers expressed less agreement with proposed changes in the Occupational Dimension, especially those items linked to teacher testing and national certification. 3. The priority for change by teachers was the Occupational, Spatial, Functional and Hierarchical Dimensions. 5. Approximately fifty percent of the teachers indicated a willingness to commit time and energy to restructuring efforts. 6. Less than 40% of the teachers rated themselves as having expertise to provide input and less than 45% of the teachers indicated a willingness to receive additional training to gain expertise. Copyright by Elaine Stanley Middlekauff 1991 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I deeply appreciate the assistance, direction and support of my advisor and chairperson, Dr. Philip Cusick. He guided me carefully in developing a dissertation of personal and professional worth. Dr. Cusick's continued input, critiques and observations led to a clearer presentation of my study through numerous drafts and revisions. I also want to express my gratitude to the other members of my dissertation committee: Dr. Magdalene Lampert, Dr. Sam Moore and Dr. Ralph for adding their guidance, expertise and comments to my study and dissertation paper. Their contributions were significant! Many individuals helped me complete this dissertation and doctoral degree program. First, I need to acknowledge my parents, Stephen and Stella Stanley, for instilling in me a love of learning and a desire to pursue educational excellence. To my wonderful husband, Bill, thank you for all your loving support, realizing this was something I had to do. Bill helped develop this study because he listened carefully to each dilemma and concern, and responded with patience and sage advice. Bill's computer expertise was an essential ingredient to the completion of this work. To my children, Steve and Lisa, it must seem as if I vi have always had classes, exams and papers. For the major part of your lives, I've been a doctoral student. Thanks for your patience and cooperation as you waited your turn for my attention. To Ann Knaup, my heartfelt thanks for being the special friend who watched over my family as a second Mom, while I sat in classes in East Lansing. I know I couldn't have succeeded without the network of terrific friends who helped me out so often. Thanks to Dr. Jan Woznick, for the guidance in developing my survey instrument and for the statistical expertise in tabulating the results in a meaningful way. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES................................... Chapter x I . INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study................ Background of the Study............. Empowerment Defined................. Structure of Public Schools......... Summary.............................. Theoretical Framework............... Research Questions.................. Related Research Questions.......... Significance of the Study........... Overview of the Succeeding Chapters. II. III. IV. 1 3 5 10 13 14 16 18 19 19 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Spatial Dimension................... Occupational Dimension.............. Hierarchical Dimension.............. Functional Dimension................ Summary of Structural Dimensions.... Teachers and the Reform Proposals... Endnotes................ 20 26 33 40 46 47 53 DESIGN OF THE STUDY Purpose.............................. Survey Research...................... Survey Construction................. Validity............................. Reliability.......................... Survey Sample..................... Assumptions.......................... Limitations.......................... Hypothesis Testing.................. 56 56 58 60 60 61 68 69 72 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction......................... Demographic Information............. Hypothesis #1 Spatial Dimension Data Results and ANOVA Tables...... Summary Discussion of the Dimension Conclusions for Hypothesis#l...... Hypothesis # 2 Occupational D i m Data Results and ANOVA Tables..... Summary Discussion of the Dimension 80 81 89 90 109 110 113 114 127 viii Conclusions for Hypothesis # 2 ..... 130 Hypothesis #3 Hierarchical Dimension.133 Data Results and ANOVA Tables........ 134 Summary Discussion of the Dimension..139 Conclusion for Hypothesis # 3 ..... ....141 Hypothesis #4 Functional Dimension...144 Data Results and ANOVA Tables........ 145 Summary Discussion of the Dimension..155 Conclusions for Hypothesis # 4 ........ 156 Organizational Priority.............. 160 Willingness to Assist Restructuring..165 Teacher Expertise..................... 167 Teacher Willingness to Get Training..176 Summary Discussion.................... 188 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Findings................... 189 Discussion of the Results............ 191 Conclusions........................... 193 Implications.......................... 197 Recommendations....................... 198 Epilogue............................... 200 APPENDICES A. B. C. D. SURVEY INSTRUMENT..................... 204 OVERHEAD PRESENTATION................. 209 CORRESPONDENCE........................ 229 SURVEY DRAFTS......................... 236 BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 249 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Distribution of Teachers by Gender.........82 4.2 Distribution of Teachers by A g e ............ 82 4.3 Distribution by Level of Teacher's Education.................................. 83 4.4 Distribution 4.5 Distribution by Years of Teaching Experience................................. 86 4.6 Distribution by Career Satisfaction....... 87 4.7 Mean Score Response for the Spatial Dimension................................ 90 4.8 ANOVA for Test Item #1-Teaching Level.... 93 4.9 ANOVA for Test Item #2-Teaching Level.... 94 4.10 ANOVA for Test Item #3-Teaching Level.... 95 4.11 ANOVA for Test Item #4-Teaching Level.... 96 4.12 ANOVA for Test Item #5-Teaching Level.... 97 4.13 ANOVA for Test Item #6-Teaching Level.... 98 4.14 ANOVA for Test Item #7-Taching Level...... 99 4.15 ANOVA for Test ITem #8-Teaching Level....100 4.16 Frequency of Response for Input...........102 4.17 ANOVA for Test Item #2-Gender............. 103 4.18 ANOVA for Test Item #5-Gender............. 104 4.19 ANOVA for Test Item #6-Gender............. 105 4.20 ANOVA for Test Item #7-Gender. 4.21 ANOVA for Test Item #8-T. Experience..... 108 by Level of Assignment....... 84 x ..........106 4.22 Mean Score Response for the Occupational Dimension................................. 114 4.23 ANOVA for Test Item #11-Teaching Level...117 4.24 ANOVA for Test Item #14-Teaching Level...118 4.25 ANOVA for Test Item #17-Teaching Level...119 4.26 ANOVA for Test ITem #19-Teaching Level...120 4.27 ANOVA for Test Item #16-Age...............122 4.28 ANOVA for Test Item #18-Age...............124 4.29 ANOVA for Test Item #20-Gender........... 125 4.30 Frequency of Response for Input...........126 4.31 Frequency of Response for Teacher Testing................................... 127 4.32 Mean Score Response for the Hierarchical Dimension................................. 134 4.33 ANOVA for Test Item #22-Teaching Level...136 4.34 ANOVA for Test Item #23-Teaching Level...137 4.35 ANOVA for Test Item #27-Age...............138 4.36 Frequency of Response for Input...........139 4.37 Mean Score Response for the Functional Dimension iiSSS = = ..-l45 4.38 ANOVA for Test Item #33-T.Experience 4.39 ANOVA for Test Item #38-Age...............150 4.40 ANOVA for Test Item #39-Gender........... 151 4.41 ANOVA for Test Item #35-Career S a t ....... 152 4.42 ANOVA for Test Item #41-Career S at ....... 153 4.43 Frequency of Response for Input........... 154 4.44 Frequency Distribution of Organizational Priority.................................. 161 4.45 Mean Response of Priority/Dimension...... 161 4.46 ANOVA Spatial Dim./Org. Priority..........163 xi 147 4.47 ANOVA Occ. Dim/Org Priority............... 164 4.48 Willingness to Commit Time Per Dimension.................................165 4.49 Frequncy of Response for Additional Commitments.............................. 166 4.50 Frequency of Response for Teacher Expertise.................................167 4.51 ANOVA for Expertise-T. Experience-Spatial Dimension.......................... 169 4.52 ANOVA for Expertise-T. Experience-Occup. Dimension................................. 170 4.53 ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed.-Occup. Dimension.................................172 4.54 ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed.-Hier. Dimension............... 173 4.55 ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed.-Func. Dimension................................. 174 4.56 ANOVA for Expertise-Gender-Func. Dim..... 175 4.57 Frequency for Teachers Willingness to Get Training.................................. 176 4.58 ANOVA for Training-T. Experience-Spatial Dimension.................................178 4.59 ANOVA for Training-T. Experience-Func. Dimension................................. 180 4.60 ANOVA for Training-Age-Spat. Dimension— 4.61 ANOVA for Training-Age-Func. D i m ......... 184 4.62 ANOVA for Training-Career Sat-Hier.Dim...185 4.63 ANOVA for Training-Career Sat-Func.Dim...186 xii 182 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE The purpose of the study is to enable the researcher to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers give the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. This study will provide data to examine the teachers' collective acceptance of the changes as well as their personal commitment to them. The study results will also relate the teachers' attitudes toward structural change to nonstructural factors such as the subject's gender, age, level of education, teaching experience, level of assignment and career satisfaction. INTRODUCTION It is widely reputed that American schools and students are not doing well. Newspapers, magazine articles, books and reports point to the decline in academic performance by American students when compared to their global counterparts. The major concern is that students today are not adequately prepared to compete successfully in the world 1 2 marketplace and that society will suffer from the results of an inadequate educational system. Drop out rates, youthful unemployment, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, widespread use of drugs are lumped together and causally charged to inadequate schooling. The logic of the argument is that under the present educational system students are performing less well than they could; therefore something must be wrong with the system. In order to "correct" the educational system, some changes have to be made in the system. The system, for the purpose of this study, is the sum total of the existing regularities. Seymour Sarason in The Culture of the Schools and the Problem of Change (1971), argued that "any attempt to introduce change into the school setting requires, among other things, changing the existing regularities in some way." 1 This study will help the researcher examine the teachers' reactions to some of these structural changes that are being suggested. Advocates of teacher empowerment see a solution to the problems of schooling in a less bureaucratic school structure. Bureaucratic decentralization lies at the heart of restructuring efforts that turn away from centralization and regulation (Timar, 1989). The need for restructuring is based on the premise that the structure is overly bureaucratic, that the bureaucracy impedes the efforts and creativity of teachers, and that less bureaucracy would encourage greater effort, creativity, spontaneity and 3 commitment. The argument used is that, "the energy, enthusiasm and persistence characteristic of effective teachers is difficult to mobilize and sustain for individuals who perceive themselves and their professional 2 activity as stagnant or thwarted." In other words, "the degree to which schools can respond effectively to changing conditions and pressures on the system depends ultimately on the response of individuals m 3 the classrooms" , thus empowerment will set in motion changes that will enable teachers to improve schooling. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy and AFT President Albert Shanker emphasize empowering teachers as a means of improving the effectiveness of schools (Timar,1989). An important question for this study is whether a view of school improvement via teacher empowerment is supported by teachers. The study will be used to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers have for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. BACKGROUND FOR THIS STUDY Teacher Empowerment When school reforms were proposed in the early 1980's, teachers were not considered active participants in 4 developing initiatives. In 1986 the ensuing reform literature paid attention to the role of the teacher in bringing about educational improvement. Researchers such as John Goodlad (A Place Called School.1984). Gerald Grant (The World We Created at Hamilton H i g h .1988 ). Theodore Sizer (Horace's Compromise.1985K and Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (The Good High School.1983) wrote about the importance of teacher input in developing and creating good schools. Their books suggest that teachers who were able to direct and control their daily professional lives were more committed and better able to respond to individual student needs. The logic is that a school environment which encourages teacher commitment and participation will lead to improved student learning. Society at the same time, was receiving the message that improvement efforts should rest with those closest to the effort in books such as: John Naisbitt's Megatrends (1982), Rosabeth Moss Ranter's The Change Masters (1983) and Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus' Leaders (1985). Theory Z, decentralization and the participatory management embraced by corporate America, were popularly embraced as a solution to the problems of education (McDaniel, 1989). The argument was that by decentralizing schools, and bringing decisions to the teachers' level, teachers would exhibit a greater sense of ownership and commitment to the endeavor. This increased effort would ultimately result in greater student learning. 5 Teachers are seen as those closest to the problems in educating students and best equipped to know what students need (Futrell,1989, citing Sizer 1986, Wise 1979). By increasing the voice and power of teachers, problems of student learning could be addressed. The Holmes Group; "Tomorrow's Teachers," Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy; " Nation Prepared; Teachers for the 21st Century," C.E.D.; "Investing in Our Children," Governor's Task Force: "1991 Time for Results," NEA/NASSP; "Ventures in Good Schooling," differed in specifics, but were united around the theme of empowerment. There was an insistence on the need to improve education by improving the status and power of teachers. The logic of the argument is that if the schools are supposed to produce learning and students are not deemed adequately skilled and prepared for the global marketplace then the system needs to be restructured so that teaching is made more professional. If teachers were empowered and given a professional status and working environment then teachers would work harder and enable students to learn more. Empowerment Defined While the term "empowerment" has visceral appeal, it has definitional problems. There is no uniformly accepted definition of empowerment. Authorities in the field may not agree about what it is, but they do agree that teachers do 6 not have it. What they may have is authority conferred by and limited by boards and administrators. As explained by Myrna Cooper, "teacher authority in the present wave of reform reports is essentially 'derived power'...the licensing by others to act somewhat free of direction in specified areas of performance....to have authority delegated is not the same as to have authority. ...in such areas as curriculum, school improvement and professional development teachers received power, limited by others' decisions and subject to cancellation if extended beyond defined boundaries." 4 Although conceptual in nature, empowerment does have a set of given behaviors or circumstances ascribed to it. The 1986 Carnegie Report focuses on the professionalization of teaching. Elements of empowerment include the following recommendations:5 1. Restructure schools to provide a professional environment for teaching, freeing them (teachers) to decide how to best meet state and local goals for children while holding them (teachers) accountable for student progress. 2. Restructure the teaching force and introduce a new category of Lead Teachers with the proven ability to provide active leadership in the redesign of the school and in helping their colleagues to uphold high standards of learning and teaching. The Carnegie Report calls for a professional autonomy wherein "teachers make or influence decisions concerning materials and instructional methods to be used, the staffing 7 structure, the organization of the school day, the assignment of students, the consultants to be used and the allocation of resources available to the school. Implementing these changes is seen as the g professionalization of the teacher work force." 8 The Holmes Group Report takes a similar position. Listed among their major reform goals is "making schools better places for practicing teachers to work and learn." The report states that "the existing structure of schools, the current working conditions of teachers and the current division of authority between administrators and teachers are all seriously out of step with the requirements of the new profession."7 Empowerment has been linked to the concept of professionalism among educators by Gene Maeroff, The Empowerment of Teachers (1988). He uses the term "empowerment" to reflect an environment in which teachers act as professionals and are treated as such. According to Ann Lieberman's Building a Professional Culture in Schools.(1988). professionalization would result in restructuring the school organization. "Involved in that restructuring is the building of a new set of relationships between and among all members of the school community, including the enlargement of the leadership team in schools, new roles for teachers and administrators, changed organizational arrangements, and even a rethinking of the g substance of what is to be taught." The central theme of empowerment is the expansion of teachers' roles and power. The argument is that the system prevents teachers from behaving as professionals resulting in reputed poor performance by students. If the system were to be changed and teachers were allowed to behave as 9 professionals, then student learning would improve. The link between professionalized teachers and improved student learning is based on motivation. Advocates of empowerment argue that teachers who feel a "sense of professional movement (continuing challenge and growth) are more likely to be effective in motivating students and reaching youngsters with diverse needs...these feelings affect the energy, interest, and commitment brought to the classroom." 9 . . The causal link between the satisfaction derived from teachers' professional behavior and increased student learning may be less direct. Charles Perrow, Complex Organizations (1986) points out that few studies support the premise that happy workers are productive workers. Citing studies by Brayfield and Crockett and a literature review by Victor Vroom, Perrow pointed to a small positive correlation between worker satisfaction and worker performance. Lawler and Porter in their literature review and study suggest the causal relationship is reversed and satisfaction is derived from high performance. They concluded "high performance should be rewarded by satisfying such higher order needs as 'self actualization' and autonomy." Perrow complicates this connection between high morale and high productivity by finding that "in many jobs, there is no room for high performance ... productivity depends much more on such things as technological changes and economies of scale than on human effort’." 10 Career satisfaction, teacher performance and improved 10 student learning are central issues in the school reform arguments and literature. The focus of this dissertation is not the circular argument determining their causal link but the central role of the teacher in this restructuring effort. The rhetoric of restructuring schools and empowering teachers focuses on the premise that school change requires the active involvement of teachers (Watts, McClure 1990). The study will be used to assess the level of support teachers have for changes in school structure which may be associated with teacher empowerment. The Structure of Public Schools The Differentiation of Work Organizations In order to examine changes in the school structure, one first has to look at the structure of the school organization. Schools are complex bureaucracies. At the base of the teacher empowerment movement is the assertion that schools are too bureaucratic. Schools can be characterized as bureaucratic organizations. According to Richard Hall, Organizations: Structure and Process (1982), the traditional organizational characteristics attributed to bureaucracies were described by Max Weber. These characteristics included a hierarchy of authority, technically competent participants and a division of labor to carry out a specified function according to designated rules and procedures. The work of schooling is 11 not handled by self-employed individuals, but by bureaucratic organizations. Local school districts are types of work organizations and this set of characteristics matches the way schools function. Peter Blau and Richard A. Schoenherr, The structure of Organizations. (1971) analyzed the way work organizations function. Because schools are types of work organizations, the four dimensions they examined will be used as the basis for discussing school organization. Blau and Schoenherr said work organizations are differentiated by four dimensions: hierarchical, spatial, occupational and functional (p.63) The hierarchical dimension is the vertical division of authority and decision making used by the organization. The layers of managerial authority in the school system; superintendents, central office, principals and assistant principals, reflect the hierarchical dimension. The school organization is also divided by the ways in which students are educated. differentiation. One division is spatial Space and time are used by schools to subdivide clients and accomplish tasks. Schools subdivide by elementary and secondary levels as a way of responding to the size of the organization. Further spatial differentiation occurs in larger school systems with several buildings assigned to the elementary, middle and senior levels. Spatial differentiation includes grade level and classroom divisions within buildings. Time is also used to organize the orderly flow of students into buildings and 12 between classes within the school day. Functional differentiation is the acknowledgement that school employees have a variety of job descriptions and responsibilities. Functional differentiation occurs within the school building by programming and classroom assignment. The need to provide a variety of services to students results in a labor division by occupational specialty. Occupational differentiation arises from function and the professional expertise of the workers in servicing students. Educational personnel are separated and differentiated by their occupational specialty. Teachers are labeled and sorted in the organizational system. Elementary teachers, computer specialists, social workers, band directors are all occupational specialists. not fundamentally interchangeable. They are Subject area departments are created at the secondary level which reinforce this occupational differentiation. Changing School Structural Organization If the structure is to be changed, as the critics assert it must, then those dimensional characteristics have to be changed. The restructuring platform is one that redefines each of these dimensions as summarized in Richard Elmore and Associates, Restructuring Schools:The Next Generation of. Educational Reform (1990). Flexibility in the use of time, curriculum materials, grouping of children and 13 teachers would be introduced into the spatial dimension. Differentiated staffing, new roles for teachers and collegial relationships would change the occupational dimension. The hierarchical dimension would feature decentralized decision making. A site based management approach would mean more decisions would be made at the building level and teachers would have greater input in these decisions. As a result of all of these recommended changes, the functional dimension would be less structured, with decreased specialization. This plays itself out as less attention to defined roles and responsibilities and greater attention on achieving mastery and integrated learning, intellectual and character development.(p.117) As the argument goes, restructuring the school organization would enable teachers to increase their commitment and their productivity, which would result in increased student learning. SUMMARY There are a set of characteristics that describe each dimension of the school organization. Then there are criticisms and counter arguments made by reformers for changing the current structures. Advocates of public school restructuring argue that the current bureaucratic system prevents teachers from demonstrating the commitment, creativity and energy that would improve student learning. 14 By altering the structures in place, teachers could assume more professional roles and increased responsibilities. This would result in increased student learning. The importance of teacher acceptance of these reform proposals is paramount. Reformers are proposing changes that teachers may not want and may not accept. The researcher will use Chester Barnard's work as the theoretical framework for this study because it will help explain that the success of the proposed reforms hinges on teacher acceptance. The purpose of the study is to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers give the structural changes that many accompany teacher empowerment. The study will be used to examine the teachers' collective acceptance of the changes as well as their personal commitment to them. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Chester Barnard's theory of authority will be used in this study for assessing collective approval. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (1938), states that authority resides with those to whom the order is addressed, rather than the individual issuing the order. Restructuring as a means of implementing empowerment can be labeled a conceptual "order" issued by educational reform panels and reports. The communication (order) will be followed if four 15 conditions are met: the communication, (1) the teacher can and does understand (2) at the time, the teacher believes it is not inconsistent with the purposes of the organization, as s/he understands them, (3) at the time, s/he believes it is compatible with her/his personal interest and (4) s/he is able, physically and mentally, to comply. 11 For each of the four organizational dimensions, the study will be used to examine the perception of that organizational dimension, the validity of the criticism aimed at that dimension, the consistency of the structural change with the purpose of schools, the compatibility with personal interest and the willingness of public school teachers to commit personal time to changes that may occur as a result of teacher empowerment. Collective approval of the ideas embodied in the concept of empowerment is pivotal. If restructuring is to receive collective support, it is because teachers perceive it to be in their own best interests. Also, it is possible that teachers can make the decision to collectively endorse structural changes without demonstrating the willingness to make a personal commitment. The personal decision rests on the belief that the goal to be achieved is worth the individual effort expended. If the cost is perceived to be higher than the reward, then the effort is abandoned. If a teacher believes the rewards outweigh the costs, s/he should be willing to make a commitment of time and energy to the structural changes. 16 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The willingness of teachers to endorse changes in the current structure of the school organizations can be assessed by posing five questions from Chester Barnard's theory of authority (1938). In order to assess the level of teacher support, it would be beneficial to discuss the criterion as it relates to restructuring schools. Teachers have to understand the reform effort as it relates to restructuring in order to support it. The first criterion tests the accuracy of the descriptions of the current school structures. There should be agreement between reformers and teachers about the characteristics that define the dimension under study. The second criterion validates the criticisms aimed at each dimension of the school system and thus builds the foundation for accepting alternatives. The third criterion is that teachers see the reform as fitting in with their sense of the purpose of schools. Reform proposals would have to benefit teachers collectively and individually. For teachers to accept the reforms, they would have to be willing to commit their time and energy. Although teacher empowerment is not an issued communication (order), the following criteria would still be helpful in examining the willingness to support change. 17 1. Do teachers believe that the dimensions of the present school system are described accurately? 2. Do teachers believe that the criticisms aimed at each dimension are valid? 3. Do teachers believe that the structural changes that may arise from teacher empowerment would improve student learning? (consistent with the purpose of the organization) 4. Do teachers believe they would benefit from the structural changes that may arise from teacher empowerment? (compatible with his/her interest as a whole) 5 Will teachers commit time/energy to accomplish these structural changes? (able to mentally and physically comply) Because the teaching population is heterogeneous, these research questions will be addressed using the independent variables of gender, age, level of education, years of teaching experience, level of teaching assignment and career satisfaction. Additional research questions will focus on the individual level of commitment. Teachers will be asked to assess their own willingness to participate in reform efforts. Commitments of their time, expertise and 18 willingness to get additional training will be measured. The answers to these additional research questions will be meaningful when matched to the collective level of teachers' verbal agreement given each dimension. Related Research Questions 1. In which dimension(s) are teachers willing to commit time to restructure efforts? 2. In which dimensions do teachers indicate an expertise? 3. In which dimensions are teachers willing to get additional training to provide input/expertise ? 19 Significance of the Study This study will contribute to the existing knowledge about teacher attitudes and responses toward the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. The significance of this study is to see if teachers are willing to play a major role in creating and supporting the new structures. This measure of the level of support for these reforms by Michigan public school teachers may enable a local school district, state department of education or university school of education to better predict response patterns of teachers towards proposed reform measures. Overview of Succeeding Chapters Literature pertinent to this study is presented in Chapter II. Survey methodology and analysis procedures are presented in Chapter III. presented in Chapter IV. Data findings and tables are Chapter V contains a brief summary of the purpose of the study, the methodology and the data results. Conclusions are drawn from the data and these are discussed as they pertain to the literature in Chapter II. Implications and recommendations for further research are included. CHAPTER II SELECTED REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE DIMENSIONS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL STRUCTURE The organizational structure of public schools is divided into four dimensions: spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional. In this section the researcher will cite literature that describes the current practice in public schools related to those dimensions, the criticisms the current practice generates and the reform suggestions for improvements in each dimension. DIMENSION #1 PART A SPATIAL Current Spatial Practices Physical Structure of School Buildings Physically, school buildings enable people to be easily separated by age and function. Elementary students and educational personnel are housed apart from those at the secondary level. This segregation of persons by age and function limits contact and communication among school personnel and inhibits the development of common interests. School buildings reflect and reinforce the bureaucratic organization. According to Norris Brock Johnson, West Haven 20 21 (1985), the designs of traditional public school buildings are fairly standardized. "The architectural design principle of the elementary school building is based on the replication of rectangular forms. Mirroring the school's bureaucratic concern with the precise organization of objects (students) in time and space, the mechanical ordering of repeated forms is congruent with our dominant sociocultural orientation toward standardization." 12 Johnson observed that "...school buildings lend themselves to divisions. School buildings that are rectilinear, are likely to be multiple roomed with each room associated with a different task." 13 The separation of maintenance and learning areas can be explained in terms of function. Classrooms are separated from the office, and support areas (gym, art, lunchroom, supply areas, maintenance). The office is located in such a way as to monitor and control the activity within. John Goodlad observed similar spatial structure in his study, A Place Called School (1984). His description of a junior high school building as a series of classrooms located side by side down a long hallway is often likened to cells. Inside each classroom is a controlled environment with spatial limitations that restrict student and teacher movement. The common theme of spatial differentiation in schools is separation. Students are separated into age groupings. Teachers and other educational personnel are separated to 22 reflect these groupings. Structured Time Schedule Time, like spatial differentiation, is structured and predictable. At the elementary level, the primary focus is on the development of reading and math skills. time reflects this priority. The use of Goodlad observed that the first time period was "devoted to language arts and mathematics and lasted from opening bell to recess. After the break, instruction in these two areas continued until lunch. The afternoon block of time was used for science, social studies and the arts and a recess type break for physical education." 14 Curriculum at the secondary level is presented in measurable and standardized units of time, regardless of content or student ability. "At the junior and senior high schools, the school days appear to be divided into chunks of time, each chunk for a different subject. The periods lasted approximately 55 minutes each at the junior high level and slightly less at the senior high level." PART B 15 Criticisms of the Spatial Dimension The current spatial organization of the public school system is criticized for the ways in which time and space are utilized particularly the separation and standardization of these units. Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, complains that "isolated cellular 23 structure of classrooms and the top down egg crate structure of schools are impediments to effective teaching and learning. Time allotted to learning and mastering skills is sequentially predetermined by programming constraints. Often students and teachers are conditioned to stop and start activities according to the clock." 16 Teachers are unable to step outside these restraints and create alternative patterns, inhibiting their ability to address the special needs of their students in more creative ways. Larry Cuban describes how teachers react to this stress, "teachers rationed their energy and time in order to cope with conflicting and multiple demands, constructed certain teaching practices that have emerged as resilient, simple and efficient solutions in dealing with a large number of students in a small space for extended periods of time." 17 The isolation and segmentation of school classrooms as units have been criticized by the proponents of teacher empowerment. Along with limiting teaching styles and learning patterns of students, the physical structure and time limits of the school day also prevent teachers from developing collegial relationships. Daniel Lortie's study, Schoolteacher (1975), showed that teachers have little time to interact and few opportunities to discuss and share ideas. Gene Maeroff, The Empowerment of Teachers. (1988), noted that restructuring the teacher's schedule was essential if teachers were to have the time to be involved 24 in curriculum planning, and that as professionals, teachers need the time to be connected with each other through collegiality. In summary, the critics say that the separation by time and space within schools is a problem that inhibits spontaneity, creativity and collegiality. Without time to interact, teachers have little chance to build trust among themselves and create a shared body of knowledge to jointly address concerns and seek solutions. Judith Warren Little and Linda Darling-Hammond in Building a Professional Culture in Schools (1988), emphasize that time has to be restructured so that teachers can develop collegiality and share instructional decision making. PART C Proposed Reforms for the Spatial Dimension Teacher empowerment is meant to alter the traditional use of time and space. The standardized units of time, space, chunks of curriculum and student groupings do not recognize the variety of teaching and learning styles and limit measures of success, therefore flexibility must be introduced. In this new setting "groups of teachers would gather periodically to determine how best to cluster and distribute among the staff those students for whom they were responsible. Class times and sizes might be varied across the school day, and teachers might not be confined to a single classroom.1,18 25 The 1986 Carnegie report, Nation Prepared:Teachers for the 21st Century, suggested the need for radical reorganization of work roles to make better use of staff in a collegial environment with a new approach to the use of staff. "The concept of a professional environment that fosters learning is based on having more available time for teachers to plan, reflect and discuss methodology with their colleagues. Providing the time to teachers means that additional support staff and technology will relieve teachers of routine tasks." 19 With empowerment, Henrik Gideonse in Elmore's Restructuring Schools (1990), suggests that teachers would dedicate themselves to diagnosing, designing curriculum, creating materials and working with students until they achieve success. Students would be expected to use time differently as well. If teachers no longer spent the bulk of their time in front of students, it is hoped that students would be obliged to assume a more active learning style and more responsibility for their own progress. Without the parameters of mandated curriculums, teachers could offer more variety in instructional grouping patterns, that acknowledge the differences in student motivation, performance, ability and other instructional factors. 20 The Carnegie report, A Nation Prepared; Teachers for the 21st. Century.paints scenarios of cooperative learning in settings that cut across age, role and status lines. argument goes that the collegial approach is unlikely to The 26 work unless class size varies. "The use of space has to be flexible so that some students can work alone and others in small groups, or with teachers or a tutor." 21 Calls for professionalization of teachers would alter the conditions of their work, the relationships with other teachers and the manner in which schools are structured. Changes in spatial dimensions would affect how students and their lessons are organized. To summarize the projected change, greater flexibility would be exercised by teachers in the arrangement of students in the available space. The individual needs and abilities of students as well as the curriculum would be a consideration in arranging the school day. Units of time could vary with the topic or lesson and students would be grouped to maximize learning. Teachers would also have less rigid assignments and schedules, enabling them to pursue collegial projects and relationships. The assumed results of this flexibility would be the spontaneity, creativity and commitment by teachers that would enable them to improve student learning. DIMENSION #2 Part A OCCUPATIONAL Current Occupational Practices Teaching can be characterized by specialization, isolation and classroom autonomy. The teaching profession 27 is ungraded, with no formal differentiation in status between teachers of varying seniority or competence. It is a specialized occupation with teachers assigned specific grades or subjects based on certification. This specialization serves to reinforce the privacy and isolation that characterize the profession. Daniel Lortie in Schoolteacher. (1975), found that "the way teachers define their tasks and the feelings they attach to them are largely congruent with the orientations induced by recruitment, socialization and career rewards. Conservatism, individualism and presentism are significant components in the ethos of American classroom teachers." 22 The teachers in Lortie's samples were "preoccupied with classroom matters; they attach secondary importance to organizational affairs." Teachers "want to concentrate their efforts on the core tasks of teaching, not on distractive organizational duties." In Lortie's survey of teacher preferences to increase their effectiveness and satisfaction, suggestions were individualistic rather than collectivist, conservative rather than radical and present rather than future oriented. Responses showed an overriding preoccupation with time and the preference for teaching versus other tasks. From the responses to his survey, Lortie senses the yearning of teachers for "uninterrupted productive engagements with students." 23 Teachers have a closed door ethic in schools. The notion of collegial consultation is alien in most schools 28 and resisted by some teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1988). Teaching is both autonomous and private. Teachers secure their privacy by not allowing their successes or failures to be observed by others. Lortie (1975) found the norms among teachers on collegial relationships to be "permissive rather than mandatory. Teachers share the egalitarian spirit which rules out imposing one's view on others; the etiquette rule seems to be "live and let live and help when asked." Collegial norms respect the individual's right to choose between association and privacy." 24 The isolation that accompanies this privacy rule prevents collegiality and encourages the kind of isolation that critics say is responsible for low morale. The occupational dimension of the current school organization is embedded in the deep and stable structure of classroom autonomy. The isolation and lack of collegiality among teachers are byproducts of this autonomy and subject to the criticism of the empowerment advocates. Part B Criticism of the Occupational Dimension Theodore Sizer, Horace's Compromise (1988), looks at the frustrations of a classroom teacher, seeking to be effective while overcoming the obstacles of the bureaucracy. According to Theodore Sizer, "teachers suffer the paradox of personal commitment to education and the demoralization of their profession. Teachers receive little respect, which 29 society signals through autonomy, financial reward and accolades." 25 Sizer points out that "teacher salaries are often tied to years of experience and to post graduate credits." There is generally no direct link between teaching competence and salary. "Some systems include merit increments, but these tend to be marginal. The political difficulties of making judgments about teaching effectiveness are paralyzing." Teachers quickly learn that salary and performance are unrelated. While other professions recognize competence through promotions, the teaching profession offers no such advancement. Some type of hierarchy may exist through department chairpersons, the reality is that a teacher always has the same rank, and essentially the same responsibilities. 26 Outside the educational system, teachers experience problems of respect and societal recognition. Within the educational system, isolation is a problem for teachers. Gene Maeroff, The Empowerment of Teachers (1988). noted that many teachers work without contact with colleagues, except over lunch. Teachers, separated by their classrooms, have little time to share ideas and knowledge. There are few opportunities to see colleagues practice their profession. Teachers, because of their occupational isolation, are able to determine their own teaching style. Lacking internal support and professional feedback from colleagues, professional growth and development are impaired.(p.24) 30 The privacy surrounding the teacher's efforts in the classroom may signal a kind of disrespect for professional expertise. Teachers rarely decide their course curriculum and often are unable to select their texts. Teachers are told the amount of time they are to spend with each class. Teachers are rarely consulted over the rules and regulations that govern the life of their school. Some teachers may have a personal commitment and dedication to their career and to their students but demonstrate little professional collegiality. The isolation, autonomy and specialization are conditions that exist in the current occupational dimension of the school organization. These conditions have been criticized by those who advocate empowerment because teachers are disengaged, devoting less of themselves and their talents to their teaching. PART C Reform Suggestions for the Occupational Dimension As the argument goes, empowerment would enable teachers to be revitalized, individually and collectively, and positively connected to efforts to improve student learning. Bringing teachers into closer contact with one another is a key to moving them closer to empowerment (DarlingHammond,1988). The less that teachers deal with each other, the less likely they are to trust each other. A collegial environment provides opportunities for interaction and 31 creates an atmosphere that encourages colleagues to act as sources for feedback, support and ideas (Maeroff,1988). Furthermore, teacher empowerment offers a solution to those that find the "flat" career of teaching problematic. Empowerment, through differentiated staffing, presents a reward system for teachers and an avenue to gain more autonomy, financial reward and recognition without having to leave the teaching field for administration or other career options. Differentiated staffing patterns accommodate a variety of career paths for teachers. The Holmes Group Report, Tomorrow/s Teachers (p.8-11) and Carnegie Forum Report, A Nation Prepared; Teachers for the 21st Century (pp.36,157-8) suggest empowerment is a natural consequence of the more rigorous standards and training they demand of teachers and they suggest the status of teachers rises when the "best and brightest" have career ladder opportunities, mentorships, instructional leadership roles, and as Carnegie proposes, teacher committees to run the schools. The Holmes Group Report, Tomorrow's Teachers, proposes a change in licensing to establish a three tier system. "An Instructor would hold a five year non renewable license to teach in subjects which they have an undergraduate major or minor under the direct supervision of a certified professional. The Professional Teacher would hold a master's degree and have passed rigorous examinations and demonstrated their competence as practitioners. The Career 32 Professional would come from the ranks of the Professional Teachers. This category would carry the additional requirements of specialized study at the doctoral level, although the actual degree may not be required in all cases. Teachers holding this license might be involved in teacher education, curriculum improvement, testing and measurement and conducting action research." 27 These lead teachers would play a key role in setting the instructional policy for the school and involving other teachers in collegial projects. They would provide direct supervision for new instructors, train student tutors, head curriculum revision teams, serve as consultants to other teachers and problem solvers for student learning problems. With these new structures of responsibility, comes differentiation in compensation. This would involve differences in salary based on certification through a National Board. Schools are complex organizations that are hierarchical. The Holmes Group Report suggests "the problems associated with differentiation and hierarchies are a result of illegitimate, irrational and counterproductive distinctions. Rational, differentiated professional staffing in schools that is based on defensible differences in training, authority and responsibilities, will make it possible to respond fairly to the complexities of teaching and learning." 28 In summary, more collegiality would be introduced into 33 the work setting. Teachers would be given greater opportunities for interaction and collaboration. Occupational ladders would replace the present plateau of status. The responsibilities for both teaching and curricular decisions would be divided among tiers of teachers. Master teachers would supervise short term teachers, model good teaching, conduct staff development and participate in school decision making. This study will provide data about the willingness of teachers to change their status by adding salaried levels and decision making responsibilities. DIMENSION #3 HIERARCHICAL PART A: Current Hierarchical Practice The authority structure of schools encompasses the processes by which school decisions are made and officials are recognized as participants. Teachers experience personal autonomy at the classroom level but have little latitude for decision making at the organizational level. The current bureaucratic models assumes clear lines of authority, delegation of responsibilities, rules, centralized planning, decision making and evaluation. It controls participants and coordinates services through the use of time and space. Many teachers perceived it as a top down bureaucracy and talk about decisions made "downtown" 34 having little to do with their daily realities. In conventional schools, principals stand in the middle of the bureaucratic chain, and teachers carry out an agenda mandated from above. (Lieberman and Miller, 1990). Gerald Grant, The World They Created at Hamilton High (1988), argues that "most teachers and principals feel they have little control over their fate. They have lost their sense of efficacy and believe they are on the receiving end of policies made elsewhere. Principals have become middle managers who process directives issuing from a multilayered bureaucracy." 29 Although teachers work directly with children, they are not perceived as important members of the educational community. They are not well represented in decision making about curriculum, testing, policies, grouping and promotional policies (Darling-Hammond,1988). The central officials tend to "do the hiring, develop the curricula, impose the tests, plan the budgets in minute detail, make the rules, interpret them, revise them, publish the guidelines, and require the reports to make sure that all the plans and guidelines are being conformed to." 30 The crux of the issue is not whether teachers can make decisions, but in what arenas these decisions should occur. Administrators, because they are giving authority to teachers, have the power to define and limit the range and depth of teacher decisions. Conley, Schmidle and Shedd (1988), divide decision making into 2 categories; 35 organizational and operational. Organizational decisions deal with matters of setting educational goals and policies, which direct the entire system. Teachers should be given a real voice in the operational decisions; those affecting the day to day methods of achieving goals and arriving at outcomes. In January 1986, Instructor Magazine polled 8,500 teachers on elementary educational policy. Teachers responded that they had authority mostly over instructional methods and issues. Seventy-six percent (76%) reported making most of the instructional decisions while 20% reported making only some. The 1989 Gallup Poll of Teachers' Attitudes toward the Public Schools,(reported in Phi Delta Kappan,June 1989) showed that there were discrepancies between the amount of control teachers have and the amount they would like to have over the educational process. The two areas of greatest difference were perceived authority in determining academic standards and establishing the school schedule. Differences occurred in setting grading policies, determining student placements, setting discipline policies and determining funds for instructional materials. While central office personnel make the majority of decisions, principals are the messengers sent to carry them out. Along with such bureaucratic tasks as discipline and attendance, they act as a buffer between teachers and the community of parents. Lortie, Schoolteacher.( 1975) saw principals making many "small decisions" that affect the 36 social life of the school and those who work in them. The principal's decisions affect the teacher's working conditions. The allocation of materials, space and equipment, time and class schedules are handled through the principal's office (p.202) As long as order is maintained in the classroom, little interaction between teachers and principals takes place. Teachers view administrators more as managers than instructional leaders. PART B Criticisms of the Hierarchical Dimension The trends toward greater centralization and state regulations increase the distance between decision makers and those affected by those decisions. Constant control from "downtown" undermines the ablest teachers and administrators. The hierarchical culture of schools measures its success in quantitative terms: number of hours spent in class, the number of credits completed and the like (Timar, 1989). Sizer argues that "such a pyramidal governance structure overlooks special, local conditions. It tends to focus on quantitative data (attendance rates, test scores) and norms of central tendency. It encourages a system of specialists that serve limited needs rather than the whole student while it demoralizes the teacher by . . . . 31 stifling initiative." 37 PART C Reform Suggestions for the Hierarchical Dimension Arthur Wise argues "we must restructure schools to promote teacher participation in decision making. For example, many of the hiring procedures school districts use are inadequate. It's possible for an administrator to attempt to assess the competence of teachers of mathematics, French, and Russian without discovering whether the person has knowledge in those fields. By involving teachers in hiring new colleagues, schools can attend to subject-matter competence in ways not otherwise possible." 32 Grant (1988) believes that central authorities should establish general goals and monitor a school's efforts toward achievement, however, the school faculties should have the power to organize themselves to achieve the desired ends. Teachers should be empowered to make decisions about their teaching practices and school organization (Shanker 1990, Macphail-Wilcox, Forbes, Parramore, 1990). Teacher empowerment draws upon the concept that teachers, as professionals, should be involved in setting the educational goals, developing the curricular plan, and participating in the review and evaluation of peers. "The main determinant of students' educational programs is the teacher's judgment on how to motivate and enable them to learn. Supporting each teacher's judgment are facultywide (sic) decisions- facilitated by the principal-on curriculum, instructional method, school climate, matters of 38 communication with and involvement of parents, selection and assignment of teachers, inservice education and teacher evaluation." 33 School level decisions enable educators to react quickly and more effectively to student needs. Site management includes authority over budget and resource allocation so that the school can make decisions and spend money in accordance with school priorities. This system allows the staff to immediately gather the necessary resources to put a plan into action. James Guthrie(1986), recognized that individual schools, not school districts, garner the allegiance of parents and students. This "school as community" philosophy enhances the feeling of shared concern and commitment to improvement at the building level. As the argument goes, shared decision making translates into teacher empowerment and results in greater teacher satisfaction. Conley, Schmidle, Shedd (1988), found the positive results derived from shared decision making are: greater employee morale and satisfaction, greater commitment to the organization, a greater willingness to accept change and a more cooperative environment with less conflict. Further it insures that policies and teaching practices are coherent and offers better avenues for supervision and review of teachers. Grant believes that teachers need to have the ability to make decisions about their practice and that they need to "be trusted with matters of the organization of the school." 39 If a vacancy occurs they should have a voice in deciding whether "it should be filled by hiring a replacement or developing a plan in which three teachers in a team-teaching arrangement would be better served by hiring four part-time teachers' aides for the same money. This implies, of course, that teachers and principals should be given more discretion over the budget at the school level." 34 The 1986 Carnegie report (p.61-6) proposes a different model for the way in which school leadership is organized. The model school is headed by the Lead Teachers acting as a committee, one of whom acts like a managing partner in a professional partnership. In such a riiodel, the teachers might hire the administrators while they act as instructional leaders for each other. Administrators would be given the responsibilities associated with the management of the building, not of the programming. To extend support for this argument, most principals have degrees in administrative studies, not in teaching or curriculum. They have received advanced training as managers and are not generally as well prepared to meet the needs of the staff in instructional leadership roles. The thrust of the hierarchical change would be to increase the number of roles and decisions open to teachers by bringing the decision making down to the building level. 40 DIMENSION #4 PART A FUNCTIONAL Current Functional Practice The functional dimension is the common thread that ties the other three previous dimensions together. The functional dimension influences how space and time are utilized, how roles are defined and responsibilities are carried out and how decisions are made. Schools function as complex, specialized bureaucratic organizations. They are described as loosely coupled organizations (Weick) and bureaucracy is "believed to be the only plausible, viable form of social organization." (Elmore, p.170) The reason for this arrangement is that the functional dimension of schools has a set of assumptions that centers on differentiation, specialization and fragmentation. Schools are differentiated organizations using the bureaucratic model by identifying more and more functions needing special attention and treatment. Considerable organizational time and energy is spent in maintaining the role differentiation of teachers, administrators, support staff (counselors) as well as departmental expertise (Timar, 1989). The more types of students and the more functions the schools take on, the more they have to provide separate and different opportunities and categories of specialists. Roles and responsibilities and accountability are closely defined by task (Timar, 1989). Schools have divided 41 the educational task in terms of the "knowledge base" that undergirds each function. As the array of curriculum expands, so does the number of specialists, further limiting each expertise, role and function. In the school bureaucracy, the direction and coordination of tasks is masterminded from the top and "the lower one's position in the pyramid shaped hierarchy, the narrower the range of function and the fewer discretionary . . 35 decisions to be made." Grant described the dominant values of the public school as "legal-bureaucratic with a reliance on rules and centralized administrative hierarchy,and in it formalism, impersonality and emphasis on legal due process...individualistic with an accent on freedom of choice in intellectual and moral realms, and...technicist in its assumptions that there were technical solutions to most problems..."36 In summary the functional dimension of the school organization is characterized by a bureaucratic form which emphasizes the delivery of services through task specialization and clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The dominant values it operates with are bureaucratic-legalistic, individualistic and technicalist. Schools continue to operate in this form because complex bureaucracies seek and encourage bureaucratic solutions to bureaucratically defined problems. 42 PART B Criticism of the Functional Dimension Critics of the current school organization focus on the organizational arrangement and functional divisions and suggest they are out of sync with both their external and internal environments. "Bureaucracy has been criticized as inefficient and ineffective...as inhumane, unresponsive to its clients or to the rest of the public, dominated almost entirely by technological and territorial imperatives, largely out of control, and blind and impervious to the need for change." 37 Critics attribute an assortment of ills within education to bureaucratic controls. Bureaucracy is linked to "an unacceptable conception of the school's mission, a stultifying social order within the school, a counterproductive distribution of roles and functions among the players (students, teachers, specialists, administrators and parents) as well as an inappropriate decision-making structure.1,38 Critics suggest that the increasing number of specialists works toward "deskilling the classroom teacher, leaving them in diminishing roles with less knowledge of the total enterprise of schooling" (Cronin in Elmore, 177). Additional arguments are made that narrow role definitions serve to alienate workers in the school and that top down controls contribute to the alienation of teachers (DarlingHammond and Wise, 1983). 43 When the system of arranging learning becomes the end in itself, it separates people, disciplines and tasks. The criticism of the current school structure is that the division of services is fundamentally unsuited to clients (Brickley, Westberg, 1990). "The division of subjects, presented by different teachers creates a situation in which students remain unknown to their teachers, and subjects taught by colleagues are unknown to teachers. The division and fragmentation of subjects is said to deny the students a sense of meaningfulness and continuity. The division between counselors and teachers prevents students from having contextual adult guidance. The division between disciplinary and teaching functions undermines the teacher's ability to maintain classroom control." 39 The negative effects of these divisions, according to critics, is that "as roles and tasks are more closely defined and narrowed, it is more difficult to assign responsibility for the development of the broader educational goals of good character, traits of good citizenship, sound judgment and critical intelligence." 40 Goodlad, Grant, Lightfoot, Sizer, as ethnographic researchers and advocates of reform, suggest the educational system has lost its positive ethos. Grant defines ethos as "the enduring values or character of the school community: the spirit that actuates not just manners, but moral and intellectual attitudes, practices, and ideals." 41 There is less emphasis on the value of civic responsibility and 44 greater emphasis placed on individuality. The first and only real obligation of the teachers is to maintain order and discipline and that is achieved through a series of accommodations or treaties (Powell, Farrar and Cohen, 1985, Sedlak, Wheeler, Pullin and Cusick, 1986). Teachers' survival skills are strategies of minimal compliance. Students seem increasingly alienated. Tracking, labeling, test taking and passive classroom roles encourage students to become disengaged. PART C Reform Suggestions for the Functional Dimension To restructure schools means to derive a more positive ethos with greater community commitment by making the individual school the key. Most of the reform language includes the metaphor of community. Schools need to resemble less the factory metaphor, avoid the business model and assume the character of a "community of learners." Grant sees the central task of reconstituting intellectual and moral authority as belonging to individual schools, led by dedicated teachers. A school with a strong positive ethos "is one that affirms the ideals and imparts the intellectual and moral virtues proper to the functioning of the educational community in a democracy. It attempts to commit its members to those ideals and virtues in at least a provisional way through the espousal of goals, exemplary actions and practices, ritual celebrations and observance of 45 norms." 42 . . . . It is the unique character of the individual school that can best respond to the needs of the learners. Under the partnership concept of parent-educator and home school links, the school and its purpose are grounded in the "sense of community" rather than a focus on the individual. As a "community" the group is responsible for defining the common good and the bureaucratic depersonalization diminishes. " The imagery is a shift from the public schools characterized by Tonnies's "gesellschaft" to the simpler, smaller school likened to "gemeinschaft." These new smaller schools would be marked with primary relationships of interest and concern." 43 The reform language suggests that teachers will be instrumental in successfully, bringing reform to schools by setting goals and philosophies that fit the community. The goals shift from universalism and individualism to specific client needs and community agendas through magnet schools and tailored programs. Reformers suggest that the success of the restructuring effort rests with the teachers. As the argument goes, it will take a professional cadre of teachers that demonstrate a strong commitment of time and energy to make the restructuring of public schools possible. 46 SUMMARY OF THE STRUCTURAL DISCUSSION The school organization has been studied and criticized by those calling for structural reform. A review of some of the literature covering the four dimensions of the school organization: spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional indicates that critics have viewed the status quo as flawed. Reformers suggest that the bureaucratic organization creates a situation in which teachers are limited and deskilled by their roles and unable to remain motivated and committed to helping their students learn. Critics argue that schools are functionally, spatially, occupationally and hierarchically unable to meet the needs of students in today's society. The logic of their argument is that students are not learning as well as they should because teachers are prevented from acting as professionals in the current organizational structure. The structure, they argue, must be made more flexible so that teachers may redesign their roles and become more committed. School time and space need to be used more flexibly by teachers and school governance needs to be reworked so that teachers are given a greater voice in the educational processes. This study will be used to assess the level of support by Michigan public school teachers for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment in each of the four dimensions: spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional. 47 TEACHERS AND THE REFORM PROPOSALS This study will be used to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers have for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. The assertion made by reformers is that under the present structure teachers are unfulfilled, burned out, disengaged and dissatisfied. Demographics show teachers have become a veteran, middle-aged, immobile group.(Feistritzer 1986) Few of these veteran teachers seem to be displaying the benefits of their age and experience. Disenchantment may be characterized by the complaints of salary, support, recognition, increased demands and deteriorating conditions. (Evans 1989) At midcareer teachers, like other professionals, are prone to boredom and diminished job interest. Some evidence has indicated that teachers have adapted to the current educational system with shifts in attitude, perception, priority and needs. At midcareer, a teacher's focus may be on personal and family concerns due to time limitations, reduced career options and opportunities, conflicts in material vs. intrinsic rewards of teaching, and isolation in sharing these dilemmas.(Evans 1989) While schools are being asked to do "all things for all students," school personnel are reluctant to commit their energy to such a task. The problems of high demand/low 48 support are evident through schools. Schools have experienced increased curricular needs, greater responsibility for the overall care and development of students, diminished financial support and shifting patterns of enrollment.(Evans 1989) Lortie (1975) and Cuban (1984) see patterns among teacher values of conservatism, presentism and individualism as daily strategies for institutional survival. Teachers talk about the value of their students and student learning, not the school organization. When bureaucracy conflicts with "what is good for kids, teachers ignore, minimally comply and quietly subvert superior's demands." 44 One response to the pressure of the bureaucratic system in a work organization is for the employee to determine the degree of commitment related to his/her central life interest and satisfaction. The work of Robert Dubin, "Person and Organization" in assessing central life interests, suggests that people can delegate a portion of energy and interest, time and intellect toward their career while maintaining priority outside the workplace. The consequence of this is that while participating in work, a general attitude of apathy and indifference prevails. The response to the demands of the institution is to satisfy the minimum expectations of required behavior. Teaching as a career is a subjective, constructed reality (Cuban 1984, Lortie 1975.,Lieberman 1988). Lortie's research showed that many devoted a portion of their energy 49 to teaching while maintaining the importance of either a family commitment, or other outside employment to supplement their income, or a hobby to which they devote their excess energy. Larry Cuban, How Teachers Taught (1984), furthers this argument of displaced interest among teachers by suggesting that "persons attracted to teaching seek classroom contact with children, appreciate the flexible work schedule, acknowledge the limited financial rewards and adhere to the service ethic. Women, entering teaching, are attracted by the flexibility of work schedules in meeting family obligations. Men, entering teaching, often leave in search of higher salaries, more influence and recognition. The argument runs that men and women, for differing reasons, invest little energy in altering their working conditions. Recruitment tends to bring in people who affirm rather than challenge the status quo."45 Many persons will admit frustration with the system: and acknowledge the flaws in the current structure, without endorsing change. The decline to support changes may come from a unwillingness to alter the status quo, an inability to commit time and energy to the change process or a personal assessment that the rewards do not outweigh the costs. Such observations were made by Kathleen Devaney and Gary Sykes in Lieberman's Building a Professional Culture in Schools.(1988) when talking about capable teachers balancing the obligations with the rewards of professional salary and 50 status and choosing to decline the offer, (p.3) The success of reform proposals rests on the active support of teachers. It is teachers' time and energy that drive the reform and it will only be successful if teachers believe it makes sense. It places severe demands on the already precious resource of teacher time. (Carnoy, 1990) It takes time in meetings to draft educational goals, get parents involved and make site level decisions. It is realistic to acknowledge the stress associated with this demand for more time and energy at the possible expense of family time and outside commitments. The traditional answer to the time issue is increased salary, as in Rochester, New York. But more income does not necessarily answer the question of time commitment. The success of the restructuring effort rests on the ability of teachers to commit time and energy there as well as/in place of/ classroom commitment to students and personal commitment to family, home and personal endeavors. This ability and willingness to commit personal time and energy is crucial to the reform efforts and worthy of study. The researcher will use this study to assess the support by Michigan public school teachers of structural changes in the school organization that may arise from teacher empowerment. 51 TEACHER BEHAVIORS IN DISTRICTS EXPERIMENTING WITH REFORMS Much has been written about reforms and restructuring efforts in funded programs, such as the Coalition of Essential Schools where the key to decentralizing schools is understanding children's needs rather than teacher's motives. The Carnegie Task Force focuses on changing the nature of the "contract" between schools and teachers, while the Coalition focuses on a pedagogical plan. Rochester, New York and Dade County, Florida are school districts that worked with teachers' unions and contracts to create new working environments for teachers. A critical dimension of the reform in Dade County is the strong connection between union and district administrators. Schools participating in the restructuring effort requested more than 100 waivers from the union contract, board rules and regulations and state rules and regulation, which were granted. Restructuring involved changing many of the conditions in place. One problem is the lack of incentives for teachers to alter long entrenched practices. Traditionally, educators have been rewarded for maintaining the status quo rather than for venturing in new directions. Adam Urbanski, president of the Rochester Teachers Association, says, "Teachers tend to teach the way they have 52 been taught. Deep down inside, teachers-like the general public- hold suspect any school that does not resemble the school they remember. We are victims of our own experiences,... and that, I think, is the biggest obstacle.1146 Adam Urbanksi says that "although many teachers have agreed to the changes in theory, others are still resistant. And reforms within individual schools are not coming easily. Even when teachers are given the opportunity to radically alter the way schools operate, they may focus on the day-today-details of lunchroom duty and hall monitoring rather than on more fundamental changes in instruction.1,47 Time is another major problem in schools. Teachers complain that they already are overworked without taking on additional responsibilities. No one has restructured schools in a way that gives teachers more time to perform their new roles. Instead, most schools have asked teachers to take on new tasks without relieving them of the old ones. Reformers acknowledge that districts and teachers are tentative about taking the initial steps to restructure. This study be used to assess the level of support by Michigan public school teachers, both collectively and individually, for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. 53 Endnotes 1. Sarason, Seymour B. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change (Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971) 63. 2. McLaughlin, Milbrey Wallin and Sylvia Mei-Ling Yee, "School as a Place to Have a Career," in Building a Professional Culture in Schools, ed. Ann Lieberman (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), 40. 3. Ibid., 41. 4. Cooper, Myrna "Whose Culture is it, Anyway?" in Building a Professional Culture in Schools, ed. Ann Lieberman, (New York: Teachers College Press, 1988), 50-1. 5. Carnegie Forum on Education and The Economy, Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York: 1986), 3. 6. Ibid., 58. 7. Holmes Group, Toromorrow's Teachers: A Report pf The Holmes Group (East Lansing, Mi.:The Holmes Group, 1986), 67. 8. Lieberman, Ann, Building a Professional Culture in Schools.(New York: Teachers College Press, 1988) vii. 9. McLaughlin and Yee," School as a Place to Have a Career," 41. 10. Ferrow, Charles, Complex Organizations; A critical Essay (New York, Random House,1986), 86-7. 11. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University Press, 1938), 165. 12. Johnson, Norris Brock, West Haven (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 22. 13. Ibid., 24-5. 14. Goodlad, John L, A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future ( New York: MacGraw Hill, 1984), 93. 15. Ibid., 94. 16. Shanker, Albert, "Teachers Must Take Charge," Educational Leadership. September 1986, 12-3. 54 17. Cuban, Larry, How Teachers Taught (New York: Longman Inc, 1984), 242-3. 18. Tucker, Marc and David Mandel," The Carnegie Report-A Call for Redesigning the Schools," Phi Delta Kappan. September 1986, 25. 19. Carnegie , 61. 20 Gideonse, Hendrik D . , "Organizing Schools to Encourage Teacher Inquiry" in Restructuring Schools. Elmore et al. 114. 21. Carnegie, 61. 22. Lortie, Daniel C . , Schoolteacher. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1975), 212. 23. Ibid., 183. 24. Ibid.,194. 25. Sizer, Theodore, Horace's Compromise (Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1984), 180-2. 26. Ibid., 186. 27. Holmes, 10-12. 28. Ibid., 41. 29. Grant, 221. 30. Ibid., 22. 31. Sizer, 206-9. 32. Wise, Arthur, "Six Steps to Teacher Professionalism," Educational Leadership Vol 47, No,7 April 1990, 58. 33. DeVaney, Kathleen and Gary Sykes, "Making the Case for Professionalism," in Building a Professional Culture in Schools. ed Ann Lieberman, 7. 34. Grant, 225. 35. Raywid, Mary Anne, "Rethinking School Governance" in Restructuring Schools. Richard Elmore et al., 176. 36. Grant, 182. 37. Raywid, 153. 38. Ibid., 154. 55 39. Ibid., 177. 40. Ibid., 178. 41. Grant, 172. 42. Ibid.,172. 43. Raywid, 173. 44. Cuban, 73-75. 45. Ibid., 243. 46. Olson, Lynn, " A Revolution of Rising Expectations," Teacher Magazine. Vol.l No.l September/October 1989, 63. 47. Ibid., 63. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE The researcher's purpose in this study was to enable the researcher to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers give the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. This chapter will describe and explain the research design and the procedure for conducting this study. The basic research instrument used in this study was a survey. Surveys are conducted for the purpose of making descriptive assertions about some population. They measure the distributions of a trait across the population, rather than explaining why the trait exists. (Babbie, 1973) A survey was used to assess the support of teachers for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment by asking questions related to their attitudes, beliefs and values about the school structure. Survey Research Questionnaires are the most widely used method for collecting information about people's attitudes and behavior. Sudman and Bradburn, Asking Questions (1986) say that the terms "attitude," "opinion," and "belief," all refer to the psychological states that are in principle 57 unverifiable except by the report of the individual. attitude gives rise to many opinions. An The term belief may include a normative component related to religion, moral or proper behavior. Sudman and Bradburn suggest there are three ways to measure attitude which can be used in a questionnaire. The affective or evaluative measure asks if the respondent favors or disfavors the item. The cognitive measure asks what the respondent knows about the item or topic. The action measures the respondent's willingness or intention to do something with regard to the item or attitude (p.123). According to Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods (1973), survey research does not permit the direct measurement of behavior however survey research does permit the indirect measurement of behavior. Survey research can also examine prospective behavior, either real or hypothetical. It is useful to create hypothetical situations and ask the respondent how he would behave. The hypothetical situation, in this study, is the set of structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. An attitude, belief or value can be held toward this specific hypothetical situation by Michigan public school teachers, (p.137) Survey Construction Developing the questionnaire was an 10 step process. 1. A review of literature for selection of appropriate themes, sentences, or phrases was done. 2. A first draft was reviewed by the students of the dissertation writing seminar at Michigan State. 3. A rewrite of the first draft to clarify dimensions and alter the format of the questionnaire was done. 4. A second draft was reviewed by a sample group of 6 public school teachers for clarity and fluency. 5. The second draft was administered as a pre-test to a small group of 20 elementary and secondary teachers employed in the Farmington, Hartland, Hazel Park, Rochester and Southfield school districts. 6. The second draft was presented to the dissertation committee for review and was submitted to receive study approval. 7. A third draft was written with the help of Dr. Woznick to increase the comprehensiveness of the survey. 8. The third draft was administered to MSU students enrolled in the extern program for reactions. 9. A fourth revision was written as a result of that feedback, using the primary content of the second draft. 10. The fourth draft was administered as a pilot test to 65 public school teachers employed in Brighton, Flint, Hazel Park, Holly, Lansing, Livonia, Olivet, and Whitmore Lake. 59 Questionnaire Format Teachers were asked to read approximately forty statements related to school organization. Two statements per dimension were directed at each of Barnard's criteria as well as at individual willingness to commit personal time and energy. Additional statements were added to measure individual priorities, expertise and willingness to gain expertise in any of the four dimensions. Approximately 10 statements were used to gather demographic data. Respondents rated each statement using a Likert scale of 1-5: (One) Strongly Disagree, (Two) Disagree Somewhat, (Three) Neither Disagree Nor Agree (Four) Agree Somewhat and (Five) Strongly Agree. The Likert Scale is a rating scale and able to provide data on each item scored. According to Robinson, Athanasious and Head, "Measures of Occupational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics," (1969), two items are sufficient to constitute an adequate scale for the measurement of a criterion (p.4). A high score in any of the four dimensions would indicate a teacher's agreement with a pattern of statements reflecting Barnard's criteria and be indicative of a favorable attitude or willingness to support a structural change in that area. 60 Validity Content validity was determined by the inspection of the test items by the dissertation committee, as well as by the comments of those pre-reading each version of the questionnaire and pilot test. Every effort was made to assure that the test items related specifically and clearly to the theme of structural change associated with teacher empowerment. Reliability Reliability is the degree of consistency. External reliability is addressed because all teachers in the selected districts are invited to participate, therefore the characteristics of the population of teachers could be represented in this sample. Mehrens and Lehmann, Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology (1972), use the split-half method of estimating reliability as one measure of internal consistency because the two equivalent forms are contained within the same test. A measure of one half of the test is correlated with the other half. The appropriate formula using a special case of the Spearman Brown prophecy formula was applied. of the test correlated at .62 the whole test was .77 The two halves The estimate reliability of 61 Survey Sample Methodology Survey samples must represent the populations from which they are drawn, if they are to provide useful estimates about the characteristics of that populations. (Babbie p.79) For the purpose of this study the population was defined: Element: collected. The unit about which the information is Individual Michigan public school teachers, currently employed during the 1990-91 school year werethe unit of analysis. Population: Michigan public school teachers, currently employed in the 1990-91 school year were the population for this study. Sampling Unit: the sampling units. Michigan public school districts were Information was obtained about the number of teachers employed in each district as listed in the Michigan Educational Directory. Sampling Frame: Rather than use all the 526 school districts in Michigan, this study used the 100 Michigan public school districts which were surveyed by the Detroit Free Press to gather data for articles on school funding. The list of 100 Michigan school districts, was printed in the March 6, 1988, Detroit Free Press article, "The Haves, The Have-Nots." The article stated " Free Press reporters surveyed 100 selected school districts to compile data on 62 what programs students are offered, what school districts spend and the sources of their funding. All southeastern Michigan public school districts are included, except for Clawson, Saline and Milan, whose superintendents declined to participate. Selected out state districts are included for comparison." This study employed a stratified cluster sample as described by Scheaffer, Mendenhall and Off, Elementary Survey Sampling (1986). A stratified sample is one obtained by separating the elements into non-overlapping groups (strata) and then selecting a sample from each stratum. A cluster sample is a sample in which each sampling unit is a collection or cluster of elements. Cluster sampling can be combined with stratified sampling, in the sense that the population may be divided into strata and a cluster sample can then be selected from each stratum, (p.217) Cluster sampling for this study began with the assumption that the 100 districts selected for the article by the Free Press, were selected to represent Michigan school districts using some form of stratified rather than random sampling. A telephone conversation with one of the writers, Cassandra Spratling, did determine that a statistical approach was used to select these districts. Selection from this group of 100 districts was possible for use in this study because this sample has the same type of school organizational structure as the population. teachers employed by these districts have the same The 63 characteristics as the general population of teachers. The use of this group of 100 school districts did enable the researcher to begin with accurate data on the districts for comparisons of economy and funding, curricular program, staffing ratios and student population. Sampling Procedure: The focus of this study was not on Michigan school districts, but on Michigan public school teachers. In order to draw a manageable sample that would represent characteristics of the population of teachers, a stratified cluster sample was drawn. The list of 100 school districts was stratified and a cluster was drawn from each stratum. The cluster size was defined as all teachers currently employed in that selected district. The exact number of the cluster was taken from the Michigan Educational Directory and later corrected by school district data at the central office and building level. PRISM -Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets The list of 100 school districts was stratified for sampling by coding each district according to zipcode information. The Prism (Potential Rating Index for zip Markets) computer program designed was by Jonathan Robbin * and explained by Michael Weiss, The Clustering of America 64 (1989). The premise of the Prism program is that in fifty states there are forty common clusters of lifestyles. America has a pluralistic society, but clustering focuses on the community level. The forty clusters are formed by demographic data and lifestyle surveys. The Clustering of America shows that neighborhoods separated geographically can be virtually identical in lifestyle. Census data show that most people tend to move where they can afford to live, with people who are like themselves. Cluster rating of zipcodes for zipquality is based on rankings of income, home value, education and occupation. The cluster system simply holds that neighborhoods are reasonably stable. Within each cluster, neighbors tend to lead similar lives, drive similar cars and hold similar interests. While clusters prove that neighborhoods separated geographically can still be identical in lifestyle, each cluster has a separate identity and lifestyle pattern. Each cluster determines how to properly raise its children and pass on its values because income, education and household composition help influence neighborhood settlement. Schools reflect the values of the communities in which they are built based on this neighborhood concept. In attempting to get a representative sample of teachers, teachers were assumed to be residents of their school community in a figurative sense. Each school district was coded for the zipcodes of the administration building and all school building addresses listed in the 1990 Michigan 65 Education Directory and Buyer's Guide. The program provided data on population, average income, average level of education, average cost of houses, and population percentage of households with children aged 6-17 yrs., who would be eligible for attending public schools. The sample of 100 school districts was ranked by these demographic data. The one hundred districts were divided into four quartiles. The next selection process was to find the district in the median (11-13) range of each group of 25 districts for cluster selection. Selection of the midrange districts eliminated the possibility of randomly selecting districts such as West Bloomfield, Birmingham, and Bloomfield Hills. These three districts at the top of the scale represent a jump of $40,000 in medium home value and $20,000 in average household income above the other districts in the stratum. They would be classified more as outlyers when selecting representatives of the population and for drawing relationships to the teachers as residents of that neighborhood community. The selected mid-range districts were then compared in size so that similar clusters could be selected. The districts selected were: Avondale T=154 Center Line T=182 Inkster T=175 Lamphere T=160 Cluster Sampling involved surveying all teachers 66 currently employed at all levels (elementary, middle school and high school buildings) in these selected districts. The size of the sample was to be T=671, corrected then by district and building level information. A sample of 600 is used by the Michigan Education Association, according to Research Department personnel, when polling its membership of 85,000. A sample size of 600 is appropriate for a population of 46,000 teachers (teachers reported in the sampling frame) for survey precision and reporting using an alpha of .05, giving a 95% confidence interval. Selected Districts For each of the four selected districts, letters were sent out to invite the district's participation. The letter explained the purpose of the study and asked for cooperation. During interviews, phone conversations and personal visits, district concerns about how the data was to be used were addressed. Districts were assured that the study focused on Michigan public school teachers, and that the results were to be reported on the combined responses of teachers without any district comparisons. Contacts were made with Mr. James Steeby, Assistant Superintendent for the Avondale School District, Dr.Linda Farr, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction for Center Line Schools, Mr. Charles Johnson, Executive Assistant for Inkster Schools and Dr. John White, Assistant Superintendent of Lamphere Schools. They provided permission for the study and 67 significant cooperation. District data information gave an adjusted total of the study sample size to 602. Inkster school district had a smaller teacher count (143) than was listed in the directory. In Center Line two elementary schools elected not to participate. According to Babbie, the appearance of a research worker, either delivering the questionnaire, picking it up or both, leads to a higher response rate than is normal for straightforward mail surveys.(p.159) Distribution of the surveys was handled by personal visits to each school building in the four selected districts. In some buildings, visits were made with the building administrator. Primary contacts were with building staff. Each distribution packet contained a letter to the building principal, surveys for the teachers with instructional cover letters, extra surveys and a large return envelope with designated pick up date listed on the envelope along with the researcher's name and telephone number. The time frame for distribution and return was approximately 10 days. When the first survey returns were picked up, additional surveys, a letter to the building administrator asking for help in reaching a higher return rate and a second response envelope were delivered. When second returns were picked up, additional surveys and arrangements were made for third pick ups. In two cases, additional surveys were sent to teachers using the district office mailing, to increase returns. The rationale was that a more familiar name and district relationship might 68 encourage non respondents to complete their surveys. For two districts four survey sets were distributed and returned. The time frame for the survey study extended two months to cover response time for each survey set delivered. Assumptions 1. It was assumed that teachers, through professional magazines, journals, educational association materials and presentations, are aware of reform proposals that would create structural changes associated with teacher empowerment. 2. It was assumed that teachers are familiar with the terminology common in major reform reports and writings such as differentiated staffing and national certification and that cues may be used to increase the recognition of these terms. An example would be using "different levels of teaching responsibilities and different staffing patterns" to refer to the concept of differentiated staffing. 3. It was assumed that teachers accurately reported their level of support for structural change and their individual level of commitment to such changes. It is assumed that some reflection was used when responding to this questionnaire. 4. It was assumed that each teacher received the survey and attached cover letter in a manner and condition that would enable the voluntary completion of the questionnaire 69 within a reasonable time frame. Limitations This study was limited to those schools in each district that decided to participate in this study. In one district, two elementary schools elected not to participate in this study. This limitation did not affect the quality of the cluster because 3 of the 5 elementary schools in that district did participate and the researcher was assured that teachers in those two buildings were not unlike teachers in the three that did participate. A severe limitation of this study was the time-table used to gather data. It must be recognized that voluntary completion of' surveys relies on the amount of discretionary free time available during the survey period and the relative priority of that task. The original timeline was developed to elicit optimum teacher response in January, right after the holiday break and before the change of semester. It appeared to be a time period when teachers would have some available time to complete a survey. Conversations with teachers involved in the pre-test led to a recommended time frame of winter. Those teachers indicated it was a period with fewer immediate demands on their time. Schools resumed the week of January 7, 1991 so the survey period was to begin January 14. The first survey materials were distributed 2 days 70 prior to the initial phase of Desert Storm Operation that began January 16, 1991. The attention of this nation was on the Middle East and discretionary time was spent watching or listening to CNN and other news broadcasts. Because of the national events, the first set of materials and ten day response line was scrapped. A second set of surveys was prepared for distribution the week of January 28, with returns due the middle of February. This time frame included the change of semester schedules for teachers and midwinter recess, reducing the anticipated return rate. Additional surveys were distributed in mid-February with a pick up date the week of February 25. The Desert Storm Ground Operation began on February 24, 1991. Even with administrative appeals to their staff, the challenge of competing for discretionary time with national interests and events, as well as classroom responsibilities and personal schedules, caused response rates to be low. Intervention was necessary. The researcher decided that another set of surveys needed to be distributed. Personal appeals had been made to the building administrators to assist in the return of the surveys. One group of teachers completed the surveys in a staff meeting. At this point, central office administrators were asked to help. Survey questionnaires were sent out in two districts from central office, with the intent of increasing response rate. The researcher removed the university cover letter 71 and included an appeal from someone known to the teachers in the district in order to enhance return rates. This was done the first two weeks in March. The final surveys were picked up from the district central offices March 12-15. One district called March 20, about additional surveys which were picked up on March 22, 1991. The entire survey period amounted to two months. The response rate did reach 52.16% at the end of that time, which is considered adequate for data analysis. The survey dateline could not be extended beyond the middle of March because of the timing of district financial forecasts and Governor Engler's proposed cuts to state budgets and recapture plans. Districts that anticipate cuts in fall spending must issue reduction in force/lay off notices to teachers in the spring, according to teacher contracts. The immediate concerns of staffing and assignment would override the priority of survey response among teachers. 72 Hypothesis Testing In order to assess the level of support of Michigan public school teachers for structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment, a questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was designed to extrapolate attitudes toward changes in the four dimensions of school structure: Part I Spatial Dimension Part II Occupational Dimension Part III Hierarchical Dimension Part IV Functional Dimension The questionnaire was comprised of statements which operationalize beliefs and opinions about the status quo, the criticisms it generates and the suggested reforms in terms of Barnard's acceptance of authority. For each dimension, teachers were asked to respond to statements based on the fofive criterion: 1. Do they agree with the description of the dimension within the present system? 2. Do they agree with the criticism aimed at it? 3. Do they believe the changes in school structure would improve student learning? (consistent with the goals of schools) 4. Do they believe they (teachers) would benefit from the 73 changes in the school structure? 5 Will they commit their time and energy to making changes in the school structure? (able to comply) To assess teachers'level of support and to draw conclusions about teacher support, it is necessary to analyze the data as it relates to the independent variables. It is important to pinpoint whether teachers, as a group, support change or if pockets of support exist among certain groups of teachers with identifiable characteristics. This was the reason for using six independent variables. The four major data questions ask what, if any, differences exist between groups of teachers in their level of acceptance across the four dimensions. The general hypothesis for testing each of the data sets asks whether there were differences between groups of teachers in the levels of agreement related to the independent variables of gender, age, level of education, teaching experience, level of assignment and career satisfaction. Data Question #1 What differences, if any, exist between groups of teachers in their level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Spatial Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment? Data Question # 2 74 What differences, if any, exist between groups of teachers in their level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Occupational Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment? Data Question #3 What differences, if any, exist between groups of teachers in their level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Hierarchical Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment? Data Question #4 What differences, if any, exist between groups of teachers in their level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Functional Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment? Hypothesis #l-#4 There is no difference between groups of teachers in their level of agreement. This hypothesis will be tested using each of six independent variables. Hypothesis testing: independent variable: Gender There is no mean score difference between males and females. H0 : Females = ^ Males 75 : H q is false ( 2 tailed test p= .05) Hypothesis testing: independent variable: Age There is no mean score difference between age categories. Hq : : Ui = U2= U 3= U4 H0 is false ( 2 tailed test Where: 1= 2— 3= 4= 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 + years years years years of of of of p= .05) age age age age Hypothesis testing:independent variable: Level of education There is no mean score difference between teachers' levels of education (degree held). H0 : UB= UM = UM + Hj_: H0 is false (2 tailed test p = .05) Where: B = Bachelor's degree/plus hours M = Master's degree M+= Master's plus hours/Specialist/Doctorate Hypothesis testing: independent variable: Current level of teaching 76 There is no mean score difference between elementary, middle school and high school teachers, assignment) H0 : UE = UM = UH : H0 is false ( 2 tailed test p = .05) Where: E=Elementary school M=Middle school/Jr. high H=High school (level of 77 Hypothesis testing: independent variable: Years of teaching experience There is no mean score difference between teachers using categories of years of teaching experience. H0 : U1=U2=U3=U4=U5=U6 H^: H0 is false ( 2 tailed test p = .05) Where: 1 2 3 4 5 6 = Less than 5 years teaching experience = 5 throughlO years = 11 through 16 years = 17 through 21 years = 22 through 26 years = more than 26 years Hypothesis testing: independent variable: Career satisfaction There is no mean score difference between teachers who say their highest level of career satisfaction is their current assignment and those that selected a different option. H0 : US= UD Hx : H0 is false ( 2 tailed test p=.05) 78 RELATED RESEARCH QUESTIONS Part II ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITY In which dimension, do teachers identify changes and restructuring as being most important to them? The research approach taken was to have teachers number the four dimensions to show the the level of importance that change in each holds for them. Descriptive frequencies were used to report general trends. The mean score from each dimension was tested against the six independent variables. 79 Part III PERSONAL PARTICIPATION PROFILE 1. In which dimension(s) are teachers willing to commit time to restructure efforts? 2. In which dimension(s) do teachers indicate an expertise? 3. In which dimensions are teachers willing to get additional training to provide expertise? Again, descriptive frequencies were used to report trends. The mean scores for each response set were tested against the six independent variables. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA Introduction The researcher's purpose in this study was to assess the level of support that Michigan public school teachers have for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. Questionnaires were distributed to Michigan public school teachers during the month of January with follow ups in February and in March. Data results are measurements of survey responses collected from the stratified cluster sample of Michigan public school teachers during this period. As described in Chapter III, the survey instrument was designed to gather information about the attitudes, beliefs and values of teachers toward changes in the structural dimension of public schools that may accompany teacher empowerment. Statements were arranged in each of the four dimensions to follow the criteria set by Chester Barnard for acceptance of an order or communication. Teachers were asked to read each statement and rate their level of agreement using a Likert scale. The responses were then coded to answer the research questions presented in Chapter III. 80 81 Demographic Information The individual school districts gave permission for the survey research project based on complete anonymity. It was agreed that the focus of the study was on Michigan public school teachers and not those teachers in selected districts. The four districts have one high school and one middle school per district and concern was expressed about reporting data cells. The researcher proposed that in the break out of data, rj£ data would be reported by district and that only aggregated data would be reported within the dissertation. Administrators in two districts had reservations about test item #34 which then became an invalid file. The solution to the representativeness of the sample pool was that each school district and building was visited at least 3 times and contacted as many as 5 times to reach a survey sample return rate of 52.16% Listed in Tables 4.1 through 4.6 are the descriptive statistics of the demographic information given by the participants who returned the survey. 314 respondents in the sample pool. In all, there were The requested demographic information included gender, age, level of education (degrees held), the level of their current assignment, years of teaching experience and their career satisfaction. 82 Gender Table 4.1— Distribution of Teachers by Gender GENDER Female Male Total Missing cases NUMBER PERCENT 214 69.71 % 93 30.29 % 307 100.00 % 7 Age Table 4.2— Distribution of Teachers by Age AGE GROUP NUMBER PERCENT 20-29 years 32 11.85 % 30-39 years 48 17.78 % 40-49 years 122 45.19 % 68 25.19 % 270 100.00 % 50 and above Total Missing Cases 44 Response Percent 86% 83 Gender Approximately seventy percent of the respondents were male and thirty percent were female. Age The data in Table 4.2 show that the highest percentage of responses (45%) was from the age group of 40-49 years. Those teachers over 49 years of age accounted for 25% of the sample while those under 40 years of age accounted for 29.5%. Data were collapsed to these four groups for frequency analysis. 22 through 62 years. The actual range of age reported was Fourteen percent of the survey respondents chose not to answer this question or gave a response that could not be coded. Level of Education-Dearee Held Table 4.3— Distribution by Level of Teacher's Education DEGREE HELD NUMBER PERCENT Bachelor's 30 9.9 % Bachelor's Plus Hours 81 26.6 % 107 35.2 % 79 26.0 % 7 2.3 % 304 100.0 % Master's Master's Plus Hours Doctorate Total Missing Cases 10 84 Level of education Level of education data showed that thirty-five percent of the respondents had received a Master's degree and that twenty-six percent had hours beyond the Master's. The Bachelor's degree was held by nine percent of the teachers. Collapsing categories showed that those teachers with a Bachelor's or Bachelor's plus hours equaled thirty-six percent. Those with a Master's equaled thirty-five percent and those with a hours or degrees above a Master's totalled twenty-eight percent. Level of Current Teaching Assignment TABLE 4.4— Distribution by Level of Assignment LEVEL NUMBER PERCENT Elementary/Pre-Primary 118 38.94 % Middle School/Jr. High 64 21.12 % 100 33.00 % 21 6.93 % 303 100.00 % High School More Than 1 Level Total Missing Cases 11 85 Level of assignment The highest percentage of teacher respondents were at the elementary level (39%) followed by high school (33%) and middle school/junior high (21%). Seven percent of the respondents served students at more than one level. Most written feedback on this question referred to a middle school/high school combination such as instrumental music or a multi-level assignment. Because school reform proposals address changes in the school structure related to the elementary, middle school and high school settings, the fourth category was rolled into the missing cases for purposes of analysis. 86 Years of Teaching Experience Table 4.5— Distribution by Years of Teaching Experience GROUP NUMBER PERCENT Under 5 years 35 11.4 % 5 -10 years 37 12.1 % 11-16 years 42 13.7 % 17-21 years 74 24.1 % 22-26 years 71 23.1 % 26 + years 48 15.6 % 306 100.0 % Total Missing 8 According to the data in Table 4.5, teachers with 17-21 years of experience totalled 23% of the respondents, similar to those with 22-26 years. Teachers having more than 16 years of experience accounted for 62.75% of the respondents. Teachers with less than 17 years totalled 37.25% of the respondents. 87 Level Of Career Satisfaction Table 4.6— Distribution of Career Satisfaction CATEGORY NUMBER Current teaching assign. 162 53.6 % Different teaching assign. 31 10.3 % Support position 28 9.3 % Administrative position 22 7.3 % Continuing/Higher education 38 12.6 % Outside education 21 7.0 % 302 100.0 % TOTAL Missing PERCENT 12 Level of Career Satisfaction The figures in Table 4.6 show that given those select options, the majority of teachers surveyed (53.6%) indicate the situation that best describes their highest level of career fulfillment and satisfaction is their current teaching assignment. Approximately twenty-seven percent selected alternative assignments within the typical public school setting. Ten percent of the teachers selected a different teaching position while nine percent indicated they wished for a support position. Examples of this option on the survey were counselor, reading or media specialist. 88 Seven percent of the teachers surveyed indicated a preference for an administrative position while approximately the same percent (7%) wished for a position outside of education. Twelve percent indicated that their highest level of career satisfaction would come from a position in continuing and/or higher education. This data set was collapsed for analysis into two cells: the current teaching assignment (53%) and all other options (47%). This demographic information was computer generated by statPac Gold prior to the collapsing of data for cross tabulations. 89 TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS DATA QUESTION #1 SPATIAL DIMENSION What are the differences, if any, between groups of teachers in their level of agreement with the structural changes in the Spatial Dimension that may accompany teacher empowerment? Hypothesis # 1 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward structural changes in the Spatial Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Table 4.7 is a summary table of descriptive statistics of the survey responses to statements contained in the Spatial Dimension using a 5 point Likert scale. A score of five indicated strong agreement, three indicated the respondent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement and one indicated strong disagreement. 90 Table 4.7— Mean Score Response for the Spatial Dimension N Mean 1. Bldg. separate people 310 3.23 1.18 2. Day sched. by admin. 313 3.18 1.44 3. Class as indep. unit 312 3.27 1.22 4. Teach/learn limited by time 313 3.60 1.30 5. Learn improve/flex, sched 312 3.70 1.15 6. Learn imp./vary class size 312 4.00 0.99 7. Flex sched/coop plan for T 312 3.98 0.96 8. Flex sched/tirae/room for T 309 3.76 1.02 9. Input/school day sched. 311 4.15 0.85 10. Input/ bldg space usage .312 4.00 0.91 Item S.D. The statistical analysis used was a comparison of the means for each of the ten statements against the independent variables: gender, age, level of education (degree held), years of teaching experience, level of current assignment and career satisfaction. The ANOVA was run by STATPAC GOLD for each statement, setting a significance of p = .05 and a two-tailed test. There was significance across the Spatial Dimension using the independent variable level of current assignment. Four statements were significant using the independent variable of gender and one statement was 91 significant using the independent variable of years of teaching experience. Table 4.8 - Table 4.15 show the significant differences between teachers at the elementary, middle school and high school levels for the first eight statements in the survey. In Table 4.8 high school teachers were significantly different from elementary teachers in agreement with building design but the largest difference is between middle school teachers, with the highest agreement, and elementary teachers. In Table 4.9 secondary teachers were significantly different from elementary teachers. Middle school teachers had the highest level of agreement while elementary teachers as a group disagreed that their day is scheduled by administrators. In Table 4.10 secondary teachers showed significantly higher agreement than elementary teachers. High school teachers had the highest level of agreement with the statement that each classroom works as an independent unit. In Table 4.11 secondary teachers had a significantly higher level of agreement than elementary teachers that teaching and learning are limited by time periods. Taking into account the use of time periods in scheduling the day at the middle school and high school levels, secondary teachers as a group perceive the criticism to be more valid. In Table 4.12 middle school and elementary teachers as groups showed stronger agreement with the link between 92 improved student learning and flexible scheduling than high school teachers. In Table 4.13 middle school teachers agreed more strongly that varying the size of classes and rooms would improve student learning than high school teachers. Teachers in all three groups agreed somewhat with this concept as consistent with the goal of improved student learning. In Table 4.14 middle school and elementary teachers indicated an agreement level that differed significantly from high school teachers, They agreed somewhat that flexible scheduling would benefit them by enabling them to plan cooperatively with other teachers. In Table 4.15 teachers at the elementary and middle school levels had a significantly higher level of agreement with the statement that flexible scheduling of time and room assignment would benefit teachers, than those at the high school. From this set of ANOVA tables, it can be seen that middle school teachers as a group responded differently and often rated statements higher than elementary and high school teachers. Middle school teachers, as a group, were more apt to agree somewhat with; the descriptions, the criticisms, the consistency of reform proposals with the goal of student learning and the benefit to teachers of these changes. 93 Table 4.8— ANOVA for Test Item #1- Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — -- WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3-HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: SCHOOL BLDGS DESIGNED TO SEPARATE PEOPLE Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 N 117 62 99 Mean Standard Dev. 3.0513 3.5323 3.3333 1.2095 1.1835 1.1339 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 2/5 277 Sum of Squares 10.2247 381.1278 391.3525 Mean Squares 5.1124 Significance Level 3.6888 0.0262 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.6009 p = .0098 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 94 Table 4.9— ANOVA for Test Item #2-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: TEACHING DAY SCHEDULED BY ADMINISTRATORS Factor A : LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 118 63 100 Mean Standard Dev. 2.4153 3.9206 3.6400 1.2495 1.2482 1.3597 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 278 280 Sum of Squares 124.7078 462.2957 587.0036 Mean Squares 62.3539 1.6629 F Significance Level 37.4963 0.0000 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Noter Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 7.4814 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 6.9875 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 95 Table 4.10— ANOVA for Test Item #3-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT ~ — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: EACH CLASSROOM WORKS AS INDEPENDENT UNIT Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A ) Level 2 (A) Level 3 Source of Variation A Error Total N 117 63 100 DF 2 277 279 Mean 3.0855 3.3175 3.5600 Anova Summary Table Sum of Mean Squares Squares 12.1496 401.4361 413.5857 Standard Dev. 6.0748 1.4492 1.2565 1.2550 1.1039 F 4.1918 Significance Level 0.0161 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.8944 p = .0041 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 96 Table 4.11— ANOVA for Test Item #4-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: TEACHING/LEARNING LIMITED BY TIME PERIODS Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH ' YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 118 63 100 Mean Standard Dev. 3.0847 4.0794 3.9000 1.3686 1.0049 1.1934 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 278 280 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 54.8030 422.7557 477.5587 27.4015 1.5207 F 18.0190 Significance Level 0.0000 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 5.1690 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 4.8639 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 97 Table 4.12— ANOVA for Test Item #5-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: LEARNNG WOULD IMPRV WITH FLEX SCHEDULING Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 117 63 100 Mean Standard Dev. 3.8034 3.8730 3.4700 1.0687 0.9417 1.1411 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total Sum of DF Squares 2 277 279 8.4272 316.3728 324.8000 Mean Squares 4.2136 1.1421 Significance Level 3.6892 0.0262 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2908 p = .0227 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.3444 p = .0198 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 98 Table 4.13— ANOVA for Test Item #6-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — -— WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: VARYING CLASS SIZE WOULD IMPRV LEARNING Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 118 63 99 Mean 4.1017 4.2222 3.8081 Standard Dev. 0.9642 0.8696 1.0943 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 277 279 Sum of Squares 7.8029 273.0221 280.8250 Significance Level Mean Squares 3.9015 0.9856 3.9583 0.0202 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.1699 p = .0309 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.5883 p = .0102 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 99 Table 4.14— ANOVA for Test Item #7-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: FLEX SCHEDULNG WOULD ENABLE COOP PLANNG Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition N 117 63 100 (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 Mean Standard Dev. 4.1282 4.1905 3.7000 0.8861 0.8955 1.0299 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares A Error Total 2 277 279 13.1766 245.7912 258.9679 Mean Squares 6.5883 0.8873 Significance Level 7.4249 0.0007 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.3379 p = .0010 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 3.2371 p = .0014 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 100 Table 4.15— ANOVA for Test Item #8-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — ~ WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: FLEX SCHEDULING WOULD BENEFIT TEACHERS Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N Mean 114 63 100 3.9035 3.8730 3.5200 Standard Dev. 0.9864 0.9417 1.0776 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 274 276 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 8.9115 279.8827 288.7942 4.4558 1.0215 Significance Level 4.3621 0.0136 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.7695 p = .0060 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.1715 p = .0308 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 101 Middle school teachers did not differ from elementary or high school teachers in their desire to give input on these changes. With a total mean score of 4.15 and 4.10, teachers at all levels seemed to indicate a desire to give input on scheduling the school day and the arrangement of assigned space. Table 4.16 shows the frequency patterns for the two responses indicating a willingness to participate that could be interpreted as a collective level of moderate agreement with the Chester Barnard's criteria. In completing the ANOVA for the Spatial Dimension, the independent variable of gender was significant in four test items. In Table 4.17 males agreed more that their teaching day was scheduled by administrators which may related to their assignments at the secondary level. In Tables 4.18 and Table 4.19 female teachers showed moderate agreement that flexible scheduling would improve student learning and that varying the size of classes and rooms would improve student learning. In Table 4.20 female teachers were more supportive of the concept that flexible scheduling would enable teachers to plan cooperatively. 102 Table 4.16— Frequency of Response for Input School Day Schedule Likert Scale N Bldg. Space Usage (Percent) N (Percent) 1= Strongly Disagree 3 1.0 5 1.5 2= Disagree Somewhat 11 3.5 12 3.8 3= Neither 42 13.5 65 20.8 4= Agree Somewhat 133 42.8 124 39.7 5= Strongly Agree 122 39.2 106 34.0 Total 311 100.0 312 100.0 103 Table 4.17— ANOVA for Test Item #2-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: TEACHING DAY SCHEDULED BY ADMINISTRATORS Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 93 213 Mean Standard Dev. 3.6129 3.0047 1.3190 1.4650 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF Sum of Squares 1 23.9467 304 615.0598 305 639.0065 Mean Squares 23.9467 2.0232 F 11.8359 Significance Level 0.0007 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.4403 p = .0007 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 104 Table 4.18— ANOVA for Test Item #5-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: LEARNNG WOULD IMPRV WITH FLEX SCHEDULING Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition N (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 93 212 Mean Standard Dev. 3.4409 3.8066 0.9720 1.1081 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation Sum of Square DF A Error Total 1 303 304 8.6471 345.9955 354.6426 Significance Level Mean Squares 8.6471 1.1419 7.5726 0.0063 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a 4------- 4 . ^ 4 *1 A Lwu~uan*cu 4-^^~4- \ ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.7518 p = .0063 Factor (A) Level l Factor (A) Level 2 105 Table 4.19— ANOVA for Test Item #6-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: VARYING CLASS SIZE WOULD IMPRV LEARNING Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 92 213 Standard Dev. Mean 3.8152 4.0657 1.0370 0.9739 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 1 303 304 Sum o Squares Mean Squares 4.0320 298.9385 302.9705 4.0320 0.9866 F 4.0868 Significance Level 0.0441 (vaiuca wi p arc fcr a T-Test Between Cell Means two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.0216 p = .0441 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 106 Table 4.20— ANOVA for Test Item #7-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: FLEX SCHEDULNG WOULD ENABLE COOP PLANNG Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 93 212 Mean Standard Dev. 3.6022 4.1509 0.9224 0.9418 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF Sum of Square Mean Squares 1 303 304 19.4687 265.4494 284.9180 19.4687 0.8761 F 22.2227 Significance Level 0.0000 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 4.7141 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 107 The number of years of teaching experience was significant only in the response to the statement that flexible scheduling of time and space would benefit teachers. Table 4.21 shows that teachers with 5-10 years of teaching experience differed significantly in their response to the statement that flexible scheduling would benefit teachers. Their agreement level was similar to those teachers with more than 26 years experience. There was a singificant dip in the mean score values at the 5-10 year experience mark. Teachers with fewer or more years of experience rated the statement with higher agreement. 108 Table 4.21— ANOVA for Test Item #8- T. Experience Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design - YEARS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 OF — — — TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1=UNDER 5 YEARS 2=5-10 YEARS 3=11-16 YEARS — 4=17-21 YEARS — 5=22-26 YEARS . 6=26+ YEARS FLEX SCHEDULING WOULD BENEFIT TEACHERS Descriptive Statistics for: Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 35 37 40 72 71 47 Mean Standard D e v . 3.7714 3.5405 4.0250 3.8472 3.9014 3.4043 0.8432 1.2822 0.7334 1.0833 0.9282 1.1163 Anova Summary Table Source of variable A Error Total DF 5 296 301 sum of Squares Mean Squares 12.4908 305.2841 317.7748 2.4982 1.0314 F 2.4222 Significance Level 0.0358 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailedi test • ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.0914 p = .0373 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.8414 p = .0048 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 6 109 Table 4.21 (cont'd) t = 2.3260 p = .0207 Factor (A) Level 4 Factor (A) Level 6 t = 2.6033 p = .0097 Factor (A) Level 5 Factor (A) Level 6 Summary of the Data for the Spatial Dimension The Spatial Dimension is described as separated groups of students sitting in classrooms following a schedule which has limited input and flexibility for teachers. Critics say these classrooms function as independent units with teaching and learning limited by time periods. The Carnegie Report suggests the flexible use of time and space to accommodate a variety of teaching and learning styles which may ultimately improve student learning. This increased flexibility would benefit teachers and enable them to plan cooperatively. Teachers, as a group, rated statements in this dimension with a range of mean scores between 3.1 and 4.1. Seven of the ten statements had a mean score above 3.5 with a frequency response approval of over 60%. Three statements were approved by over 70% and giving input on how the school day is scheduled was approved by 81% of the teachers. This would suggest that teachers as a group, did show a moderate level of agreement with the proposed reforms. Specifically, teachers did indicate that they had a moderate level of 110 support for more flexible use of time and space. The independent variable of level of assignment was significant across the test items for this dimension indicating that middle school teachers as a group were more apt to agree with the statements than elementary and high school teachers. CONCLUSIONS FOR THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE SPATIAL DIMENSION Hypothesis # 1 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward structural changes in the Spatial Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Independent Variable: Gender H0 : HM = Hp Decision: Reject Hi : H0 is False Reject H0 in favor of H xdue tothe significance responses to the four statements shown in Table 4.17. Independent Variable: Age Ho : Ui=U 2=U 3 =U 4 Decision: Accept H]_: H0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 = = = = 20-29 30-30 40-49 50 + years years years years of of of of of age age age age Ill Accept H0 because there were no significant differences found. Independent Variable: Level of education (degree held) H0 : UB=UM=UM+ Decision: Accept Hi : H0 is false Where: B = Bachelor's degree/ plus hours M = Master's degree M+= Master's plus hrs/ Specialist/ Doctorate Accept H0 because no significant differences were found. Independent Variable: Level of current assignment H0 : u E= e M=uH Decision: Reject H0 is false Where: E= Elementary school M= Middle school/ Jr. high H= High school Reject H0 in favor of Hx because of the significant differences in response patterns of middle school teachers. 112 Independent Variable: Years of Teaching Experience Ho : U 1=^ 2= U 3~U 4 =U 5 =U 6 Decision: Reject : H0 is false Wher e: 1 2 3 4 5 6 = = = = = = less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-16 years 17-21 years 22-26 years more than 26 years Reject H0 in favor of Hi because of the significance found in statement #8 among teachers with different amounts of teaching experience. Independent Variable: Career satisfaction H0 : US=UD Decision: Accept H]_: H0 is false Whe r e : s = career satisfaction in current position D = Different option selected Accept H0 because there were no significant differences found. 113 DATA QUESTION #2 OCCUPATIONAL DIMENSION What are the differences, if any, between groups of teachers in their level of agreement with the structural changes in the Occupational Dimension that may accompany teacher empowerment? Hypothesis # 2 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of acceptance toward structural changes in the Occupational Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Table 4.22 is a summary table of descriptive statistics of the survey responses to statements contained in the Occupational Dimension using a five point Likert scale. score of five indicated strong agreement, three indicated the respondent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement and one indicated strong disagreement. A 114 Table 4.22— Mean Score Response for the Occupational Dimension N Mean S.D. 11. Feel isolated when I teach 313 3.03 1.40 12. Identify more with students 312 2.71 1.29 13. Exp. little status from soc. 313 3.48 1.15 14. Excellence not adeq. reward 311 3.91 1.05 15. Improve T status/impr. learn 311 4.00 0.91 16. T w/nat. cert/ impr. learn 312 2.97 1.01 17. T benefit/diff resp./staff 311 3.27 0.95 18. T benefit/ collegiality 309 4.15 0.79 19. I want incr.status/testing 309 2.74 1.25 20. I want to make dec/growth 313 4.44 0.64 Item The statistical analysis used was a comparison of the means for each of the ten statements against the independent variables: gender, age, level of education (degree held), years of teaching experience, level of current assignment and career satisfaction. The ANOVA was run by STATPAC GOLD for each statement using a significance of p=.05 and a twotailed test. 115 Significance was found in four statements using the independent variable of level of current assignment. Significance was found in two other statements using the independent variable of age and one statement was significant using the independent variable of gender. Elementary, middle school and high school teachers had significant differences in their level of agreement. The following four tables show the significance of level of assignment. In Table 4.23 secondary teachers were significantly different from elementary teachers in their level of agreement with the description that they feel isolated when they teach. Middle school teachers as a group had the highest level of agreement. In Table 4.24 secondary teachers were in significantly higher agreement with the criticism that teaching excellence is not adequately recognized nor rewarded, than elementary teachers. In Table 4.25 middle school and high school teachers had a higher level of agreement than elementary teachers to different levels of teaching responsibilities and different staffing patterns would benefit teachers. In Table 4.26 elementary teachers differed significantly from high school teachers in their disagreement with wanting to increase their status, responsibilities and salary through teacher testing and national certification. 116 When comparing levels, elementary teachers in all four tables (4.23-4.26) rated the statements significantly lower than high school teachers. Middle school teachers tended to have an agreement pattern similar to the high school teachers. 117 Table 4.23— ANOVA for Test Item #11-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: I FEEL ISOLATED WHEN I TEACH Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N Mean 118 63 100 2.7627 3.2381 3.1600 Standard Dev. 1.4773 1.2790 1.3538 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 278 280 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 12.7435 538.2245 550.9680 6.3717 1.9361 F 3.2911 Significance Level 0.0387 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.1896 p = .0294 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.1007 p = .0366 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 118 Table 4.24— ANOVA for Test Item #14-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — ~ — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: TEACHING EXCELLENCE IS NOT ADEQ REWARDED Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N Mean 117 63 99 3.7094 4.0794 4.0000 Standard Dev. 1.1601 0.9555 1.0202 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 276 278 Sum of Squares 7.2628 314.7228 321.9857 Mean Squares 3.6314 1.1403 Significance Level 3.1846 0.0429 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2171 p = .0274 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 1.9928 p = .0473 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 119 Table 4.25— ANOVA for Test Item #17-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: DIFF LEVELS OF RESP WOULD BENEFT TEACHRS Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH 'tfOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition N Mean 116 63 100 (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 Standard D e v . 3.0690 3.3492 3.4100 1.0277 0.8064 0.9754 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 276 278 Sum of Squares 6.9762 255.9557 262.9319 Mean Squares 3.4881 0.9274 F 3.7612 Significance Level 0.0245 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.5952 p = .0100 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 120 Table 4.26— ANOVA for Test Item #19-Teaching Level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for■: I WANT TO INCREASE MY STATUS THRU TESTNG Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N Mean 116 63 98 2.4569 2.7619 3.0714 Standard Dev. 1.2399 1.3040 1.2373 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 274 276 Sum of Squares 20.0884 430.7131 450.8014 Mean Squares 10.0442 .5719 F Significance Level 6.3897 0.0019 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values Of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if P is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.5724 p = .0004 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 121 Using age as an independent variable, there were two test items where response patterns indicated a significance as shown in Tables 4.27 and Table 4.28. In Table 4.27 teachers between the ages of 20-29 years were significantly different as a group in the mean response from teachers in other age groups. Teachers in that group had the highest agreement level for the link between teachers with national certification and improved student learning. The mean response of the group of teachers aged 30-39 years, was significantly lower. In Table 4.28 each group had a mean score that indicated an agreement with the statement that teachers would benefit by more collegiality. Teachers between the ages of 30-39 years were significantly lower in their level of agreement than teachers in other age groups. Gender was a significant variable in the response pattern toward making decisions about professional growth and the use of inservice. In Table 4.29 indicated a higher level of agreement. female teachers 122 Table 4.27— ANOVA for Test Item #16-Age Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - AGE OF1 RESPONDENT — 1=20-29 Level 1 — 2=30-39 Level 2 — 3=40-49 Level 3 — 4=50+ Level 4 Descriptive Statistics for■: TEACHRS W/ NAT CERTIF WOULD IMPRV LEARNG Factor A: AGE OF RESPONDENT Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 N Standard Dev. Mean 3.5000 2.8542 3.0496 2.8529 32 48 121 68 1.0160 0.9891 0.9988 0.9185 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A DF 3 TTvvr.r EiLLUL ^/*er tiV'J Total 268 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 10.6960 3.5653 er a A 01 1 i F 3. 7167 Significance Level 0.0120 OCQ-) 264.9071 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.8893 p = .0042 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.3134 p = .0215 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 123 Table 4.27 (cont'd) t = 3.0818 Factor (A) Level 1 p = .0023 Factor (A) Level 4 124 Table 4.28— ANOVA for Test Item #18-Age Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - AGE OF RESPONDENT Level 1 - 1=20-29 Level 2 - 2=30-39 Level 3 - 3=40-49 - 4=50+ Level 4 Descriptive Statistics for: TEACHRS WOULD BENEFIT BY MORE COLLEGLTY Factor A: AGE OF RESPONDENT Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 N 32 48 119 67 Mean Standard Dev. 4.2813 3.8750 4.2269 4.2687 0.7719 0.8660 0.8176 0.5924 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 3 262 265 Sum of Square 5.5815 155.7569 161.3383 Mean Squares a « a r» J..ODUJ 0.5945 Significance Level F J • 1 ^oc A AOCO V •W V A d T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.3087 p = .0217 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.6691 p = .0081 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.6999 p = .0074 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 4 125 Table 4.29— ANOVA for Test Item #20-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: I WANT TO MAKE DECISNS ABOUT OWN GROWTH Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 93 213 Mean Standard Dev. 4.3011 4.5117 0.7038 0.6035 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total Sum of DF Squares 1 2.8728 304 122.7905 305 125.6634 Mean Squares 2.8728 0.4039 F Significance Level 7.1125 0.0081 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.6669 p = .0081 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 The overall mean response rate for test item #20 was 126 4.4473, the highest mean reported for the entire survey. Teachers, as a group, support being able to make their own professional decisions. Table 4.30— Frequency of Response for Teacher Decisions/Prof. Growth and Use of Inservice Likert Scale N 1 Strongly Disagree 0 0 2 Disagree Somewhat 3 1.0 % 3 Neither 17 5.4 % 4 Agree Somewhat 130 41.5 % 5 Strongly Agree 163 52.1 % 313 Total Percent 100.0% Teachers were asked to respond to statements regarding national certification and teacher testing. Item #16 linked teachers with national certification to improved student learning. The frequency table for Item #16 appears to be a bell shaped curve. Item #20. The majority of teachers disagreed with Forty-one percent of the teachers surveyed 127 disagreed that they would want to increase their status, responsibilities and salary through teacher testing and national certification. Table 4.31— Frequency Response for Tests/National Cert. N.C./Impr.Learn Percent Want Test/N.C. Likert Scale N 1= Strongly Disagree 25 8.0 66 21.4 2= Disagree Somewhat 62 19.9 62 20.0 106 46.8 97 31.4 4= Agree Somewhat 53 17.0 52 16.8 5= Strongly Agree 26 8.3 32 10.4 100.0 309 100.0 3= Neutral Total 312 N Percent Summary of the Data for the Occupational Dimension The Occupational Dimension for teachers is described as isolated with minimal contact with other teachers. The fact that there are limited opportunities for teachers to develop collegiality is also a criticism of the current system. Critics say that teachers lack recognition and reward for their efforts by society. Reform proposals suggest that by 128 increasing the status, responsibilities and salary of teachers, teacher status would increase and student learning would improve. Teachers would be able to make more decisions about their own professional growth and career opportunities within the teaching field. The Holmes Group Report explains a system of differentiated staffing patterns. The Carnegie Report proposals call for national certification of teachers. Teachers, as a group, rated statements in this dimension with a range of mean scores between 2.7 and 4.4. Four of the ten statements had a mean score above 3.5 with a freguency response approval of over 73%. Three of the ten statements had mean scores below 3.0 (neither agree nor disagree). This would suggest that teachers as a group, were more divided toward measurements of criteria for agreement with proposed reforms in the Occupational Dimension. On selected items, frequency of support was high. Seventy-six percent of the surveyed teachers did indicate that they believed in the validity of the criticism that teaching excellence is not adequately recognized nor rewarded. Seventy-three percent agreed with the concept that improving teacher status, respect and autonomy would improve student learning. Eighty-four percent of the surveyed group of teachers did agree that they would benefit by more collegiality and ninety-one percent said they wanted to make decisions about their own professional growth and 129 use of inservices. The lowest mean score ratings came from three statements. While 47% of the teachers disagreed that they identified more with their students than other staff members, 24% agreed with the item. There was no significant difference found between elementary and secondary teachers on this item. The statements on national certification of teachers were matched to show that 46% of the teachers were neutral about the link between teachers with national certification and improved student learning. Forty-one percent of the teachers indicated that they would not want to go through teacher testing and national certification. This response pattern would seem to indicate that if reform in this dimension were to be tied to national certification, teachers would not as a group be supportive. The independent variable of level of assignment was significant for two items, as was age. significant once in this dimension. Gender was also Younger teachers were more supportive of the importance of collegiality and the link between nationally certified teachers and improved student learning. 130 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE OCCUPATIONAL DIMENSION Hypothesis # 2 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Occupational Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Independent Variable : Gender Decision: Reject Ho : u m =mF Hl : H0 is false because there was a significant Reject H0 in favor of ^ difference in their desire to make decisions about professional growth. Independent Variable: Aae H0 : u i=u2=u3==u4 Decision: Reject Hj : H0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 = = = = 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 + years years years years of of of of age age age age Reject H0 in favor of H^ because of age group differences in the response patterns toward national certification and improved student learning from teachers with national certification. 131 Independent Variable: Level of education (degree heldl H0 : UB=UM=UM+ % Decision:Accept : H0 is false Where: B = M = M+= Bachelor's degree/ plus hours Master's degree Master's plus hours/ Specialist/ Doctorate Accept H0 because there were no significant differences found. Independent Variable: Level of current assignment H0 : UE=UM=UH Decision: Reject Hi : H0 is false Where: E= Elementary school M= Middle school/ Jr. high H= High school Reject H0 in favor of Hi because of the significance noted in four test items. Independent Variable: Years of teaching experience H0 : Ui=U 2=U 3=U 4=U 5 =U6 Hi: H0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 = = = = less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-16 years 17-21 years Decision: Accept 132 5 = 22-26 years 6 = more than 26 years Accept H0 because no significance was found between groups of teachers based on years of teaching experience. Independent Variable: Career satisfaction H0 : us=uD Decision: Accept : H0 is false Where: S= Career satisfaction in current position D= Different option selected Accept H0 because no significant differences were found. 133 DATA QUESTION #3 HIERARCHICAL DIMENSION What are the differences, if any, between groups of teachers in their level of agreement with structural changes in the Hierarchical Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment? Hypothesis #3 There are no differences between groups of teachers in their level of agreement toward structural changes in the Hierarchical Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Table 4.29 is a summary table of the descriptive statistics of the survey responses to the statements contained in the Hierarchical Dimension, using a five point Likert scale. A score of five indicated strong agreement, three indicated that the respondent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement and one indicated strong disagreement. 134 Table 4.32— Mean Score Response for the Hierarchical Dimension Item N Mean S.D. 21. Tchr Input/instruc 309 3.21 1.09 22. Dist dec./bldg needs 312 3.56 1.03 23. Adm control tchr dec 311 3.49 1.07 24. Tchr comm./maj. voice 312 3.98 0.95 25. Tchr comm/imp.learn 311 3.82 0.89 26. T.bgt/staff/imp.learn 310 3.44 0.97 27. T.ben/ policy/bgt dec. 310 3.72 0.87 28. T.impt/staff/eval dec. 312 4.23 0.72 29. Input/policy/bdgt 312 3.79 0.93 30. Input staff/dec/t.eval 311 3.82 1.04 The statistical analysis used was a comparison of the means for each of the ten statements against the independent variables: gender, age, level of education (degree held), years of teaching experience, level of current assignment and career satisfaction. The ANOVA was run by STATPAC GOLD for each statement, setting a significance of p=.05 and a two-tailed test. 135 There was significance found in two items using the independent variable of current level of assignment. Significance was found in one item using the independent variable of age. Tables 4.33 and 4.34 show that teachers at different levels were found to answer two test items significantly different. In Table 4.33 middle school teachers as a group rated this statement significantly higher than teachers at the other two levels indicating agreement with the statement that district decisions do not match building needs. In Table 4.34 middle school teachers as a group indicted a significantly higher rating of agreement that building administrators control the decisions teachers can make than elementary teachers. The independent variable of age was significant for one test item. In Table 4.35 teachers in the age group 30-39 years differed significantly in their belief that teachers would benefit by making policy and budget decisions. Teachers in the age group 20-29 years seemed to have a significantly higher agreement rating with this statement. Again the mean score response patterns dips with the 30-39 year old teachers. 136 Table 4.33-ANOVA for Test Item #22-Teaching level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — ~ WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: DISTRCT DECISONS DO NOT MATCH BLDG NEEDS Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 118 63 100 Mean Standard Dev. 3.6017 4.0000 3.2500 1.0633 0.8614 0.9987 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 278 280 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 22.0024 277.0297 299.0320 11.0012 0.9965 F 11.0397 Significance Level 0.0000 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.5571 p = .0111 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.5920 p = .0100 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 4.6709 p = .0000 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 137 Table 4.34— ANOVA for Test Item # 23-Teaching level Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — — — WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: BLDG ADMINS CONTROL DECISNS TEACHRS MAKE Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 116 63 100 Mean Standard Dev. 3.2759 3.6667 3.5600 1.0842 0.9504 1.1310 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 276 278 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 7.6141 317.8124 325.4265 3.8071 1.1515 F 3.3062 Significance Level 0.0381 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.3270 p = .0207 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 138 Table 4.35— ANOVA for Test Item #27-Age Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design - AGE OF RESPONDENT Factor A (Fixed) Level 1 — 1=20-29 Level 2 — 2=30-39 Level 3 — 3=40-49 — 4=50+ Level 4 Descriptive Statistics for: TECHRS WLD BENEFIT BY MAKING POLICY DECS Factor A: AGE OF1 RESPONDENT Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level N 32 47 120 67 1 2 3 4 Mean Standard Dev. 4.0313 3.5532 3.8417 3.6269 0.7399 0.8549 0.8599 0.9018 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error fTnfa 1 DF 3 262 265 Sum of Squares 6.3524 192.2491 198;6015 Mean Squares 2.1175 0.7338 F 2.8857 Significance Level 0.0362 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p iare for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.4351 p = .0156 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.1969 p = .0289 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 139 One part of Barnard's criteria is that teachers see themselves as willing to comply/able to comply. 4.36 In Table the mean scores of item #29 and #30 test the level of willingness to give input in the areas of policy and budget (#29) and in the staff selection and evaluation process (#30). Item #30 couples wanting to give input in staff selection and evaluation with wanting to receive staff input in their own evaluation. Table 4.36— Frequency of Response for Input Likert Scale Policy/Budget Staff Select N N Percent Percent 1. Strongly Disagree 6 1.9 10 3.1 2. Disagree Somewhat 25 8.0 26 8.4 3. Neutral 62 19.9 60 19.3 48.7 126 40.5 67 21.5 89 28.6 312 100.0 311 100.0 4. Agree Somewhat 5. Strongly Agree Total 152 Summary of the Data for the Hierarchical Dimension The Hierarchical Dimension is described as a decision 140 making process with limited connection to teachers in the classroom except for their input on instructional matters. Critics say that decisions made at the district level do not match building needs and that administrators limit the arenas in which teachers can make decisions. Reform proposals are aimed at increasing the input of teachers to policy and budget issues as well as staffing decisions. The results of teacher participation would be decisions more closely matched to the needs of the students and aimed at improving student learning. The Carnegie Report talks about committees of teachers making significant decisions about the way in which schools operate. Teachers, as a group, rated statements in this dimension between a mean score of 3.1 and 4.1. Six of the ten statements had a mean score above 3.5 with a frequency response approval of over 63%. This would suggest that teachers as a group, did exhibit moderate agreement with the proposed reforms. The surveyed teachers indicated that they approved of greater participation in the decision making process at the building level. Frequency response patterns showed that teachers supported decision making. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents agreed that teachers ' insight was important in staffing decisions and teacher evaluation. Sixty-eight percent of the teachers surveyed indicated that they would want to be involved in staff selection and evaluation and would want teacher input in their own. This agreement level 141 was carried over to policy and budget issues. Sixty-nine percent of the teachers agreed that they would want to give input on policy and budget decisions and sixty-three percent felt teachers would benefit by making these decisions. The independent variable of level of assignment was significant for two items and age was significant for one item. CONCLUSIONS FOR THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE HIERARCHICAL DIMENSION Hypothesis #3 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward the structural changes in the Hierarchical Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. independent Variable: Gender H 0 : UM=UF Decision: Accept Hi : H 0 is false Accept H 0 because no significant differences were found. Independent Variable: Age H 0 : Ui=U 2=U 3=U 4 Hi : H 0 is false Decision : Reject 142 Where: 1 2 3 4 = = = = 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 + years years years years of of of of age age age age H 0 is rejected because significance was found between age groups in the response pattern to one item on the benefit to teachers of making policy and budget decisions. Independent Variable: Level of education (degree held) H0 : U B=UM=UM+ Decision: Accept H]_: H 0 is false Where: B = Bachelor's degree/ plus hours M = Master's degree M+= Master's plus hours/ Specialist/ Doctorate H 0 is accepted because no significant differences between teachers with different degrees were found. Independent Variable: Level of current assignment Ho : UE=UM=UH Decision: Reject Hi: H 0 is false Where: E = Elementary M = Middle school/ Jr. high H = High school Reject H 0 in favor of Hi because significant differences were found in two items. Middle school teachers had a higher level of agreement with two statements. 143 Independent Variable: Years of teaching.experience Ho : 112=112= 03 = 114= 115=116 Decision: Accept H]_: H 0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 5 6 = = = = = = less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-16 years 17-21 years 22-26 years more than 26 years Accept H 0 because no significant differences were found. Independent Variable: Career satisfaction H0 ; US=UD Decision: Accept H^: H q is false Where: S= Career satisfaction in current position D= Different option selected Accept H 0 because there were no significant differences found. 144 DATA QUESTION #4 FUNCTIONAL DIMENSION What are the differences, if any. between groups of teachers in their level of agreement with the structural changes in the Functional Dimension that may accompany teacher empowerment? Hypothesis #4 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward structural changes in the Functional Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Table 4.37 is a summary table of descriptive statistics of the survey responses to the ten statements contained in the Functional Dimension using a five point Likert scale. score of five indicated strong agreement, three indicated that the respondent neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement and one indicated strong disagreement. A 145 Table 4.37— Mean Score Response for the Functional Dimension Item N Mean S.D. 31. School/compex,sp e c . org. 313 4.12 0.90 32. Curr. emphasize indiv. st. 312 3.29 1.18 33. Surv. thru diff/spec/frag.cur 307 3.19 0.94 34. Adm. serve as buffers...... invalid file....... 35. No consensus amg.tchr 311 3.29 1.13 36. Impr.learn/decentral schl 312 3.45 0.91 37. Conn subj/curr/impr. learn 311 . 4.11 0.75 38. Tchr ben./defn purp. of schl 310 3.90 0.81 39. Tchr. ben/stand, of behav. 313 4.16 0.76 40. I want to set goal/purp. schl 314 3.93 0.91 41. My time/energy/restruc schl 314 3.60 1.06 The statistical analysis used was a comparison of the means for each of the ten statements against the independent variables: gender, age, level of education (degree held), years of teaching experience, level of current assignment and career satisfaction. The ANOVA was run by STATPAC GOLD for each statement, setting a significance of p=.05 and a two-tailed test. There was significance found for gender 146 for one item. also. Age was a significant variable for one item Significance was found for years of teaching experience for one item and career satisfaction was a significant variable for two items. Item 34 is an invalid file, so data are not reported on this question. Years of teaching experience was an independent variable which was significant for item #34. In Table 4.38 the greatest significant difference in response came between teachers with 5-10 years and those with 0-5 years and 11-16 years when rating the statement that schools survive through differentiation, specialization and fragmentation of the curriculum. Teachers with 5-10 years of experience had a lower agreement rating with the test item. 147 Table 4.38— ANOVA for Test Item #33-T. Experience Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed)i - YEARS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 OF — — — — — — TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1=UNDER 5 YEARS 2=5-10 YEARS YEARS 3=11-16 4=17-21 YEARS YEARS 5=22-26 6=26+ YEARS Descriptive Statistics for : SCHOOLS SURVIVE THRU DIFF OF CURRICULUM Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level N 35 37 41 71 71 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean Standard Dev. 3.5143 2.9459 3.5122 3.0563 3.2254 3.0889 0.8531 1.1042 1.0277 0.7908 0.9885 0.9250 Anova Summary Table O/m Variation A Error Total Cntn DF 5 294 299 Squares 11.9046 260.6921 272.5967 Mean Squares 2.3809 0.8867 F 2.6851 Significance Level 0.0216 148 Table 4.38 (cont'd) T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.5597 .0110 p Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t — 2.3547 p = .0192 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 t = 2.0045 p = .0459 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 6 t = 2.6519 p = .0084 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.4680 p = .0142 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 4 t = 2.0822 Factor (A) Level 3 p s= .0382 Factor (A) Level 6 In Table 4.39 significance was found in test item #38 using age groups of teachers as the independent variable. Teachers aged 40-49 years were in higher agreement that they would benefit by defining the purpose of their schools than teachers over the age of 50 years. In Table 4.40 gender was significant for item #39 in that female teachers agreed more with the statement that they would benefit by establishing the standards of school behavior than male teachers. In Tables 4.41 and 4.42, the variable level of career satisfaction was significant. Those selecting a different 149 option for career satisfaction agreed more with item #35, there is an absence of consensus in schools, and item #41 that they would want to devote time and energy to reforming and restructuring their school. 150 Table 4.39— ANOVA for Test Item #38-Age Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - AGE OF RESPONDENT - 1=20-29 Level 1 Level 2 - 2=30-39 - 3=40-49 Level 3 Level 4 - 4=50+ Descriptive Statistics for: TCHRS WLD BENEFT BY DEFINNG PURP OF SCHL Factor A: AGE OF' RESPONDENT N Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level 32 47 119 68 1 2 3 4 Mean Standard Dev. 3.8125 3.9149 4.0756 3.7206 1.0298 0.6537 0.7497 0.8437 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A iJi. X V I Total Sum of Squares DF 3 O C.~>c* 265 A* w 5.9512 K/1c;Ai • ^ 172.4962 1 A W Mean Squares 1.9837 0.6357 F 3.1207 Significance Level 0.0266 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.9294 p = .0037 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 4 151 Table 4.40— ANOVA for Test Item #39-Gender Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: TCHRS WLD BENEFIT BY ESTAB STDS OF BEHAV Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N Mean 93 213 Standard Dev. 3.9677 4.2488 0.9378 0.6652 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF Sum of Square Mean Squares 1 5.1146 304 174.7154 305 179.8301 DCLwccii Vy.cn n c a iid F 5.1146 0.5747 * ( vaxuco Significance Level 8.8993 wx ^ 0.0031 is /i u two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.9832 p = .0031 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 152 Table 4.41- ANOVA for Test Item #35-Career satisfaction Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Level 1 — 1=CURRENT ASSIGN Level 2 — 2=0THER Descriptive Statistics for: IS AN ABSENCE OF CONSENSUS AMNG TEACHERS Factor A: HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Cell Definition N 160 140 (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 Mean Standard Dev. 3.1188 3.4786 1.1994 1.0489 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF Sum of Squares 1 9.6672 298 381.6795 299 391.3467 Mean Squares 9.6672 1.2808 m F 7 .5478 Significance Level 0.0064 -i. r» _ i . . ----1 1 /TT-. 1 m ^ l“ml --u oeuwccii n e a u o — { v a i u c s wx. two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.7473 p = .0064 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 153 Table 4.42— ANOVA for Test Item #41-Career satisfaction Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Level 1 — 1=CURRENT ASSIGN Level 2 — 2=0THER Descriptive Statistics for: I WANT TO DEVOTE MY TIME TO REFORMNG SCH Factor A: HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 162 140 Mean Standard Dev. 3.4938 3.7714 1.1159 1.0060 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 1 300 301 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 5.7873 341.1795 346.9669 5.7873 1.1373 F 5.0888 Significance Level 0.0248 I1—Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2558 p = .0248 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 154 Barnard's criteria included the teacher's ability to comply. The frequency of response patterns to setting educational goals and purpose and the willingness to devote time and energy to reform and restructuring schools meets that criteria in Table 4.43. Table 4.43— Frequency of Response for Input Likert Scale Set Goals/ Time/Energy Purpose Schl Restr.Schl N Percent N Percent 1= Strongly Disagree 6 1.9 14 4.4 2= Disagree Somewhat 15 4.8 30 9.6 3= Neutral 56 17.8 86 27.4 4= Agree Somewhat 152 48.4 118 37.6 5= Strongly Agree 85 27.1 66 21.0 314 100.0 314 100.0 Total 155 Summary of the Data for the Functional Dimension The Functional Dimension of schools is described as a highly specialized and complex bureaucracy. Schools are said to meet the needs of students through curriculum that emphasizes the individual. Critics say that schools are too specialized and that curriculum is fragmented. Often there is no consensus among teachers about what to teach, how to teach it or how to relate to staff and students. Reform proposals call for decentralizing schools with curricula that connects subjects along themes for improved student learning. Teachers would be involved in drafting and defining the goals and the purpose of school as well as establishing the standards of behavior. Teachers, as a group, rated statements in this dimension between a mean score of 3.1 and 4.1. Six of the ten statements had a mean score above 3.5 with a frequency response approval of over 68 %. This would suggest that teachers as a group, had moderate agreement with proposed reforms. the The surveyed teachers did indicate that they approved of their involvement in redefining the purpose of schools. Frequencies of agreement by over seventy five percent of the surveyed teachers were achieved on five items. Seventy-eight percent of the teachers agreed with the description of schools as complex and highly specialized 156 organizations. Eighty-two percent agreed that connecting subjects and curriculum would improve student learning. Eighty-two percent of the teachers believe they would benefit by defining the purpose of their schools and by establishing the standards of school behavior. Seventy-five percent indicated that they wanted to set the educational goals and purpose of their schools. Sixty-eight percent of the teachers surveyed indicated that they would want to devote time and energy to reforming/restructuring their school. The independent variable of gender, age, years of teaching experience and career satisfaction were each significant for one item. CONCLUSIONS FOR THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE HIERARCHICAL DIMENSION Hypothesis #4 There are no differences between groups of teachers in the level of agreement toward structural changes in the Hierarchical Dimension which may accompany teacher empowerment. Independent Variable: Gender H0 : UM=UF Decision: Reject H]_: H 0 is false Reject H0 in favor of Hi because significant difference was 157 found in male and female response pattern to the benefits of teachers establishing standards of school behavior. Independent Variable: Age H0 : Ui=U 2=U 3=U 4 Decision: Reject : H 0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 = = = = 20-29 30-39 40-49 50 + years years years years Reject H 0 in favor of of of of of age age age age because responses were found to be significantly different between age groups 3 and 4 on agreement with the benefits to teachers of defining the purpose of schools. Independent Variable: Current level of education (degree held) Ho : UB=UM=UM+ Decision: Accept H]_: H 0 is false Where: B = Bachelor's degree/ plus hours M = Master's degree M+= Master's plus hours/ Specialist/ Doctorate Accept H 0 because there were no significant differences found. 158 Independent Variable: Level of current assignment H0 : Decision:Accept H^: H 0 is false Where: E= Elementary school M= Middle school/Jr. high H= High school Accept H 0 because no significant differences were found. Independent Variable: Years of teaching experience H0 : 112= 112= 113= 114= 115=115 Decision: Reject : H 0 is false Where: 1 2 3 4 5 6 = = = = = = less than 5 years 5-10 years 11-16 years 17-21 years 22-26 years more than 26 years Reject H 0 in favor of Hi because there were differences found between groups in levels of agreement with the statement that schools survive through differentiation, specialization and fragmentation of the curriculum. 159 Independent Variable: Career satisfaction Ho : US=UD %: Decision: Reject H 0 is false Where : S= career satisfaction in current position D= different option selected Reject H 0 in favor of because significant differences were found in two test items. 160 Part II OGANIZATIONAL PRIORITY Most schools and school districts are not in a position to change all four dimensions of school structure simultaneously nor are teachers in a position to devote time and energy to changes in all dimensions with equal interest. Teachers were asked to read the four dimensions and to place a priority on the importance of change in that dimension to themselves. Identifying Oraani 2 ational Priority In individual sections, surveyed teachers had responded with their level of agreement to statements. The last two statements in each dimension were intended to measure willingness/desire to provide input and participate in restructuring efforts. Teachers were asked in this section to identify their priorities for structural change in the four dimensions by rating them #1-4 with #1 being of highest value. 161 Table 4.44— Frequency Distribution of Organizational Priority Dimension N=255 Spatial Occup. Hi e r . Func. percent percent percent percent 1= Highest 28.6 32.9 12.2 25.5 2= 27.5 31.0 23.9 17.6 3= 20.0 27.8 23.1 29.4 23.9 8.2 40.8 27.5 Rating 4= Lowest Only 255 teachers responded to this section using each number once, giving a response rating of 81%. Many of the surveys had multiple ratings of 2 and 3 and could not be coded for preference. Table 4.45— Mean Response of Priority per Dimension Dimension Mean S.D. Spatial 2.39 1.13 Occupational 2.11 0.96 Hierarchical 2.92 1.06 Functional 2.58 1.14 N=255 162 When comparing the means for each of the four dimensions, the Occupational Dimension was lowest, indicating greatest priority by the surveyed teachers. The level of current assignment was significant for the Spatial Dimension. In Table 4.46 middle school teachers were more likely to rate change in the Spatial Dimension of higher importance to them than elementary and high school teachers. In Table 4.47 current level of education as a variable was significant when matched to the Occupational Dimension as a priority. Teachers with a Bachelor's degree were more likely to rate change as of greater importance than teachers with a Master's degree. 163 Table 4.46— ANOVA-Spatial Dim/Org. Priority Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - LEVEL Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 AT — ~ ~ WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH 1=ELEM/ PRE-PRIM 2=MID SCH/JR HIGH 3=HIGH SCHOOL Descriptive Statistics for: SPATIAL DIMENSION AS ORG PRIORITY Factor A: LEVEL AT WHICH YOU CURRENTLY TEACH Cell Definition N 100 51 77 (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 Mean Standard Dev. 2.3800 2.0588 2.5974 1.0710 1.0278 1.2382 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 225 227 Sum of Squares 8.8996 282.9030 291.8026 Mean Squares 4.4498 1.2573 Significance Level 3.5390 0.0307 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.6604 p = .0084 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 164 Table 4.47 ANOVA -Occupational Dim/Org. Priority Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Level 1 - 1=BACH+ Level 2 - 2=MASTERS Level 3 - 3=MASTERS+ Descriptive Statistics for: OCCUPATIONAL DIMENSION AS ORG PRIORITY Factor A: CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N Mean Standard Dev. 1.9205 2.2727 2.1127 88 88 71 0.8335 1.0364 0.9644 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation DF Sum of Squares A Error 2 244 5.4733 218.9963 m~*41 j. v w a x O A C. 6 T V O O A *1 Mean Squares 2.7367 0.8975 F 3.0491 Significance Level 0.0492 A C O C • *x w ^ w T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.4665 p = .0143 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 165 PART III PERSONAL PARTICIPATION PROFILE Willingness to commit time and energy is important to the success of the restructuring effort. Teachers were asked to rate their willingness to commit their time and energy using a Likert scale for each of the four dimensions. Table 4.48— Willingness to Commit Time per Dimension Dimension Spat. Occup. Hier. Frequency percent percent percent Func. percent l=Strongly Disagree 8.1 7.1 9.9 8.0 2=Disagree Somewhat 11.2 6.4 11.9 10.8 3=Neutral 24.7 22.2 31.1 27.6 4=Agree Somewhat 38.0 47.8 35.8 37.4 5=Strongly Agree 18.0 16.5 11.3 16.2 From this table, it can be seen that teachers appear to be most willing to devote their time and energy to restructuring efforts in the Occupational Dimension and 166 least willing in the Hierarchical Dimension. The greatest level of agreement is the Occupational Dimension where 64.3 percent of the teachers appear to be willing to devote their time and energy. An ANOVA using mean scores for each of these dimensions across all independent variables shows no significance. Therefore the response percentages do reflect the total of the sample pool, without any difference due to the six independent variables tested. Additional Time Commitment Teachers responded to the statement that they have additional commitments which prevent them from giving time and energy to restructuring efforts beyond the school day. Table 4.49— Frequency of Additional Commitments N=304 Likert Scale N Percent l=Strongly Disagree 14 4.6 2=Disagree Somewhat 48 15.8 3=Neutral 49 16.1 4=Agree Somewhat 108 35.5 5=Strongly Agree 85 28.0 167 Sixty-three percent of the teachers who responded indicated that additional commitments prevent them from using time beyond the school day for restructuring. Combining these data with the willingness to commit time and energy from Table 4.49 shows that teachers demonstrate varied willingness to become involved in restructuring of the Spatial, Occupational and Functional Dimensions, but that these efforts should occur during the school day. Teacher Expertise An important component to teacher participation is their perceived level of expertise in these dimensions. Reluctance to participate in restructuring schools in any dimension may be related to lack of perceived qualification or expertise rather than willingness itself. Table 4.50— Frequency for Teacher Expertise Dimension Spat. Occup. Hier. N=313 Func. None Response YES 39 37.1 28.8 32.9 37.7 NO 61 62.9 71.2 67.1 62.3 168 From this frequency distribution, most teachers did not identify themselves has having expertise to provide input in the restructuring efforts. Coding YES=1 and N0=2 enabled an ANOVA to be run for the six independent variables. Significance was found using the independent variable of teaching experience in the Spatial and Occupational Dimensions. Level of education (degree held) was significant in the Occupational, Hierarchical and Functional Dimensions. Gender was significant in the Functional Dimension. In Tables 4.51 and 4.52 teachers at Level 5 and 6, having more than 22 years of experience, were more likely to rate themselves as having expertise to provide input in the Spatial and Occupational Dimensions. Teachers with 5-10 years were least likely to rate themselves as having expertise in this dimension. 169 Table 4.51— ANOVA for Expertise -T. Experience -Spatial Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Level 1 — 1=UNDER 5 YEARS Level 2 — 2=5-10 YEARS Level 3 — 3=11-16 YEARS Level 4 — 4=17-21 YEARS Level 5 — 5=22-26 YEARS — 6=26+ Level 6 YEARS Descriptive Statistics for : IN SPATIAL DIM I HAVE EXPERTSE FOR INPUT Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level N 1 2 3 4 5 6 Standard Dev. Mean 35 37 42 74 71 47 1.6857 1.7568 1.6905 1.6081 1.4507 1.5745 0.4710 0.4350 0.4679 0.4915 0.5011 0.4998 Anova Summary Table Source of -.4- ■! v di. x a u x v u A Error Total Mean Sum of r>T? L/l 5 300 305 O i «> a F r* 3.1218 70.0318 73.1536 0.6244 0.2334 2.6746 Significance Level 0.0220 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t P 2.3551 .0192 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 5 t P 3.1241 .0020 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 5 t P 2.5493 .0113 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 5 170 Table 4.52— ANOVA for Expertise -T Experience-Occup. Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design - YEARS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Factor A OF — — — — — — TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1=UNDER 5 YEARS 2=5-10 YEARS 3=11-16 YEARS 4=17-21 YEARS 5=22-26 YEARS 6=26+ YEARS Descriptive Statistics for: IN OCC DIM I HAVE EXPERTISE FOR INPUT Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 N Mean Standard Dev. 1.7714 1.8108 1.6429 1.6757 1.4366 1.5532 35 37 42 74 71 47 0.4260 0.3971 0.4850 0.4713 0.4995 0.5025 Anova Summary Table C u m Variation A Error Total DF 5 300 305 rvf Squares 4.9931 66.7880 71.7810 Moan Squares 0.9986 0.2226 Significance Level 4.4856 0.0006 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.4357 p = .0007 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 5 171 Table 4.52 (cont'd) t = 2.0716 p = .0392 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 6 3.9113 .0001 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 5 t = 2.4843 p = .0135 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 6 t — 2.2454 p = .0255 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 5 t = 3.0498 p = .0025 Factor (A) Level 4 Factor (A) Level 5 t p = Logically/ years of teaching experience would be an avenue of developing expertise. Teachers tended to rate themselves as having expertise after 20 years of teaching. Another independent variable which would seem highly correlated to expertise is level of education. This variable was significant in the Occupational Dimension as shown in Table 4.53, and in the Hierarchical Dimension as shown in Table 4.54 and in the Functional Dimension as shown in Table 4.55. In all three tables, teachers with a Bachelor's degree rated themselves as having less expertise than teachers with a Master's degree or more. Table 4.56 shows that gender was a significant variable in rating expertise in the Functional Dimension where female teachers rated themselves as having expertise more than male teachers. 172 Table 4.53— ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed- Occup. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Level 1 — 1=BACH+ Level 2 — 2=MASTERS Level 3 — 3=MASTERS+ Descriptive Statistics for: IN OCC DIM I HAVE EXPERTISE FOR INPUT Factor A: CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 111 106 86 Mean Standard Dev. 1.7027 1.6698 1.4884 0.4591 0.4725 0.5028 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 300 302 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 2.4797 68.1210 70.6007 1.2399 0.2271 F 5.4602 Significance Level 0.0047 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.1310 p = .0019 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.6236 p = .0091 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 3 173 Table 4.54— ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed-Hier. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Level 1 - 1=BACH+ Level 2 - 2=MASTERS Level 3 - 3=MASTERS+ Descriptive Statistics for: IN HIER DIM I HAVE EXPERTISE FOR INPUT Factor A: CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 N 111 106 86 Mean Standard Dev. 1.8198 1.6792 1.6279 0.3861 0.4690 0.4862 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 300 302 Sum of Squares 2.0070 59.5838 61.5908 Mean Squares 1.0035 0.1986 F 5.0526 Significance Level 0.0069 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.3227 p = .0209 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 2.9976 p = .0029 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 174 Table 4.55— ANOVA for Expertise-Level of Ed-Func. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Level 1 — 1=BACH+ Level 2 — 2=MASTERS Level 3 — 3=MASTERS+ Descriptive Statistics for: IN FUNC DIM I HAVE EXPERTISE FOR INPUT Factor A: CURRENT LEVEL OF EDUCATION Cell Definition N (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 (A) Level 3 111 106 86 Source of Variation A Error Total DF 2 300 302 Mean Standard Dev. 1.7928 1.6415 1.5465 0.4071 0.4818 0.5008 Anova Summary Table Sum of Mean Squares Squares 3.0712 63.9255 66.9967 1.5356 0.2131 Significance Level 7.2064 0.0009 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.4132 p = .0164 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 3.7139 p = .0002 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 175 Table 4.56— ANOVA for Expertise-Gender-Func. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - RESPONDENT SEX Level 1 — 1=MALE Level 2 — 2=FEMALE Descriptive Statistics for: IN FUNC DIM I HAVE EXPERTISE FOR INPUT Factor A: RESPONDENT SEX Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 93 213 Mean Standard Dev. 1.5591 1.7183 0.4992 0.4509 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF Sum of Squares 1 1.6401 304 66.0233 305 67.6634 Mean Squares 1.6401 0.2172 Significance Level 7.5516 0.0064 Cell Means - (Values of p arc fcr a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 T -'T e s t B e tw e e n t = 2.7480 p = .0064 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 176 Looking at level of expertise showed that teachers with more teaching experience and more education were more likely to perceive themselves as having expertise to provide input into the four dimensions. But not every teacher has years of experience nor a Master's degree/plus hours/ Specialist/Doctorate. The next level of investigation is to look at the willingness of the teachers to gain expertise. Willing to Get Additional Training to Provide Input It is important to look at both the level of perceived expertise that teachers indicated they had and couple that data with their willingness to get additional training to provide input in the dimensions of their choice. Table 4.57— Frequency of Teachers' Willingness to Train in the 4 Dimensions Dimension Spatial OCCUp. N=313 Hier. Func. None Response Yes 37.4 42.5 33.9 36.7 32.9 No 62.6 57.5 66.1 63.3 67.1 From this frequency distribution, it would seem that 177 teachers indicated only a modest interest in receiving additional training to provide input in restructuring efforts. Coding YES=1 and N0=2, an ANOVA was run using the six independent variables. Significance was found twice using teaching experience, age and career satisfaction. In Table 4.58 for Spatial Dimension the fewer the years of teaching experience, the more willing the teachers indicated they were to get additional training in that dimension. In Table 4.59 for Functional Dimension, teachers with less than 5 years of experience were most willing to get additional training. This group was significantly more willing than those with 17-21 years and more than 26 years of experience. 178 Table 4.58-ANOVA for Training-T.Experience- Spatial Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design - YEARS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Factor A OF — — — — — — TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1=UNDER 5 YEARS 2=5-10 YEARS 3=11-16 YEARS 4=17-21 YEARS 5=22-26 YEARS 6=26+ YEARS SPATIAL DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Descriptive Statistics for: Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 N 35 37 42 74 71 47 Standard Dev. Mean 0.4971 0.5022 0.4850 0.4915 0.4810 0.4137 1.4000 1.5676 1.6429 1.6081 1.6479 1.7872 Anova Summary Table M W M A , W W WA. Variation A Error Total DF 5 300 305 Crjrn Squares Mean Squares 3.1975 68.8286 72.0261 0.6395 0.2294 F 2.7874 •Significance Level 0.0177 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics; are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2153 p = .0275 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.1179 p = .0350 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 179 Table 4.58 (cont'd) t = 2.5058 p = .0127 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 5 t = 3.6210 p = .0003 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 6 t — 2.0867 p s .0378 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 6 t s: 2.0050 p = .0459 Factor (A) Level 4 Factor (A) Level 6 180 Table 4.59-ANOVA for Training-T.Experience-Func. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design - YEARS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 OF — — — — — — TEACHING EXPERIENCE 1=UNDER 5 YEARS 2=5-10 YEARS 3=11-16 YEARS 4=17-21 YEARS 5=22-26 YEARS 6=26+ YEARS Descriptive Statistics for: FUNC DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Factor A: YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 N Mean 35 37 42 74 71 47 1.4000 1.6486 1.5714 1.7162 1.6056 1.7234 Standard D e v . 0.4971 0.4840 0.5009 0.4539 0.4922 0.4522 Anova Summary Table Cnvn r*4UUt W A . Variation A Error Total DF 5 300 305 W/aa n A Squares Squares 3.0087 68.5207 71.5294 0.6017 0.2284 F 2.6346 Significance Level 0.0238 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed1 test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2065 p = .0281 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 t = 3.2253 p = .0014 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 181 Table 4.59 (cont'd) t = 2.0833 p = .0381 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 5 t = 3.0309 p = .0027 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 6 Using age as an independent variable, differences between groups were found in the Spatial and Functional Dimension. In Table 4.60 for the Spatial Dimension and Table 4.61 for the Functional Dimension, the younger the group of teachers, the more willing they indicated they were to get additional training to provide input. Using the independent variable of career satisfaction, signifcance was found twice. In Table 4.62 for the Hierarchical Dimension and Table 4.63 for the Functional Dimension, significantly higher agreement was indicated on the part of those teachers who selected a different option other than their current teaching assignment. 182 Table 4.60— ANOVA for Training-Age-Spatial Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - AGE OF RESPONDENT Level 1 — 1=20-29 Level 2 — 2=30-39 Level 3 — 3=40-49 Level 4 — 4=50+ Descriptive Statistics for: SPACIAL DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Factor A: AGE OF RESPONDENT Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 N 32 48 122 67 Mean Standard Dev. 0.4990 0.5035 0.4887 0.4200 1.4063 1.5417 1.6148 1.7761 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 3 265 268 Sum of Squares 3.3907 60.1707 63.5613 Mean Squares 1.1302 0.2271 F 4.9777 Significance Level 0.0022 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test. ) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.2031 p = .0284 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 3.6122 p = .0004 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 183 Table 4.60 (cont'd) t = 2.6019 p = .0098 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 4 t = 2.2270 p = .0268 Factor (A) Level 3 Factor (A) Level 4 184 Table 4.61— ANOVA for Training-Age-Func.Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - AGE OF RESPONDENT Level 1 — 1=20-29 Level 2 — 2=30-39 Level 3 — 3=40-49 Level 4 — 4=50+ Descriptive Statistics for: FUNC DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Factor A: AGE OF RESPONDENT Cell Definition (A) (A) (A) (A) Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 N 32 48 122 67 Mean 1.4375 1.5208 1.6475 1.7164 Standard Dev. 0.5040 0.5049 0.4797 0.4541 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error DF 3 265 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 2.2510 61.3104 c.•> 0.7503 0.2314 Significance Level 3.2431 0.0226 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 2.1986 p = .0288 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 3 t = 2.6985 p = .0074 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 4 t = 2.1503 p = .0324 Factor (A) Level 2 Factor (A) Level 4 185 Table 4.62— ANOVA for Training- Career Sat.-Hier. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Level 1 — 1=CURRENT ASSIGN Level 2 — 2=OTHER Descriptive Statistics for: HIER DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Factor A: HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N 162 140 Mean Standard Dev. 1.7407 1.5571 0.4396 0.4985 Anova Summary Table Source of Variation A Error Total DF 1 300 301 Sum of Squares Mean Squares 2.5315 65.6540 68.1854 2.5315 0.2188 Significance Level 11.5673 0.0008 T-Tcst Between Cell Means — (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) Note: Statistics are only printed if p is less than or equal to .050 t = 3.4011 p = .0008 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 186 Table 4.63— ANOVA for^Training-Career Sat.-Func. Dimension Design: One Factor Completely Randomized Design Factor A (Fixed) - HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Level 1 — 1=CURRENT ASSIGN Level 2 — 2=OTHER Descriptive Statistics for: FUNC DIMEN: WILLING TO GET TRAINING Factor A: HIGHEST LEVEL OF CAREER SATISFACTION Cell Definition (A) Level 1 (A) Level 2 N Mean 162 140 Standard Dev. 1.7037 1.5429 0.4580 0.4999 Anova Summary Table Sum of DF Squares Source of Variation A Error Total 1 300 301 Significance Level Mean Squares 1.9429 0.2284 1.9429 68.5206 70.4636 8.5067 0.0038 T-Test Between Cell Means - (Values of p are for a two-tailed test.) ^ JL Ml • ^ i* mm A* 4 MM 4 M 4 MM otaux&uiod MM m * MM aic MM MM 1 MM unxjr MM MM M MM 4 * MM m3 4 n ^ MM ^ 4 MM xq 1 MM MM MM 1m H MM « miuu equal to .050 t = 2.9166 p = .0038 Factor (A) Level 1 Factor (A) Level 2 Overall, teachers did indicate a modest interest in getting additional training. While less than 50% of the teachers indicated a willingness to get additional training to provide expertise in restructuring efforts, younger 187 teachers or those with fewer years of teaching experience did indicate a greater willingness. Those who were looking for career satisfaction outside their current position also indicated a greater willingness to get training. Summary Discussion of Teacher Participation Coupling data from teacher expertise with data from teachers' willingness to get additional training was important. While 40-60% of the surveyed teachers indicated a willingness to help with restructuring efforts, approximately 30%-40& of the surveyed teachers indicated they had the expertise or were willing to get additional training to provide input into restructuring efforts. The response of the surveyed teachers suggests a low level of individual commitment to the restructuring efforts, and a lack of desire to develop any leadership role in the restructuring effort. 188 SUMMARY The surveys returned by 314 Michigan public school teachers were keypunched and coded. The statistical package used for analysis was STATPAC GOLD. The programs selected were descriptive frequencies, means and ANOVAs. Cross tabulations were performed and results of the data analysis provided demographic information about the respondents and answers to the four main research questions. Each of the four research questions asked if there were differences among groups of teachers in their level of agreement with the structural changes in that dimension that may accompany teacher empowerment. Six independent variables were tested for each question. The independent variable level of assignment seemed to be significant most often, indicating that teachers at the three levels viewed their school's structural characteristics differently. A summary of the major findings and conclusions drawn from these findings are presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will begin with a summary of the purpose of the study, the methodology employed in the study and a brief descriptive summary of the statistical results found in Chapter IV. The researcher will draw conclusions that connect the study results with the reform proposals. The implications will arise from these conclusions and recommendations will be made for further research. Summary of the Purpose and Methodology The purpose of this study was to enable the researcher to assess the level of support of Michigan public school teachers for the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. Teacher empowerment is a concept which reformers suggest will enable teachers to act as professionals and as a result ultimately improve student learning. Under the present school structure teachers are not able to act as professionals; thus empowering teachers may bring structural change. The framework for examining structural change in the school organization followed that of Blau and Schoenherr (1971). The organization was divided into four dimensions: 189 190 spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional. The review of literature included how researchers described each dimension, what criticisms were aimed at each dimension and what reform proposals were suggested for changing each dimension. The theoretical framework used to assess the level of support was Chester Barnard's theory of authority (1938). Barnard argued that an order or communication would be accepted if the person: understood it, saw it as compatible with the purpose of the organization, saw it as personally beneficial and was able to comply. The survey was developed using the criteria established by Barnard. The measure for understanding the need for change was an agreement with the description of the dimension in its present state, and an agreement with the criticisms aimed at that dimension. School districts were selected by the Prism computer program using the school building addresses of 100 districts. The districts were placed into quartiles and from the median range of each, four districts of similar size were selected. All school teachers in the selected districts were invited to participate in the study. Using a Likert scale, teachers rated their level of agreement with statements about school structure and proposed reforms. Two statements were developed to match each of Barnard's criterion. tested against each statement. Six independent variables were Results were tabulated using 191 frequencies, means, standard deviations and ANOVAs with a p=.05 and a two-tailed test of significance. Discussion of the Results The surveyed teachers indicated a low to moderate level of agreement for each dimension. They did, as a group, show a moderate level of agreement with both the descriptions of the four dimensions as they currently function and also the criticisms aimed at each dimension. In effect, teachers understand the platform for reform. There was moderate support for the link between the restructuring effort and improved student learning. In effect, the surveyed teachers believe that restructuring is compatible with the goal of improved student learning. Surveyed teachers also agree that proposed changes would benefit teachers as a whole. There was also support for teacher participation in restructuring efforts. The fact that most test items received a rating between neutral and "agree somewhat" indicates that moderate teacher support exists for school restructuring. Of the four dimensions, highest and most consistent levels of agreement were reached in the Functional Dimension. The Spatial and Hierarchical Dimensions received consistent and more moderate levels of agreement. The highest level of agreement indicated that teachers want to have a say in their own professional growth and use of 192 inservices. On the other hand, the Occupational Dimension received the least consistent and lowest levels of agreement. The low levels of agreement in the Occupational Dimension may reflect teachers' fears and apprehensions about teacher testing and national certification. While teachers' collective agreement was moderate, their individual commitment to participate was low. The survey results demonstrate the problem with teachers' time commitment. First, the teachers' commitment level varied significantly for each of the four dimensions. Second, most teachers indicated their available time was limited to the school day. This would cause a natural conflict between teaching responsibilities and restructuring efforts. Measures of individual commitment were the teachers' self-reported ability and willingness to give input into the restructuring effort. The teachers' ratings of their expertise and their willingness to get additional training to provide input, were generally very low. Approximately thirty to forty percent of the surveyed teachers indicated they had expertise or were willing to get additional training to participate in restructuring efforts. Sixty to seventy percent of the surveyed teachers said they neither had expertise nor wanted to get additional training. The uncertainty of the role teachers want to play in the restructuring effort and the limits on their time constrain teachers' ability to make individual commitments to the restructuring efforts. Further, these findings cast 193 a doubt that teachers will assume leadership roles in the restructuring efforts. Conclusions The researcher's purpose in the study was to assess the level of teacher support for structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. To assess support the researcher looked at measures of collective agreement and individual commitment. Individual commitment was measured by the willingness on the part of classroom teachers to actively participate in restructuring efforts. Given the response patterns of the surveyed teachers, will the reforms work? Probably not. In the four selected school districts, the surveyed teachers showed there isn't a strong base of individual support from which to undertake and sustain the restructuring reform. The explanation for this conclusion might be attributed to the discrepancies between what reformers think and what the practicing teachers think about restructuring schools. School reform is seen differently by these two groups and their prespectives color their reactions to it. Larry Cuban pinpointed the problem of accurately recording data about schools when he suggested that historians invent the past. They don't invent the facts, but they interpret them and analyze them, filtered through their own experiences, values 194 and expertise. History is woven out of multiple interpretations of what happened (1990). Reform writers are historians of the school culture so explanations of the same school phenomena may vary. Reformers view facts, add meanings and interpret them differently than the classroom teachers. Classroom teachers also view the restructuring reforms differently according to their: gender, age, level of assignment, years of experience and level of career satisfaction. Reformers tend to write in terms of national statistics and a global perspective. Their focus is on the conditions of the 21st century and the need to compete in a global economy. Reformers see the solution to societial concerns in altering the way schools function. Calls for site based management and schools of choice blend with calls for standardi 2 ed tests and national certification. Ron Brandt noted the difference in these two perspectives in the overview to the April, 1991, Educational Leadership magazine, "most schools continue to function much as they always have. Some individuals understand the urgency of our situation, but life around us looks about the same from day to day, so the need for a substantially different response is not apparent to many of those who would need to support proposed changes." Teachers do not view their world through the same lens as reformers do. Adam Urbanski, President of the Rochester Teachers Association, noted that when Rochester teachers had 195 the oppportunity to radically change the way schools operate, they focused on the day-to-day details of school operation rather than fundamental changes in instruction. Classroom teachers in average districts deal with the realitites of their local situation, with a focus on the immediate and practical solutions to everyday problems. They do not appear to have a sense of compelling urgency toward the more large scale school reform proposals. Why don't teachers support the restructuring efforts more fully? Perhaps there is cynicism involved, or the recognition of the obstacles that arise when attempting to change the entire system. Robert Merton, in Social Theory and Social Structure (1968^. defined the concept of dysfunction in terms of strain, stress and tension on the different structural levels. The reformers see the structure of the school organization as dysfunctional in each of the four dimensions discussed. These dysfunctions, however, are contained in such a way as to allow the school organization to maintain its overall stability. Because schools are able to maintain this stability, teachers are not compelled to support change. These changes are being proposed by people who are not practicing classroom teachers. movement suspect. Teachers seem to hold the reform The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching released a major study in September 1990. Among the findings quoted in the Nov/Dec. 1990 issue of Teacher Magazine, was the finding that teachers' 196 attitudes toward the national movement to improve education are significantly critical. Only 18 percent of the 21,389 teachers gave school reform efforts a grade of A or B, 54 percent gave the reform movement a C and 28 percent said it deserved a D or an F. Despite the frustrations of teaching, 86 percent of the teachers said they were satisfied, overall, with their jobs (p.16). What this means is that teachers see a reality which does not compel them to commit to new causes. Larry Cuban (1984), suggested that teacher recruitment tends to bring in people who affirm rather than challenge the status quo. Many of the surveyed teachers admitted to the flaws in each dimension and endorsed the changes in principle, without making a personal commitment to involve themselves in the change process. For differing reasons, teachers invest little energy in altering their working conditions. Robert Dubin, in "Person and Organization" (1968), asserts that people can delegate a portion of energy, interest, time and intellect toward their career while maintaining priorities outside of the workplace. The surveyed teachers exhibited a low level of personal commitment to the structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. This also can be explained by the percieved imbalance of costs and rewards for their efforts. Kathleen Devaney and Gary Sykes (1988) make that same point. Teachers may be capable and experienced but when they balance the cost and reward involved, they may decline-or 197 think twice before accepting the commitment to be actively involved in restructuring efforts. Implications/Recommendations for Restructuring/Reform Efforts The implication arising from the data in this study that teachers are not going to be the sustaining behind the drive to reform schools. is force Teachers may collectively indicate their desire to participate in the change process and may see the results of their collective participation as positive, without making the necessary individual commitment. Teachers attribute themselves with little expertise or willingness to gain expertise. The recommendation is that school districts proceed with caution, carefully measuring the individual support of their own teachers for proposed changes before beginning any restructuring efforts. Close attention should be paid to the level of expertise possessed by teachers and their willingness to gain expertise. If the teacher population is stable, these measurements are important to assessing sustained teacher support. 198 Recommendations for Further Research 1. Replicate this study using three districts per cell to allow for comparisons across "community" lines using the same Prism zipcode formatting. Post hoc data snooping did show significant differences which may arise from comparisons of districts/neighborhood cells. 2. Conduct a comparison study with administrators and teachers to show patterns of agreement and approval. The rationale would be that school improvement plans, as an approach to restructuring schools, would have a greater chance for success if both teachers and administrators exhibited similar patterns of agreement, priorities and levels of individual commitment to proposed changes. 3. Conduct interviews with teachers to more closely examine their definition and criteria for assessment of their expertise. Many teachers indicated that they lacked expertise and were not willing to get additional training to gain expertise. significant. Perhaps the perception of "expertise" is 199 4. Study the relationship between the degree of teachers' participation in district committees and school improvement plans and teachers' assessment of their expertise and/or willingness to gain expertise. 200 EPILOGUE The study is finished and the prognosis for successful reform is slim. I believe the reform doesn/t work because there are two different perspectives involved and essentially two different stories being told. The reformers who advocate teacher empowerment and restructuring schools are a core group. The persons most often contributing to this body of literature are well connected. They cite each other so that their rational and analysis are mutually confirming, piggybacking onto one another/s notions of schools. The reformers are policy based and argue their points from a global perspective. They project changes that are "imperatives" as society moves towards the 21st century. Their appeal is their ability to assign responsibility. Teachers (schools) must prepare students to compete in the global economy and world marketplace. Even panel report titles are futuristic: "A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century," and "Tomorrow's Teachers." Reformers have a publishing connection to bring their perspective to the general public and to the policy and law makers. However, the story they tell is not identical to that of classroom teachers. Teachers have a very different story to tell from their perspective. They are not as a group, dissatisfied with 201 their career choice and the status of their profession. They are not grasping the reforms as their personal answer to the school and societal problems. Teachers are dealing with the realities of their students and their world with a look toward practical solutions to their most immediate problems. They have learned to function within the bureaucratic system by keeping a localized perspective and individualistic point of view. And quite reasonably teachers are holding the reforms and writings suspect. Teachers are not reading professional research journals and panel reports and treating them as gospel. My hope for the future is in a "third wave" of reforms. They should be "bottom up" teacher-based forums for change. The changes that teachers initiate would reflect their perspective and their story. Teachers' power is in their union/association and the ability to collectively bargain the conditions of their employment. Reforms that are written into teachers' contracts are the ones that will last. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT PLEASE NOTE Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Filmed as received. 204 University Microfilms International 205 Dear Educator, 1 am interested in your attitudes, values and beliefs about the current school structure and possible changes. School organization is divided into four areas: spatial, occupational, hierarchical and functional. For each topic, please read each statem ent and circle th e response th a t indicates whether you: (1) Strongly (4) Agree Disagree (3) Neither Somewhat Agree Nor (2) Disagree Disagree (5) Strongly Somewhat Agree PARTI STRUCTURAL FACTORS SPATIAL DIMENSION (flexible use of time schedules/ building space) SD- DJLASA 1 2 3 4 5 1. School buildings are designed to separate people. 2. Mv leaching day is scheduled and organized by adm inistrators. 3. Each classroom in my school works as an independent unit. 4. Teaching and learning are scheduled and limited by tim e periods. 5. Student learning would improve with flexible scheduling of tim e units. 6. Varying the size of the classes and rooms would improve student learning. 7. Flexible scheduling would enable me to plan cooperatively with other teachers. 8. Flexible scheduling of time and room assignment would benefit teachers. 9 .1 want to give input on how the school day is scheduled and organized. 10.1 want to give input on how the building space is assigned and used. 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 OCCUPATIONAL DIMENSION (different staffing p a tte rn s/ m ore colleeialitvl 11.1 feel isolated when 1 teach and have little contact with other teachers. 12.1 identify more with my students than with the other staff m em bers in mv building. 13 Teachers experience little status, or respect from society. 14. Teaching excellence is not adequately recognized nor rewarded. 15. Improving teacher status, respect and autonomy would improve student learning. 16. Teachers with national certification and different levels of teaching responsibilities would improve student learning. 17. It would benefit teachers to have different levels of leaching responsibilities and different staffing patterns. 18. Teachers would benefit by m ore collegiality and shared efforts. 19.1 want to increase my status, responsibilities, and salary through teacher testing and national certification. 20.1 want to make decisions about my own professional growth and use of inservices V . - ...............- ... . - - ................... . 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 J c u 4 5 5 r 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 J 206 HIERARCHICAL DIMENSION (decisions on hiring,evaluation,budget) SD D N A SA 1 2 3 4 5 21. Teachers have meaningful input only in decisions about instructional m atters. 22. District decisions do not match building needs. ____ 23. Building adm inistrators control which decisions teachers can maKe. 24. Committees of teachers should have a major voice in the day to day operation of the schools. 25. Building policies made by committees of teachers would improve stu d en t learning. 26. Student learning would improve if teachers made budget and staff decisions. 27. Teachers would benefit by making policy and budget decisions. 28. Teachers insight is im portant in staffing decisions and teacher evaluations. 29.1 want to give input on policy and budget decisions. 30.1 want to be involved in staff selection and evaluation, and 1 want teacher • input m my own evaluation. 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 45 1 2 3 45 FUNCTIONAL DIMENSION (redefined roles/divisions/ethos) 1 2 3 45 31. Schools a re complex and highly specialized organizations. 32. Schools m eet the varying needs of students through curriculum th at 1 2 3 45 em phasizes the individual. 33. Schools survive through differentiation, specialization and fragm entation 1 2 3 4 5 of th e curriculum . 34. A dm inistrators serve as buffers so th at teachers can teach with 1 2 3 4 5 m inim al distraction. •_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 35. There is an absence of consensus among teachers on what and how to teach, 1 2 3 4 5 as well as how to relate to students and other staff members. 36. Student learning would improve if schools were decentralized and 1 2 3 4 5 m ade less b u r e a u c r a t i c ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 37. Connecting subjects and curriculum would improve student learning. 1 2 3 4 5 38. Teachers would benefit bv defining the purpose of their individual schoo l . ____ 1 2 3 4 5 39. Teachers would benefit if they established the standards of school behavior. 1 2 3 4 5 40.1 want to set the educational goals and purpose of my school. 1 2 3 4 5 41.1 want to devote my tim e and energy to reform ing/restructuring my school. 1 2 3 4 5 PART 11 ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITY 42. Please read each dimension, then num ber them 1,2,3.4 (#1 the highest and 14 the lowest) to show how im portant change in this area is to you. (a)— SPATIAL DIMENSION (flexible use of time schedules/ building space) (b )__ OCCUPATIONAL DIMENSION (different staffing p attern s/ m ore collegiality) (c )__ HIERARCHICAL DIMENSION (decisions on hiring,evaluation,budget) (d )_ _ _ FUNCTIONAL DIMENSION (redefined roles/divisions/ethos) 207 P art 111 PERSONAL PARTICIPATION PROFILE SO N A SA 1 2. 3 4 5 43. ! would he willin? to f’ommit time and energy to restructuring efforts aimed at the: a. b. c. d. Spatial Dimension Qenipational Dimension Hierarchical Dimension Functional Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 ] 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5 44.1 have additional com m itm ents which prevent me from giving tim e and energy to restructuring issues beyond the school day. 45.1 have the expertise to provide input in the: (a )___ spatial dimension (b )__ occupational dimension (c )__ hierarchical dimension (d )__ functional dimension (e )_ _ _ none of the above 1 2 3 4 5 (please m ark an X for all th at apply) 46.1 would be willing to get additional training to provide input in the: (please m ark an x for all th at apply) (a )_ _ _ spatial dimension (b )__ occupational dimension (c )__ hierarhical dimensions (d )__ functional dimensions (e ) none of the above 47. The situation that best describes my highest level of career fulfillment and satisfaction (a )__ my current teaching assignment (b )__ a different teaching assignment (c )__ a support position(Counselor/Reading/Media) (d) _ an adm inistrative position (e )__ a position in continuing/higher education (f ) __ a position outside of education (continued) 208 PART IV PERSONAL INFORMATION 48. G en der:_____ Male Female 49. Age: _____ 50. Your cu rrent level of education (a )__ Bachelors degree (b )__ Bachelors plus hours (c )__ Masters degree (d )__ Masters plus hours/Specialist degree (e )__ Doctorate 51. Level at which you currently teach: (a )__ Elem entary/Pre-Prim ary (b )__ Middle School/ Junior High (c )__ High School (d )__ Servicing students at more than 1 level _ 52. Years of teaching experience, including substitute teaching: (a )_ _ _ Less than 5 years (b )__ 5 through 10 years (c )___ 11 through 16 years (d )___ 17 through 21 years (e )___ 22 through 26 years (f) m ore than 26 years Thank you so much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. The individual information th a t you have provided will be held in strict confidence. If you would like to receive a summary of the aggregated data, please indicate in the space provided below: No Thank you. Yes Please Educator Street Address City, State Zip Code APPENDIX B OVERHEAD PRESENTATION AND TABLED RESULTS AN ASSESSMENT OF SUPPORT BY MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT MAY ACCOMPANY TEACHER EMPOWERMENT BY ELAINE STANLEY MIDDLEKAUFF APRIL 29, 1991 COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT GENDER AGE SATISFACTION TEACHERS OF OF ASSIGNMENT EDUCATION TEACHING EXPERIENCE INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT D1S2DRW 211 LEVEL LEVEL LOGIC o f t h e r e f o r m 21st CENTURY GLOBAL ECONOMY WORLD MARKET PLACE STUDENTS EMPOWERMENT BASED UPON 1986 CARNEGIE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS • TEACHERS MAKE OR INFLUENCE DECISIONS - INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND METHODS - STAFFING STRUCTURES - ORGANIZATION OF THE SCHOOL DAY - ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS - CONSULTANTS TO BE USED - ALLOCATION OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES DIS4DRW EMPOWERMENT MEANS RESTRUCTURING SCHOOLS • HOLMES GROUP REPORT - "MAKING SCHOOLS BETTER PLACES FOR PRACTICING TEACHERS TO WORK AND LEARN." - "INVOLVED IN THAT RESTRUCTURING IS THE BUILDING OF A NEW SET OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN AND AMONG ALL MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL COMMUNITY INCLUDING THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE LEADERSHIP TEAM, NEW ROLES FOR TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS, CHANGED ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, AND EVEN A RETHINKING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF WHAT IS TO BE TAUGHT." D IS 5 D R W fliz • ANN LIEBERMAN’S BUILDING A PROFESSIONAL CULTURE IN SCHOOLS (1988) vii 4 DIMENSIONS OF AN ORGANIZATION SPATIAL OCCUPATIONAL HIERARCHICAL FUNCTONAL PETER BLAU, RICHARD SCHOENHERR, THE STRUCTURE O F ORGANIZATIONS (1971) DIMENSIONS DESCRIPTION CRITICISMS ALTERNATIVE VISION DIS7DHW SPATIAL DIMENSION RECTANGULAR FORM - CELLULAR STRUCTURE - TIME PERIODS ELEMENTARY MIDDLE SCH OO L HIGH SCHOOL OCCUPATIONAL 218 • SPECIALIZATION • ISOLATION • CLASSROOM AUTONOMY D IS9D RW HIERARCHICAL PA R EN TS/ IV BOARD COMMUNITY CENTRAL OFFICE PRINCIPAL TEACHERS £ _____ STUDENTS *20 £ O ' A ' ACCEPTANCE OF CHANGE 0 ACCEPTANCE OF AN ORDER OR COMMUNICATION IS BASED UPON: - AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMMUNICATION - A BELIEF THAT IT IS CONSISTENT THE ORGANIZATION - A BELIEF THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS - AM ABILITY (PHYSICALLY & MENTALLY) TO COMPLY DIS12DRW CHESTER BARNARD, FUNCTIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE (1938) 221 WITH THE PU RPO SE OR GOAL OF PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS VARIABLE GENDER AGE ASSIGNMENT D)SI3DRW PERCENT FEMALE 70 MALE 30 20-29 12 30-39 18 40-49 45 50 + 25 BACHELORS 37 MASTERS 35 MASTERS PLUS 28 ELEMENTARY 4 MIDDLE SCHOOL 21 HIGH SCHOOL 33 MULTI /OTHER 7 39 222 DEGREE GROUP PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS VARIABLE GROUP PERCENT 0-5 11 6-10 12 11-16 14 17-21 24 22-26 23 27 + 16 CURRENT 54 11 DIFFERENT TEACH 10 1 1 SU PPO RT 9 ADMIN. 7 YR.TEACHING EXPER. CAREER SATISFACTION 1 ] CONT. HIGHER ED. 1 OUTSIDE ED. SIS 14 DR W 13 7 LEVEL OF AGREEMENT 40 _l < Z O o z 3 U- 0) z o z l 1. 1)1 C A T I O N • 1)1 l ' \ K I M I M ()l TIACII1K I I H < A IK IN 1A M lANSING • MI C H I G A N • -i H S ’ - M i i t i January 1991 Dear Dr. X, I am requesting your permission to invite all the teachers in (district)to respond to a short survey. The topic is school structural changes related to teacher empowerment. This survey is useful because it focuses on the level of support Michigan public school teachers may have for these reforms. I developed the questionnaire under the guidance of Dr. Philip Cusick for my dissertation and have University approval. It was piloted in schools in Brighton, Holly, Olivet and Livonia. Your school district was selected by Prizm Cluster of 100 Michigan School Districts to be one of four asked to participate in the final study. The size of your district enables me to invite total voluntary rather than selective participation. The survey takes approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. The time frame for distribution is JanuaryFebruary, working within your district calendar. The surveys and stamped return envelope would be mailed to building principals for distribution through staff mailboxes and with a completed survey return time of 10 days. All individual responses would be treated as confidential and the study would not reflect the practices of your district specifically. To your benefit, the results of the data for your district would be extrapolated and returned for district use in assessing and developing your -C »■**• n 3/N U W 1 1 I C l W i All • I am asking that you look over the enclosed survey sample. Should you have any questions or seek further clarification, please feel free to contact me during the day at my home (313) 643-0331 or leave a message at my office (517)355-1713. I am hoping to receive your answer in the next week so that we can set up a convenient schedule for survey distribution. Thank you very much for your consideration of my request and cooperation. Sincerely, Elaine Middlekauff Field Instructor 301 Erickson (517)355-1713 1930 Sparrow Ct. Troy, Michigan 48084 (313) 643-0331 MS t is an A f f i r m a t i v e A c t i o n F'q ud l O p p o r t u n i t y I n s ti t u ti o n 231 M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • M K IIIGAN • .»x82-i-lii.vi COLLEGE OK EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OK TEACHER EDUCATION January 1991 Mr X Assistant Superintendent School District X. Michigan Dear Mr.X, I am requesting permission to allow (district) teachers to participate in a survey on school reform. The study measures the level of support by Michigan public school teachers for structural changes that may accompany teacher empowerment. The pilot study used participating schools in Brighton, Holly, Livonia and Olivet. Your district will be one of four districts invited to respond to the survey. The survey will be conducted in January-February time frame, requiring approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. Surveys will be mailed to each building for distribution along with a stamped return envelope. Time frame suggested for the return is one week to 10 days. Attached is a copy of the survey, as it would be distributed to your staff. The cover letter offers teachers an option to receive the survey results. A copy of the complete survey results will also be forwarded to your office. The benefit to your district is a measure of the level of support teachers have for possible changes associated with teacher empowerment, from which you can develop district plans and strategies. The study fulfills my requirement for a doctorate in school administration and is under the guidance of Dr. Philip Cusick, Michigan State University. I appreciate your support and cooperation in allowing your staff members to participate. Should you have any questions or seek further clarification, please feel free to telephone me at my home (313) 643-003 or leave a message at my office (517)355-1713 Thank you. Elaine S. Middlekauff Field Instructor 310 Erickson Michigan State 48824-1034 Home: 1930 Sparrow Ct. Troy, Mi. 48084 M S I is an A f f i r m a t i v e A c t i o n lu/ u u / O p p o r t u n i t y In s t i t u t i o n 232 M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y COLLEGE O F E D U C A T I O N • D E P A R T M E N T O f T E A C H E R E D U C A T I O N EAST L A N S IN G • M IC H I G A N • 48824-1034 January 1991 Dear Building Administrator, I am on staff at MSU College of Education, and am working on a study that measures the level of teacher support for structural changes proposed in major reform reports. The study is being done for a dissertation, under the direction of Dr. Philip Cusick and has University approval. Pilot studies were done in schools in Brighton, Holly, Olivet and Livonia School Districts. Your central office administration has approved your district as one of four across the state participating in the final study. It has approved the delivery of these surveys to the teachers in your building. The entire certified teaching staff is invited to respond to the survey, but participation is voluntary. I realize that not all teachers will answer the survey, but a high return rate would give a more accurate assessment of teacher attitudes. Because of your cooperation and participation in this study, your district will receive both the complete study results and the extrapolated results relating specifically to your district. These district results would be helpful in assessing and establishing your own goals. The time frame for this survey is 2 weeks. Enclosed in this packet are surveys to be distributed to your certified teaching staff through their mailboxes as soon as possible. Each survey has an attached cover letter that gives teachers the needed directions. Extra copies are enclosed should they be needed. The survey takes approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. I have asked each teacher to return the completed survey within 10 working days to the return envelope located in the school office. I will pick up the surveys from the office in approximately 2 weeks and leave a stamped addressed envelope so that any late returns can be included. 1 appreciate your cooperation in distributing and collecting these surveys. Should you have any questions please feel free to call me at home (313) 643-0331 or leave a message at my office (517) 355-1713. Thank you very much. ^ E l a i n e Middlekauff Field Instructor M S U is a n A f f i r m a t i v e A c t i o n / E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y I n s ti tu ti o n 233 M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y COI.LFGF. O F E D U C A T IO N • D E P A R T M E N T OF TF.ACHF.R E D U C A T I O N EAST LA N SIN G • M I C H I G A N • 48824-10.14 January 1991 Dear (District)Teacher, You are being invited to respond to this survey. School reform suggests a variety of changes in school structure, many of which directly affect you and your teaching environment. I am interested in your opinions! My study will measure your level of support, both as a professional group and as individuals, for changes in school structure that may accompany teacher empowerment. All (district) teachers are welcome to participate. The questionnaire will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. The individual answers you give will be treated as confidential. Please return your completed survey before February 13 to the collection folder located in the school office. Should you have any questions or seek further clarification of this study, please feel free to telephone my office (517)355-1713 and leave a message. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your views. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Elaine Middlekauff Field Instructor If you wou like to receive a summary of the aggreated data, there is a space provided at the end of the survey for you to fill in your mailing address. M S I / ix a n A f f i r m a t i v e Action/F.