Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Dimensions and determinants of school workflow structure Marshall, Michael Anthony 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A2 M37.pdf [ 8.18MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0064550.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0064550-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0064550-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0064550-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0064550-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0064550-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0064550-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0064550-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0064550.ris

Full Text

DIMENSIONS AND DETERMINANTS OF SCHOOL WORKFLOW STRUCTURE by HIGHAEL ANTHONY SAB SHALL B.Ed,, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C oluabia, 1967 M.Ed,, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOB THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r a i n g t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1978 Michael Anthony M a r s h a l l , 197 8 DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representat ives . It is understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of th is thes is for f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. n ^ „ = r r m < , r , r ~ f Educational Administration D e p a r t m e n t or The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date ^ Y s l S ^ A X /97f i i ABSTRACT The study was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the workflow s t r u c t u r e o f j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . I t c o n s t i t u t e d an attempt to develop a c o n c e p t u a l framework f o r i d e n t i f y i n g dimensions o f s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e and p o s s i b l e determinants t h e r e o f . The study i n c o r p o r a t e d seven stages: (1) development of a t h e o r e t i c a l model of p o s s i b l e determinants of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , {2) a d a p t a t i o n and refinement of an e x i s t i n g instrument to measure s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i n j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s , (3) use o f the instrument to i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g dimensions of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , (5) examination of a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f towards s t u d e n t s , namely, the degree t o which s t a f f are concerned with the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior, (6) a n a l y s i s of t h e c o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n , or P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology (PCI), of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f with r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l type, s i z e , and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n and, (7) c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . School workflow s t r u c t u r e was measured by K e l sey's D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow instrument. T h i s instrument i s i i i based on the no t i o n of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n s c h o o l s and i s an a d a p t a t i o n of Perrow»s concept o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l r o u t i n i z a t i o n . Two sepa r a t e major dimensions, • D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l * and * D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment 1, were found t o u n d e r l i e workflow s t r u c t u r e . School d i s t r i c t s and school -types { j u n i o r o r s e n i o r secondary) d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on s c h o o l s c o r e s on both dimensions. School types were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n s i z e but when s i z e was c o n t r o l l e d f o r type, s i z e was not a s s o c i a t e d with s c o r e s on e i t h e r dimension. PCI s c o r e s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n only two o f eighteen p a i r w i s e comparisons. J u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s were, however, s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t with r e s p e c t t o t h e i r mean PCI scores. S i z e of s c h o o l , c o n t r o l l e d f o r type, was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology s c o r e s . School mean PCI sco r e s and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l scores showed a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . The attempt t o e x p l a i n t h i s f i n d i n g and the evident l a c k of r e l a t i o n s h i p i n s e n i o r s c h o o l s l e d t o the d i s c o v e r y t h a t t h e amount of w i t h i n - s c h o o l v a r i a n c e on the PCI sco r e s may be a mediating v a r i a b l e between s c h o o l PCI s c o r e and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l . Shen PCI v a r i a n c e i s taken i n t o account, p r e d i c t i o n of the probable extent o f d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f c o n t r o l i s p o s s i b l e f o r low v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s but not f o r high v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s . PCI scores were a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . The f i n d i n g s were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o a r e v i s e d model o f p o s s i b l e determinants of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . The r e v i s e d model c a r r i e s i m p l i c a t i o n s of a t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological, and p r a c t i c a l nature., The t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s are found i n the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among dimensions o f s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , and a p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e . ..Methodologically, the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t , w h i l e i t i s p o s s i b l e to take an instrument such as K e l s e y ' s , which was designed f o r comparative re s e a r c h , and apply i t to a g e o g r a p h i c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d study* i t i s wise i n such c a s e s to c o n s i d e r using the u n r e f i n e d form of the instrument i n order t o t e s t not o n l y the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the instrument but a l s o i t s i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the r e l a t i o n s h i p of p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y to s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s and f o r the r e c r u i t m e n t and placement of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . V Acnowledgeaents F i r s t and foremost, I would l i k e to thank Dr. J . G. T. Kelsey, r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r sans p a r e i l , whose continued patience, c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m , i n c i s i v e comments, and u n f l a g g i n g e f f o r t warrant r e c o g n i t i o n f a r beyond t h a t normally accorded a r e s e a r c h s u p e r v i s o r . S p e c i a l thanks are due Dr., W. T. Rogers f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e with the a n a l y t i c a l procedures and f o r h i s warm support throughout the r e s e a r c h . I a l s o want t o express my a p p r e c i a t i o n to the other members of my committee f o r t h e i r s uggestions and a d v i c e on the p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t of the t h e s i s . The study would not have been p o s s i b l e without support from the f o u r d i s t r i c t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t s who so k i n d l y allowed me access to the s c h o o l s i n t h e i r d i s t r i c t s . My g r a t i t u d e i s extended t o them and to the t h i r t y - f o u r p r i n c i p a l s who took time out of t h e i r busy schedules i n order to a s s i s t me i n the r e s e a r c h . Thanks, too, t o the 943 t e a c h e r s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. F i n a l l y , a very s p e c i a l thank ycu to Susan, the most s u p p o r t i v e and understanding person of a l l , without whose continued good humour, support, and encouragement I would never have been a b l e to f i n i s h . v i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES x i LIST OF FIGURES ....... ........................... ........ x i v Chapter 1, INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 General P e r s p e c t i v e s ............................ 1 Purpose Of The Study 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e Of The Study 6 D e l i m i t a t i o n s And L i m i t a t i o n s Of The Study ...... 7 The O r g a n i z a t i o n Of The T h e s i s .................. 7 2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES, BELATED LITEB ATURE 9 AND CONCEPTUAL FHAHEtfCEK OF THE STUDY 9 OBG ANIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND WORKFLOW STBUCTURE .. 11 Perrow*s Concept Of Technology .................. 12 Technology And Schools .......................... 1*1 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Cf Workflow ..................... 15 Dimensions Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow 16 L i m i t a t i o n s Of The Kel s e y Study 17 Determinants Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e .............. 18 PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY ............................ 20 Background To P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology ............ 20 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Of P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology ........ 21 The C o n t r o l Typology ............................ 23 v i i Chapter Page Research Using P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology ........... 25 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 30 PCI And Workflow S t r u c t u r e ...................... 32 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology And D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow 34 A Model Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e ................... 36 Assumptions Of The Model ........................ 39 Summary ......................................... 40 3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 41 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ........ ...... . ......... ................. 41 The V a r i a b l e s : D e s c r i p t i o n And D e f i n i t i o n ......« 41 Workflow S t r u c t u r e ........................... 42 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e ........ 42 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology ....................... 42 S i z e Of School ............................... 43 Type Of School ............ 43 School D i s t r i c t .............................. 43 Measuring Instruments ........................... 43 Measurement Of PCI 44 Measurement Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow ... 45 C o n t r o l Of Extraneous V a r i a b l e s ................. 46 The Problem And Sub-problems 47 Sub-problem 1 ................................ 48 Sub-problem 1.1 .............................. 48 Sub-problem 1.2 .............................. 48 Sub-problem 2 ................................ 48 v i i i Chapter Page Sub-problem 2.1 48 Sub-problem 2.2 .............................. 49 Sub-problem 2.3 ............................ * . 49 Sub-problem 3 ................................ 49 Sub-problem 3.1 49 Sub-problem 3.2 .............................. 49 Sub-problem 3.3 .............................. 49 Sub-problem 3.4 .............................. 49 Sub-problem 4 ................................ 50 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ..................... . 50 Sample .......................................... 50 C o l l e c t i o n Of Data .............................. 52 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES .......................... 52 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow ..................... 53 The A s s o c i a t i o n Among Items In The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow Instrument ....... 55 Ken d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance ......... 55 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Of D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items ....... 59 C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s ............................. 60 Te s t s Of Kelsey*s Dimensions ................. 63 Tes t s Of V a r i a b l e s Of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Context .... 63 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Form ..................... 64 SUMMARY ........................................... 65 4. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ............................. 66 THE MEASUREMENT OF WORKFLOW STRUCTURE (Sub-problem 1) ...................................... 66 Refinement Of The Instrument (Sub-problem 1.1) .. 66 i x Chapter > Page Dimensions Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 1.2) 76 WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND VARIABLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (Sub-problem 2) ......................... 90 School D i s t r i c t (Sub-problem 2.1) ............... 90 Type Of School (Sub-problem 2.2) ................. 94 Size Of School (Sub-problem 2.3) ................ 96 WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY (Sub-problem 3) 99 PCI Scores 100 PCI Scores And V a r i a b l e s Of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Context 102 PCI And School D i s t r i c t (Sub-problem 3.1) .... 102 PCI And Type Of School (Sub-problem 3.2) ..... 104 PCI And School S i z e (Sub-problem 3.3) 104 PCI And Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 3.4) . 105 SUMMARY 107 5. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 109 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (Sub-problem 1) ....... 109 V e r i f i c a t i o n And Refinement Of The Instrument (Sub-problem 1.1) 109 Dimensions Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 1.2) 112 DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW AND VARIABLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (Sub-problem 2) .......... 114 D i s t r i c t D i f f e r e n c e s (Sub-problem 2.1) .......... 114 School Type And Dimensions Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 2.2) 116 Si z e And Dimensions Of Workflow s t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 2.3) ................................. 118 X Chapter Page SCHOOL WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY (Sub-problem 3) 120 PCI And School D i s t r i c t (Sub-problem 3.1) ....... 121 PCI And School Type (Sub-problem 3.2) ........... 122 PCI And School S i z e (Sub-problem 3.3) ........... 122 PCI And Dimensions Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 3.4) 123 SUMMARY ...... .. ...... .<•'. ........ . ................. 127 6. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ............ 130 SUMMARY 130 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS .......... 134 T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s And I m p l i c a t i o n s For Future Research .............................. 135 Methodological C o n c l u s i o n s And I m p l i c a t i o n s ..... 139 Conclusions And I m p l i c a t i o n s For The P r a c t i t i o n e r ....... ,. ........................ 139 BIBLIOGRAPHY , , 142 APPENDIX A. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow Form ...... 151 APPENDIX B. PCI Form 165 APPENDIX C. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of The A c c e s s i b l e P o p u l a t i o n 169 x i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. , The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow Instrument: R e s u l t s Of K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance (W) A p p l i e d To Items Grouped In S i x Hypothesized Dimensions ......................................... 68 2. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow Items I d e n t i f i e d As P o s s i b l e J u n i o r - S e n i o r D i s c r i m i n a t o r s Dsing M u l t i p l e T - t e s t s . . ...... .............. 70 3. Ke n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance (W) For Nineteen P o s s i b l e D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items I d e n t i f i e d By T - t e s t .......................,..................... 71 4. Kelsey's Two Dimensions Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e ................................. 77 5. Kelsey's Dimensions Of Acceptance And P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n Tested For A s s o c i a t i o n Using K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance (W) ........... 80 6. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l Items Tested For A s s o c i a t i o n Using K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance (W) .................................... 81 7. The Ten Homogeneous, D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items C o n s t i t u t i n g D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l ............ 83 8. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment Items Tested For A s s o c i a t i o n Using K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t Of Concordance (W) .................................... 84 9. The F i v e Homogeneous, D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items C o n s t i t u t i n g D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment .......... 85 10. School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l Grouped By School D i s t r i c t ......................... 87 11. School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment Grouped By School D i s t r i c t ......................... 88 x i i T able Page 12. C o r r e l a t i o n Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l Scores With D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment Scores Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau 89 13. a n a l y s i s Of Variance R e s u l t s For School D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l Scores By D i s t r i c t ....... 91 14. R e s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range Tests On School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l By D i s t r i c t Using The S c h e f f e Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s ............... 92 15. a n a l y s i s Of Variance R e s u l t s For School D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment Scores By D i s t r i c t .... 93 16. R e s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range T e s t s On School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment By D i s t r i c t Using The S c h e f f e Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s ........... 94 17. t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r And Senior Mean Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l ......................... 95 18. t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r And Senior Mean Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment ....................... 95 19. A n a l y s i s Of V a r i a n c e R e s u l t s For School S i z e By D i s t r i c t .... .... ................... ................ 96 20. t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r And Sen i o r Mean School S i z e s 97 21. C o r r e l a t i o n Of School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l And S i z e Of School (Number Of Students) Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau ................................ 98 22. C o r r e l a t i o n Of School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Equipment And S i z e Of School (Number Of Students) Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau ................................ 99 23. P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Data By School .............. 101 24. A n a l y s i s of Variance R e s u l t s For The D i f f e r e n c e Between PCI Scores Of Schools Grouped By D i s t r i c t .. 102 25. R e s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range Tests On PCI Scores Of Schools Grouped By D i s t r i c t Using The S c h e f f e Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s .............................. 103 26. t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r And Senior Mean Scores On P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology ............................. 104 Table x m Page 27. C o r r e l a t i o n s Between School S i z e and School P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Scores Using K e n d a l l ' s Sank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Tau .......... . 105 28. C o r r e l a t i o n Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l Scores With P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Scores Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau 106 29. C o r r e l a t i o n Of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Equipment Scores With P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Scores Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau 106 30. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Of Schools According To Bean PCI Score, PCI Vari a n c e , And D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l 125 x i v LIST OF FIGURES Fi g u r e Page 1. Raw M a t e r i a l V a r i a b l e s ........................... 13 2. A Model Of P o s s i b l e Determinants Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e ...................................... 38 3. The Research Design .............................. 47 4. Example Of Rankings Of F i v e H y p o t h e t i c a l Schools , 57 5. Example Of c l u s t e r A n a l y s i s Dendrogram ........... 61 6. R e s u l t s Of C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s ...................... 73 7. The Revised Hodel Of P o s s i b l e Determinants Of Workflow S t r u c t u r e ............................. 136 1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Ggn e r a l m - P e r s p e c t i v e s One view o f s c h o o l s which has seen e x t e n s i v e use as a b a s i s f o r r e s e a r c h i n t o the ways i n which s c h o o l s d i f f e r i s the view t h a t s c h o o l s are o r g a n i z a t i o n s (e.g. MacKay, 1964; B i d w e l l , 1965; Corwin, 1967; Anderson, 1970). V a r i o u s f a c e t s of s c h o o l s as o r g a n i z a t i o n s have been c o n s i d e r e d — u n i f y i n g s o c i a l themes (Willower and Jones, 1963), bureaucracy (MacKay, 1964), student a l i e n a t i o n (Anderson,1970), s c h o o l c l i m a t e ( H a l p i n and C r o f t , 1963), s t a f f i n g r a t i o s (Holdaway, 1972), and s c h o o l s i z e and s t r u c t u r e (Adams, Kimble, and M a r l i n , 1970). Only r e c e n t l y has a t t e n t i o n been given t o those aspects of s c h o o l s which are d i r e c t l y concerned with the a c t u a l work o f t h e s c h o o l or t o the s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which the work i s c a r r i e d out (Adams e t a l . , 1970; Lam, 1971; Kelsey, 1973; S t r y d e , 1973). One way to c o n s i d e r the s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which s c h o o l o p e r a t i o n s are conducted i s t o view i t as r e g u l a r p a t t e r n s of a c t i v i t i e s , t h a t i s , as a c t i v i t i e s which occur i n other than random f a s h i o n . O r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y , t h i s non-randomness i s r e p r e s e n t e d by r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , p o l i c i e s , or e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e s s e r v i n g t o guide the a c t i v i t i e s . 2 Moreover, i t i s possible to i d e n t i f y several regular patterns of a c t i v i t i e s , that i s , several structures within a school—"an administrative structure, a workflow structure,... or a curriculum structure' 1 (Kelsey, 1973: 41). Is Kelsey points out (1973: 41), "To distinguish between structures i s not easy, but,... i t i s at l e a s t possible to distinguish between an administrative structure and the structure of the workflow of a school organization." Administrative structure refers to those patterns of a c t i v i t i e s dealing with the administration of the school. Sorkflow structure concerns the way that the work of the school i n educating pupils i s carried out as expressed in the rules, regulations, p o l i c i e s , and established practices of the school. Administrative structures in schools have been examined i n considerable depth. Focus on the workflow structure has been le s s evident, however. To date, no firm determinants of workflow structure have been i d e n t i f i e d , nor have any discrete dimensions of workflow structure been found.* The relationship of administrative structure to workflow structure has been examined (Kelsey, 1973) and found to be of l i t t l e use in i d e n t i f y i n g determinants of workflow * Kelsey (1973) i d e n t i f i e d two dimensions of workflow structure but t h e i r g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y has yet to be tested. See Chapter 2 for discussion. 3 s t r u c t u r e . I t seems reasonable t o suggest t h a t an understanding of workflow s t r u c t u r e s i s important f o r the study of how s c h o o l s operate. Part of t h a t understanding might u s e f u l l y i n v o l v e a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of what determines workflow s t r u c t u r e s . In view c f the i n c o n c l u s i v e f i n d i n g s noted above, i t would appear t h a t other areas need to be explored i n order t o f i n d v a r i a b l e s which are r e l a t e d t o , and may be determinants o f , s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . One area of e x p l o r a t i o n , yet unconsidered i n the research as p o s s i b l e f e r t i l e ground f o r study i n connection with workflow s t r u c t u r e , l i e s beyond the formal s t r u c t u r e s of the s c h o o l as an o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t may be argued t h a t workflow s t r u c t u r e i s e s t a b l i s h e d not only t o f a c i l i t a t e the attainment of s c h o o l g o a l s , but a l s o i n response to c e r t a i n views or o r i e n t a t i o n s held by those i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n who are most d i r e c t l y concerned with the w o r k f l o w — t h e s c h o o l ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . That i s , the p s y c h o - s o c i a l domain may be a p r o f i t a b l e area f o r r e s e a r c h i n connection with workflow s t r u c t u r e . The r a t i o n a l e f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l be more f u l l y developed i n Chapter 2, but, as p r e f a c e , i t appears reasonable t o suggest t h a t a r e l a t i o n s h i p may e x i s t between the views of educators with r e s p e c t t o s t u d e n t s , f o r example, and the p o l i c i e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s , and e s t a b l i s h e d procedures by means of which educators deal with the education of those s t u d e n t s , i . e . the workflow s t r u c t u r e by which the work of the s c h o o l gets done. 4 The present study was an attempt to further the understanding of how schools operate by i d e n t i f y i n g underlying dimensions of school workflow structure along which schools may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and by c l a r i f y i n g the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between orientations of the professional s t a f f with respect to what they f e l t was important in the school and the workflow structure. Therefore, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a topic of major importance to school professional s t a f f was an immediate f i r s t step, A search of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed that the control of pupil behavior was a topic of major concern for school professional personnel. The concern was i d e n t i f i e d i n a 1963 study {Hillower and Jones, 1963) and l a t e r researched i n considerable depth {Billower et a l . , 1967). The orientations that educators have with respect to the control of pupil behavior were given the t i t l e 'Pupil Control Ideology*. In view of the widespread concern expressed by teachers with respect to p u p i l c o n t r o l , the term 'ideology* i s p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate since these control orientations constitute a 'systematic set of attitudes and b e l i e f s * (L. B. Brown, 1973:10). Since 1963, the concept labelled *Pupil Control Ideology* (PCI) has been examined extensively, p a r t i c u l a r l y in the United States. Studies have examined the relationship of PCI to teacher dogmatism (Hillower et a l . , 1967), to student alienation (Hoy, 1972), to teacher 5 behavior ( H e l s e l and fiillower, 1974), as w e l l as to numerous ether v a r i a b l e s . In each case, however, the s t u d i e s have r e l a t e d PCI to other i n d i v i d u a l or group v a r i a b l e s or to the sc h o o l s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e or ' c l i m a t e * . No study has yet attempted t o examine PCI and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i t and the more formal s t r u c t u r e s o f the s c h o o l , i n p a r t i c u l a r the workflow s t r u c t u r e . That such a r e l a t i o n s h i p may e x i s t was a fundamental argument f o r the present study, Willower and Jones (1963) i d e n t i f i e d p u p i l c o n t r o l as a major theme i n t h e i r j u n i o r high s c h o o l study. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t u d i e s d e a l i n g with manufacturing o r g a n i z a t i o n s have shown t h a t c o n t r o l over raw m a t e r i a l s i s of concern {Bakke, 1959; Pugh et a l . , 1968), and the one study which has examined s c h o o l workflow processes {as opposed to classroom workflow processes) i d e n t i f i e d two workflow d i m e n s i o n s — b o t h o f which have larg e c o n t r o l components (Kelsey, 1973: 167-169). T h e r e f o r e , i t might reasonably be argued t h a t the degree t o which s c h o o l s t a f f s are concerned with the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior w i l l be r e l a t e d to the s c h o o l ' s workflow s t r u c t u r e . Purpose of the .Study The purpose of the study was to examine s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i n an attempt to i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g dimensions along which s c h o o l s may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of such dimensions to c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s of 6 o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t and to the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology o f the school's p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study The major s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study l a y i n two a r e a s -t h e o r e t i c a l and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l . The t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n was found i n an attempt t o l i n k the p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i c a l concept of an id e o l o g y with the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l concept of workflow s t r u c t u r e , thereby p r o v i d i n g an examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between group concerns and one of the fo r m a l s t r u c t u r e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n which the group works. In a d d i t i o n , the con c e p t u a l framework expands previous work on the nature of i n f l u e n c e s which may c o n s t r a i n a c t u a l classroom p r a c t i c e s and how these i n f l u e n c e s might d i f f e r according t o the type of s c h o o l . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y , t h e study's p o t e n t i a l was i n the exten s i o n of the use of a workflow instrument t o d i s c r i m i n a t e among types of s c h o o l s . An instrument with the p o t e n t i a l t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e among s c h o o l s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r workflow s t r u c t u r e s would be a u s e f u l t o o l f o r comparative purposes. In a d d i t i o n t o the areas o f major s i g n i f i c a n c e , the study a l s o had d e s c r i p t i v e and p r a c t i c a l p o t e n t i a l — i n the view i t provided o f what a c t u a l l y takes p l a c e i n s c h o o l s , and i n the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the p r a c t i t i o n e r which could 7 emerge from c l a r i f i c a t i o n c f the extent t o which t e a c h e r views are a s s o c i a t e d with formal workflow s t r u c t u r e . D e l i m i t a t i o n s a n d L i m i t a t i o n s , o f the Study The study was r e s t r i c t e d t o an examination of the workflow s t r u c t u r e s and p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g i e s i n twenty-two j u n i o r secondary and twelve s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s l o c a t e d i n f o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n a West Coast m e t r o p o l i t a n area o f approximately one m i l l i o n p o p u l a t i o n . The p o p u l a t i o n s of the school d i s t r i c t s ranged from approximately 55,000 i n h a b i t a n t s to 132,000 i n h a b i t a n t s . The two l a r g e s t d i s t r i c t s were g e o g r a p h i c a l l y contiguous as were the two s m a l l e s t d i s t r i c t s . The two contiguous p a i r s were separated from each other by one i n t e r v e n i n g s c h o o l d i s t r i c t which was not i n c l u d e d i n the sample. The main l i m i t a t i o n s of the study were the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l sample s i z e s o f the j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s and the consequent l i m i t a t i o n s placed on the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s . The O r g a n i z a t i o n . o f the T h e s i s T h i s chapter has o u t l i n e d the general p e r s p e c t i v e s of the study, i t s purpose, i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e , and i t s d e l i m i t a t i o n s and l i m i t a t i o n s . , Chapter 2 d e a l s with the t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s of the study, reviews the p e r t i n e n t 8 l i t e r a t u r e and presents the c o n c e p t u a l framework. The design of the study and the d e f i n i t i o n s of terms are presented i n Chapter 3, f o l l o w e d by the f i n d i n g s i n Chapter 4. Chapter 5 contains a d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s and the f i n a l chapter c o n s i s t s of a summary and an e l a b o r a t i o n of the c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s of the study. 9 Chapter 2 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES, RELATED LITERATURE, AND CONCEPTUAL FRAHEWORK OF THE STUDY The focus i n the present study i s on the way schools structure or regulate t h e i r workflow and on how t h i s regulatory structure might be related to the orientations of the professional s t a f f . The study of administrative structures has been undertaken on many occasions (Hann, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967} but no study has yet established a d e f i n i t i v e relationship between administrative structure in schools and how schools structure their workflow. The study of administrative structure i n general appears to have contributed l i t t l e to furthering our understanding of other variables i n organizations (and i n schools i n p a r t i c u l a r ) . Robbins and fliller (1969) have gone so far as to question the v a l i d i t y of the concept of structure i t s e l f i n l i g h t of the r e l a t i v e paucity of generalizable findings. Kelsey (1973) has suggested that i t may be profitable to examine a d i f f e r e n t kind of structure concerning the educational operation of a school. He suggests that i t i s reasonable to consider a structure of the workflow i t s e l f . Such a notion finds support i n the observations of those who note that what may occur as a matter of course i n one school 10 i s simply just not done i n another school. This difference i n permitted a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t s the d i f f e r e n t ways i n which schools structure t h e i r daily o perations—that i s , in the ways that their workflow structures d i f f e r . Kelsey (1973) demonstrated that i t i s possible to measure a structure s p e c i f i c a l l y associated with school workflow, but he was unable to suggest convincing determinants of such structure. ftn examination of the t h e o r e t i c a l rationale behind the instrument that Kelsey constructed to measure school workflow structure suggests that a key determinant of the workflow structure may be the ideologies of teachers regarding the students with whom they work. Farther amplification of t h i s notion requires an examination of the concepts involved i n studying school workflow s t r u c t u r e -p a r t i c u l a r l y involving the derivation of workflow structure from the concept of organizational technology. Accordingly, the next section of t h i s chapter deals with the concept of technology and describes the Kelsey study in greater d e t a i l . A subsequent section examines work done on dominant ideologies of teachers as probed through the concept of Pupil Control Ideology. A t h i r d section discusses the conceptual framework for the rela t i o n s h i p between workflow structure and Pupil Control Ideology. 11 ORGANIZATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND WORKFLOW STRUCTURE I f s c hools are c o n s i d e r e d as p e o p l e - p r o c e s s i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s where raw m a t e r i a l s (pupils) e n t e r , are processed, and then •outputted* as f i n i s h e d products (graduates) ( C h a r t e r s , 1964), then, as Perrow has p o i n t e d out, the way i n which the raw m a t e r i a l i s viewed plays an important p a r t i n determining the way i n which i t i s processed (Perrow, 1967:197; 1570:73-80). Perrow has used the term 'technology' t o mean 'the work done i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s * (1967:194), that i s , the a p p l i c a t i o n of techniques to the problem of a l t e r i n g raw m a t e r i a l s (1967:195). In other words, technology i s what i s done i n the workflow processes. I t i s to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the concept of technology and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o workflow processes and s t r u c t u r e t h a t the d i s c u s s i o n now t u r n s . The term 'technology' has been used i n v a r i o u s ways i n o r g a n i z a t i o n theory. Not a l l of the ways i n which the term i s used are c o n s i s t e n t with the way t h a t i t i s used i n o r d i n a r y speech ( i . e . t o focus on equipment). Perrow's d e f i n i t i o n i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e to s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as s c h o o l s (where the raw m a t e r i a l i s people r a t h e r than o b j e c t s ) . As Perrow i n d i c a t e s , raw m a t e r i a l need not be inanimate i n nature--indeed i t may be human, animal, inanimate, or symbolic (1967: 195). 12 Perrow's Concept of Technology An important point might be made a t t h i s j u n c t u r e . Perrow i n d i c a t e s t h a t the k i n d o f technology used s i l l l i k e l y be determined by the s t a t e of the a r t with regard t o a n a l y z i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the raw m a t e r i a l s (1967: 196-7). Here, he i s r e f e r r i n g t o the pe r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the m a t e r i a l s . The p o i n t i s t h a t perceptions of raw m a t e r i a l s are probably c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the technology by which the raw m a t e r i a l s are processed. There are two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the raw m a t e r i a l which are p a r t i c u l a r l y important i n terms of the p e r c e p t i o n s of those who are i n v o l v e d i n p r o c e s s i n g i t — i t s u n d e r s t a n d a b i l i t y and i t s s t a b i l i t y and v a r i a b i l i t y (1967: 197). Greater u n d e r s t a n d a b i l i t y o f the nature of the o b j e c t means b e t t e r c o n t r o l and more p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and e f f i c i e n c y during the workflow process. S t a b i l i t y and v a r i a b i l i t y r e f e r to the degree of s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n with which the raw m a t e r i a l may be t r e a t e d , that i s , the extent t o which the a c t i v i t i e s of the o r g a n i z a t i o n may be r o u t i n i z e d . The two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may be viewed as t e c h n o l o g i c a l dimensions, a schematic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of which appears i n Fi g u r e 1 (Perrow, 1970: 79). VARIABILITY OF MATERIALS Not B e l l PERCEIVED understood NATURE OF THE RAW MATERIALS Well Understood Uniform Non-uniform and s t a b l e and un s t a b l e r 1 ! 1 |SOCIALIZING|ELITE I |INSTITUTION JPSYCHIATRICJ | (some I AGENCY I I schools) 112 I ^ ^ |CUSTODIAL JPROGRAMMED j | INSTITUTIONjLEARNING J i{vocational}SCHOOL I I t r a i n i n g ) | J I *H3 I L_ I I F i g u r e 1 Raw M a t e r i a l V a r i a b l e s (Perrow, 1S70: 79) 14 The placement of an organization i n one or another of the c e l l s i s determined by the perceived understandability and the s t a b i l i t y and v a r i a b i l i t y of the raw materials. Examples of various types of i n s t i t u t i o n s which might reasonably be placed i n pa r t i c u l a r c e l l s are provided i n Figure 1, Technology and Schools In the case of schools, i t i s possible to place certain kinds of schools i n di f f e r e n t c e l l s . Schools which have s t a f f s who perceive students as a l l needing the same courses, the same type of co n t r o l , and the same i n s t r u c t i o n , and who therefore understand students very well (they are a l l a l i k e , therefore uniform and stable) may be placed i n c e l l four. In t h i s case, a l l that i s necessary i s the appropriate degree of repression to keep students under control—students are viewed as needing d i s c i p l i n e and to learn to respect adults (Perrow, 1970: 80). At the other extreme, other schools may have s t a f f s which view each student as a unique i n d i v i d u a l with h i s own particular problems, and which f e e l that perhaps they do not understand t h e i r students well at a l l (possibly because they vary so greatly). These schools would be more appropriately placed in c e l l two (Perrow, 1970: 79). The main point i s that the perceptions of teachers regarding their students w i l l 15 probably i n f l u e n c e the kind of technology t h a t i s s e t up i n the s c h o o l to process these s t u d e n t s . D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow The concept of technology as d e f i n e d by Perrow has not, to t h i s p o i n t , been widely o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d or e x t e n s i v e l y used with r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l s . The only work to date which has a p p l i e d Perrow's concept of technology to s c h o o l s (as opposed t o classrooms) and attempted t o measure technology i n s c h o o l s , i s K e l s e y ' s 1973 study. T h i s study took Perrow's d e f i n i t i o n o f technology and a p p l i e d i t i n a comparative study of secondary s c h o o l s i n Edmonton, A l b e r t a and i n the West B i d i n g of Y o r k s h i r e , England. Some s l i g h t d e f i n i t i o n a l m o d i f i c a t i o n s were necessary i n order to accomplish t h i s . Where Perrow i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was p o s s i b l e t o d i s t i n g u i s h among o r g a n i z a t i o n a l t e c h n o l o g i e s i n terms of t h e i r degree of r o u t i n i z a t i o n , Kelsey argued t h a t , s i n c e some r o u t i n i z a t i o n i s unavoidable i n s c h o o l s , a more a p p r o p r i a t e way was an examination i n terms of the extent t o which the s c h o o l c a t e r e d to a d i v e r s i t y of t a l e n t s and i n t e r e s t s {Kelsey, 1973: 56). Kelsey c r e a t e d a ' D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow' instrument which he subsequently a p p l i e d to h i s sample of secondary s c h o o l s . His f i n d i n g s warrant f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . 16 Pifflensions_of D i y e r s i f i c a t i o n ^ o f Workflow Kelsey s p e c i f i e d s i x elements of s c h o o l workflow which might be d i v e r s i f i e d . These s i x elements (equipping, sequencing, placement of p u p i l s , c o n t r o l , e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , and scope) provided the b a s i s f o r the attempt t o i d e n t i f y dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e . Upon a n a l y z i n g h i s data, Kelsey was a b l e t o i d e n t i f y two dimensions which appeared to u n d e r l i e the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow i n h i s sample. These he l a b e l l e d Acceptance a n d - P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n . He c h a r a c t e r i z e d Acceptance by the h y p o t h e t i c a l statement •Our raw m a t e r i a l s are p e o p l e — d i v e r s e and non-uniform—and we w i l l not f o r c e them i n t o an i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d mould of behaviour but, r a t h e r , accept t h e i r d i v e r s i t y * ( K e l s e y , 1973: 169). P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n , on the other hand, Kelsey saw as r e f l e c t e d i n a concern f o r the many aspects of the raw m a t e r i a l s as people (Kelsey, 1973: 169). In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , the emphasis i s placed on the acceptance of d i v e r s i t y , i n the second i t i s on the p e r s o n a l i z a t i o n of n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l aspects of the workflow. A b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n might serve to c l a r i f y t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n . Acceptance i m p l i e s t h a t the s c h o o l r e c o g n i z e s the independence of today's young people and i t i n d i c a t e s that teachers need to be prepared to allow students to run t h e i r own l i v e s out of the classroom (Kelsey, 1973: 248). Acceptance i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a l a c k of r e s t r i c t i o n on s t u d e n t s - - p a r t i c u l a r l y d u r i n g t h e i r out-of-classroom time 17 (Kelsey, 1973: 167). The focus of P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n i s on a high degree of p e r s o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n between teacher and student, and on f l e x i b i l i t y i n s c h e d u l i n g and e v a l u a t i o n procedures, accompanied by a wide i n t e r e s t i n t h e student and h i s work o u t s i d e the classroom as w e l l as i n s i d e (Kelsey, 1973: 169). Both are dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n t h a t they d e s c r i b e d i f f e r e n t ways i n which a s c h o o l ' s workflow processes might be d i v e r s i f i e d . as i n d i c a t e d above, these d i f f e r e n t workflow s t r u c t u r e s are seen as r e s u l t i n g from d i f f e r e n t views of what the predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students are, L i m i t a t i o n s . o f the K e l s e v_study. C e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s of Kelsey's study should perhaps be d i s c u s s e d . F i r s t , the measurement of the workflow s t r u c t u r e d e a l t only with non-classroom items. The argument i s that i t makes l i t t l e sense t o c o n s i d e r classroom t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s without f i r s t c o n s i d e r i n g the s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which these a c t i v i t i e s take p l a c e (Kelsey, 1973: 4 , 5 ) . Second, Kelsey's sample was q u i t e s m a l l (twelve Edmonton s c h o o l s , nine West B i d i n g s c h o o l s ) . Such a s m a l l sample s i z e i n d i c a t e s t h a t to regard acceptance and P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n as the s o l e dimensions u n d e r l y i n g the workflow s t r u c t u r e may be premature u n t i l f u r t h e r s t u d i e s have e i t h e r confirmed or r e f u t e d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n . T h i r d , Kelsey made no attempt t o d i s t i n g u i s h 18 between the junior and senior l e v e l s i n the schools. His was a comparative study of d i f f e r e n t school systems and was not concerned with making such d i s t i n c t i o n s . It should be c l e a r , therefore, that much study remains to be done in regard to these three considerations. This part of the chapter has considered the concept of technology and the derivation of the notion of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow structure from the o r i g i n a l conception of organizational technology advanced by Perrow. At least two important tasks are yet undone with regard to workflow structure—confirmation of Kelsey*s instrument, and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of determinants. The f i r s t of these reguires further empirical work using Kelsey*s conceptualization. The second involves the development of a convincing t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k . Determinants of Workflow Structure To date, no firm determinants of school workflow structure have been i d e n t i f i e d . Kelsey (1973: 225-227) indicated that size of school appeared to be a determinant of workflow structure and that l o c a l school d i s t r i c t may play a role as a determinant (although t h i s association was less c l e a r ) . I t was noted e a r l i e r that the views or orientations of persons involved i n e f f e c t i n g changes i n the raw material may l a r g e l y determine the kind of technology or 19 workflow processes employed to process the raw m a t e r i a l s . The p a t t e r n s i n s t i t u t e d to r e g u l a t e the workflow processes were r e f e r r e d to as workflow s t r u c t u r e . Some d e t e r m i n i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e views and o r i e n t a t i o n s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f c o n c erning students and the workflow s t r u c t u r e of a s c h o o l may be l o g i c a l l y p o s i t e d . The P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of s t a f f was i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r as a p o s s i b l e determinant o f workflow s t r u c t u r e . The concept of P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology i s d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . 20 PUPIL CGNTBOL IDEOLOGY Th i s s e c t i o n of the chapter i s d i v i d e d under four h e a d i n g s — t h e Background to P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology, I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology, The C o n t r o l Typology, and Research Using P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. Background to P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Carlson (1964: 262-276) has developed a typology of s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s which c l a s s i f i e s them according t o f o u r c a t e g o r i e s . Schools are c o n s i d e r e d as b e l o n g i n g to what Carlson i d e n t i f i e s as 'domestic* o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Type 17 o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) . Domestic o r g a n i z a t i o n s are those which do not need t o * forage* f o r c l i e n t s — t h e c l i e n t has no c h o i c e but to p a r t i c i p a t e . At the same time, the o r g a n i z a t i o n has no c h o i c e but to admit the c l i e n t , other o r g a n i z a t i o n s of the domestic v a r i e t y i n c l u d e mental h o s p i t a l s and p r i s o n s . The Type IV o r g a n i z a t i o n has been shown t o focus on the c o n t r o l o f c l i e n t behavior as one of the major concerns o f those occupying n o n - c l i e n t r o l e s i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n (Goffman, 1961; Willower and Jones, 1963: 109). In p a r t i c u l a r , the a t t i t u d e s of teachers ( i n c l u d i n g c o u n s e l l o r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ) towards the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior have been e x t e n s i v e l y s t u d i e d s i n c e Willower and Jones f i r s t 21 i d e n t i f i e d p u p i l c o n t r o l as t h e major i n t e g r a t i v e theme i n a l a r g e American j u n i o r high s c h o o l (1963: 107). The term ' P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology' or 'PCI* has been used to r e f e r to teacher a t t i t u d e s toward the c o n t r o l o f p u p i l b e h a v i o r , a P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology form has been developed (Willower e t a l . , 1967), and t h i s form has seen e x t e n s i v e use as a d e v i ce f o r measuring t e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s toward the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior. T h i s i d e o l o g y has been c o n c e p t u a l l y and e m p i r i c a l l y l i n k e d with v a r i o u s other concepts t h a t are r e l e v a n t to examinations of p u b l i c s c h o o l s . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p u p i l c o n t r o l as a major t o p i c o f concern t o t e a c h e r s came as a r e s u l t o f a study conducted i n 1962 (Willower and Jones, 1963). The o r i g i n a l purposes of that study were t o d e s c r i b e the s o c i a l behavior i n an e d u c a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and to apply and develop concepts which might be t h e o r e t i c a l l y u s e f u l and t h e r e f o r e l e a d t o f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The study was c a r r i e d out i n a Pennsylvania j u n i o r high s c h o o l of 1600 p u p i l s and seventy-two t e a c h e r s . The study began i n A p r i l , 1962 and gathered l a r g e g u a n t i t i e s of data through o b s e r v a t i o n and i n t e r v i e w d u r i n g the f o l l o w i n g f o u r t e e n months, Opon the a n a l y s i s of the data, the r e s e a r c h e r s were a b l e to i d e n t i f y p u p i l c o n t r o l as an i n t e g r a t i v e theme i n t h a t p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l . They noted t h a t 22 o l d e r teachers appeared to be g e n e r a l l y more c o n s e r v a t i v e i n outlook and seemed t o place g r e a t e r s t r e s s on the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior than d i d t h e i r younger c o l l e a g u e s . Willower and Jones saw t h a t t h a t the theme o f p u p i l c o n t r o l seemed t o f i t very w e l l with the g e n e r a l ' c l i m a t e * o f the s c h o o l and the behavior of i t s t e a c h e r s i n the h a l l s , assemblies, and c a f e t e r i a . Since they were d e a l i n g with o n l y one s c h o o l , l o c a t e d i n an area of high unemployment and low income, the i n v e s t i g a t o r s were unable t o g e n e r a l i z e with any degree of c e r t a i n t y , but they were convinced that the theme of p u p i l c o n t r o l was a p p r o p r i a t e i n the s c h o o l which they were stu d y i n g . R e f e r r i n g to s t u d i e s of mental i n s t i t u t i o n s {Goffman, 1 9 6 1 ) , and the displacement of g o a l s t h a t was evident t h e r e i n , they concluded t h a t the g e n e r a l emphasis on c o n t r o l g o als c o u l d not help but d i s p l a c e some of the i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals i n much the same manner as c o n t r o l g o a l s d i s p l a c e d treatment goals and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n goals i n mental i n s t i t u t i o n s and p r i s o n s r e s p e c t i v e l y . A f u r t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n was t h a t younger, i d e a l i s t i c , more l i b e r a l t e a c h e r s have to engage i n a d a p t i v e behavior as a r e s u l t of the s o c i a l i z a t i o n process t h a t they undergo i n the s c h o o l . Three p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t i n regard to t h i s type of behavior. The beginning, more i d e a l i s t i c t eacher may keep q u i e t about h i s b e l i e f s and *go along* with h i s c i d e r c o l l e a g u e s , he may engage i n open c o n f l i c t with them, or he 23 may withdraw from the o r g a n i z a t i o n . In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , h i s e n e r g i e s and t a l e n t s may be d i r e c t e d towards some other part of the s c h o o l ' s a c t i v i t i e s such as a t h l e t i c coaching o r drama c l u b a c t i v i t i e s . i i i l o w e r and Jones a l s o noted that the scapegoating of students appeared c o n s i s t e n t with p u p i l c o n t r o l as a dominant theme. Scapegoating could a l s o be a form of adaptive behavior i n order to ga i n acceptance. Such behavior provides a r e l a t i v e l y harmless o u t l e t f o r aggr e s s i v e f e e l i n g s a g a i n s t p u p i l s , a l l o w s f o r peer a p p r o v a l to be given, and he l p s r e l i e v e g u i l t f e e l i n g s about not having done a b e t t e r job with p u p i l s . The.Control f v j o l o g i F o l l o w i n g the B i l l o w e r and Jones study, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h continued the examination of p u p i l c o n t r o l and attempted t o e x p l a i n some o f the d i f f e r e n c e s i n v o l v e d i n the forms of c o n t r o l i n v a r i o u s s c h o o l s and by d i f f e r e n t t eachers, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and s p e c i a l i s t s (JJillower e t a l . , 1967). To t h i s end, the f i r s t s t e p i n the development of a conceptual framework was the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a c o n t r o l typology. The authors adapted G i l b e r t and Levinson's mental h o s p i t a l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y typology ( G i l b e r t and Levi n s o n , 1957) and developed prototypes o f o r i e n t a t i o n s toward p u p i l c o n t r o l . At one end of t h e c o n t r o l continuum i s an i d e o l o g i c a l extreme i d e n t i f i e d as , c u s t o d i a l i s m , , at the 24 other end, an i d e o l o g i c a l extreme l a b e l l e d 'humanism*. The two extreme types of school d e s c r i b e d below are not found i n r e a l i t y but are u s e f u l as models i n d e s c r i b i n g the i d e o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s a s s o c i a t e d with the ends of the c o n t r o l continuum. The c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d s c h o o l i s t y p i f i e d by the r i g i d , t r a d i t i o n a l , h i g h l y c o n t r o l l e d s c h o o l whose primary concern i s the maintenance of order and the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior. Students* appearance, behavior, and backgrounds serve to s t e r e o t y p e them and they are viewed as i r r e s p o n s i b l e and u n d i s c i p l i n e d . They a r e , t h e r e f o r e , i n need of c o n t r o l and t h i s c o n t r o l i s p o s s i b l e through the use of p u n i t i v e s a n c t i o n s . Teachers make no attempt t o understand p u p i l behavior but view i t i n m o r a l i s t i c terms, i n t e r p r e t i n g misbehavior as a p e r s o n a l a f f r o n t . R e l a t i o n s h i p s are impersonal, pessimism and m i s t r u s t abound, power and communication flow downward, and s t a t u s d i s t i n c t i o n s are r i g i d l y maintained, The humanistic o r i e n t a t i o n f i n d s i t s model i n a s c h o o l where teachers view i t as an e d u c a t i o n a l community. L e a r n i n g takes place through i n t e r a c t i o n and experience, student behavior i s viewed i n more p s y c h o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l terms, c l o s e personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s are encouraged, t e a c h e r s d e s i r e democratic classroom c l i m a t e s , communication i s a two-way process, s t a t u s and r u l e s are f l e x i b l e , the withdrawn student i s c o n s i d e r e d as much of a problem as i s 25 the o v e r a c t i v e troublesome one, and the emphasis i s on s e l f -d i s c i p l i n e r a t h e r than e x t e r n a l l y imposed d i s c i p l i n e . I t should be remembered t h a t s c h o o l s i n r e a l i t y w i l l f a l l somewhere between these two ' i d e a l ' types and w i l l q u i t e p o s s i b l y e x h i b i t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both to a g r e a t e r or l e s s e r degree. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n deals with some of the r e s e a r c h which has been conducted using the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology concept. The note should perhaps be made at t h i s p o i n t that a high PCI score (maximum 100) i s a s s o c i a t e d with a c u s t o d i a l i d e o l o g y . : Research gaging P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology As p r e v i o u s l y i n d i c a t e d . P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology has been l i n k e d to many concepts r e l e v a n t t o s t u d i e s of p u b l i c s c h o o l s . In the o r i g i n a l s t u d i e s conducted by S i l l o w e r e t a l . (1967), the f i n d i n g s supported the hypothesis t h a t those persons d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c o n t r o l of unselected c l i e n t s would be more c u s t o d i a l i n t h e i r c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y than those l e s s d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e . The r e s u l t s showed that p r i n c i p a l s are l e s s c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d than are teachers. S i m i l a r l y , c o u n s e l l o r s tend t o be l e s s c u s t o d i a l than teachers i n t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n to p u p i l c o n t r o l . In ether words, there i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l p o s i t i o n and PCI. 26 Other f i n d i n g s were c i t e d i n the Willower e t a l . (1967) study. Secondary t e a c h e r s were found t o be more c u s t o d i a l than elementary t e a c h e r s , secondary p r i n c i p a l s were found t o be more c u s t o d i a l than t h e i r elementary c o u n t e r p a r t s , open-minded t e a c h e r s turned out t o be more humanistic than closed-minded ones (at a l l l e v e l s , i n a l l p o s i t i o n s ) , and teachers with more than f i v e years of classroom experience were seen t o be more c u s t o d i a l than those with f i v e or fewer years of classroom experience. The prototype of the c u s t o d i a l educator was found t o be the o l d e r , experienced, male secondary t e a c h e r and the humanistic educator prototype was i d e n t i f i e d as the younger elementary p r i n c i p a l who had done graduate work above the M.A. l e v e l . Student t e a c h e r s have been shown t o develop more c u s t o d i a l o r i e n t a t i o n s as they are s o c i a l i z e d during t h e i r student t e a c h i n g (Hoy, 1967: 154). Elementary s c h o o l s have been examined with regard t o t h e i r ' c l i m a t e s ' and found t o be more humanistic with regard to the PCI continuum when they have r e l a t i v e l y open c l i m a t e s (Appleberry and Hoy, 1969). H e l s e l (1971a) r e p o r t e d t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l i s m i n educators' v a l u e s was p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to c u s t o d i a l i s m i n t h e i r p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y . Hoy (1972) has found c u s t o d i a l PCI s c o r e s i n s c h o o l s to be d i r e c t l y l i n k e d to student sense of powerlessness and normlessness. Hoy i n d i c a t e s t h a t PCI may be a c r u c i a l f a c t o r mediating the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s c h o o l and the student., 27 P l u r a l i s t i c ignorance i s a term used to d e s c r i b e a shared misconception. Packard and Willower (1972) d i s c o v e r e d that teachers and p r i n c i p a l s b e l i e v e each other t o be more c u s t o d i a l i n t h e i r p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y than i s i n f a c t the case. C o u n s e l l o r s estimated both t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s t o be more c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d than s e l f - r e p orts on the PCI form i n d i c a t e d . Teachers, on the other hand, were q u i t e accurate i n t h e i r p e rceptions of c o u n s e l l o r s ' PCI, while p r i n c i p a l s e r r e d on the humanistic s i d e i n t h e i r e s t i m a t i o n of c o u n s e l l o r PCI scores. Teacher job s a t i s f a c t i o n has been l i n k e d t o p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y and found to be p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d with the degree of congruence between t e a c h e r - h e l d PCI and the teacher's p e r c e p t i o n s of c o l l e a g u e s ' PCI (Yuskiewicz and Willower, 1973). Other f i n d i n g s supported previous s t u d i e s i n d i c a t i n g g r e a t e r c u s t o d i a l o r i e n t a t i o n i n secondary s c h o o l teachers and i n experienced t e a c h e r s . The o v e r a t t r i b u t i c n of c u s t o d i a l i s m found by Packard and Willower was a l s o supported i n t h i s l a t e r study. The two i d e o l o g i c a l extremes are u s e f u l i n terms of t h i n k i n g about the way i n which t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s view p u p i l s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of teachers and t h e i r classroom behavior as seen by t h e i r p u p i l s has been examined by H e l s e l and Willower (1974). The p r e d i c t i o n t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p would be p o s i t i v e was 28 supported, although the v a r i a n c e accounted f o r was l i m i t e d {1974: 121). The authors a l s o take care t o note that they were measuring p u p i l p e r c e p t i o n s of teacher behavior. To date, then, much work has been done concerning P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. The f o r e g o i n g should amply demonstrate, however, t h a t PCI s t u d i e s i n g e n e r a l have focused on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of PCI to other teacher a t t r i b u t e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , student performance or a t t i t u d e s , or s c h o o l s o c i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s . * I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t the H e l s e l and Willower study mentions t h a t s c h o o l s may be viewed as people-changing o r g a n i z a t i o n s whose personnel work with humans as raw m a t e r i a l s (1974: 114). T h i s n o t i o n d e r i v e s from the work of Perrow (1967, 1970) and i s p e r t i n e n t to the present study. H e l s e l and Willower f a i l e d to pursue the idea that s c h o o l s e f f e c t changes i n t h e i r raw m a t e r i a l s except i n s o f a r as the * T h i s point i s supported by an examination of many other s t u d i e s . See B a r e f i e l d and Burlingame, 1974; Bean, 1972; I . H. Brown, 1973; Budzik, 1971; Drozda, 1972; Duggal, 1969; Garten and Gossen, 1973; Gipp, 1974; Gossen, 1969; H a l p i n and Goldenberg, 1973; Hamil, 1971; Heinman, 1971; H e l s e l , 1971,1974; Hoy, 1968,1969; Hoy and appleberry, 1970; Jones and Blankenship, 1970; Jones, 1969; J u r y , 1973; J u r y , Willower, DeLacy, 1975; Keefe,1969; Leppert and Hoy, 1S72; Lcngo, 1972; McSndrews, 1971; McBride, 1972; N a c h t s c h e i i and Hoy, 1976; N o l l , Willower, and Barnette, 1977; P r i t c h e t t , 1973; S a f a l i d e s and Hoy, 1971; Roberts and Blankenship, 1970; Waldman, 1971; W a r r e l l , 1969; Weiss, 1972; W i l l i a m s , 1972; Willower and L a n d i s , 1970; Willower and Packard, 1972; Z e l e i , 1971. 29 change processes a r e r e l a t e d to teacher p u p i l c o n t r o l behavior. H e l s e l and Willower chose only to examine teacher p u p i l c o n t r o l behavior r a t h e r than t o i n c l u d e a l l those aspects which might be viewed as part o f 'technology* i n a sc h o o l . In other words, they i n d i c a t e d and l e n t support to a l i n k between PCI and technology i n a sc h o o l but they were l i m i t e d i n what they chose t o examine. Much more than teacher p u p i l c o n t r o l behavior may be i n c l u d e d under the heading of *technology*. In a d d i t i o n , i t has been argued that i t makes l i t t l e sense to study teacher classroom behavior without t a k i n g i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the c o n s t r a i n t s that the s c h o o l ' s workflow s t r u c t u r e p l a c e s upon such behavior (Kelsey, 1973: 4 - 5 ) . One might a l s o note t h a t the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the two extreme types o f s c h o o l s ( c u s t o d i a l and humanistic) i n v o l v e many items which a r e s t r u c t u r a l i n nature (e.g. d e l i n e a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , communication channels, maintenance of s t a t u s and r u l e s , c o n t r o l methods). Many of these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s may e a s i l y be viewed as being a s s o c i a t e d with p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n s c f p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f r e g a r d i n g the c o n t r o l of p u p i l b e h a v i o r . How the concepts of p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e might be r e l a t e d i s d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 30 CONCEPTUAL FBAHEHOBK In the preceding s e c t i o n s , both workflow s t r u c t u r e and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology have been discussed i n some d e t a i l . I t has been pointed out t h a t PCI i s one means o f determining the extent t o which a s c h o o l s t a f f i s concerned with the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior. Although the concept and the PCI form have been widely used, i t was noted that no study has l i n k e d PCI t o the s t r u c t u r e of the a c t i v i t i e s which go cn i n a s c h o o l . The p o i n t was made t h a t such a l i n k may e x i s t — c o n t r o l has been shown t o be of major importance i n s c h o o l s and p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e have been found t o have l a r g e c o n t r o l components. The l a c k of s t u d i e s d e a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h an examination of s c h o o l workflow processes was mentioned and i t was poin t e d out that s c h o o l s c o u l d be s t u d i e d i n terms of t h e i r degree c f workflow d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n r a t h e r than i n terms of t h e i r workflow r o u t i n i z a t i o n . Schools may be viewed as p e o p l e - p r o c e s s i n g , work o r g a n i z a t i o n s . To apply a concept of technology which s t r e s s e s the importance of the p e r c e i v e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the raw m a t e r i a l s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s type of o r g a n i z a t i o n . , The view h e l d by many educators t h a t each p u p i l i s an i n d i v i d u a l with h i s own p a r t i c u l a r needs, mode of l e a r n i n g , and r a t e of l e a r n i n g , has been r e f l e c t e d i n 31 re c e n t years by c e r t a i n i n n o v a t i v e p r a c t i c e s (team-teaching, programmed l e a r n i n g , s p e c i a l c l a s s e s , etc.) designed t o enable each p u p i l to r e a l i z e h i s f u l l p o t e n t i a l . These aspects of workflow, then, have been e s t a b l i s h e d as a r e s u l t of a p a r t i c u l a r view of the raw m a t e r i a l s . Perrow (1970) analyzed two i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r d e l i n q u e n t s i n terms of t h i s n otion and used the degree of r o u t i n i z a t i o n as the measure o f the technology i n the i n s t i t u t i o n . As i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r , i t may be more a p p r o p r i a t e i n schools t o examine the extent t o which s c h o o l s c a t e r to the d i v e r s i t y i n the raw m a t e r i a l s . I f a s c h o o l i s o p e r a t i n g under the view mentioned above, i t s e d u c a t i o n a l program s h o u l d be o f f e r e d i n a d i v e r s i f i e d manner c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s view. I f the o p p o s i t e view ( i . e . students are a l l a l i k e and need the same c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n ) i s the one under which the s c h o o l i s o p e r a t i n g , then t h e r e i s no need f o r a d i v e r s i f i e d technology. From the preceding, i t f o l l o w s t h a t the extent t o which d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n i s evident i n the workflow c o u l d be one measure of a s c h o o l 1 s workflow s t r u c t u r e . T h i s i s how Kelsey d e a l t with s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e and i t i s argued t h a t t h i s approach i s a p p r o p r i a t e here. K i t h regard t o the p e r c e i v e d nature of the raw m a t e r i a l s , i t has been pointed out t h a t the i d e o l o g y of teachers with r e s p e c t to the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior has been l i n k e d with the p u p i l c o n t r o l behavior of teac h e r s ( i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s ) . The 32 argument i s that a view of p u p i l s which concerns i t s e l f l a r g e l y with t h e c o n t r o l c f t h e i r behavior (and p u p i l c o n t r o l was found t o be a major concern) w i l l be l i n k e d t o the workflow s t r u c t u r e s e t up t o guide the pr o c e s s i n g of these p u p i l s i n much the same way t h a t i t i s l i n k e d t o teacher behavior. T h i s argument i s developed i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . PCI and Workflow S t r u c t u r e I n d i v i d u a l s may normally be expected t o a c t i n accordance with t h e i r b e l i e f s . When they cannot so a c t , a t l e a s t t h r e e types o f a c t i o n are a v a i l a b l e - - m o d i f i c a t i o n of b e l i e f s (not u s u a l ) , o p p o s i t i o n t o the course of a c t i o n p r e s c r i b e d , or s u b l i m a t i o n of the b e l i e f t o the importance c f the task. I n g e n e r a l , people attempt to d e l i n e a t e procedures, p o l i c i e s , r u l e s , and other a c t i o n - g o v e r n i n g mechanisms i n accordance with t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r i d e o l o g y . I d e o l o g i e s may be thought of as views o f the world, and r u l e s and norms may be viewed as attempts t o s t r u c t u r e the i n d i v i d u a l ' s a c t i o n s i n accordance with the wishes o f those most i n f l u e n t i a l i n a p a r t i c u l a r group or o r g a n i z a t i o n . With r e f e r e n c e t o s c h o o l s , the most i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t i e s i n terms of a f f e c t i n g what t r a n s p i r e s are t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . To be sure, there are other groups who have a say i n what c u r r i c u l u m i s o f f e r e d and these groups may 33 e x e r c i s e some degree of c o n t r o l over the s c h o o l ' s a c t i v i t i e s , but the major impact on the s c h o o l ' s workflow s t r u c t u r e ( i . e . the arrangements w i t h i n which the c u r r i c u l u m i s o f f e r e d ) cannot come from other than the s c h o o l ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . I f teachers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are c o n s i d e r e d as the most i n f l u e n t i a l p a r t i e s i n the est a b l i s h m e n t , maintenance, and m o d i f i c a t i o n of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , the way i n which these people view t h e i r students (the sch o o l ' s raw materials) w i l l have a d i r e c t bearing on what workflow s t r u c t u r e i s i n order f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l . I f the view i s held t h a t no homogeneous grouping i s needed, then t h e r e w i l l be no homogeneous grouping i n t h a t s c h o o l . There i s no p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y i n v i s u a l i z i n g the l i n k between b e l i e f s and a c t i o n s or between i d e o l o g i e s and workflow s t r u c t u r e . Nor i s there a d i f f i c u l t y i n seeing a l i n k between ideology and the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow processes. I f the s t a f f holds the view that more d i v e r s i f i e d o f f e r i n g s , more eguipment, greater m o b i l i t y , and the l i k e are r e q u i r e d i n order f o r the s c h o o l t o operate i n accordance with the s t a f f i d e o l o g y , then the l i k e l i h o o d i s that these p r o v i s i o n s w i l l be evident i n the s c h o o l , to the extent t h a t the s c h o o l as an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s f r e e to c o n t r o l these a s p e c t s . 34 P u p i l C o n t r o l ^ I d e o l o g y and D i y e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow The main point r e l e v a n t to the present study i s t h a t i t may not be a more general i d e o l o g y of education which i s l i n k e d t o the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow i n a s c h o o l , but a p a r t i c u l a r type o f i d e o l o g y , namely, t h a t concerned with the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior. The s t u d i e s on P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology have demonstrated c l e a r l y t h a t t h i s i d e o l o g y i s an important component o f educators* views of students. T h i s emphasis on c o n t r o l cannot help but f i n d o u t l e t i n the s t r u c t u r e of a c t i v i t i e s found i n a s c h o o l . Not o n l y i s c o n t r o l of the raw m a t e r i a l an important aspect of technology i n both o b j e c t - and p e o p l e - p r o c e s s i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , but i t can a l s o be seen to be present i n l a r g e measure i n both o f the dimensions u n d e r l y i n g d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow (Kelsey, 1973: 167-169). Even i f one c o n s i d e r s the s i x elements c o n c e p t u a l i z e d i n Kelsey*s study of equipping, sequencing, placement, c o n t r o l , e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g , and scope, the argument may be made that elements of c o n t r o l c o u l d be present i n any, or a l l , of them. For example, equipping might be seen i n some ways as being r e s p o n s i v e t o a concern f o r p u p i l c o n t r o l . One of these ways might be i n the amount of equipment a v a i l a b l e f o r student use. A c o n t r o l concern might be r e f l e c t e d i n one of two ways here. F i r s t , very l i t t l e equipment might be permitted students ( s i n c e they can*t be trusted) or, second, enough of c e r t a i n types might be 35 a v a i l a b l e so t h a t each p u p i l i s assigned an item of equipment f o r which he i s r e s p o n s i b l e (ensuring c o n t r o l i n a d i f f e r e n t manner), The degree t o which a concern with c o n t r o l i s present i n the sequencing aspect of workflow might be r e f l e c t e d i n how f r e e students are with r e s p e c t to t h e i r time of a r r i v a l at s c h o o l , t h e i r freedom i n course s e l e c t i o n , change, or withdrawal from, and the v a r i e t y t h a t e x i s t s i n times and types of personnel movement about the s c h o o l . The placement of p u p i l s c o u l d r e f l e c t a c o n t r o l concern i n two ways. I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a high concern with c o n t r o l might r e s u l t i n homogeneous g r o u p i n g s — i n order to keep a l l students of a c e r t a i n type together f o r g r e a t e r ease i n h a n d l i n g them. On the other hand, the o p p o s i t e might hold i n t h a t by c a r e f u l l y s e p a r a t i n g students of a problem type from each e t h e r ( i . e . making c e r t a i n t h a t they are not i n c l a s s e s t o g e t h e r ) , such students are e a s i e r t o manage by v i r t u e of being segregated from o t h e r s o f t h a t t y p e . With regard t o the element of c o n t r o l i t s e l f , l i t t l e need be s a i d . P o l i c i e s and procedures r e g a r d i n g p u p i l attendance, movement, spare p e r i o d s , d e t e n t i o n s , and so on have an obvious c o n n e c t i o n with a c o n t r o l concern. E v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g may r e f l e c t a c o n t r o l concern to the extent t h a t behavior i s permitted t o i n f l u e n c e grades or i s i t s e l f r e p o r t e d on the r e p o r t c a r d . Scope (the breadth of the e d u c a t i o n a l o f f e r i n g ) may be seen to possess a c o n t r o l 36 component i n the number of r e q u i r e d courses, amount of c l a s s time used f o r n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes, number of spare p e r i o d s , c l u b a v a i l a b i l i t y , and f u n c t i o n {or e x i s t e n c e ) of the homeroom teacher. Schools r e f l e c t i n g s t r o n g c u s t o d i a l i d e o l o g i e s may again evidence t h i s i n two ways. F i r s t , the p r o v i s i o n of c l u b s , house games, and spare p e r i o d s may be i n order to keep students under aore s u p e r v i s i o n . On the other hand, the absence of these may r e f l e c t an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to have l a r g e numbers of students (as i n house games) i n s i t u a t i o n s where c o n t r o l might be d i f f i c u l t . The above i l l u s t r a t e s some of the types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s which might e x i s t between PCI and the elements of the workflow. The development of a model i n c o r p o r a t i n g these r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o l l o w s . a.flodel„of„Workflow S t r u c t u r e The view h e l d by t e a c h e r s of t h e i r raw m a t e r i a l s may be seen as a l i n k between the s o c i o - c u l t u r a l environment and the workflow s t r u c t u r e . Schools e x i s t i n an environment which a c t s as a frame of r e f e r e n c e f o r them. S i m i l a r l y , teachers a l s o use the environment as a frame of r e f e r e n c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t i s the same one i n which they grew up (Kelsey, 1973: HI). Teachers may t h e r e f o r e be regarded as i n t e r m e d i a r i e s who have a s i g n i f i c a n t part t o play i n the t r a n s l a t i o n of the views held by the g r e a t e r s o c i e t y . In 37 p a r t i c u l a r , f o l l o w i n g the argument r a i s e d i n the preceding s e c t i o n , teacher PCI may w e l l mediate between the environment and the s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . The argument i s t h a t the environment does not d i r e c t l y i n f l u e n c e s c h o o l workflow processes but, r a t h e r , has i t s i n f l u e n c e t r a n s l a t e d and mediated by i n t e r m e d i a r i e s . Three of these i n t e r m e d i a r i e s may be seen as the M i n i s t r y o f Education, the l o c a l s c h o o l system, and the types of s c h o o l s e s t a b l i s h e d . A f o u r t h , the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f , d i f f e r s from the f i r s t t h r e e i n t h a t i t i s not a s t r u c t u r a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n but a more i n d i v i d u a l , p s y c h o - s o c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n which i s d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d i n the establishment, maintenance, and m o d i f i c a t i o n of the s c h o o l ' s workflow s t r u c t u r e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the mediating v a r i a b l e s to the s o c i o -c u l t u r a l environment and workflow s t r u c t u r e are e a s i l y represented diagrammatically t o p r o v i d e a model of p o s s i b l e determinants of workflow s t r u c t u r e (Figure 2)..The model d e r i v e s from Kelsey's Model of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l C o n s t r a i n t s (Kelsey, 1973: 224). 38 E N I R 0 N M E N f | LOCAL jSIZE OF| -5J-SCHOOL f.-I | SYSTEM f r I ————j I-—if TYPE 0P> i |SCHOOL | ]SCHOOL |STAFF i 1 j EQUIPPING J ~* I \SEQUENCING\ ~ * I J EVALUATING| -*f-ASD I J REPORTING | I |PLACEMENT | I |CONTROL i I I I SCOPE | L '. i F i g u r e 2 A Model of P o s s i b l e Determinants of Workflow S t r u c t u r e L o c a l system and s i z e of s c h o o l are i n c l u d e d on the b a s i s of Kelsey's r e s u l t s as mentioned e a r l i e r . Since the M i n i s t r y o f Education i s a common denominator f o r d i s t r i c t s i n the present study, i t i s c o n s i d e r e d to be i n c l u d e d i n the environment. The i n c l u s i o n of sch o o l type r e s u l t s frcm a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the nature of c l i e n t groups i n d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l types and the concoamitant l i k e l i h o o d of d i f f e r e n t workflow s t r u c t u r e s being e s t a b l i s h e d . F i n a l l y , the l i n k between s c h o o l type and PCI 3 9 has been made on the b a s i s of f i n d i n g s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. I t should be r e c a l l e d t h a t secondary s c h o o l t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s a l i k e were more c u s t o d i a l i n o r i e n t a t i o n than t h e i r elementary c o u n t e r p a r t s (Willower et a l . , 1967: 20). We might reasonably expect t h a t other s c h o o l types would show d i f f e r e n c e s i n the PCI of the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f s . Assumptions of the flodel The f o l l o w i n g assumptions u n d e r l i e the model i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 2. I. s c h o o l s e x i s t i n a s o c i o - c u l t u r a l - e c o n o m i c environment which impinges i n some way on a l l processes i n the s c h o o l I I . a s c h o o l belongs t o a parent o r g a n i z a t i o n and i s of a p a r t i c u l a r s i z e and type I I I . each s c h o o l uses a technology which may be d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f other s c h o o l s i n the same j u r i s d i c t i o n , and which i s probably d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of other s c h o o l s i n a d i f f e r e n t environment IV. the ideology of teachers i s c o n s i s t e n t with the range of i d e o l o g i e s p o s s i b l e i n the environment and may operate as a screen or f i l t e r between the environment and the s c h o o l workflow processes The f i r s t two assumptions are r e l a t i v e l y s e l f - e v i d e n t , however, they are provided s i n c e an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n 40 i s the say i n which the environment might impinge cn a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l s t r u c t u r e . A l s o , f a i l u r e t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t d i f f e r e n t l o c a l systems may be r e f l e c t e d i n d i f f e r e n t workflow s t r u c t u r e s at the i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l l e v e l would be a severe lac k i n any model p u r p o r t i n g t o r e p r e s e n t i n f l u e n c e s on s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . The t h i r d assumption i s e s s e n t i a l t o the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a s e p a r a t e workflow s t r u c t u r e and t o the comparison of workflow s t r u c t u r e s i n d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s . The second p a r t of assumption I I I , while not e s s e n t i a l to the present study, provides r e c o g n i t i o n of the r o l e that might be played by d i f f e r e n c e s i n concepts o f education i n v a r y i n g s o c i o -c u l t u r a l - e c o n o m i c environments. Summary B u i l d i n g upon the t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s of the study and the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e , the conceptual framework presented here suggests t h a t p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y may fee a determinant of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . A model of p o s s i b l e determinants of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e has been developed and the u n d e r l y i n g assumptions i d e n t i f i e d . The next chapter d e s c r i b e s the design of the study, i n c l u d i n g the d e f i n i t i o n of terms and the statement of the problem i n more p r e c i s e terms. 4 1 Chapter 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY T h i s chapter i d e n t i f i e s the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s and the methods by which they are measured, o u t l i n e s the problem i n greater d e t a i l , and d i s c u s s e s the c o l l e c t i o n o f data and a n a l y t i c a l procedures. DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The re s e a r c h problem addressed i n t h i s study i n v o l v e d a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of those v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d i n the preceding chapter and of c e r t a i n o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among them. The d e s c r i p t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s of the v a r i a b l e s are provided below, fo l l o w e d by the statements of the problem and i t s component sub-problems. The V a r i a b l e s ^ D e s c r i p t i o n and D e f i n i t i o n In the study, one o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e , one psycho-s o c i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e , and th r e e v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context were examined. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Borkflow S t r u c t u r e was the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e . P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology was the p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e , and s i z e of s c h o o l , type of s c h o o l , and s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e d the U2 contextual variables examined. forkflow_Strupture. Kelsey (1973: 62) indicates that workflow structure includes the a c t i v i t i e s which are d i r e c t l y concerned with the education of pupils. In the present context, t h i s term refers to school-wide p o l i c i e s , rules, regulations, and established practices, that i s , to p o l i c i e s , rules, regulations, and established practices which apply throughout the school (or to p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l s within the school) and which refer to equipping, sequencing, evaluation and reporting, pupil placement, pupil c o n t r o l , and the scope of the educational o f f e r i n g . D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Structure. The structuring of any aspect of the workflow i n such a way as to increase the number of ways i n which that aspect might be handled (Kelsey, 1973: 62) i s taken to be an indication of a more d i v e r s i f i e d pattern of workflow a c t i v i t i e s . Pupil Control Ideology. This term refers to the ideology of teachers and p r i n c i p a l s with regard to the control of p u p i l behavior. A high emphasis on the control of pupil behavior i s regarded as r e f l e c t i n g a •custodial* orientation. A »humanistic* orientation i s seen as one where the i n d i v i d u a l places less stress on c o n t r o l l i n g pupil behavior. The ideology may be measured by the PCI form and the mean score f o r each school i s taken as the measure of 43 PCI i n the present study. Si z e , p f _ s c h o o l . The number of p u p i l s e n r o l l e d i n the sch o o l as o f September 30, 1976 i s the measure of s c h o o l s i z e except i n those i n s t a n c e s where the a n a l y s i s i s d e a l i n g with r e l a t i o n s h i p s more a p p r o p r i a t e l y using the number o f teachers as the measure o f s i z e (e.g. with r e s p e c t to the amount of d u p l i c a t i n g eguipment a v a i l a b l e f o r teacher use). Type„of_School., Two types o f sc h o o l are present i n the s t u d y — j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s e n r o l l i n g grades e i g h t , nine, and u s u a l l y ten, and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s e n r o l l i n g grades twelve, e l e v e n , and p o s s i b l y t en. One of the reasons f o r u s i n g separate j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s was that one might reasonably expect d i f f e r e n t degrees of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s — t h e d i f f e r e n t c l i e n t group alone should be s u f f i c i e n t reason t o expect d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way the sc h o o l s are s t r u c t u r e d t o c a r r y out t h e i r work. School D i s t r i c t . The l o c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l i n one of the f o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r i s considered a v a r i a b l e . Measuring^Instruments As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , two measuring instruments were used i n the study, A d i s c u s s i o n o f each of these f o l l o w s under the a p p r o p r i a t e headings. H§ii§aE§!§fl£_2f_Pc.I. The P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology instrument c o n t a i n s twenty i t e m s , each o f which has f i v e response c a t e g o r i e s . The score (range 20 to 100) r e f l e c t s the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology o f the respondent (low s c o r e , humanistic o r i e n t a t i o n ; high score, c u s t o d i a l o r i e n t a t i o n ) . The twenty items each have a b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n (obtained by d i c h o t o m i z i n g s c o r e s about the mean) g r e a t e r than .325, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t each item i s a s a t i s f a c t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t o r . The s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t based on a c o r r e l a t i o n o f even-item subscores with odd-item subscores y i e l d e d a Pearson product-moment c o e f f i c i e n t ( c o r r e c t e d by Spearman-Brown formula) o f .95 (Willower e t a l . , 1967: 12). Furthe r sampling and use of the same technigues y i e l d e d a c o r r e c t e d c o r r e l a t i o n of .91, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the instrument was a r e l i a b l e measure o f educators* p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y (Willower e t a l . , 1967: 12, 13). For purposes of v a l i d a t i n g the PCI form, the r e s e a r c h e r s asked p r i n c i p a l s to read d e s c r i p t i o n s of the c u s t o d i a l and humanistic viewpoints and to i d e n t i f y a s p e c i f i e d number o f te a c h e r s whose i d e o l o g y was most l i k e each d e s c r i p t i o n . A t - t e s t comparing the mean PCI scores f o r the two groups i d e n t i f i e d was s i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 l e v e l (t=2.639, df=48). A subsequent c r o s s -v a l i d a t i o n was c a r r i e d out u s i n g the same technigues with a new sample. The r e s u l t s supported the p r e v i o u s v a l i d a t i o n 45 attempt (t=3.418, df=38, p<,001). Measurement of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow. Measurement of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f workflow was by means of an instrument developed by Kelsey f o r h i s comparative study of s c h o o l s i n A l b e r t a and the United Kingdom. T h i s instrument has not been subjected to the e x t e n s i v e t e s t s of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y which c h a r a c t e r i z e the PCI form. For t h i s reason, the use of t h i s instrument was i n a sense e x p l o r a t o r y and r e g u i r e d a more e x t e n s i v e s e t of a n a l y s e s than d i d the use of t h e PCI form. These a n a l y s e s are d i s c u s s e d i n a l a t e r s e c t i o n . In the o r i g i n a l study (Kelsey, 1973), t h r e e stages were used i n r e f i n i n g the o r i g i n a l f i f t y - t w o item, m u l t i p l e category instrument, Kelsey used K e n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance t o a s s e s s the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n between items i n d i f f e r e n t groups. When t h i s was done, t h r e e s e t s of items had been i d e n t i f i e d — o n e set where the mean scores obtained by A l b e r t a and West R i d i n g s c h o o l s were the same or very s i m i l a r , a second s e t i n which the mean s c o r e of West Ri d i n g s c h o o l s was c o n s i d e r a b l y g r e a t e r than t h a t of A l b e r t a s c h o o l s , and a t h i r d s e t which was the converse o f the second s e t . In Kelsey's study, the second (high A l b e r t a means) and t h i r d (high West R i d i n g means) s e t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t (p<.05) a s s o c i a t i o n i n the whole sample and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e sub-samples and the t h r e e groups were used as the b a s i s f o r 46 item a n a l y s i s refinement u s i n g f i r s t the Brogden or General B i s e r i a l C o e f f i c i e n t (GBR) (Brogden, 1949), and then s p l i t -h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t s . The GfiR a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d two s e t s of eleven items which were accepted as the only sets of s c a l a b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i n g items and subsequently s u b j e c t e d t o s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t s (Kelsey, 1973: 166). Spearman*s rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was used to t e s t the degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n between ranks o b t a i n e d by s c h o o l s on each s e t of the items and the r e s u l t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s at the .05 l e v e l (Kelsey, 1973: 166). I t was from these r e s u l t s that the two eleven item s e t s were i d e n t i f i e d and subsequently l a b e l l e d Acceptance and P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n . Control, of £xtranepus_Variables In order t o c o n t r o l f o r the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s of geographic l o c a t i o n and s o c i o - c u l t u r a l - e c o n o m i c environmental e f f e c t s , the d i s t r i c t s were s e l e c t e d from the same geographic l o c a t i o n so t h a t these e f f e c t s could be considered as constant across the sample. The o v e r a l l design f o r the study i s presented i n F i g u r e 3. 47 J u n i o r Secondary Senior Secondary T o t a l s School D i s t r i c t A B 1 9 f 8 T ~ ' 1: I ! D | T o t a l Number of f | Schools by Type | + -H 1 6 I 3 I 9 f 22 12 34 F i g u r e 3 The Research Design T he_ Prob l e g _ a n d S u b- p ro b l em s Expressed g e n e r a l l y , the problem was: To i d e n t i f y and measure dimensions of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e and t o examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h a t s t r u c t u r e and the s i z e , type, and d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n of s c h o o l s as w e l l as the r e l a t i o n s h i p between those dimensions and the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l s t a f f s . 48 Subsumed by t h i s g e n e r a l problem statement are s e v e r a l sub-problems. These are provided below. Sub-problem J To examine the workflow s t r u c t u r e s of a sample of j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s using an instrument which was p r e v i o u s l y developed t o measure the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow i n s c h o o l s i n a comparative study. Sub-problem 1.1 To assess the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow instrument t o the s c h o o l s i n the sample and t o r e f i n e the instrument as necessary. Sub-problem 1.2 To i d e n t i f y any u n d e r l y i n g dimensions of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e r e v e a l e d by the instrument and t o compare these with p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d dimensions. Subiproblem 2 To examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between sch o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e as measured above and c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t . Sub^Eroblem 2^1. To assess the extent to which s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s according to l o c a l s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n . 49 Sub-£roblem 2^2 To assess the extent to which the workflow s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s a c c o r d i n g t o s c h o o l type ( j u n i o r secondary compared to s e n i o r secondary). Sub-problem 2^3 To assess the extent t o which s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s a c c o r d i n g t o s i z e cf s c h o o l . Sub-problem 3 To examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e and the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f s . Sub-Problem 3.1 To assess the extent t o which the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l s t a f f s d i f f e r s from s c h o o l d i s t r i c t to s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . Sub-problem 3^2 To assess the extent t o which the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l s t a f f s v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o type o f s c h o o l . Job-problem 3^3 To assess the extent to which the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l s t a f f s v a r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o sc h o o l s i z e . Sub-problem 3._4 To assess the extent of the a s s o c i a t i o n between the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y of s c h o o l s t a f f and the measured workflow s t r u c t u r e of the s c h o o l . 50 Sub^proplem 4 To r e v i s e the proposed model of determinants of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i n l i g h t o f the r e s u l t s of the analyses performed i n sub-problems one through t h r e e . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The s c h o o l s i n the present study were s e l e c t e d according to the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : 1. The parent d i s t r i c t had t o have sep a r a t e j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . 2. At l e a s t two s c h o o l s of each type had t o be a v a i l a b l e i n the d i s t r i c t {in order to provide i n t r a - t y p e v a r i a n c e i n some of the a n a l y s e s ) . 3. The d i s t r i c t s had to be i n the same geographic area i n order to minimize the e f f e c t s o f s o c i o -e c o n o m i c - c u l t u r a l v a r i a b l e s as much as p o s s i b l e . 4. The s c h o o l s had t o be i n a s i z e range a p p r o p r i a t e f o r comparison with Kelsey*s sample. Sample A t o t a l of 22 j u n i o r secondary and 12 s e n i o r secondary schools were examined i n f o u r l a r g e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i n the area p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . T h i s sample c o n s t i t u t e s what has 51 been c a l l e d the ' a c c e s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n " , t h a t i s , the popu l a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the r e s e a r c h e r (Bracht and G l a s s , 1968:440). The group t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r wishes t o understand b e t t e r , and to which he wants to apply the co n c l u s i o n s drawn from h i s f i n d i n g s , i s designated the "t a r g e t population* (Bracht and G l a s s , 1968:440). I f , as i n the present study, the sample has not been randomly s e l e c t e d , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n t o the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n can be made only on the b a s i s of a thorough knowledge of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the a c c e s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n and the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n . The a c c e s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n i n the present study was b r i e f l y d e s c r i b e d on page 7. a f u l l e r d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the f o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s i s provided i n appendix C. Since the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s are l o c a t e d i n the same geographic area, the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t of d i f f e r i n g geographic l o c a t i o n s on the same workflow processes was c o n t r o l l e d . Only secondary s c h o o l s were i n c l u d e d s i n c e the only study which has attempted to examine workflow s t r u c t u r e i n s c h o o l s di d so us i n g secondary s c h o o l s , and the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow form to d i s c r i m i n a t e between elementary and secondary s c h o o l s would have i n v o l v e d the a l t e r a t i o n of so many items t h a t the o r i g i n a l instrument, and Kelsey*s study, would have been of l i t t l e use as comparisons. The j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s ranged i n s i z e from approximately 350 t o 1100 p u p i l s and the s e n i o r 52 secondary schools ranged in s i z e from approximately 550 to 2000 pupils. Kelsey*s study had a siz e range from approximately 600 to 2500 pupils so the s i z e ranges were roughly equivalent and should not lead to discrepancies i n the findings on that basis alone. Collection of Data Data were obtained from two sources; from each pr i n c i p a l (with respect to both D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and PCI) and from each teacher (PCI). P r i n c i p a l s were contacted at d i s t r i c t administration meetings or by telephone. The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow and the PCI forms were completed i n i n d i v i d u a l schools. P r i n c i p a l s distributed the PCI forms to s t a f f for in d i v i d u a l completion and return to the school o f f i c e . DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The analysis of data was carried out i n four d i s t i n c t stages. F i r s t , the data obtained from the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Form were analyzed to determine i f any underlying dimensions could be i d e n t i f i e d . The second stage involved analysis of the re l a t i o n s h i p of workflow structure to the contextual variables of size of school, type of school, and school d i s t r i c t . The t h i r d stage was concerned with analysis 53 of the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. The f i n a l stage used c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y ses to examine the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between PCI and any D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow dimensions i d e n t i f i e d i n stage 1. T h i r t y - f o u r s c h o o l s (12 s e n i o r , 22 j u n i o r ) had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study. Of the 1589 p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f i n these s c h o o l s , 943 provided usable r e t u r n s . ft D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow Form was completed by each p r i n c i p a l . The r a t e of r e t u r n o f the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Form was 59.35%. The methods of a n a l y s i s are d i s c u s s e d i n d e t a i l below. In view o f the e x p l o r a t o r y nature of the r e s e a r c h , the alpha l e v e l f o r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e t at .10 f o r t h e analyses a s s o c i a t e d with the s t a t i s t i c a l hypotheses corresponding to the sub-problems o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Form as used by Kelsey contained f i f t y - t w o items (Kelsey, 1973: 292-308). In t h e present study, only f o r t y - e i g h t items were employed. One item (regarding program a p p e l l a t i o n s ) was not a p p l i c a b l e t o the present B r i t i s h Columbia s i t u a t i o n while data f o r three others (concerning i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s s i z e s and times of day of i n d i v i d u a l c l a s s e s ) proved t o be unobtainable from p r i n c i p a l s i n many cases, Consequently, these items were 54 removed from c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the a n a l y s i s . The f o r t y - e i g h t items remaining were examined i n the j u n i o r sample, the s e n i o r sample, and the combined sample i n an attempt to e i t h e r support Kelsey's two f i n a l dimensions ( P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance) o r i d e n t i f y new ones. T h i s part of the a n a l y s i s was conducted i n s e v e r a l s t a ges. F i r s t , the degree of a s s o c i a t i o n among items i n the v a r i o u s dimensions was assessed u s i n g K e n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance. Second, m u l t i p l e t - t e s t s were run t o i d e n t i f y items which might d i s c r i m i n a t e between the j u n i o r and s e n i o r samples. T h i r d , the items i d e n t i f i e d i n stage two were t e s t e d f o r a s s o c i a t i o n (using K e n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance) i n the whole sample, j u n i o r sample, and s e n i o r sample. Fourth, t h e items which had higher mean scores i n the s e n i o r sample and which were i d e n t i f i e d as p o s s i b l e d i s c r i m i n a t o r s were t e s t e d i n the three samples using Kendall's c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance and a s i m i l a r procedure was followed f o r items which had higher means i n the j u n i o r sample. F i f t h , the items i d e n t i f i e d by t - t e s t s were subjected t o c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s , again f o r each of the three samples. F i n a l l y , both of Kelsey's f i n a l dimensions of P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance were t e s t e d both i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n combined f a s h i o n i n each of the s a m p l e s — a g a i n using the K e n d a l l c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance. A more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f each procedure i s provided below. The r e s u l t s are presented i n Chapter 4 . 55 The A s s o c i a t i o n Among I t e m s i n the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Instrument Kelsey examined the data from the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument and concluded, a f t e r c o n s i d e r a b l e a n a l y s i s , t h a t o n l y two dimensions e x i s t e d - - P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance. The d e c i s i o n was made i n the present study to begin with the i n i t i a l items r a t h e r than with the two r e s u l t a n t dimensions. There were two reasons f o r t h i s d e c i s i o n . F i r s t , K e l s e y ' s study was a comparative one between E n g l i s h and Canadian s c h o o l s . The r e s u l t s o&tained were not n e c e s s a r i l y those which would emerge i n a study which examined on l y Canadian s c h o o l s . , Second, i n t h e Canadian sample of the Kelsey study, s i x s c h o o l s were p u b l i c s c h o o l s , and s i x were separate (Soman C a t h o l i c ) p u b l i c s c h o o l s , and these were l a r g e l y of the combined j u n i o r -s e n i o r type. T h i s appeared t o be an i n s u f f i c i e n t b a s i s on which to accept P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n and Acceptance as s t a r t i n g p o i n t s i n the c u r r e n t study. K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of.Conegrdance. The f i r s t stage, that of t e s t i n g the a s s o c i a t i o n among items using the Kendall c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance W, was conducted i n s i m i l a r f a s h i o n to the Kelsey study. The use of a non-parametric t e s t was co n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e i n view o f the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l j u n i o r (22 schools) and s e n i o r (12 schools) samples. A l s o , no assumptions needed t o be made concerning the nature of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s which u n d e r l i e the data. 56 Since the d i s t r i b u t i o n s are not known i n t h i s study, non-parametric a n a l y s i s i s more s u i t a b l e than parametric techniques. In a n a l y s e s i n v o l v i n g a l l 34 s c h o o l s , and i n those analyses where i t makes sense t o view the data as g u a s i - i n t e r v a l {i.e. t h e r e i s some sense o f magnitude of d i f f e r e n c e s between two s c o r e s [ G l a s s and S t a n l e y , 1970: 13j) i t may be p o s s i b l e to use c e r t a i n parametric t e s t s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the more •robust* ones). K e n d a l l ' s c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance (W) assesses the degree of agreement among judges* rankings. In the present a n a l y s i s , s c h o o l s were considered t o be i n d i v i d u a l s ranked by the items (the j u d g e s ) . In each hypothesized element of the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow, the items were used to rank s c h o o l s i n each o f the j u n i o r sample, the s e n i o r sample, and the whole sample. For items c o n s i d e r e d under Equipping, i t was necessary to combine v a r i o u s items d i f f e r e n t l y a number of times s i n c e the c a l c u l a t i o n of the s c o r e s f o r c e r t a i n items i n v o l v e d the same raw data. An example showing the c a l c u l a t i o n of W i s provided below. In i t , f i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l s c h o o l s (a,b,c,d,e) have been ranked (1,2,3,4, or 5) a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r scores on each of t h r e e items. For s i m p l i c i t y of c a l c u l a t i o n , the example i s assumed to have no t i e s c o r e s . 57 SCHOOL r 1 T T T T | a | b | c | d | e | 1 + — I +—-j -—I Item 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 j 5 | Item 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 . | 4 | 2 | Item 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 } 4 J * f + - h + i Rj J 7 I 12| 8 | 7 | 11J I 1 1 1 i ,i . . J F i g u r e 4 Example of Rankings of F i v e H y p o t h e t i c a l Schools The bottom row, R j , i n d i c a t e s the sum of each s c h o o l ' s assigned ranks. I f the s c h o o l s had been ranked i n the same order on each item, then s c h o o l a would have a rank sum of 1+1*1=3, with the sums f o r the remaining s c h o o l s being 6,9,12, and 15. Such rankings would r e f l e c t p e r f e c t i n t e r -item agreement. When the ran k i n g s are such as t o i n d i c a t e no agreement on the part of the items, the rank sums are approximately egual. «, the c o e f f i c i e n t of concordance, i s a f u n c t i o n of the degree of v a r i a n c e among the rank sums. The high e r the value of H <0<5K1) the g r e a t e r the rank v a r i a n c e and the great e r the degree of agreement among the judges. 58 The computation o f W i s obtained by: V < B 3 - l l i - 1 2 W = 4z.l N _ _ l _ 1/12 k* (N3 - N) Where k i s the number o f judges, H the number of ranks. In the example above. » .= (7-9) «• (12-9) z» (8-9) z* (7-9) z+Mt-9) a 1/12 (3) z (53 - 5) « = .24 The e f f e c t of t i e s i s to depress the value of W. T h i s e f f e c t may be countered by use of a t i e c o r r e c t i o n f a c t o r . The formula f o r S when t i e s are present i s : , 4=1 . 1-1 1/12k2(N3-N)-k5T T Where T=1/12 2 ( t 3 - t) and t i s the number of t i e d o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r a given rank w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r group. 1 i n d i c a t e s t h a t a l l groups of t i e s i n a given ranking are to be summed, and 7. i n d i c a t e s t h a t the T values are to be 59 summed over the k rankings (Siegel, 1956: 229-234). I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of Discriminating Items. The next part of the analysis sought to esta b l i s h a foundation upon which the building of other groupings might be carried out. In order to do t h i s , i t was necessary to i d e n t i f y items which di f f e r e n t i a t e d between the two different school t y p e s — junior and senior, accordingly, multiple t-tests were run on items i n an attempt to i d e n t i f y possible discriminating items. The alpha l e v e l for sign i f i c a n c e was set at .10. This l e v e l , plus the compounding e f f e c t of Type I error probability as a r e s u l t of running multiple, separate t -tests meant that, although some items would be i d e n t i f i e d as s i g n i f i c a n t discriminators when i n fact they were not, the chance of a s i g n i f i c a n t discriminator not being included was very low. The items i d e n t i f i e d would therefore serve as a basis for further refinement and analysis. Kendall's « was again used to test the degree of association of a l l discriminating items i n each of the three samples (junior, senior, and a l l schools), Then, i t was necessary to employ a procedure which would group s i m i l a r items ( i . e . items which correlate highly with one another) and give an indicati o n of the strength of the multiple association. Cluster analysis was selected as the means by which these groupings would be i d e n t i f i e d . 60 C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s . C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s groups s i m i l a r v a r i a b l e s u s i n g as an i n i t i a l measure of a s s o c i a t i o n the d i s t a n c e between v a r i a b l e s t o group the two most s i m i l a r v a r i a b l e s . The next v a r i a b l e most s i m i l a r to the f i r s t two i s then i n c l u d e d i n the grouping. The process i s repeated u n t i l each v a r i a b l e i s i n c l u d e d i n one or more c l u s t e r s . Each c l u s t e r i n c l u d e s a t l e a s t two v a r i a b l e s . The a n a l y s i s may be v i s u a l l y represented by ' t r e e * or •dendrogram* (Figure 5). V i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n of the c l u s t e r t r e e serves t o i d e n t i f y l a r g e l e v e l changes where the number of v a r i a b l e s i n a c l u s t e r jumps a b r u p t l y . Large l e v e l changes are i n d i c a t i v e of the p o i n t s at which the c l u s t e r s may be considered t o be no longer w e l l separated. I n s p e c t i o n of the c l u s t e r d i s t a n c e s or s i m i l a r i t i e s a l s o provides an i n d i c a t i o n of how l a r g e a c l u s t e r should be by p r o v i d i n g a measure o f how c l o s e t ogether the c l u s t e r items are. High s i m i l a r i t y values r e f l e c t a more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d or s i m i l a r group of items than do low s i m i l a r i t y v a l u e s . 61 VARIABLE 14) 96 96 95/95/83/13/68 68 75/38 48 39 39/ / / / / ' • / / r — / / / / / / / 99/97/93/80/6 9/68 66 71/38 53 36 36/ / / / / / / / / / / / / '98/94/82/72/67 67 72/39 52 35 36/ / / / / / / / / / / / / 30)/92/80/70/65 68 71/37 52 36 37/ / / / / / / / / / / 27)/82/73/68 68 73/40 43 37 38/ / / / / / / / / 24)/75/66 47 68/50 37 54 45/ / / / / / / 23)/60 53 63/43 48 38 38/ / / — / / 19) 61 74/45 51 48 60/ / / - / / 21) 74/30 45 43 37/ / / / / 22) /57 47 45 38/ / / 12) 54/53 47/ / / / / 37)/40 48/ / 44) 64/ / / 4 7 ) / F i g u r e 5 Example of C l u s t e r A n a l y s i s Dendrogram 62 In Figure 5, item numbers are shown i n parentheses on the l e f t . The horizontal and slash lines delineate the boundaries of various c l u s t e r s . The dendrogram i s read by starting with the two variables (items) with the highest s i m i l a r i t y i n d i c a t o r . In Figure 5, variables 28 and 29 have a s i m i l a r i t y index of 99 (defined by the s o l i d l i n e t r i a n g l e ) . These two variables form the f i r s t c l u s t e r . This cluster i s then enlarged through the addition of variable 30, which has a s i m i l a r i t y index of 98 with variable 29. The next cl u s t e r would consist of variables 28, 29, 30, and 14. Small clusters are then linked together to form new, larger c l u s t e r s . The s i m i l a r i t y index f o r a given pair of variables i s found by s t a r t i n g with the item that i s lower on the page and reading upwards towards the top r i g h t hand corner u n t i l the number across from the second item i s located. For example, the index r e l a t i n g item 37 and 23 i s 48--the path i s outlined by a s o l i d l i n e on each side. The index i s c i r c l e d . A s i m i l a r i t y index of 50 indicates no association between two variables. A value of 65-75 i s evidence of a moderate degree of positive association, values of 2 5 to 35 evidence of a moderate inverse association. Strong positive associations are indicated by indices greater than 75, strong inverse associations by indices l e s s than 25. Composite indices, i n d i c a t i n g the strength of association within an entire c l u s t e r , should always be greater than 50 63 (i.e. always positive) since three or more variables cannot a l l be inversely related to one another. Values from 65 to 75 indicate a moderate degree of association for the whole clu s t e r . Values above 75 are evidence of strong association. In view of the exploratory nature of the present study, i t was decided to accept as probable clusters groups with composite indices of 65 or above. These groups were then examined for l o g i c a l coherence and tested f o r association using Kendall's ». Tests of Kelsey's Dimensions. In order to assess the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the two dimensions i d e n t i f i e d by Kelsey, the items constituting h i s dimensions of Acceptance and Personalization were subjected to tests of association (Kendall's B) i n the three samples. The two eleven item groups were tested separately, then as a composite group of twenty-two items. Tests of Variables of Organizational Context In order to test for possible i n t e r - d i s t r i c t differences i n school s i z e , an analysis of variance/multiple range test analysis was carried out. Next, d i s t r i c t differences on the item group i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r were tested, again using analysis of variance and multiple range tests. F i n a l l y , the possible e f f e c t s of s i z e on workflow structure were examined using the item groups i d e n t i f i e d i n 64 the e a r l i e r stages o f the a n a l y s i s and c o r r e l a t i n g them with s c h o o l s i z e . The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t used i n t h i s p a r t of the a n a l y s i s was K e n d a l l ' s Tau ( T ) • F o r n>10, normal approximation may be used t o c a l c u l a t e the p r o b a b i l i t y of Tau. A t w o - t a i l e d t e s t was conducted at alpha=.10. P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Form A t o t a l o f 943 u s able P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology forms were returned by s c h o o l p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . T h i s t o t a l represented a response r a t e o f 59.35% (94 3/1589). The lowest r a t e of r e t u r n from a s c h o o l was 39.39X, the highest 100$. A PCI score, r e p r e s e n t i n g the mean of the PCI responses, was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s c h o o l . The standard d e v i a t i o n and the v a r i a n c e were a l s o c a l c u l a t e d . The mean PCI s c o r e s were grouped a c c o r d i n g t o d i s t r i c t and an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e was conducted i n each sample to determine whether or not any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among d i s t r i c t s with r e s p e c t to t h i s v a r i a b l e . I f not, then i t c o u l d be concluded t h a t no d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d and the s c h o o l s c o u l d be viewed as belonging to o n l y the whole sample and e i t h e r the j u n i o r or s e n i o r sample. Where the ANOVA r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d the p o s s i b i l i t y of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among the d i s t r i c t s on the PCI v a r i a b l e , m u l t i p l e range t e s t s were conducted s i n c e t h e F values gave no i n d i c a t i o n of which c o n t r a s t s might be c o n t r i b u t i n g t o 65 the s i g n i f i c a n t ANOVA f i n d i n g s . The Scheffe m u l t i p l e range t e s t was used i n t h i s part of the a n a l y s i s . These procedures were fo l l o w e d by a t - t e s t a n a l y s i s t o examine the d i f f e r e n c e i n PCI sc o r e s between j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s . The second p a r t of the PCI a n a l y s i s i n v o l v e d a s s e s s i n g the extent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l s i z e and scho o l PCI score . K e n d a l l ' s rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t Tau was used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . The t h i r d p a r t of the a n a l y s i s examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l PCI and school d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n c f workflow s t r u c t u r e using the mean PCI score f o r each sch o o l and each s c h o o l ' s s c o r e of the dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e i d e n t i f i e d e a r l i e r i n the a n a l y s i s . K e n d a l l ' s Tau was again used i n t h i s p a r t of the a n a l y s i s , using a two-t a i l e d t e s t a t p=.10. SUMMARY T h i s chapter has d e t a i l e d the problem and a s s o c i a t e d sub-problems of the study and has o u t l i n e d the v a r i a b l e s , the data c o l l e c t i o n , and the a n a l y t i c a l procedures. The next chapter presents the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s and a d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s sub-problem by sub-problem f o l l o w s i n Chapter 5. 66 Chapter *» FINDINGS OF THE STUDY T h i s c hapter presents the f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s e s o u t l i n e d i n the previous chapter. The f i n d i n g s are provided under three main chapter d i v i s i o n s — t h e measurement of workflow s t r u c t u r e , v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context and workflow s t r u c t u r e , and workflow s t r u c t u r e and p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l ogy, ft summary s e c t i o n concludes the chapter. THE MEASUREMENT OF WORKFLOW STRUCTURE (Sub-problem 1} The a n a l y s i s d e a l i n g with the measurement of workflow s t r u c t u r e was conducted i n the order suggested by the statement of sub-problems. The workflow s t r u c t u r e s of the s c h o o l s were examined u s i n g Kelsey's D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument and the instrument was r e f i n e d i n the attempt to i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g dimensions. The r e s u l t s of the analyses are presented under two headings—Refinement of the Instrument, and Dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e . Refinement of the Instrument jSub-problem 11 The f i r s t stage i n t h i s s e c t i o n of the a n a l y s i s was an assessment o f the degree to which the f o r t y - e i g h t items of 67 the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow form a s s o c i a t e d as they had been i n i t i a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d by Kelsey (1973:57). Consequently, the s i x groups of items c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o eguipping, sequencing, p u p i l placement, c o n t r o l , scope, and e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g were each t e s t e d f o r a s s o c i a t i o n using K e n d a l l * s 0. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s are presented i n Table 1. The items grouped f o r t e s t i n g are shown on the l e f t of the t a b l e . The values of W are provided f o r each o f the three samples, along with an i n d i c a t i o n o f those groupings which had a value o f W with a p r o b a b i l i t y s u f f i c i e n t l y high t o i n d i c a t e t hat they may be c o n s i d e r e d homogeneous groups. A p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l l e s s than or equal to .10 was taken as evidence of homogeneity. As noted p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l was s e l e c t e d because of the e x p l o r a t o r y nature of the study. 68 Table 1 The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Workflow Instrument: R e s u l t s of K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance (W) A p p l i e d to Items Grouped i n Six Hypothesized Dimensions ELEMENT WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAHPLE VALUE OF W VALUE OF W VALUE OF W (n=34) (n=12) (n=22) EQUIPPING (Items 1-11) (a) 1,2,3,10 .23662 .25568 .23341 1,2,4,10 .27511 .33588 .25335 1,2,5,10 .24 364 .29292 .24735 1,2,6,10 .26680 .30048 .25540 1,2,7,10 .23909 .28038 .24149 1,2,8,10 .23930 .27950 .22685 1,2,9,10 .21316 .22968 .20250 1,2,3,11 .23907 .31053 .22946 1,2,4,11 .24979 .35337 .22660 1,2,5,11 .29326 .39161 .28240 1,2,6,11 .25744 .33829 .249 86 1,2,7,11 .21387 .31731 .19540 1,2,8, 11 .24454 .31971 .23825 1,2,9,11 .25891 .29458 .26990 PLACEMENT(b) .06770 .28070 .20040 (Items 12,13) SEQUENCING .14107 .13238 .1260 3 (Items 14-22) CONTROL .26228* .26881* . 10 36 2 (Items 23-32) SCOPE .08475 .09654 .08090 (Items 33-40) EVALUATION AND REPORTING . 16171 .14461 .16325 (Items 41-48) • S i g n i f i c a n t a t . 10 (a) The content o f each item i s shown i n Appendix A. (b) Since there were only two items i n t h i s category, K e n d a l l ' s rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t ( f ) was use<l. 69 T h i s a n a l y s i s demonstrated that the items were not a s s o c i a t e d as they had been i n i t i a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d . Only C o n t r o l items a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y , and then on l y i n the s e n i o r sample and the whole sample.„ The second s t a g e of a n a l y s i s was an attempt t o i d e n t i f y items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between the j u n i o r and s e n i o r schools. M u l t i p l e t - t e s t s were run on the d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean of the j u n i o r s c h o o l s s c o r e on an item and the mean of the s e n i o r s c h o o l s c o r e s on that item. The t - t e s t a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d nineteen items which appeared t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between the j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s . Five items from the o r i g i n a l element of Equipping, one from Placement, f o u r from Sequencing, s i x from C o n t r o l , one from Scope, and two from E v a l u a t i o n and Reporting were i d e n t i f i e d . These are shown i n Table 2, which a l s o shows t h e i r t valu e s and p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s . 70 Ta b l e 2 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Items I d e n t i f i e d as P o s s i b l e J u n i o r - S e n i o r D i s c r i m i n a t o r s Using M u l t i p l e t - t e s t s ITEM(a) t-VALUE <b) PROBABILITY 3 -2.343 .032 4 -2. 473 .018 6 -2.774 .009 8 -1.944 .073 10 -2.496 .024 12 2.78 3 .009 14 -4.086 .002 19 -1.700 .095 21 -2.442 .019 22 -2.110 .0 41 23 -3.002 .005 24 -3.629 .001 27 -4.062 .002 28 -4.939 .001 29 -5.213 .001 30 -4.478 .001 37 2.124 .040 44 1. 856 .069 47 2. 147 ,038 (a) Only items with p<.10 are i n c l u d e d in the t a b l e (b) Negative values i n d i c a t e t h a t the mean s c o r e was higher i n s e n i o r s c h o o l s than i n j u n i o r s c h o o l s 71 The nineteen items t h a t were i d e n t i f i e d by t - t e s t were t e s t e d f o r a s s o c i a t i o n i n each o f the three samples using Kendall's W. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 3. T a b l e 3 K e n d a l l ' s C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance (W) f o r Nineteen P o s s i b l e D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items I d e n t i f i e d by t - t e s t ITEMS WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOH SAMPLE JONIOB SAMPLE ^ ¥ w ALL 19 .16360* .19970* .0U038 (Table 2) • S i g n i f i c a n t a t , 10 The nineteen items were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d i n the whole sample and the s e n i o r sample. A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f the f a i l u r e of the group o f items t o a s s o c i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the j u n i o r sample was that some of the nineteen items may have been i n c l u d e d as a r e s u l t of the 72 m u l t i p l e t - t e s t procedure when they should not have been. Consequently, a f u r t h e r s t e p was r e q u i r e d to determine which items not only d i s c r i m i n a t e d between s c h o o l s but a l s o a s s o c i a t e d with each other. For t h i s s t e p , c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s was used. The r e s u l t s of the c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s used i n t h i s stage of the a n a l y s i s are shown i n F i g u r e 6. Item numbers are shown i n the l e f t column. I n s p e c t i o n of the c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s ' t r e e * and r e f e r e n c e to the d i s t a n c e or s i m i l a r i t y measures i n d i c a t e d the presence of three w e l l - d e f i n e d c l u s t e r s , o u t l i n e d by s o l i d l i n e s i n F i g u r e 6 . . f t . d i s c u s s i o n of each o f these f o l l o w s . 73 ITEM-( 3 ) 92/87/90 90/71 73 73 68 76 62 58 48 49 52/50 42 36 30/ / / / / / / / / / / { 8)/89/85 80/67 70 68 63 69 63 57 53 43 46/50 39 39 39/ / / / / / / / / <10)/87 84/71 73 71 65 71 56 59 58 49 59/47 46 33 43/ / / / / ( 4) 93/63 65 64 58 64 49 53 38 56 46/42 37 34 33/ / / / / { 6)/68 68 6 9 63 73 55 55 48 58 52/43 3 3 29 38/ / / / (14) 96 96 95/95/83/73/68 68 75/38 48 3 9 39/ / / / / / / / / / / / / (28) 99/97/93/80/69/68 66 71/38 53 36 36/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / (29) /98/94/82/72/67 67 72/39 52 35 36/ / / / / / / / / / / / / (30) /92/80/70/65 68 71/37 52 36 37/ / / / / / / / / / / (27)/82/73/68 68 73/40 43 37 38/ / / / / / / / / (24)/75/66 47 68/50 37 54 45/ / / / / / / (23)/60 53 63/43 48 38 38/ / / (19) 61 74/45 51 48 60/ / r (21) 74/30 45 43 37/ /•' / * (22) /57 47 45 38/ / (12) 54/53 / / (37)/40 48 (44) (47) F i g u r e 6 R e s u l t s of C l u s t e r a n a l y s i s 74 The f i r s t c l u s t e r , and the one around which the t r e e was formed, comprised ten items (14, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30) with a c l u s t e r s i m i l a r i t y of 66.83 ( i . e . moderate a s s o c i a t i o n ) . There was, however, a s t r o n g p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the seven item c l u s t e r (14, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30), nested w i t h i n the main c l u s t e r should be the c l u s t e r c onsidered as most c l e a r l y defined. The omission of items 19, 21, 22 r a i s e d the s i m i l a r i t y of the c l u s t e r t o 72.41. The e x c l u s i o n of the l a s t item added to t h i s s u b c l u s t e r (item 23) i n c r e a s e d c l u s t e r s i m i l a r i t y to 81.86— a much more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , coherent c l u s t e r than the one f i r s t i d e n t i f i e d . The most w e l l d e f i n e d c l u s t e r , then, c o n s i s t e d of items 14, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 30. At t h i s p o i n t of the a n a l y s i s , however, the other items (19, 21, 22, 23) were not r e j e c t e d completely but were held i n abeyance pending f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . Since the most w e l l - d e f i n e d c l u s t e r c o n s i s t e d l a r g e l y of items o r i g i n a l l y c o nsidered t o be C o n t r o l items, the c l u s t e r was l a b e l l e d • D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Control*, f o r f u t u r e r e f e r e n c e . The second c l u s t e r i d e n t i f i e d was a w e l l d e f i n e d , c l o s e ( s i m i l a r i t y = 86.81) f i v e item c l u s t e r comprised o f items 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10. These items were a l l from the i n i t i a l l y hypothesized dimension of Equipping. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e i r c l u s t e r i n g without the i n c l u s i o n of any other items was perhaps only r e f l e c t i v e of the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the score on items 3, 4, 6 and 8 might be a s s o c i a t e d with s c h o o l s i z e 75 ( i . e . the l a r g e r the s c h o o l , the more d i v e r s i f i e d the eguipment). Also, some inter-dependence was e v i d e n t among the f i v e items as a r e s u l t of the methods of c a l c u l a t i o n (see Appendix A f o r d e t a i l s of c a l c u l a t i o n s ) . Given these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i t was p o s s i b l e t h a t t h i s c l u s t e r might have l i t t l e t o c o n t r i b u t e to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of dimensions u n d e r l y i n g the workflow processes, however, i t was e n t i t l e d • D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment' and r e t a i n e d f o r f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s . The t h i r d c l u s t e r i n c l u d e d items 12, 37, 44, and 47. Examination o f the s i m i l a r i t y f i g u r e s showed a c l u s t e r s i m i l a r i t y of only 47.58 and i n s p e c t i o n of the s i m i l a r i t y i n d i c e s f o r the item p a i r s showed weak (40-64) a s s o c i a t i o n s . The low i n d i c e s f o r t h i s c l u s t e r l e d to i t s r e j e c t i o n as a p o s s i b l e dimension. At t h i s p o i n t , the f i r s t two c l u s t e r s remained as s e r i o u s contenders f o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as dimensions u n d e r l y i n g s c h o o l workflow processes. The guestion remained as t o whether the f i r s t c l u s t e r should i n c l u d e seven, e i g h t , or ten items. F u r t h e r , d i d the items i n t h i s c l u s t e r make sense c o n c e p t u a l l y i n terms o f s c h o o l o p e r a t i o n ? I n s p e c t i o n of the items i d e n t i f i e d as D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l r e v e a l e d t h a t s i x of these items (23,24,27,28,29,30) were from the o r i g i n a l l y hypothesized dimension of C o n t r o l . The remaining four (items 14, 19, 21, 22) were from the o r i g i n a l dimension of Seguencing. An 76 i n s p e c t i o n o f these f o u r items showed, however, t h a t they too c o u l d be viewed as having strong c o n t r o l a s p e c t s . Item 14, f o r example, d e a l s with the time at which a student i s r e q u i r e d t o come t o school i n the morning. In terms of c e n t r o l l i n g student movement, t h i s sequence item c o u l d e a s i l y be accepted as being l i n k e d with a c o n t r o l dimension. S i m i l a r l y , item 22 concerns the freguency with which students drop courses and could a l s o be construed as possessing c o n t r o l aspects. Dropping a course without s u b s t i t u t i n g another i m p l i e s the a s s o c i a t e d problem of what the student does with t h i s now unoccupied time. A d e s i r e t o exert c l o s e c o n t r o l over students c o u l d manifest i t s e l f i n an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to allow students t o drop courses and be r e f l e c t e d i n a low frequency c f cou r s e drop. Item 21 deal s with the frequency o f course change by students. I t too c o u l d be viewed as an aspect of c o n t r o l , as could item 19 d e a l i n g with time o f year when a student may drop a course. Dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 1.2) To t h i s p o i n t , two p o s s i b l e dimensions c o u l d be seen t o u n d e r l i e the workflow s t r u c t u r e i n s c h o o l s . Kelsey had a l s o i d e n t i f i e d two dimensions, but the items c o n s t i t u t i n g h i s dimensions were q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from those i n the presen t study (see Table 4). T h i s d i s c r e p a n c y warranted f u r t h e r examination. 77 Tabl e 4 Kelsey*s Two Dimensions o f D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow S t r u c t u r e Item* P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n I t e a Acceptance 17 How f r e q u e n t l y does i t happen that a student has t o r e v i s e h i s s e l e c t i o n of courses because what he o r i g i n a l l y wanted i s not p o s s i b l e on the time t a b l e ? 23 How i s student attendance recorded? 25 How i s e x c e s s i v e or inexc u s a b l e absence d e a l t with f o r students above the s t a t u t o r y l e a v i n g age? 27 What i s the p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g spare p e r i o d s f o r students? 38 Is t h e r e a home room tea c h e r (or eq u i v a l e n t ) f o r each student? I f so, what i s the f u n c t i o n o f t h i s person? 40 I s i t school p o l i c y to attempt t o g i v e at l e a s t one spare p e r i o d t o every student above the s t a t u t o r y l e a v i n g age? 43 In what form are f i n a l marks rendered? 44 What i s the p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g advancement of students t o the next s e n i o r l e v e l ? 45 What format i s used f o r r e p o r t s t o parents? 46 What does the r e p o r t c a r d show? 47 What may be i n c l u d e d i n r e p o r t s t o parents? 14 What i s t h e p o l i c y governing the time a t which students a r r i v e each day? 20 How o f t e n do cases of program change cn the par t of students occur? 21 How o f t e n do cases o f course change on the part of students occur? 24 What a r e the p o l i c i e s r e g a r d i n g the e x p l a n a t i o n of students absence f o r students above the s t a t u t o r y l e a v i n g age? 28 Is the attendance of students a t spare periods recorded? 29 Are spare p e r i o d s supervised? 30 Where may students go during spare p e r i o d s ? 31 I s there a c e n t r a l l y operated system? 32 How i s assigned f o r above the l e a v i n g age? 33 Are any r e q u i r e d f o r above the l e a v i n g age other than what are s p e c i f i e d by governmental bodies? 35 Are students represented on s c h o o l p o l i c y making bodies? d e t e n t i o n homework students s t a t u t o r y s u b j e c t s s tudents s t a t u t o r y • I t e m numbers r e f e r t o items i n the form i n Appendix A 78 Kelsey*s dimensions had e l e v e n items each. Each possessed a number of items which could be construed as being concerned with the c o n t r o l of s t u d e n t s . For example, P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n i n c o r p o r a t e s items concerning r e c o r d i n g student absence (item 23), procedures f o r d e a l i n g with absence (item 25), p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g spare p e r i o d s (items 27, 40) and the format and scope of the r e p o r t card (items 45, 46, 47). Each o f these can e a s i l y be viewed as a c o n t r o l item. S i m i l a r l y , Acceptance possesses e l e v e n i t e m s — a l l of which might be seen as c o n t r o l items. These concern attendance; f r e q u e n c i e s of program change, program drop, course change and course drop; spare p e r i o d s u p e r v i s i o n ; homework assignment; d e t e n t i o n ; student r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on p o l i c y committees; and compulsory s u b j e c t s . The f a c t t h a t Kelsey was able to i d e n t i f y two c o n t r o l -r e l a t e d dimensions, r a t h e r than a s i n g l e one of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l , may have been due to the d i f f e r e n t geographic l o c a t i o n s and types of s c h o o l systems used. I f t h i s was i n f a c t the case, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a s i n g l e c o n t r o l - r e l a t e d dimension, d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l , i n a s i n g l e geographic area with o n l y p u b l i c s c h o o l s , i s not unwarranted. Of the e l e v e n items from Acceptance, s i x were i d e n t i f i e d i n the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l F a c t o r i n the present study. Only two items from P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n were i n c l u d e d . The f a i l u r e o f the remaining P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n items to be i d e n t i f i e d may be a r e s u l t of 79 c u l t u r a l c o n s i s t e n c y i n the present s t u d y - m o s t of these items d e a l t with the nature of the r e p o r t c a r d , the advancement o f p u p i l s , and course c h o i c e r e v i s i o n s as a r e s u l t of t i m e t a b l i n g problems. In s h o r t , the c l u s t e r i d e n t i f i e d as D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l i n the present study c o n s i s t e d of s i x items found i n Kelsey's dimension o f acceptance, two found i n P e r s o n a l i z a t i o n , and two not found i n e i t h e r , as a check t o see how the present data acted i n Kelsey's dimensions, the items from each were t e s t e d f o r a s s o c i a t i o n (using K e n d a l l ' s «) i n the j u n i o r sample, the s e n i o r sample, and the whole sample, a l s o , the dimensions were checked as a combined group of twenty-two items, again i n each of the t h r e e samples. The r e s u l t s are shown i n T a b l e 5. 80 Table 5 Kelsey's Dimensions of Acceptance and Personalization Tested f o r Association Using Kendall's C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance (W) DIMENSION WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE W W W ACCEPTANCE PERSONALIZATION ALL 22 ITEMS • s i g n i f i c a n t at ,10 Personalization, as a dimension i n the present study, may be rejected. In no sample were s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s obtained. Acceptance items, on the other hand, associated s i g n i f i c a n t l y in both the whole sample and the senior sample. The two dimensions combined yielded s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s i n both the whole and senior samples. These s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s are almost certainly a factor of the strength of the association of items i n the Acceptance dimension. Since i t had not yet been firmly established whether the present dimension of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Control should consist of ten, eight, or seven items, association tests were performed on each possible grouping. The intent was to .21172* .08962 .10096* .20017* . 13128 .14078* .08948 .07399 .04969 81 r e t a i n the maximum number o f items which a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n each of the three samples. The r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 6. Table 6 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l Items Tested f o r A s s o c i a t i o n Using K e n d a l l * s C o e f f i c i e n t of Concordance (8) SHOLE SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE 10 ITEMS 8 ITEMS 7 ITEMS .41377* .48273* .52340* . 19049* .20276* .21596* .49101* .62396* .65306* • S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 S i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were ev i d e n t f o r a l l three groupings i n a l l three samples. Since the ten-item group a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n a l l t h r e e samples, the c l u s t e r could be viewed as c o n t a i n i n g ten items which d i s c r i m i n a t e d between j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s (as demonstrated by t -test) and which a l s o c o n s t i t u t e d a homogeneous s e t . The groups of seven and e i g h t items were t h e r e f o r e excluded from 82 f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Compared with the r e s u l t s of the analyses of Kelsey's dimension of Acceptance, t h e r e was no doubt t h a t the ten items were a more cohesive group (as evidenced by s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher values of H) than were the Acceptance items. A c c o r d i n g l y , Acceptance as a dimension i n the present study was r e j e c t e d i n fav o r of the ten item group l a b e l l e d D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . The items are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 7. The next s t e p was t o t e s t the f i v e items i d e n t i f i e d as D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment f o r a s s o c i a t i o n i n each of the samples. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 8. Table 7 The Ten Homogeneous, Discriminating Items Constituting D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Control 14. What i s the policy governing the time at whi students arrive each day? 17. When may a student drop a course without substituting another? 18. How often do cases of course change on the part of students occur? 20. How often are there cases of students 1 dropping a course? 21. How i s student attendance recorded? 22. What i s the policy regarding student absence for students above the statutory leaving age 25. What i s the policy regarding spare periods for students? 26. Is attendance of students at spare periods recorded? 27. Are spare periods supervised? 28. Where do students go during spare periods? 84 Table 8 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment Items Tested for association Using Kendall ,s Coe f f i c i e n t of Concordance (W) WHOLE SAMPLE JUKIOB SaHPLE SENIOB SAHFLE .68726* .62769* .68951* •Significant at .10 The f i v e items constituting D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment associated s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n a l l three samples and could therefore be viewed as a homogeneous set. The items are l i s t e d i n Table 9. Table 9 The F i v e Homogeneous, D i s c r i m i n a t i n g Items C o n s t i t u t i n g D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment 3. Number o f pi e c e s o f a u d i o v i s u a l eguipment m u l t i p l i e d by the number o f f u n c t i o n s (a) 4. Number o f p i e c e s o f a u d i o v i s u a l eguipment d i v i d e d by the number of kinds of equipment (b) 6 . Number o f pi e c e s of SOUND eguipment m u l t i p l i e d by the number o f f u n c t i o n s 8. Number o f p i e c e s of SOUND AND VISION eguipment m u l t i p l i e d by the number o f f u n c t i o n s 10. Number of pi e c e s of d u p l i c a t i n g eguipment (a) See Appendix A f o r d e t a i l s of f u n c t i o n s (b) See Appendix A f o r d e t a i l s o f kinds o f eguipment 86 A D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l dimension sco r e f o r each s c h o o l was obtained by adding up a s c h o o l ' s s c o r e on the i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s — a p e r m i s s i b l e procedure s i n c e the items a s s o c i a t e d so h i g h l y and were able t o be co n s i d e r e d a homogeneous s e t . The s c o r e s are shown i n T a b l e 10. Schools are l i s t e d by d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n (A,B,C, or D) and are al s o i d e n t i f i e d under each d i s t r i c t by number i n the l e f t column. The score f o r each s c h o o l i s found i n the r i g h t column under each d i s t r i c t . Scores i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s range from 12 to 26, sco r e s i n s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s from 14 t o 40. O v e r a l l mean score was 21.3 (senio r mean 29.6, j u n i o r mean 16.7). 87 Table 10 School Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l Grouped by School D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t a* D i s t r i c t B D i s t r i c t C D i s t r i c t D School Score School Score School Score School Score 1 29 10 19 18 36 26 40 2 14 11 27 19 36 27 3 8 3 17 12 26 20 37 28 36 4 19 13 12 21 19 29 19 5 12 14 13 22 15 30 16 6 15 15 18 23 22 31 17 7 14 16 19 24 15 32 26 8 16 17 14 25 15 33 18 9 18 34 19 •The f i r s t t h r e e s c h o o l s i n each d i s t r i c t are the s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . In view of the l a r g e magnitude d i f f e r e n c e s i n s c o r e s on the items c o n s t i t u t i n g D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment, a composite score was c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s c h o o l by s t a n d a r d i z i n g the i n d i v i d u a l item s c o r e s and summing the s t a n d a r d i z e d s c o r e s . S i n c e t h i s o p e r a t i o n y i e l d e d some negative s c o r e s , 100 was added t o each s c h o o l ' s f i n a l score 88 so t h a t a l l s c h o o l s would r e c e i v e p o s i t i v e s c o r e s f o r e a s i e r comparison. The s c o r e s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 11. The s e n i o r mean score was 128.7, the j u n i o r mean score 77.7 ( o v e r a l l mean 103.0). Table 11 School Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment Grouped by School D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t A (a) D i s t r i c t B D i s t r i c t C D i s t r i c t D School Score School Score School Score School Score 1 109.9 10 125.2 18 274.1 26 73.3 2 119. 3 11 168.2 19 169.3 27 88.3 3 98.0 12 112.9 20 124.7 28 80.4 4 90.6 13 92.7 21 (b) 29 51.8 5 107.5 14 108.2 22 68.5 30 53.5 6 103. 1 15 93.2 23 11 0.7 31 51.4 7 127.9 16 112. 1 24 85.2 32 85.8 8 116.3 17 107.9 25 92.5 33 53.0 9 82. 5 34 61.1 (a) The f i r s t three s c h o o l s i n each d i s t r i c t are the s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . (b) No eguipment data were made a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s c h o o l 89 Next, the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l s c o r e s and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment scores were t e s t e d f o r a s s o c i a t i o n usinq K e n d a l l ' s Tau. The r e s u l t s are found i n Table 12. No s i q n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were obtained. Table 12 C o r r e l a t i o n of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l Scores With D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment Scores Usinq K e n d a l l ' s Tau WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE .0137 -.1206 -.1760 90 WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND VARIABLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (Sub-problem 2) T h i s s e c t i o n presents the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y ses c a r r i e d out to i n v e s t i g a t e the extent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the n e w l y - i d e n t i f i e d dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e and the t h r e e v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context of i n t e r e s t (school d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l type, and s c h o o l s i z e ) . The r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d under the a p p r o p r i a t e headings., School D i s t r i c t jSub-problem 2A1) In order t o examine the p o s s i b i l i t y of i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s on the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l dimension, an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d out. The r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a l y s i s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 13. S i g n i f i c a n t F r a t i o s (p<.10) were found i n the whole sample and the s e n i o r sample i n d i c a t i n g t hat some p a i r s of d i s t r i c t s might be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 91 Table 13 A n a l y s i s of Variance R e s u l t s For School D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l Scores By D i s t r i c t Sample Hean Squares F Ratio (d.f.) F p r o b a b i l i t y Whole 150.26 64.23 239.42 21.58 19.11 9.44 2.339 (3,30) .0934* Senior 11.093 (3,8) .0032* J u n i o r 2.025 (3,18) . 1465 • S i g n i f i c a n t at . 10 Since s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s were found f o r both the whole and s e n i o r samples, m u l t i p l e range t e s t s were run on the s i x p o s s i b l e c o n t r a s t s on p a i r s of d i s t r i c t s (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD) i n each sample u s i n g the S c h e f f e procedure., The r e s u l t s are shown i n T a b l e 14. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n means ranged from 1.069 to 8.33 i n the whole sample and from 1.67 t o 18.00 i n the s e n i o r sample. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n the whole sample. S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s among s e n i o r s c h o o l s were ev i d e n t between d i s t r i c t s A and C, A and D, B and C, and B and D. That i s , d i s t r i c t s A and B were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from d i s t r i c t s C and D. 92 T a b l e 14 Re s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range T e s t s On School Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of C o n t r o l By D i s t r i c t Using the Scheffe Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s D i s t r i c t s Dif f e rence D i f f e r e n c e : Required Between Means For S i g n i f i c a n c e <. 10) Whole Senior Whole Senior Sample Sample Sample Sample A,B 1.39 4.00 10.19 11.24 A,C 7.26 16.33* 10.19 11.24 A , D 8.33 18.00* 9. 88 11.24 B,C 5.875 12.33* 10.48 11.24 B,D 6.94 14.00* 10. 19 11.24 C,D 1.069 1.67 10. 19 11. 24 • S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 An a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was next performed t o t e s t f o r p o s s i b l e i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 15. S i g n i f i c a n t F values were noted i n a l l three samples, aqain i n d i c a t i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r p a i r s of d i s t r i c t s . Consequently, m u l t i p l e range t e s t s were conducted on p a i r s of d i s t r i c t s using the Sch e f f e method of comparison. The m u l t i p l e range t e s t r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 16. S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among d i s t r i c t s were i 93 evident i n a l l t h r e e samples. In the whole sample, d i s t r i c t s B and D, and C and D d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; i n the s e n i o r sample d i s t r i c t s C and D d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y ; and d i s t r i c t s A and D, B and D, and C and D d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the j u n i o r sample. Table 15 A n a l y s i s of Variance R e s u l t s For School D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment Scores By D i s t r i c t Sample Hean Squares F Ratio (d.f.) F p r o b a b i l i t y Whole 6380.23 4. 944 (3,29) .0068* 1290.62 Senior 6418.42 3. 723 (3,8) .0608* 1723.85 J u n i o r 2544.08 12.294 <3,17) .0002* 206.93 • S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 94 Table 16 R e s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range Tes t s On School Scores On D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n Of Eguipment By D i s t r i c t Using the S c h e f f e Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s D i s t r i c t s D i f f e r e n c e Between Means D i f f e r e n c e Required For S i g n i f i c a n c e (.10) Whole Senior Sample Sample J u n i o r Sample Whole Sample Senior Sample J u n i o r Sample A,B A,C A, D B, C B, D C, D 8.93 26.02 39.56 17.09 48.48* 65.58* 26. 37 80.30 28.40 53.93 54.77 108.70* 15.42 45.13* 13.59 43. 30* 29.71* 1.83 45. 67 47.37 44.31 48.64 45.67 47. 37 100.44 100.44 100.44 100.44 100.44 100.44 23.53 25.08 22. 43 26.07 23.53 25.08 • S i g n i f i c a n t a t . 10 T_y.ee of School (Sub-problem 2, 2Jt Since the items had been s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e between j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s , the items as groups should a l s o have been capable o f i n t e r - t y p e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The t e s t used to a s c e r t a i n the c o r r e c t n e s s of t h i s s u p p o s i t i o n was a t - t e s t of the d i f f e r e n c e between the means f o r each of the two s c h o o l types. The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l r e s u l t s appear i n Tab l e 17. Table 18 c o n t a i n s the r e s u l t s of the t ^ t e s t conducted with r e s p e c t to the 95 D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment s c o r e s . The d i f f e r e n c e between the means was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n both i n s t a n c e s . T a b l e 17 t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r and S e n i o r Mean Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l t - v a l u e degrees o f freedom t p r o b a b i l i t y 7.09 32 <.10 Table 18 t - T e s t Scores Comparing J u n i o r and Senior Mean on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment t - v a l u e degrees o f freedom t p r o b a b i l i t y 2.86 31 <.10 96 Size of School (Sub-problem 2 .3) S i z e of s c h o o l was t e s t e d f o r p o s s i b l e d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n each o f the t h r e e samples. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were obt a i n e d . I t c o u l d t h e r e f o r e be concluded that no d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d with r e s p e c t to s i z e . The r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d i n Table 19. A t - t e s t was employed to t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e between j u n i o r and s e n i o r s c h o o l s i z e s . The r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t are found i n Table 20. The d i f f e r e n c e between s i z e of j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l (mean s i z e 763) and s i z e o f s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l (mean s i z e 1114) was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 19 A n a l y s i s of Variance R e s u l t s For School S i z e By D i s t r i c t Sample Mean Sguares F Ratio (d.f.) F p r o b a b i l i t y Whole 16829.72 93464.31 6 0695.27 131539.31 22770.10 32947.97 .180 (3,29) .9091 Senior .461 (3,8) .7169 J u n i o r .691 (3,17) .5693 • S i g n i f i c a n t at . 10 97 Table 20 t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r and Senior Mean School S i z e s t - v a l u e degrees of freedom t p r o b a b i l i t y 4.022 32 <. 10 98 The i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l were next c o r r e l a t e d with the s i z e of t h e s c h o o l (number of students) using Kendall* s Tau. The r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 21. No s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n was found. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment s c o r e s were a l s o c o r r e l a t e d with s i z e of s c h o o l , again u s i n g Tau. The r e s u l t s are shown i n Table 22. ft s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t was obtained i n the whole sample. The separate analyses conducted on the j u n i o r and s e n i o r samples y i e l d e d no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s . Table 21 C o r r e l a t i o n of School Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and S i z e of School (Number of Students) Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE . 1656 0 -. 1479 99 Table 22 C o r r e l a t i o n of School Scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment and S i z e o f School (Number of Students) Using K e n d a l l ' s Tau WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE .2253* .0658 . 1576 • S i g n i f i c a n t at . 10 WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY (Sub-problem 3) Th i s s e c t i o n d e a l s with the f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s e s of the data from the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology form. The extent o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f PCI t o v a r i a b l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context (school d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l s i z e , and s c h o o l type) i s expl o r e d , and t h e r e s u l t s of the c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s between P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology and Dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e are o u t l i n e d . 100 PCI Scores Measures of c e n t r a l tendency (the mean) and v a r i a n c e were c a l c u l a t e d f o r each s c h o o l f o r the p u p i l c o n t r o l ideology (PCI) scores. These measures a r e d i s p l a y e d by sc h o o l i n Table 23. Bach s c h o o l i s i d e n t i f i e d by the same number used i n the s e c t i o n on the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s o f workflow s t r u c t u r e (Tables 10 and 11). The percentage response r a t e of each s c h o o l cn the PCI form i s provided, the mean PCI s c o r e f o r each s c h o o l i s shown, and the standard d e v i a t i o n and v a r i a n c e i n each s c h o o l with r e s p e c t to the teacher PCI s c o r e s are a l s o i n c l u d e d . School response r a t e s range from 3 9 . 3 9 % to 100.0% (mean response r a t e by school i s 60.86%). The o v e r a l l range of mean PCI sco r e s i s 44.33 t o 60.56 (44.33-55.00 i n s e n i o r s c h o o l s , 50.37-60.56 i n j u n i o r s c h o o l s ) . Standard d e v i a t i o n s range from 6.77 to 9.44 i n the s e n i o r s c h o o l s , and from 5.91 to 15.79 i n the j u n i o r s c h o o l s . The whole sample range of standard d e v i a t i o n s was t h e r e f o r e 5.91 t o 15.79. 101 Table 23 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Data by School SCHOOL RESPONSE RATE MEAN PCI STANDARD VARIANCE (PERCENTAGE) SCORE DEVIATION 1 48.48 54.09 8.81 77. 64 2 53.85 50.33 8.72 76.11 3 61.90 53.67 9.11 82.95 4 62.86 52.45 7.15 51.12 5 77.78 52.31 8.68 75.65 6 51.72 54.93 10.72 114.99 7 76.59 54. 89 10.94 119.64 8 46.30 52.28 15.79 249.46 9 49.06 53.81 8.63 74. 56 10 62.86 49.72 8.09 64. 30 11 69.70 50.52 9.44 89.91 12 45.61 55.00 6.77 45. 84 13 74. 47 50.37 8. 14 66.30 14 58.82 54.00 11.25 126.53 15 43.18 57.32 9.14 83. 45 16 85.00 55.24 9.07 82. 19 17 51.16 57.77 7.05 49. 71 18 40.26 44.33 7.51 56. 33 19 48.98 50.46 8.35 69.74 20 88.00 44.84 7.78 60.56 21 40.00 52.72 5.91 34. 92 22 100.00 52. 39 9.11 82.95 23 69.70 55. 52 10.96 120.08 24 44. 1 1 56.00 6.46 41.71 25 50.50 56.56 12.20 148.88 26 85.71 48. 47 8.71 75. 84 27 39.39 47. 92 8.78 77.03 28 41.34 52.37 7.62 58. 13 29 67.50 57.89 8.40 70. 56 30 75.00 56.67 10.42 108.60 31 58.62 58.00 9.78 95.63 32 69.65 53. 45 6.84 46.83 33 66.67 60.56 6.58 43.28 34 64. 86 58.00 9.29 86.35 102 PCI Scores and V a r i a b l e s of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Context PCI s c o r e s were examined i n r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the three v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context t e s t e d e a r l i e r i n connection with workflow s t r u c t u r e . PCI and School D i s t r i c t jSub-problem 3.TV. Table 24 presents the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e conducted to t e s t f o r i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s on s c h o o l PCI s c o r e s . Since the F r a t i o s were s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .10 l e v e l i n both the j u n i o r and s e n i o r samples, multiple-range t e s t s (Scheffe procedure) were c a r r i e d out on p a i r s t o i n v e s t i g a t e the source of the s i g n i f i c a n t omnibus F v a l u e s . The r e s u l t s of these t e s t s are found i n Table 25. T a b l e 24 a n a l y s i s of Variance R e s u l t s For The D i f f e r e n c e Between PCI Scores o f Schools Grouped By D i s t r i c t Sample Mean Squares F Ratio (d.f.) F p r o b a b i l i t y Whole 15.03 13.74 23.73 6. 25 17. 12 4. 71 1.093 (3,3 0) . 3671 S e n i o r 3.798 (3,8) .05 83* J u n i o r 3.635 (3,18) .0328* * S i q n i f i c a n t at .10 103 Table 25 Re s u l t s Of M u l t i p l e Range Tes t s On PCI Scores of Schools Grouped By D i s t r i c t Using the Sch e f f e Method Of M u l t i p l e C o n t r a s t s D i s t r i c t s D i f f e r e n c e D i f f e r e n c e Reguired Between Means For S i g n i f i c a n c e (.10) Senior J u n i o r Senior J u n i o r Sample Sample Sample Sample A,B 1.3692 1.555 5. 426 3. 540 A,C 6.1534* 1. 2531 5.426 3.540 A , D 4.5017 4.0430* 5.426 3.697 B,C 4.7842 0. 302 5. 426 3.375 B,D 3, 1325 2.488 5.426 3.540 C,D 1.6517 2.790 5.426 3.540 • S i g n i f i c a n t at .10 The range o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n means i n the j u n i o r sample was from 0.302 t o 4. 0430, and from 1.36 92 t o 6. 1534 i n the s e n i o r sample. The m u l t i p l e t e s t r e s u l t s r e v e a l e d o n l y two s i g n i f i c a n t mean d i f f e r e n c e s among d i s t r i c t s — b e t w e e n d i s t r i c t s A and D i n r e s p e c t to t h e i r j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and between d i s t r i c t s A and C with r e s p e c t to t h e i r s e n i o r s c h o o l s . On the b a s i s o f these r e s u l t s , i t was decided that not enough d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among d i s t r i c t s t o warrant a n a l y z i n g them as separate samples. Conseguently, 104 the schools were now co n s i d e r e d as belonging t o the whole sample and e i t h e r the j u n i o r sample or the s e n i o r sample. The a n a l y s i s continued on t h i s b a s i s . PCI and Tyjoe o f School (Sub-problem 3^2) . The next t e s t i n v o l v e d PCI scores and the type o f s c h o o l — - j u n i o r secondary mean score compared with s e n i o r secondary mean score u s i n g a t - t e s t . The mean s e n i o r s c o r e was 50.12, t h a t of the j u n i o r s c h o o l s 55.13. Table 26 d i s p l a y s the t - t e s t r e s u l t s . The d i f f e r e n c e between the means was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 26 t - T e s t Comparing J u n i o r and Senior Hean Scores on P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology t - v a l u e degrees of freedom t p r o b a b i l i t y 4.75 32 <.10 PCI and School s i z e (Sub-problem 3.3). In view o f the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s c h o o l t y p e s , examination o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p of PCI to s c h o o l s i z e was conducted on each type s e p a r a t e l y . , K e n d a l l ' s Tau was employed as the c o e f f i c i e n t of c o r r e l a t i o n . The f i n d i n g s a re 105 shown i n Table 27. No s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s were apparent. Table 27 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between School S i z e and School P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Scores Using K e n d a l l ' s Rank C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t Tau SAMPLE VALUE OF TAU PROBABILITY J u n i o r S e n i o r -.090545 -.076761 .2810 .3632 PCI and "Workflow s t r u c t u r e <5ub- problem 3.4) . Kendall* s Tau was used t o t e s t the degree of correspondence between s c h o o l score on PCI and s c h o o l s c o r e on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . The r e s u l t s o b tained when Tau was c a l c u l a t e d i n each of the three samples are shown i n Table 28. S i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s were evident i n both the whole and j u n i o r samples. A s i m i l a r a n a l y s i s t e s t e d the extent of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between PCI s c o r e s and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment s c o r e s . The r e s u l t s are r e p o r t e d i n Table 29. S i g n i f i c a n t values were obtained i n both the whole sample and the j u n i o r sample. 106 Table 28 Correlation of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Control Scores With Pupil Control Ideology Scores Using Kendall's Tau WHOLE SAMPLE SENI08 SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE -.2319* -.3 257 .2321* •Si g n i f i c a n t at . 10 Table 29 Correlation of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment Scores with Pu p i l Control Ideology Scores Using Kendall's Tau WHOLE SAMPLE SENIOR SAMPLE JUNIOR SAMPLE -.2H66* -.1515 -.2160+ •Si g n i f i c a n t at . 1 0 107 SUMHflBY This chapter has presented the r e s u l t s of the analyses performed i n the study. Two groups of items were i d e n t i f i e d as homogeneous s e t s s e r v i n g to d i s c r i m i n a t e between the workflow s t r u c t u r e s of j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . One s e t of items was l a b e l l e d D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l i n accordance with the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument and i n accordance with the predominance of c o n t r o l items i n the group. In a d d i t i o n t o d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between s c h o o l s a c c o r d i n g to type ( j u n i o r secondary and s e n i o r secondary), D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l items a l s o d i f f e r e n t i a t e d among s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s when s c h o o l s were so grouped. School s i z e was not found to be r e l a t e d t o s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l . The f i v e items c o n s t i t u t i n g the second homogeneous s e t a l l d e a l t with equipment and were l a b e l l e d D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n c f Equipment. The items as a qroup d i s c r i m i n a t e d between s c h o o l types and a l s o among d i s t r i c t s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y a t the j u n i o r secondary l e v e l ) . School s i z e , when c o n t r o l l e d f o r type, was not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was evident between s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f 108 Eguipment. P u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y s c o r e s were examined and found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a c c o r d i n g to type of s c h o o l . The r e l a t i o n s h i p of PCI t o s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l s i z e , and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e was a l s o t e s t e d . School s i z e was not found t o be r e l a t e d t o s c h o o l PCI scores and PCI s c o r e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r d i s t r i c t only i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s i n two of the f o u r d i s t r i c t s and f o r s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s i n two d i s t r i c t s . An examination of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between PCI and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l s c o r e s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the whole sample and i n the j u n i o r sample. S i g n i f i c a n t i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i d e n t i f i e d between s c h o o l p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y s c o r e s and s c h o o l scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment i n both the. j u n i o r sample and the whole sample. The f o r e g o i n g r e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d at l e n g t h i n the next chapter. Two f u r t h e r analyses made necessary i n the attempt t o e x p l a i n some o f the f i n d i n g s are a l s o presented and d i s c u s s e d . 109 Chapter 5 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS This chapter discusses the findings of the study and examines them under three major headings. The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow results are discussed i n the f i r s t section, the relationship between workflow structure and variables of organizational context i s examined i n the second section, and the findings dealing with Pupil Control Ideology, i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to variables of organizational context, and i t s connection with workflow structure, are discussed i n the t h i r d section. A summary concludes the chapter. DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW (Sub-problem 1) This section deals with the results of the analyses undertaken with respect to Sub-problems 1.1 and 1.2 and discusses them under two h e a d i n g s — V e r i f i c a t i o n and Refinement of the Instrument, and Dimensions of Workflow Structure. y e r i f i c a t i o n and Refinement of the Instrument JSub-problem I ^ J l With respect to the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow 110 r e s u l t s , the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was a complex matter. The f a i l u r e of the items to a s s o c i a t e a c c o r d i n g t o the s i x i n i t i a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d dimensions c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n the b a s i c c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the workflow s t r u c t u r e as having s i x dimensions. As a measure of whether or not reasonable doubt c o u l d be c a s t on the s i x i n i t i a l dimensions, i t was decided to s u b j e c t the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow items to s c r u t i n y by a group of secondary s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Kelsey had p i l o t t e s t e d the items t o see i f they were viewed as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of p o l i c i e s and procedures i n secondary s c h o o l s (1973: 252). His r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the items were seen by secondary s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as reasonable d e s c r i p t o r s of secondary s c h o o l o p e r a t i o n s . I n the present study, t h i r t e e n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were asked t o group items that they thought were s i m i l a r . No i n d i c a t i o n was given as t o how many groups might be expected nor as t o what means of c o n c e p t u a l l y l i n k i n g the items might be a p p r o p r i a t e . The groupings o b t a i n e d were then s u b j e c t e d to a Latent P a r t i t i o n type of a n a l y s i s to see how c l o s e l y they corresponded t o the o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d groups of items. The a n a l y s i s has s e v e r a l stages of output g e n e r a t i o n . The f i r s t stage i n v o l v e s the production of a j o i n t p r o p o r t i o n matrix which shows the p r o p o r t i o n of s o r t e r s who place a p a r t i c u l a r p a i r of items i n the same category. F o l l o w i n g the g e n e r a t i o n of the j o i n t p r o p o r t i o n matrix, the program separates the matrix i n t o l a t e n t 111 c a t e g o r i e s . On the f i r s t ran, no s p e c i f i c number of c a t e g o r i e s was reguested, with the r e s u l t t h a t the program produced nine c a t e g o r i e s . I n s p e c t i o n of these c a t e g o r i e s r e v e a l e d t h a t a l l of the equipping items had been grouped t o g e t h e r , f i v e of the seven seguence items had been grouped t o g e t h e r , the two placement items had been grouped together (but with two items from other c a t e g o r i e s ) , and the c o n t r o l and scope items had been d i v i d e d among the other groupings. at t h i s p o i n t , s e v e r a l c a t e g o r i e s were c o n s i s t e n t with those i n i t i a l l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d . For the remainder, the groupings were not as c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d as would have been d e s i r a b l e . The e i g e n v a l u e s a s s o c i a t e d with the nine groups i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t might be more reasonable to use o n l y e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s s i n c e one e i g e n v a l u e was l e s s than 1.000. On the e i g h t category run, two s m a l l groupings were placed together, with the remaining c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s unchanged. T h i s new grouping i n c l u d e d seven i t e m s — s i x of which were from the o r i g i n a l c o n t r o l dimension. These r e s u l t s seemed more s u p p o r t i v e o f the o r i g i n a l groupings, however, one eigenvalue was again l e s s than 1.000 so another run was made, t h i s time r e q u e s t i n q seven c a t e g o r i e s . The seven category run placed a l l seguence items together, a l l eguipping items together, and a l l e v a l u a t i o n and r e p o r t i n g items t o g e t h e r . C o n t r o l items were b a s i c a l l y s p l i t i n t o two groups, scope items were s c a t t e r e d over v a r i o u s groups, and placement items were grouped together 112 bat placed with t h e seguence group. These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e may be l i t t l e p e r c e i v e d (or r e a l , f o r t h a t matter) d i f f e r e n c e between the c o n c e p t u a l i z e d dimensions of placement and seguence. The s m a l l number of placement items may, however, be a f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e i r i n c l u s i o n with items which a r e not f a r removed i n terms of s c h o o l o p e r a t i o n . With r e s p e c t to the s p l i t i n c o n t r o l items, i t appeared t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s had d i v i d e d these items i n t o one category d e a l i n g with student attendance and one d e a l i n g with t i m e t a b l i n g , programming, and spare p e r i o d s . An i n s p e c t i o n of the l a b e l s t h a t some of the s o r t e r s attached to t h e i r groupings supported t h i s n o t i o n . In essence, t h i s a n a l y s i s supported the o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow items as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a number of u n d e r l y i n g dimensions. Although some confounding of the items conceived as scope items occurred, and the c o n t r o l items were viewed as being of two types r a t h e r than of one, the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument may be viewed as possessing f a c e v a l i d i t y and a l s o as being c o n s i s t e n t with i t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . Dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem -1^2), In view of the above support f o r the i n i t i a l 113 c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n , the emergence of only two dimensions along which s c h o o l s may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i s r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g . In harmony with the c o n c e p t u a l framework of the study, the f i r s t dimension may be seen as a D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l dimension along which s c h o o l s vary according to how d i v e r s e and f l e x i b l e t h e i r c o n t r o l procedures a r e . The second dimension, D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment, may be viewed as a dimension along which s c h o o l s vary with r e s p e c t to the extent t h a t t h e i r eguipment i s d i v e r s i f i e d . C o n s i d e r i n g , however, t h a t the conceptual framework i n c o r p o r a t e d s i x dimensions, f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s i s d e s i r a b l e . I t may be t h a t secondary s c h o o l s r e a l l y do d i f f e r only with r e s p e c t t o the extent of t h e i r d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f eguipment and t h e i r d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l procedures. a l t e r n a t i v e l y , the p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow instrument i s , i n i t s present form, too Crude t o p i c k up the more s u b t l e d i f f e r e n c e s which might need t o be i d e n t i f i e d i n order t o d e f i n e other dimensions. A l s o , given the s e l e c t e d nature of the present sample, s c h o o l s from d i f f e r e n t a reas might w e l l d i f f e r s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t h e i r responses to the present form to enable other dimensions to emerge ( i t might be noted t h a t Kelsey, i n h i s comparative study, i d e n t i f i e d two c o n t r o l -r e l a t e d dimensions). That i s , because the s c h o o l s i n the study were s e l e c t e d from one p a r t i c u l a r geographic area, they may be s i m i l a r enough i n t h e i r dimensional 114 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t c mask other u n d e r l y i n g dimensions. T h i s l e a d s to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context (Sub-problem 2). DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW AND VARIABLES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT (Sub-problem 2) The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment to the thr e e v a r i a b l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context noted i n Sub-problems 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 i s di s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . D i s t r i c t D i f f e r e n c e s (Sub-problem 2.1) A g u e s t i o n r a i s e d i n the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow a n a l y s i s d e a l s with the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s with r e s p e c t to the d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l . D i s t r i c t s A and B are shown as s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from d i s t r i c t s C and D with r e s p e c t t o the workflow s t r u c t u r e of t h e i r s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . The r e s u l t s of c o r r e l a t i n g s i z e with s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l show no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s which might p r o f i t a b l y be e x p l o r e d to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s . There are, however, other p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s . The p o s s i b i l i t y e x i s t s t h a t the p o l i c i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s i s s u e d by the r e s p e c t i v e d i s t r i c t c e n t r a l 115 o f f i c e s are such t h a t c o n t r o l procedures r e f l e c t f a i r l y c l o s e l y these p o l i c i e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . In view of the recent t r e n d towards g r e a t e r d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n i n s c h o o l systems, the l i k e l i h o o d of t h i s may be c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s than what i t might have been some years ago. There i s no reason, though, to completely exclude i f from c o n s i d e r a t i o n as an i n f l u e n c i n g f a c t o r , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e K e l s e y 1 s study demonstrated the importance of s c h o o l d i s t r i c t as a f a c t o r (Kelsey,1973: 226-228). Other p o s s i b i l i t i e s , f o r which i n s u f f i c i e n t data were made a v a i l a b l e by respondents, i n c l u d e : 1. Length of time that the p r i n c i p a l has been at the s c h o o l . 2. Amount of e x p e r i e n c e of the p r i n c i p a l . 3. General age and experience of the t e a c h i n g s t a f f . 4. D i f f e r e n c e s i n h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s — a c o n s i d e r a t i o n which i n t r o d u c e s the superintendent and other c e n t r a l o f f i c e personnel as p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s above and beyond t h e i r presence as f a c t o r s i n the i s s u a n c e of r e g u l a t i o n s . 5. Type of j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l p r e p a r a t i o n and c o n t r o l procedures i n e f f e c t . The s u g g e s t i o n here i s t h a t j u n i o r c o n t r o l procedures might be l i n k e d t o those found i n the r e c e i v i n g s e n i o r s c h o o l . In g e n e r a l , however, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l a i n 116 d e f i n i t i v e l y the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s found i n the study. Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n s which might serve to e x p l a i n the d i f f e r e n c e s have been noted above, but nothing i n the study suggests t h a t one e x p l a n a t i o n i s more p l a u s i b l e than another. The examination of these d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s remains incomplete. With r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment, d i s t r i c t D d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from d i s t r i c t s A, B, and C, i n the j u n i o r sample, from d i s t r i c t C i n the s e n i o r sample, and from d i s t r i c t s B and C i n the whole sample. The most reasonable e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the low s c o r e s f o r s c h o o l s i n d i s t r i c t D compared to s c h o o l s i n the ether d i s t r i c t s i s t hat d i s t r i c t D has more of i t s eguipment housed i n a c e n t r a l d i s t r i c t f a c i l i t y than do the other d i s t r i c t s . Consequently, s c h o o l eguipment l i s t s i n D i s t r i c t D do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t eguipment which i s a c t u a l l y i n the s c h o o l but i n v e n t o r i e d i n the c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n . School Type and Dimensions of Workflow S t r u c t u r e tSub-Eroblem 2^21 Since the c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n dimension was c o n s t r u c t e d from items which were i d e n t i f i e d as j u n i o r -s e n i o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r s , the s c h o o l types should have been c l e a r l y s e p a r a b l e on t h i s dimension. T h i s was indeed the case (t=7.09, df=32, p<.0001). That i s , the c o n s t r u c t e d dimension does serve to d i s t i n g u i s h c l e a r l y between j u n i o r 117 and s e n i o r s c h o o l s . The higher s e n i o r scores are c o n s i s t e n t with the idea t h a t s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s serve a c l i e n t group which r e g u i r e s l e s s uniform, l e s s simple means of c o n t r o l than does the j u n i o r school c l i e n t group. In view of t h i s , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to s p e c u l a t e on the nature of the c o n t r o l processes i n those s e n i o r s c h o o l s with low s c o r e s and those j u n i o r s c h o o l s with high scores (although the h i g h e s t j u n i o r s c o r e was s t i l l below the mean of the s e n i o r schools) . The s e n i o r s c h o o l s appear much more v a r i e d i n t h e i r c o n t r o l s c o r e s than do the j u n i o r s c h o o l s ( s e n i o r v a r i a n c e 80.28, j u n i o r v a r i a n c e 11.49). T h i s v a r i a n c e d i f f e r e n c e i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .05 l e v e l (F=6.98, df=11,21, p<.0001). In terms of t h e i r c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n , then, j u n i o r s c h o o l s do not appear t o d i f f e r g r e a t l y , nor are they p a r t i c u l a r l y d i v e r s i f i e d . S e n i o r s c h o o l s , on the other hand, are u s u a l l y much more d i v e r s e i n t h e i r c o n t r o l procedures. There a r e , however, s e n i o r s c h o o l s whose s c o r e s a r e more t y p i c a l of the j u n i o r s c h o o l s c o r e s . The three s e n i o r s c h o o l s with the lowest s c o r e s , i t was noted, are found i n d i s t r i c t s A and B. P o s s i b l y , i t i s the wide variance i n s e n i o r c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n i n these d i s t r i c t s which accounts f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment dimension was a l s o c o n s t r u c t e d from d i s c r i m i n a t i n g items. A c c o r d i n g l y , the t -t e s t of mean s c o r e s f o r s c h o o l types showed the f i v e - i t e m 118 group to c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e between j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s (t=2.86, df=31, p<.10). The presence of more d i v e r s i f i e d eguipment i n the s e n i o r s c h o o l s may be p a r t i a l l y the r e s u l t of an attempt to meet t h e needs of more s o p h i s t i c a t e d courses (e.g. media or a r t courses) not a v a i l a b l e i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . A l s o , i n some i n s t a n c e s , s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s act as r e p o s i t o r i e s o f eguipment which i s shared by the j u n i o r secondary or elementary s c h o o l s nearby. S i z e and Dimensions o f Workflow S t r u c t u r e (Sub-problem 2„3) S i z e o f s c h o o l was not found t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s the f o u r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . T h i s f i n d i n g l e s s e n s the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t i s a major determinant of s c h o o l s i z e . Rather, when viewed i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r - t y p e d i f f e r e n c e s on s i z e , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t type o f the s c h o o l may be the more important f a c t o r — a t l e a s t f o r s c h o o l s w i t h i n the same geographic area. The f a i l u r e o f s i z e t o c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n s c o r e s r a i s e s other guestions. The e x p e c t a t i o n was t h a t l a r g e r s c h o o l s would probably have higher s c o r e s on t h i s dimension simply because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n m a i n t a i n i n g more uniform or s t a n d a r d i z e d c c n t r o l p r o c e d u r e s — p a r t i c u l a r l y a t the s e n i o r l e v e l s . Such 119 does not appear t o be the case. I t may be that the same kinds of i n f l u e n c e s mentioned e a r l i e r (see page 115) i n connection with i n t e r - d i s t r i c t s e n i o r s c h o o l c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n a p p l y i n t h i s i n s t a n c e a l s o . S i m i l a r k i n d s of i n f l u e n c e s might be a s s o c i a t e d with the l a c k of a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between s c h o o l s i z e and s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment. In a d d i t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e that s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s p r e f e r t o ensure t h a t a l l s c h o o l s possess a c e r t a i n minimum of what i s cons i d e r e d t o be e s s e n t i a l eguipment and t h e r e f o r e l i m i t a d d i t i o n a l e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r s c h o o l s already p o s s e s s i n g t h a t minimum of eguipment. The l a c k o f a s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between s c h o o l s i z e and e i t h e r D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l or D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment i s c o n t r a r y to Kelsey's f i n d i n g s (1973:226) . The importance of s i z e as a p o s s i b l e determinant of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i s t h e r e f o r e not c l a r i f i e d . 120 SCHOOL WORKFLOW STRUCTURE AND PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY (Sub-problem 3) Since the u n i t of a n a l y s i s i n t h i s study i s the i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l , i t i s at t h i s l e v e l t h a t the r e s u l t s of the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology part of the r e s e a r c h are examined. The f i n d i n g s are di s c u s s e d under the a p p r o p r i a t e headings but some ge n e r a l comments are provided f i r s t . O v e r a l l , the PCI scores are lower than those r e p o r t e d i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s of American secondary s c h o o l s . Willower e t a l . , i n the o r i g i n a l PCI study, found a mean secondary PCI score o f 62.3 (1967: 20} . J u r y e t a l . found a secondary mean of 58.3 i n t h e i r l a t e r study (1975: 297). The o v e r a l l mean f o r the secondary s c h o o l s ( i . e . the mean of secondary s c h o o l means) i n the present study was 53.36, while the mean c a l c u l a t e d from i n d i v i d u a l teacher s c o r e s was 52.92. By e i t h e r c a l c u l a t i o n , the s c o r e s a re c o n s i d e r a b l y lower than those i n the American s t u d i e s and more i n l i n e with Hamalian's Montreal study where the secondary mean was reported to be 51,00 (1977: 24). The apparent d i f f e r e n c e between Canadian and American s c h o o l r e s u l t s may be due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the v a r i o u s samples, however, the r e s u l t s warrant more in-depth r e s e a r c h t o i n v e s t i g a t e the r e a l i t y of the d i f f e r e n c e and to suggest p o s s i b l e causes. At present, t h e r e i s a p a u c i t y o f Canadian work i n t h i s area. 121 An i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g concerns the amount of w i t h i n s c h o o l PCI score v a r i a n c e . In s e n i o r s c h o o l s , the range o f PCI v a r i a n c e was from 45.84 t o 89.91 {mean v a r i a n c e 69,53). In j u n i o r s c h o o l s , a much wider range of v a r i a n c e was e v i d e n t — f r o m 34.92 t o 249.46 (mean va r i a n c e 89.69). H h i l e the mean v a r i a n c e s are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (F = 1.29, d.f. = 21,11, p>.10), the d i f f e r e n c e i n the v a r i a n c e ranges i s worthy of comment. The t i g h t e r range o f s e n i o r school v a r i a n c e s may suggest t h a t , on the whole, there are n e i t h e r t i g h t l y cohesive nor widely d i v i d e d s t a f f s with r e s p e c t to P u p i l C o n t r o l I d e o l o g y — r e g a r d l e s s of the s c h o o l PCI mean. On the other hand, j u n i o r s c h o o l s t a f f s may be g u i t e c o h e s i v e {e.g. v a r i a n c e 34.92, 41.71), widely separated (e.g. v a r i a n c e 249. 46, 148. 88), or n e i t h e r {e.g. v a r i a n c e 77.64, 66.30). These p a r t i c u l a r f i n d i n g s have g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e with r e s p e c t to D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and w i l l be d i s c u s s e d from a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e l a t e r i n the chapter., PCI and School D i s t r i c t (Sub-problem 3T. 1). The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s conducted t o t e s t f o r i n t e r - d i s t r i c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n PCI i n d i c a t e d t h a t , as might be expected given the p r o x i m i t y of the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s , major d i f f e r e n c e s d i d not e x i s t . Only d i s t r i c t s A and B 122 d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i r j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and only d i s t r i c t s A and C d i f f e r e d with respect t o t h e i r s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . The f i n d i n g supports the no t i o n t h a t PCI scores should be r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r geographic area. PCI and School Type {Sub-problem 3.2) The s c h o o l type means f o r PCI sc o r e s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p<.001). The i n d i c a t i o n here i s that s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s t a f f s tend t o be l e s s c u s t o d i a l l y o r i e n t e d than t h e i r j u n i o r secondary c o u n t e r p a r t s — a f i n d i n g r e l a t i v e l y easy t o i n t e r p r e t i n view of the d i f f e r e n t age groups and consequent b e h a v i o r a l d i f f e r e n c e s found i n the students o f the two sch o o l types. PCI and School S i z e fSub-problem 3. 3) School s i z e ( c o n t r o l l e d f o r type of school) was not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with s c h o o l PCI s c o r e . I t might be argued t h a t s t a f f i n l a r g e r s c h o o l s would f i n d i t more d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t r o l s t u d e n t s , many of whom they would not know, and be consequently more concerned with c o n t r o l ( i . e . have higher PCI s c o r e s ) . T h i s does not appear to be the case. I t may be t h a t s t a f f i n l a r g e r s c h o o l s simply i g n o r e or are much l e s s concerned with the behavior of students whom they do not know, tending t o r e s i g n 123 themselves to i t somewhat without necessarily becoming more custodially oriented. Also, given that fewer behavioral problems are evident i n senior secondary schools, less concern i s warranted (the lower senior scores on PCI would support this) . PCI and Dimensions of Workflow Structure {Sub-problem 3 A 4 J . The f i r s t part of t h i s stage of the analysis concerned the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the PCI of the professional s t a f f s (expressed by the school mean PCI) and the school scores on the control d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n dimension. Only i n the whole and junior samples were s i g n i f i c a n t results obtained. The s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s i n the whole sample are explained by the lower PCI, higher d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of control scores of the senior schools i n conjunction with the higher PCI, lower d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of control scores of the junior schools. Taken together, these associations d i s t o r t the whole sample correlation—-an observation borne out by the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s i n the senior sample and the opposite d i r e c t i o n of r e s u l t s i n the junior sample. In view of the conceptualization of the l i n k between school s t a f f PCI and school D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow (as measured in t h i s instance by school scores on d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l ) , the lack of s i g n i f i c a n t findings in the senior sample was, i n i t i a l l y , somewhat 124 s u r p r i s i n g . However, the attempt to e x p l a i n the unexpected f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d a p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p which had not been thought of i n the e a r l i e r s t a g e s of the study. To date, s t u d i e s on P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology have d e a l t with i n d i v i d u a l t eacher s c o r e s or s c h o o l scores as a whole. The l a t t e r emphasis was the one i n the present study. However, an important c o n s i d e r a t i o n appears t o have been overlooked t o t h i s p o i n t . The amount of v a r i a n c e i n the PCI i n a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l may be of major importance. Given a wide range of PCI s c o r e s w i t h i n a s c h o o l , i t appears reasonable t o argue t h a t a c o h e s i v e , w e l l - i n t e g r a t e d f o r c e t r a n s l a t i n g these i d e o l o g i e s i n t o p r a c t i c e would be l e s s l i k e l y than i n a s c h o o l where t h e r e i s l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n i n PCI s c o r e s — w h e r e the s t a f f r e p r e s e n t a more homogeneous group i n t h i s r e g ard. I f such were the case, then PCI variance would be an important v a r i a b l e mediating between the s t a f f PCI and the s c h o o l c o n t r o l processes. Schools with low PCI v a r i a n c e ( i . e . having a r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous s t a f f ) might w e l l be expected to e x h i b i t the p r e v i o u s l y expected p a t t e r n of i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p . High v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s , however, given the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of s t a f f with regard to PCI, c o u l d be expected t o demonstrate e i t h e r an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p or a p o s i t i v e one (or no r e l a t i o n s h i p ) , depending on whether or not f o r c e s f o r t r a n s l a t i n g the PCI i n t o p r a c t i c e were countered by f o r c e s i n favour of d i f f e r e n t c o n t r o l procedures more i n l i n e with a d i f f e r e n t 125 PCI o r i e n t a t i o n . In order to examine t h i s i d e a , s c h o o l s were c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r high or low i n PCI var i a n c e a c c o r d i n g t o whether t h e i r v a r i a n c e was above or below the mean whole sample v a r i a n c e . S i m i l a r dichotomous d i v i s i o n s were made f o r both PCI s c o r e s and c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n s c o r e s . The r e s u l t s are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 30., Table 30 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Schools According to Mean PCI Score, PCI V a r i a n c e , and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l ii SCHOOL SCHOOL SCORE OF SCHOOL NUMBER NUMBER TOTAL MEAN PCI ON OF OF NUMBER PCI VARIANCE DIVERSIFICATION SENIOR JUNIOR OF SCORE OF CONTROL SCHOOLS SCHOOLS SCHOOLS HIGH* HIGH* HIGH* 0 6 6 HIGH HIGH LOW 2 5 7 HIGH LOW HIGH 1 0 1 HIGH LOW LOW 0 6 6 LOW HIGH HIGH 1 0 1 LOW HIGH LOW 2 1 3 LOW LOW HIGH 5 3 8 LOW** LOW** LOW** 1 1 2 *HIGH i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s c h o o l was above the mean with r e s p e c t to t h i s v a r i a b l e **LOW i n d i c a t e s t h a t the s c h o o l was below the mean with r e s p e c t to t h i s v a r i a b l e 126 The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the presence of a high PCI v a r i a n c e made i t e q u a l l y l i k e l y f o r a s c h o o l to have a high or a low c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n s c o r e — r e g a r d l e s s of the a c t u a l s c h o o l mean PCI s c o r e . O v e r a l l , high v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s with high PCI s c o r e s showed a 7-6 s p l i t i n high-low s c o r e s on d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l . High v a r i a n c e , low PCI s c h o o l s s p l i t 3-1 i n high-low c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n s c o r e s . On the other hand, low v a r i a n c e schools were much more i n l i n e with the o r i g i n a l l y p r e d i c t e d outcomes. Low v a r i a n c e , high PCI s c h o o l s s p l i t 6-1 i n favour of low c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . As p r e d i c t e d . Low v a r i a n c e , low PCI s c h o o l s a l s o a l i g n e d themselves i n the p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n ( i . e . high s c o r e s on d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l ) — b y a d i v i s i o n of 8-2. C l e a r l y , the i n t r o d u c t i o n of PCI v a r i a n c e i n a s c h o o l c l a r i f i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between PCI and c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . Instead of no d i s c e r n i b l e p a t t e r n being e v i d e n t , s c h o o l s now showed r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t were c o n c e p t u a l l y coherent i n 31 out o f 34 cases. Bhere a s t a f f i s r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous with r e s p e c t to the p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g i e s of i t s members, the l e v e l of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f c o n t r o l i n the s c h o o l ' s workflow s t r u c t u r e r e f l e c t s the p r e v a i l i n g i d e o l o g y . Where t h e r e i s no such homogeneity, i t i s i m p o s s i b l e to p r e d i c t what l e v e l of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n w i l l e x i s t . PCI scores were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d 127 with scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment i n both the whole and j u n i o r samples. The s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g i n the whole sample appears to be the r e s u l t o f the i n f l u e n c e of the s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n i n the j u n i o r s c h o o l s . T h i s a s s o c i a t i o n , and the a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the s e n i o r and whole samples, was i n v e r s e i n n a t u r e , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t c u s t o d i a l l y -o r i e n t e d s t a f f s are i n s c h o o l s with low d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of eguipment. I n j u n i o r s c h o o l s , then, t h i s suggests t h a t the f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n of how eguipment and PCI might be l i n k e d (pages 34-35) may be the c o r r e c t one. That i s , the l a c k of d i v e r s i f i e d eguipment i n j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s with c u s t o d i a l l y - o r i e n t e d s t a f f s may r e f l e c t an u n w i l l i n g n e s s to allow s t u d e n t s access to eguipment. SOMflAHY In the f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r , the r e s u l t s of the analyses conducted with r e s p e c t to workflow s t r u c t u r e were d i s c u s s e d . Two dimensions, D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment, were seen t o u n d e r l i e s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i n j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . School s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l were found t o be l i n k e d with s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n and with s c h o o l type. No s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was e s t a b l i s h e d between s i z e cf s c h o o l and scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment was a l s o found to be 128 l i n k e d with s c h o o l type and with s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n . When c o n t r o l l e d f o r type of s c h o o l , s i z e was not found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment. The f a i l u r e o f s i z e t o a s s o c i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with e i t h e r dimension u n d e r l y i n g s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i s c o n t r a r y to e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s (Kelsey, 1973: 226). The i n f l u e n c e of s i z e w i t h r e s p e c t to dimensions of workflow s t r u c t u r e i s t h e r e f o r e not c l a r i f i e d . No s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n was found between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment. The two appear to be measuring d i f f e r e n t aspects of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . fln a n a l y s i s to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of the o r i g i n a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e as having s i x dimensions was conducted i n view of o n l y two dimensions emerging i n the present study. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument possessed f a c e v a l i d i t y and appeared to be c o n s i s t e n t with i t s i n i t i a l d e r i v a t i o n . School workflow s t r u c t u r e and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology were examined i n the second s e c t i o n of the chapter. School PCI s c o r e s were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a c c o r d i n g t o type of s c h o o l . No l i n k was e s t a b l i s h e d between PCI and e i t h e r s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n or s i z e of s c h o o l . School PCI s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d with 129 s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l i n the whole and j u n i o r samples. I n c o r p o r a t i o n of the w i t h i n - s c h o c l PCI v a r i a n c e as a c o n s i d e r a t i o n , however, l e d to the f i n d i n g that PCI v a r i a n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n with s c h o o l PCI score provided a s a t i s f a c t o r y e x p l a n a t i o n of the unexpected l a c k of c o r r e l a t i o n between PCI and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l i n the s e n i o r sample a l s o . Schools with high PCI v a r i a n c e were e g u a l l y l i k e l y to have a low or high score of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l r e g a r d l e s s of s c h o o l PCI s c o r e . Schools with low PCI v a r i a n c e were found to have the o r i g i n a l l y expected i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p with s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . PCI s c o r e s were found to a s s o c i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y and i n v e r s e l y with j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s c o r e s on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Eguipment. Senior s c h o o l s a l s o e x h i b i t e d an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p but not a t the predetermined l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . The next chapter summarizes the study, d e a l s with the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the r e s u l t s , i n c l u d i n g the r e v i s i o n of the t h e o r e t i c a l model, and p r e s e n t s c o n c l u s i o n s and some suggestions f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . 130 Chapter 6 SUHHARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS This chapter summarizes the study and reviews the major c o n c l u s i o n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s with r e s p e c t t o theory, methodology, and p r a c t i c e . SUMMARY The study was an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o the workflow s t r u c t u r e of j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . I t c o n s t i t u t e d an attempt t o develop a co n c e p t u a l framework f o r i d e n t i f y i n g dimensions of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e and p o s s i b l e determinants t h e r e o f . The b a s i c c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n f o r the study was founded i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory, p a r t i c u l a r l y the concept o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l technology as d e f i n e d by Perrow (1967, 1970). Schools were viewed as p e o p l e - p r o c e s s i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s where raw m a t e r i a l s (students) are r e c e i v e d as i n p u t , processed (have some changes e f f e c t e d i n them as a r e s u l t of the work of the s c h o o l ) , and 'outputted* (as graduates) . I n Perrow's view, the k i n d of technology used i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of the way i t s members p e r c e i v e the raw m a t e r i a l s to which the technology i s t o be a p p l i e d . In conformity with t h i s view, the focus i n the study was upon the workflow 131 s t r u c t u r e w i t h i n which the work a c t i v i t i e s o f the s c h o o l are c a r r i e d out and the r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h a t s t r u c t u r e to the p e r c e p t i o n s of the p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f with r e s p e c t to students, k p r e l i m i n a r y model i n c o r p o r a t i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f p e r c e p t i o n s of students as a p o s s i b l e determinant of workflow s t r u c t u r e was developed. Three v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context (school d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n , s c h o o l type, and s c h o o l s i z e ) were a l s o considered to be p o s s i b l e determinants of workflow s t r u c t u r e and were i n c l u d e d i n the model. The development of the model c o n s t i t u t e d the f i r s t stage of the study. Subseguent stages were concerned with: 1. the a d a p t a t i o n and refinement of an e x i s t i n g instrument t o measure s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e i n a sample of j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s , 2. the use of the instrument t o i d e n t i f y u n d e r l y i n g dimensions of school workflow s t r u c t u r e , 3. the a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e , 4. the examination of a p a r t i c u l a r o r i e n t a t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f towards students, namely, the degree to which s t a f f are concerned with the c o n t r o l of p u p i l behavior, 1 3 2 5. the a n a l y s i s of the c o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n , or P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology, with r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l d i s t r i c t a f f i l i a t i o n , school type, and s c h o o l s i z e , and 6. c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p u p i l c o n t r o l i d e o l o g y and s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . The instrument used to measure s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e was K e l s e y ' s D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument, based on the n o t i o n o f d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n s c h o o l — a n a d a p t a t i o n of Perrow 1s concept of t e c h n o l o g i c a l r o u t i n i z a t i o n . Six d i s c r e t e elements of s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e were hypothesized by Kelsey, each of which c o u l d be viewed with r e f e r e n c e to the extent of d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n e v i d e n t . The hypothesized elements were t e s t e d with the data from the j u n i o r and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and found t o be not supported. A subsequent check on the c o n c e p t u a l coherence of the items c o n s t i t u t i n g each element showed that the instrument possessed f a c e v a l i d i t y and was c o n s i s t e n t with i t s c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d the presence of o n l y two major dimensions u n d e r l y i n g s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . P o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s f i n d i n g were o f f e r e d . The dimensions was l a b e l l e d ' D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l ' and ' D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment* i n view of the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the instrument and the type of item which was predominant on the dimensions. 1 3 3 a n a l y s i s o f the v a r i a b l e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t showed s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y on s c h o o l scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . Type of s c h o o l was a l s o found t o d i s c r i m i n a t e c l e a r l y with r e s p e c t t o s c h o o l scores on D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f C o n t r o l . S i z e of s c h o o l , when c o n t r o l l e d f o r type, was not found t o be a s s o c i a t e d with D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l s c o r e s . S i m i l a r r e s u l t s were obtained with r e s p e c t t o D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Equipment and i t s a s s o c i a t i o n with s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l t y p e , and sc h o o l s i z e . The a s s o c i a t i o n between D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n o f Equipment was not found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , l e n d l n q support to t h e i r e x i s t e n c e as separate dimensions o f s c h o o l workflow s t r u c t u r e . With r e s p e c t t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s i z e and s c h o o l type and d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l types were found to d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n s i z e . Ho s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were apparent f o r s c h o o l s i z e a c r o s s s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . The p a r t o f the study devoted t o a n a l y s i s of the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology data r e v e a l e d that PCI s c o r e s do not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . , They do, however, serve to d i f f e r e n t i a t e c l e a r l y between j u n i o r secondary schools and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s . , S i z e of s c h o o l , c o n t r o l l e d f o r type, was not found to be a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e with r e s p e c t to P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology s c o r e s . The a n a l y s i s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l mean 134 PCI s c o r e s and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l scores showed no s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n i n the s e n i o r sample. The attempt t o e x p l a i n t h i s e v i d e n t l a c k o f r e l a t i o n s h i p l e d to the d i s c o v e r y t h a t the amount of w i t h i n - s c h o o l v a r i a n c e on the PCI s c o r e s i s a mediating v a r i a b l e between s c h o o l PCI score and D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l . When PCI v a r i a n c e i s taken i n t o account, p r e d i c t i o n of the probable e x t e n t o f d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l i s p o s s i b l e f o r low v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s . P r e d i c t i o n o f the extent o f d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l f o r high v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s i s not p o s s i b l e . The preceding paragraphs have b r i e f l y summarized the study. R e v i s i o n of the model of determinants of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n the l i g h t of the v a r i o u s f i n d i n g s w i l l be dis c u s s e d under the heading of T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s i n the next major s e c t i o n o f the chapter. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS The major c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the study are disc u s s e d with r e s p e c t to thr e e a r e a s — t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological, and p r a c t i c a l . These areas are t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. Each c o n c l u s i o n i s accompanied by a d i s c u s s i o n of i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s . 135 T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Future Research The study was an attempt t o develop a t h e o r e t i c a l model of p o s s i b l e determinants of workflow s t r u c t u r e i n s c h o o l s by f o c u s i n g on p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t s of s c h o o l o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h r e e v a r i a b l e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context (school d i s t r i c t , s c h o o l type, and s c h o o l s i z e ) , and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the p s y c h o - s o c i o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e of the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of the s c h o o l ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . In view of the f i n d i n g s o f the present study, the o r i g i n a l model (F i g u r e 2, page 34) might be r e c o n s t r u c t e d as shown i n F i g u r e 7. 136 E N V I R 0 N M E N T I I 1 I I I LOCAL | SYSTEM V-|SCHOOL I |SIZE | t ^ ' | +SCHOOL |~ -J | TYPE fr-i . \ r-1 ! I I DIVERSIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT i DIVERSIFICATION I -if-SCHOOLf—* PCI f-*§- OF J MEAN | | VARIANCE! j | PCI | i 1 | CONTROL L I I F i g u r e 7 The Revised Model of P o s s i b l e Determinants of Workflow S t r u c t u r e With r e s p e c t t o the components of the model, s e v e r a l statements may be made: 1. The d i f f e r e n c e between the PCI s c o r e s found i n American s t u d i e s and those found i n the present 137 study and t h a t of Hamalian supports the l i n k between the environment and PCI., 2. Because o f the manner i n which the d i s t r i c t s were s e l e c t e d i n the c u r r e n t study, the l i n k between l o c a l system and environment c o u l d not be t e s t e d . I t remains i n the model as an area f o r p o s s i b l e f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , 3. Type of s c h o o l can be seen as a v a r i a b l e of major importance. Senior s c h o o l s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r (mean s i z e 1114 students) than j u n i o r s c h o o l s (mean s i z e 763 s t u d e n t s ) , have more d i v e r s i f i e d eguipoent, have s t a f f s who are more humanistic i n outlook (mean s e n i o r PCI 50.12, mean j u n i o r PCI s c o r e 55.13), and have what might be termed moderate v a r i a n c e i n s t a f f PCI s cores. They are a l s o more d i v e r s i f i e d i n t h e i r c o n t r o l mechanisms. 4. When s c h o o l s have wide v a r i a n c e i n the s t a f f PCI s c o r e s , f o c u s on other v a r i a b l e s i s necessary. What these v a r i a b l e s are i n not c l e a r , but when a s t a f f i s not r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous i n i t s PCI o r i e n t a t i o n , other v a r i a b l e s mediating between t h i s h e t e r o g e n e i t y and the s c h o o l c o n t r o l procedures may come i n t o play. One c o u l d s p e c u l a t e t h a t s t a f f committees, p a r t i c u l a r i n f l u e n c e groups, or the p r i n c i p a l h i m s e l f might i n such cases be more c l o s e l y a l l i e d with t h e s c o r e on d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of 1 3 8 c o n t r o l than the a c t u a l PCI mean score. These v a r i a b l e s were not p a r t of the present study but the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them and s c h o o l c o n t r o l procedures c o n s t i t u t e a p o t e n t i a l l y f r u i t f u l t o p i c f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Future s t u d i e s , as w e l l as seeking t o i d e n t i f y other p o s s i b l y important l i n k s between PCI and s c h o o l equipment and c o n t r o l procedures, may f i n d p r o f i t i n examining the extent t o which combined j u n i o r - s e n i o r s c h o o l s are s i m i l a r to separate j u n i o r or s e n i o r s c h o o l s i n terms of t h e i r PCI s c o r e s , v a r i a n c e , and methods of c o n t r o l , In a d d i t i o n , the degree to which l o c a l system r e g u l a t i o n s a f f e c t eguipment and c o n t r o l procedures r e q u i r e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F u r t h e r s t u d i e s c o u l d a l s o seek t o c l a r i f y the d i f f e r e n c e i n PCI s c o r e s a c c o r d i n g to geographic l o c a t i o n and determine what, i f any, p a t t e r n s are i d e n t i f i a b l e . With r e s p e c t to workflow s t r u c t u r e , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of f i n d i n g only two s i g n i f i c a n t dimensions which se r v e to d i s c r i m i n a t e among s c h o o l s r e g u i r e c a r e f u l i n v e s t i g a t i o n . What are the r e l a t i o n s h i p s which e x i s t between these dimensions and such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s as s c h o o l c l i m a t e , s t a f f morale, classroom a c t i v i t i e s , s c h o o l vandalism, and t r u a n c y , f o r example? None of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s was examined i n the present study. The p o t e n t i a l f o r 139 r e s e a r c h i n these areas i s s u b s t a n t i a l . J?ethodolo<3ica 1 C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s From a f a i r l y l a r g e number of d i v e r s e items, the study showed t h a t s c h o o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of workflow s t r u c t u r e could be viewed as being d e s c r i b a b l e a c c o r d i n g to two d i m e n s i o n s — a ten-item dimension of c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and a f i v e - i t e m dimension o f D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Eguipment. Future s t u d i e s t h a t focus on these dimensions as they serve to d i s c r i m i n a t e among other types of schools could t e s t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these dimensions. The r e s u l t s of the study show t h a t , while i t i s p o s s i b l e t o take an instrument, such as Kelsey's D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow instrument, designed f o r comparative r e s e a r c h and apply i t to a g e o g r a p h i c a l l y r e s t r i c t e d study, i t might be wise i n such cases t o c o n s i d e r u s i n g the u n r e f i n e d form of the instrument. By so doing, i t i s p o s s i b l e , as i n the present study, t o t e s t i n t h e new s e t t i n g not on l y the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the instrument but a l s o i t s i n i t i a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n . C o n c l u s i o n s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the P r a c t i t i o n e r The study has shown t h a t j u n i o r secondary s c h o o l s and s e n i o r secondary s c h o o l s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y along dimensions of c o n t r o l d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and eguipment d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n and that placement on these dimensions i s 140 r e l a t e d not only t o the c u s t o d i a l / h u m a n i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n of the s c h o o l s t a f f but a l s o , i n the case of D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of C o n t r o l , t o the amount of v a r i a t i o n present i n te a c h e r o r i e n t a t i o n s with r e s p e c t to t h i s t o p i c . For p r i n c i p a l s of s c h o o l s with s t a f f s whose o r i e n t a t i o n s do not vary widely, t h i s may suggest t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n of c o n t r o l procedures a t odds with the c o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n of the s t a f f may encounter r e s i s t a n c e and p o s s i b l e noncompliance. For higher v a r i a n c e s c h o o l s , i t may be the p r i n c i p a l who, as a r e s u l t o f the d i v e r s i t y , i s a b l e t o i n s t i t u t e procedures more i n l i n e with h i s own o r i e n t a t i o n . There may, of course, be other mechanisms such as s t a f f committees, p a r t o f whose f u n c t i o n i s to r e s o l v e the d i f f i c u l t i e s i n v o l v e d i n r e a c h i n g some degree of consensus on s c h o o l c o n t r o l procedures. Moreover, s i n c e the ease with which p a r t i c u l a r c o n t r o l procedures are i n s t i t u t e d i s l i k e l y to have much to do with the va r i a n c e and l e v e l of PCI, c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be given to the recruitment and placement of teachers with more s i m i l a r PCI o r i e n t a t i o n s (perhaps as r e f l e c t e d i n i n t e r v i e w responses or previous r e p o r t s ) i f c o n s i s t e n c y o f adherence t o c o n t r o l procedures i s deemed d e s i r a b l e . Future r e s e a r c h that c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y be of b e n e f i t t o the p r a c t i t i o n e r would seek t o i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p which e x i s t s between s c h o o l s c o r e s on d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of c o n t r o l and a c t u a l classroom a c t i v i t i e s . I t can be argued t h a t school-wide c o n t r o l procedures do place c o n s t r a i n t s on 141 classroom teachers, How that a means i s available to measure cne aspect of school c o n t r o l procedures, other l i n k s i n an expanded model might be tested. Similar research into d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of eguipment and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o classroom a c t i v i t i e s could also be helpful. 14 2 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Raymond S., R i c h a r d M» Kimble and M a r j o r i e M a r l i n 1970 'School S i z e , O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e , and Teaching P r a c t i c e s . ' E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . Autumn: 15-31. , Anderson, Barry D. 1970 B u r e a u c r a t i z a t i o n and A l i e n a t i o n : An E m p i r i c a l Study i n Secondary Schools. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. Appleberry, James B., and Wayne K. Hoy 1969 'The P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Personnel i n 'Open* and 'Closed* Elementary Schools.' E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . Autumn: 74-84. Bakke, E. W. 1959 'Concept of the S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n . * In M. Haire (ed.). Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n Theory; 16-75. Wiley P u b l i s h i n g Company, New York. B a r e f i e l d , v.,and M. Burlingame 1974 'The P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Teachers i n S e l e c t e d Schools.* J o u r n a l of Experimental Education. Volume 42, Summer.. Bean, J . S. 1972 The P u p i l C o n t r o l I d e o l o g i e s of Teachers and C e r t a i n Aspects o f T h e i r Classroom Behavior as Pe r c e i v e d by P u p i l s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y . B i d w e l l , C h a r l e s E. 1965 *The School as a Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n . * In James G. March ( e d . ) . Handbook of O r g a n i z a t i o n s ; 972-1022. Rand McNally, Chicago. Bracht, Glenn H. and Gene V. Glass 1968 *The E x t e r n a l V a l i d i t y of Experiments*. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , Volume 5, Number 4 (November) : 437-474. 143 Brogden, Hubert E. 1949 »A New C o e f f i c i e n t : A p p l i c a t i o n to B i s e r i a l C o r r e l a t i o n and to E s t i m a t i o n o f S e l e c t i v e E f f i c i e n c y . 9 Psychometrika, 14: 169-182. Brown, L. B.   a. 1973 Ideology. Cox and Syman, London. Erown, L o r r a i n e Hayes 1973 Student Socio-Economic Status and Teacher P u p i l C o n t r o l Behavior. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . , Budzik, Jerome M. 1971 The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Teachers* Ideology of P u p i l C o n t r o l and T h e i r P e r c e p t i o n s of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S t y l e . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. Campbell, Donald T., and J u l i a n C. Stanley 1963 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs f o r Research. Rand McNally C o l l e g e P u b l i s h i n g Company, Chicago. C a r l s o n , Richard 0. 1964 * Environmental C o n s t r a i n t s and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Consequences: The P u b l i c School and I t s C l i e n t s . * In D. G r i f f i t h s (ed.), B e h a v i o r a l Science and E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : 262-276. U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, Carver, Fred D., and Thomas J , S e r g i o v a n n i (eds.) 1969 O r g a n i z a t i o n and Human Behavior: Focus on Schools. McGraw-Hill, New York. C h a r t e r s , W. H. J r . 1964 'An Approach t o t h Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n of the School.' In Da n i e l E. G r i f f i t h s (ed.). B e h a v i o r a l Science and E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n : 243-261. U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago Press., Corwin, Ronald G. 1967 'Education and the So c i o l o g y of Complex O r g a n i z a t i o n s . ' In Donald A. Hansen and J o e l E. G e r s t l (eds), On E d u c a t i o n - - S o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s : 156-223. John R i l e y and Sons. London. 144 Brozda, D. G. 1972 The Impact of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n on the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Elementary Teachers as a Result of the F i r s t Year's Teaching Experience. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon. Duggal, S. P. 1969 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Student Unrest, Student P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n School Management, and Dogmatism and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of S t a f f i n the High Schools. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan. Garten, T. R., and H. A. Gossen 1973 Student Teacher Socioeconomic Status And P u p i l C o n t r o l . C e n t r a l M i s s o u r i State U n i v e r s i t y Mimeo, Warrenburg, M i s s o u r i . G i l b e r t , D o r i s C., and D a n i e l J . Levinson 1957 C u s t o d i a l i s m * and 'Humanism* i n Mental H o s p i t a l S t r u c t u r e and i n S t a f f I d e o l o g y . M In M i l t o n G r e e n b l a t t et a l . (eds.). The P a t i e n t and the Mental H o s p i t a l . The Free Press, Glencoe, I l l i n o i s . Gipp, G . E . 1974 The R e l a t i o n s h i p of Perceived Community E d u c a t i o n a l Viewpoints and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Among Teachers. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . G l a s s , Gene V. and J u l i a n C. Stanley 1970 S t a t i s t i c a l Methods i n Education and Psychology. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y . Goffman, E r v i n g 1961 Asylums. Doubleday P u b l i s h i n g Company, Garden C i t y , New York Gossen, H. A. 1969 An I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Socioeconomic S t a t u s of Elementary Schools and the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Teachers. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Oklahoma State U n i v e r s i t y . 145 Government of Canada 1971 Vancouver Census T r a c t ( S e r i e s B)., S t a t i s t i c s Canada P u b l i c a t i o n 92-758. M i n i s t r y of I n d u s t r y , Trade, and Commerce. Ottawa. 1976 Vancouver Census T r a c t ( S e r i e s B ) . S t a t i s t i c s Canada P u b l i c a t i o n 92-805. M i n i s t r y of Industry, Trade, and Commerce. Ottawa. H a l p i n , A., and D. C r o f t 1963 The O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate of Schoo l s . Midwest A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Center, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago. H a l p i n , G., and R. Goldenberg 1973 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Measures of C r e a t i v i t y and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans. Hamalian,Arpi 1977 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology: Comparative P e r s p e c t i v e s — U.S.A. And Canada. Paper Preented t o the Learned S o c i e t i e s Conference. U n i v e r s i t y of F r e d e r i c t o n , June 7-9. Hamil, P. A. 1971 An A n a l y s i s of the Observed Change i n the Student Teacher's P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology as Compared to the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology o f the Cooperating Teacher. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Oklahoma St a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Heinman, R. J . 1971 R e l a t i o n s h i p s Among S e l e c t e d Values, L e v e l s of Dogmatism, and P u p i l C o n t r o l I d e o l o g i e s of High School P r i n c i p a l s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , New York U n i v e r s i t y . H e l s e l , A. Ray 1971a 'Value O r i e n t a t i o n and the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of P u b l i c School Educators. * E d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . Winter: 24-33. 1971b 'Status Obeisance and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology.' J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . May: 38-47. 1974 P e r s o n a l i t y and P u p i l C o n t r o l Behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting cf the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , Chicago. 146 H e l s e l , Bay, and Donald Willower 1974 'Toward D e f i n i t i o n and measurement of P u p i l C o n t r o l Behaviour.' J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , V o l . XII, No. 1: 114-123. floldaway, E . A . 1972 ' S t a f f i n g B a t i o s and School S i z e , * The Canadian A d m i n i s t r a t o r , 11: 21-24. Hoy, Wayne K. 1967 ' O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S o c i a l i z a t i o n : The Student Teacher and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology.* J o u r n a l of Ed. Besearch, December: 153-155. 1972 'Dimensions of Student A l i e n a t i o n and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f P u b l i c High Schools.* Interchange. V o l . 3, No. 4: 38-52. Jones, P. L., and J. 1. Blankenship 1970 *A C o r r e l a t i o n o f Bi o l o g y Teachers' P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology and T h e i r Classroom Teaching P r a c t i c e s . * Science Education. Volume 54, July-September. Jones, T. E. 1969 The B e l a t i o n s h i p Between Bureaucracy and the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Secondary Schools and Teachers. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Oklahoma State U n i v e r s i t y . J u r y , L. E. 1973 Teacher S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . J u r y , L. E., Donald Willower, and W. J , DeLacy 1975 'Teacher S e l f - A c t u a l i z a t i o n and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology,* A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Besearch. Volume XXI, Number 4 (December): 295-301. Katz, D a n i e l , and Robert L. Kahn 1966 The S o c i a l Psychology of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . Wiley P u b l i s h i n g Company, New York. Keefe, J . A. 1969 The B e l a t i o n s h i p o f the P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Teachers and Key P e r s o n a l and S i t u a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston U n i v e r s i t y . 147 Kelsey, J . Graham T. 1973 C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n and Instrumentation f o r the Comparative Study of Secondary School S t r u c t u r e and Operation. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a , Edmonton, K e n d a l l , Maurice G. 1970 Bank C o r r e l a t i o n Methods (4th e d i t i o n ) . G r i f f i n Press. London. Lam, Yee-Lay Jack 1971 School S t r u c t u r e and E d u c a t i o n a l Technology. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Toronto. Leppert, E., and Wayne K. Hoy 1972 'Teacher P e r s o n a l i t y and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology.' J o u r n a l of Experimental Education. Volume 40, S p r i n g : 57-59. Longo, P. 1972 P u p i l C o n t r o l a t t i t u d e s o f P u b l i c School Cooperating Teachers and Education I n s t r u c t o r s A f f i l i a t e d with the Queens C o l l e g e Teacher T r a i n i n g Program. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , New York U n i v e r s i t y . MacKay, D. A. 1964 'An E m p i r i c a l Study of B u r e a u c r a t i c Dimensions and the R e l a t i o n s t o Other C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of School O r g a n i z a t i o n s . ' Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . McAndrews, J . B . 1971 Teachers' Self-Esteem, P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology, and A t t i t u d i n a l Conformity to a P e r c e i v e d Teacher Peer Group Norm. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . McBride, A. P. 1972 A Comparative Study of a Group of New J e r s e y Middle Schools and J u n i o r High Schools i n R e l a t i o n to T h e i r P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology and S e l e c t e d P u p i l Behaviors. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y . Mann, Floyd C. 1965 'Toward an Understanding of the Leadership Role i n Formal O r g a n i z a t i o n s . ' In R. Dubin (ed,). Leadership and P r o d u c t i v i t y : 68-103, Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Company, San F r a n c i s c o , 148 Nachtscheim, Norma, and Tfayne K. Hoy 1976 ' a u t h o r i t a r i a n P e r s o n a l i t y and C o n t r o l I d e o l o g i e s of Teachers.' a l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. Volume XXII, Number 2 (June): 173-178. N e l l , S. L., Donald Willower, and J . J . Barnette 1977 'Teacher S e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology-Behavior C o n s i s t e n c y . ' a l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. Volume XXIII, Number 1 (March): 65-70. Packard, John S., and Donald Willower 1972 ' P l u r a l i s t i c Ignorance and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology.* J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . V o l . X, No. 1 (May): 78-87. Perrow, Ch a r l e s 1967 *a Framework f o r the Comparative a n a l y s i s of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . * American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. A p r i l : 194-208. 1970 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s : A S o c i o l o g i c a l View. Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Company, Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a . P r i t c h e t t , W. 1973 The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between Teacher P u p i l C o n t r o l Behavior and Student a t t i t u d e s Towards School. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y . Pugh, D. S., D. J . Hickson, C. R. H i n i n g s , and C. Turner 1968 'Dimensions of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l S t r u c t u r e . ' A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Science Q u a r t e r l y . 13: 65-105. R a f a l i d e s , M., and Wayne K. Hoy 1971 'Student Sense of A l i e n a t i o n and the P u p i l C o n t r o l O r i e n t a t i o n of High Schools.' High School J o u r n a l . Volume 55, December. , Bobbins, Melvyn Paul and Jean R u s s e l l M i l l e r 1969 'The Concept School S t r u c t u r e : An I n g u i r y Into I t s Validity.» E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . Volume 5, Winter: 37-49. Roberts, R. A. and J . W. Blankenship 1970 'The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between the Change i n P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Student Teachers and the Student Teacher's P e r c e p t i o n o f the Cooperating Teacher's P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology.' J o u r n a l o f Research i n Science Teaching. Volume 7. 149 S i e g e l , Sidney 1956 Nonparametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York. the B e h a v i o r a l Stryde, Sherman James 1973 The Development of an Instrument f o r D e s c r i b i n g Dimensions of the Teaching-Learning Process. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a . Thompson, James D. 1967 O r g a n i z a t i o n s i n A c t i o n , McGraw-Hill, New York. Waldman, B. 1971 O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Climate and P u p i l C o n t r o l O r i e n t a t i o n of Secondary Schools. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y , W a r r e l l , C. J . 1969 The B e l a t i o n s h i p of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l P a t t e r n s and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of Teachers i n S e l e c t e d J u n i o r and Senior High Schools. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , New York U n i v e r s i t y . weiss, S. G. 1972 The B e l a t i o n s h i p Between A t t i t u d e s of Teachers of E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n Toward P u p i l C o n t r o l and T h e i r S e l e c t i o n of an E d u c a t i o n a l Framework and Classroom Approach. Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , New York U n i v e r s i t y . W i l l i a m s , M. 1972 The P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology of P u b l i c School Personnel and I t s B e l a t i o n s h i p to S p e c i f i e d P e r s o n a l and S i t u a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s , Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia. Willower, Donald, T e r r y E i d e l l , and Wayne K. Hoy 1967 The School and P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology. Penn Monograph, Number 24. State Willower, Donald, and Bonald G. Jones 1963 'When P u p i l C o n t r o l Becomes an O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theme.» P h i D e l t a Kappan. November, 107-109. 1971 ' C o n t r o l i n an E d u c a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n . ' In J . Baths, J . B. P a n c e l l a , J . S. Van Ness, Studying Teaching. P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Englewocd C l i f f s , New J e r s e y . 1 5 0 Willower, Donald, and C. A. La n d i s 1970 P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology and P r o f e s s i o n a l O r i e n t a t i o n o f School F a c u l t y , , J o u r n a l of Secondary Education, Volume 45, Harch. Willower, Donald, and J . S, Packard 1972 'School C o u n s e l o r s , P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology, and P l u r a l i s t i c Ignorance, 1 J o u r n a l of the Student Personnel A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Teacher Education. Volume 10, June. Yuskiewicz, Vincent D., and Donald willower 1973 'Perceived P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology Consensus and Teacher Job S a t i s f a c t i o n . * E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . S p r i n g : 43-57. Z e l e i , S. A. 1971 R e l a t i o n s h i p Between P u p i l C o n t r o l Ideology and Sense of Power of Teachers i n S e l e c t e d P u b l i c S c h o o l s . Unpublished D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Akron, Ohio. 1 5 1 APPENDIX A. D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Form (Kelsey, 1973: Appendix A) 152 The D i v e r s i f i c a t i o n of Workflow Form i s provided as i t was completed by p r i n c i p a l s . S e v e r a l items were found to be scored i d e n t i c a l l y by a l l p r i n c i p a l s . These items were t h e r e f o r e not c o n s i d e r e d i n the a n a l y s e s . An e x p l a n a t i o n of the method used t o c a l c u l a t e scores on items 1 through 11 i s provided below. The remainder of the items f e l l o w . I t should be noted t h a t the numbers used f o r i d e n t i f y i n g the items i n the body of the t h e s i s are found i n parentheses t o the r i g h t o f each item. 2iSSJi.ISSSlli.a2l space. T h i s item r e f l e c t e d the t o t a l number of t e a c h i n g areas c a l c u l a t e d as the number of areas per p u p i l . The decimal r e s u l t i n g was m u l t i p l i e d by 100 f o r convenience. .• Item 2.x. ZiZSiL. s p e c i a l i s t eguipment. T h i s item c o n s i d e r e d eguipment which i s designed to be used i n the t e a c h i n g of s p e c i a l i s t s u b j e c t s and which i s not r e a d i l y p o r t a b l e . The score f o r t h i s item was the number of areas possessing such eguipment expressed as a percentage o f the t o t a l number of t e a c h i n g areas. Item 3. T o t a l a u d i o - v i s u a l eguipment. The s c o r e on t h i s item was obtained by c o n s i d e r i n g both the number of p i e c e s of a u d i o - v i s u a l eguipment and the number o f f u n c t i o n s which c o u l d be performed. Nine p o s s i b l e f u n c t i o n s were d e f i n e d : r e c o r d , p l a y , and r e c o r d and play f o r each of three c a t e g o r i e s (SOUND, VISION, and SOUND AND VISION). The s c o r e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r s c h o o l was the product of number of p i e c e s 153 and number of f u n c t i o n s . For example, a s c h o o l with ten overhead p r o j e c t o r s ( V I S I O N — p l a y ) , t h r e e r e e l - t o - r e e l tape r e c o r d e r s (SODND—record and p l a y ) , f i v e c a s s e t t e tape r e c o r d e r s (SOUND—record and p l a y ) , and two 16mm f i l m p r o j e c t o r s (SOUND AND V I S I O N — p l a y ) , would have twenty p i e c e s of equipment able t o perform t h r e e of the nine f u n c t i o n s . T h i s s c h o o l would r e c e i v e a score of 20 times 3 eguals 60. Item U. T o t a l a u d i o - v i s u a l equipment. Item 4 s c o r e s were c a l c u l a t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g the number o f pie c e s of equipment i n c o n j u n c t i o n with the number of kinds of equipment. In the previous example, the s c h o o l would r e c e i v e a score of 20 (pieces) d i v i d e d by 4 (kinds) equals 5. Item 5._ A u d i o - v i s u a l ggniEment a v a i l a b i l i t y . The score f o r t h i s item was obtained by d i v i d i n g the number of pieces of eguipment by the number of teachers ( i . e . by the number of people who would be s h a r i n g the eguipment). Item 6..; Sound eguipment. T h i s item c o n s i d e r e d SOUND eguipment on l y and a score was obtained which r e f l e c t e d the mean q u o t i e n t of the number of p i e c e s per f u n c t i o n d i v i d e d by the number of kinds o f eguipment per f u n c t i o n . Item V i s i o n eguipment. The score f o r item 7 was c a l c u l a t e d i n the same manner as the sc o r e f o r item 6, t h i s time c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y VISION eguipment. Item 8± Sound and v i s i o n equipment. A score f o r SOUND AND VISION eguipment was obtained i n the same way as the s c o r e s 15a for items 6 and 7. Item 9 A Individual audio-visual eguipment. Only pieces of eguipment which could be used for i n d i v i d u a l study in a small space were considered i n obtaining a score on item 9. Typ i c a l l y , eguipment such as cassette tape recorders and films-trip previewers would be included under t h i s item. The score was the number of pieces of such eguipment expressed as a percentage of the t o t a l number of pieces of audio-visual eguipment. Items JO and 1.1s. Du£licatin.g eguipment. The score on item 10 was obtained form a straight count of the number of pieces of duplicating eguipment. Item 11 scores were obtained by dividing the number of pieces of eguipment by the number of teachers. School 155 D i s t r i c t DIVERSIFICATION OF WORKFLOW FORM The questions on the following pages concern the way i n which your school operates. The i n t e r e s t i s i n how the education of pupils i s equipped, sequenced, and evaluated. Your cooperation i s greatly appreciated. Concerning the i n i t i a l placement of a student i n a program area, which of the following best describes the school's p o l i c y ? 1. Free student choice | | 2. School d i r e c t i o n based on some i n d i c a t i o n of a b i l i t y and student, choice 1 | \ 3. School d i r e c t i o n based on some measure of a b i l i t y \ — \ Where there i s more than one teaching group f o r a given subject, how are students assigned to groups? 1. By random a l l o c a t i o n | | 2. By a mixture of random a l l o c a t i o n and student choice | | 3. By student choice moderated by time-table const r a i n t s | ) 4. By student a b i l i t y moderated by time-table constraints \ \ By student a b i l i t y £ What i s the p o l i c y governing the time at which students a r r i v e each day? 1. A l l students s t a r t school at the same time | 1 2. Some students s t a r t at a regular time, others need not a r r i v e u n t i l the time of t h e i r f i r s t c l a s s | | 3. No student needs to a r r i v e u n t i l the time of h i s f i r s t c l a s s | j How frequently does i t happen that a student has to rev i s e h i s s e l e c t i o n of courses (subjects) because what he o r i g i n a l l y wanted to do i s not possi b l e under the e x i s t i n g time-table? 1. Frequently | | 2. Quite often \ | 3. Not very often | | 4. Very seldom | j 5. Never | | *Item Number for analysis 157 When may a student change a course (subject)? (18) 1. Never [ 1 2. Only at the year end •. { | 3. Only at the end of a semester or term | \ 4. At any time. Provided that there i s s u f f i c i e n t time to s t a r t the new course | | When may a student drop a course (subject) without s u b s t i t u t i n g another? (19) 1. Never j 1 2. Only at the year end \ \ 3. Only at the end of a semester or term | | 4. At any time | | How often do cases of program change on the part of students occur? (20) 1. Never | | 2. Rarely ) | 3. Infrequently [ | 4. Sometimes | | 5. Frequently | | How often do cases of course (subject) change on the part of students occur?(21) 1. Never | | 2. Rarely | 1 3. Infrequently | | 4. Sometimes | \ 5. Frequently | \ How often are there cases of students' dropping a course (subject)? (22) 1. Never | ( 2. Rarely | 1 3. Infrequently | 1 4. Sometimes 1 | 5. Frequently | ) 158 10. How i s student attendance recorded? (23) 1. D a i l y and formally i n home rooms and subject classes | | 2. In.every subject c l a s s throughout the day | 1 3. D a i l y and formally i n home rooms only | | 4. Not at a l l . Informal cognizance i s taken of absence. | \ 11. What are the p o l i c i e s regarding student absence f o r students ((24) above the statutory leaving age? 1. A note explaining absence i s required j | 2. No explanatory note i s required but when le g i t i m a t e absence i s explained by note an appropriate symbol i s used i n c l a s s attendance record | | 3. No note i s required; absence i s simply recorded | | 12. How i s excessive or inexcusable absence dealt with f o r students above C25) the statutory leaving age? 1. A standard system operates which sets out l i m i t s and consequences 1 1 2. A set of procedures i s used but each case i s dealt with on i t s merits | 1 3. There i s no standard set of procedures and each case .. .• i s dealt with by an appropriate person i n an appropriate way | 1 13. What i s the school's p o l i c y about the movement of personnel? (26) 1. Staff move to students | j 2. Students move to s t a f f } | 3. Students move to areas and s t a f f move to students within areas \ \ 4. There are d i f f e r e n t p o l i c i e s at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of the school | | 1 5 9 14. What i s the p o l i c y regarding spare periods f o r students? 1. Students are not scheduled to have spare periods 2. Spare periods are time-tabled only i n c e r t a i n grades 3. Spare periods.are avoided as far as poss i b l e 4. Spare periods are avoided as f a r as poss i b l e i n c e r t a i n grades but there i s no r e s t r i c t i o n i n others 5. There i s no r e s t r i c t i o n on the time-tabling of spare periods (27) • 15. Is the attendance of students at spare periods recorded? 1. There are no spare periods 2. Yes, for a l l students 3. For some students 4. No 028) • a • 16. Are spare periods supervised? 1. There are no spare periods 2. Yes, f o r a l l students 3. For some students 4. No (29) 17. Where do students go during spare periods? 1. There are no spare periods 2. A l l students must be i n s p e c i f i e d study areas 3. Some must be i n s p e c i f i e d study areas, others may be anywhere i n the school or i t s grounds 4.. A l l may be anywhere i n the school or i t s grounds 5. A l l may go anywhere they please 18. Is there a c e n t r a l l y operated detention system? 1. Yes 2. No (•30> (31) How i s homework assigned f o r p u p i l s above the statutory leaving age? 1. There i s a c e n t r a l l y drawn up homework time-table f o r a l l students | | 2. There i s a c e n t r a l l y drawn up homework time-table f o r some students \ \ 3. There i s no time-table but guidelines are c e n t r a l l y drawn up 1 | | 4. Homework i s assigned as deemed necessary by the teacher | | Are any subjects required for students above the statutory leaving age, other than what are s p e c i f i e d by government? 1. More than two subjects | | 2. Two subjects \ 1 3. One subject | 1 4. No required subjects } | Training i n non-academic r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for students often takes place i n schools. Does i t occur i n any of the following ways i n t h i s school? 1. There i s a students' union or s i m i l a r body which has elected o f f i c e r s and which i s concerned with student welfare and s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s 2. Students are elected as club or society o f f i c e r s 3. Students are appointed as club or socie t y o f f i c e r s 4. Students are represented on school p o l i c y making bodies 5. Appointed students form part of the school's authority structure Is there a regular assigned time for any of the following a c t i v i t i e s during school time? (Check appropriate boxes) Home room/form room business | "House" business | Re l i g i o u s cermonies | Assemblies | Free choice a c t i v i t i e s | Students' Union business | E x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s | • • • • • 161 23. Does the school operate a house system or i t s equivalent? If so, for (37) which of the following purposes? 1. No house system i s used | { 2. A house system i s used for games only [ 1 3. A house system i s used for games and other competitions { | 4. A house system i s used for-both the above purposes and"for administrative purposes on ..special occasions | { 5. A house system i s used f o r a l l the above purposes and f o r the discharge of past o r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s throughout the year | 1 24. Is i t school p o l i c y to attempt to give at l e a s t one spare period to (40) every, student above the statutory leaving age? 1. No C3 2. Yes j | 25. Is there a home room teacher or equivalent for each student? I f so, which (38) of the following best describes that person's function? 1. There i s no such p o s i t i o n 1 ( 2. The home room teacher e x i s t s as an administra-t i v e convenience (e.gi i n communication) | | 3. The home room teacher functions as above and also c a r r i e s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for assistance with student program planning and, possibly, p a s t o r a l care 1 | 4. The home room teacher has a l l the above r e s -p o n s i b i l i t i e s and a heavy r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p a s t o r a l care | 1 26. If a problem (other than a behaviour problem) concerning a student came ( 39) to your attention, which s t a f f member would you f i r s t want to consult? 1. An administrator | 1 2. Guidance personnel 1 | 3. Grade coordinator or equivalent | ( 4. Subject teacher(s) ) | 5. Grade coordinator and home-room-teacher | | 6. Home room teacher I 1 162 27. How i s the day to day evaluation of students c a r r i e d out? (Al) 1. Teachers must comply with school s p e c i f i e d procedures | 1 2. By any method the teacher l i k e s | 1 28. Which of the following best describes the frequency with which teachers 6 (42) are required to submit student marks to a c e n t r a l authority i n the school? 1. Marks required s i x or more times a year 2. Marks required four or f i v e times a year 3. Marks required two or three times a year 4. Marks required at year end only 5. Marks required only at s p e c i a l request of an in-school administrator a • • • • 29. In what form are f i n a l marks rendered? (4'3)-' 1. In one standard form - | | 2. There are several permissible forms | | 3. In any form .the .teacher .likes | | 30. Which of the following best describes the school's policy.on the advancement of students, from grade to grade or from one course to the next senior course? (44) Advancement i s dependent on the successful completion of work i n the preceding stage: 1. Always ) | 2. Almost always, but there are rare exceptions | | 3. Usually, but there are some exceptions | | 4. Usually, but there are frequent exceptions \ | 5. Never. Advancement i s normally automatic at the year end | | 31. Is the document on which p u p i l progress i s reported to parents a hand-(45) written document or a computer prepared one? 1. Prepared by computer ) | 2. Prepared by hand | 1 Which of the following best describes the content of the report form 1. The report shows marks or grades only 2. The report shows marks or grades and selected comments from a set l i s t 3. The report shows marks or grades, comments from a set l i s t , and teacher w r i t t e n comments i f 1 -desired 4. The report- shows -marks"or grades and teacher written comments 5. The report c o n s i s t s l a r g e l y of teachers'written ... . comments with marks or grades added for information 6. The report shows no marks or grades and con-s i s t s s o l e l y of teacher w r i t t e n comments Which of the following best describes the scope of the report form? 1. The report shows achievement only i n the subjects studied 2. The report includes a general summary 3. The report includes a general summary and may also carry comments on e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r work Which of the following best describes the way i n which report cards are signed? 1. The report i s signed by no s t a f f 2. The report i s signed by the p r i n c i p a l only 3. The report i s signed by subject teachers or home room s t a f f only 4. The report to signed by both subject teachers and home room s t a f f 5. The report i s signed"by one or both the above and by the p r i n c i p a l or a senior s t a f f member 164 35. TEACHING SPACE INVENTORY . ^ Number of teaching areas o v e r a l l : Number of gymnasia: Number of a u d i t o r i a which are not also gymnasia: Number of swimming pools: Number of l i b r a r i e s : a) which include work space and i n which teaching can take place b) which do not have enough work space f o r cl a s s teaching to be c a r r i e d out Areas not designated as rooms, but i n which, nevertheless, teaching takes place (exclude outdoor areas where teaching may occa s i o n a l l y take place i n f i n e weather) Rooms containing f i x e d , s p e c i a l i s t equipment:** C2) Number s p e c i a l l y Number s p e c i a l l y Subject area equipped rooms Subject area equipped rooms Art Languages... Music Mathematics. Drama Science Applied a r t s ( P r i n t i n g , TV e t c . ) . . P h y s i c a l Education (e.g. weight l i f t i n g ) Business subjects Domestic subjects S o c i a l subjects (Geography, Law I n d u s t r i a l and A g r i c u l t u r a l subjects H i s t o r y , S o c i a l Studies, Sociology Any others. Psychology, Economics, etc.) **NB Count only rooms which because of t h e i r equipment, are not r e a l l y s u i t a b l e f o r general purpose teaching of any subject. e.g., a room set up with many wall . maps and used f o r Geography, but with regular desks or tables as f u r n i t u r e , would not be counted as having f i x e d , s p e c i a l i s t equipment. Do not include gymnasia. APPENDIX B. PCI Form (Willower, E i d e l l , Hoy, 1967: 47-4 PCI Form INFORMATION: On the following pages a number of statements about teaching are presented. Our purpose i s to gather information regarding the actual a t t i t u d e s of educators concerning these statements. You w i l l recognize that the statements are of such a nature that there are no correct or Incorrect answers• We are interested only in your frank opinion of them. Your responses w i l l remain c o n f i d e n t i a l , and no i n d i v i d u a l or school w i l l be named i n the report of t h i s study. Your cooperation i s greatly appreciated. INSTRUCTIONS: On the following pages are twenty statements about schools, teachers, and p u p i l s . Please indicate your opinion about each statement by c i r c l i n g the appropriate response at the ri g h t of the statement. I N F O R M A T I O N S H E E T I N S T R U C T I O N : P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h i s p a g e b y c h e c k i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b o x e s a n d t i l l i n g i n t h e b l a n k s w h e r e n e c e s s a r y . 1. S E X ( ) M a l e ( ) F e m a l e 2. A G E ( ) 20-29 ( ) 30-39 ( ) 40-49 ( ) 50-59 ( ) 60-69 3. P R E S E N T P O S I T I O N ( S P E C I F Y W H E R E I N D I C A T E D ) ( ) J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y T e a c h e r ( s u b j e c t s ( ) S e n i o r S e c o n d a r y T e a c h e r ( s u b j e c t s ( ) O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y p o s i t i o n 4. E X P E R I E N C E A S A N E D U C A T O R ( D O N O T C O U N T T H I S Y E A R ) y e a r s a s a t e a c h e r y e a r s a s a p r i n c i p a l o r v i c e - p r i n c i p a l y e a r s a s a g u i d a n c e c o u n s e l l o r y e a r s i n o t h e r p o s i t i o n . ( p l e a s e . s p e c i f y _ 5. A M O U N T O F E D U C A T I O N ( ) L e s c t h a n B a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e ( . ) B a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e ( ) B a c h e l o r ' s d e g r e e p l u s a d d i t i o n a l c r e d i t s ( ) M a s t e r ' s d e g r e e ( ) M a s t e r ' s d e g r e e p l u s a d d i t i o n a l c r e d i t s ( ) D o c t o r ' s d e g r e e 6. U N D E R G R A D U A T E P R E P A R A T I O N ( ) U B C ( ) S F U ( ) U V i c ( ) O t h e r 7 . G R A D U A T E P R E P A R A T I O N ( ) U B C ( ) S F U ( ) U V i c ( ) O t h e r 168 d o c v <u a o n a) ai 60 -H ^ 00 C a) u 60 c o a) o co o M -O 01 W * J 00 C " » H * J M < 3 Q lO S A A U D S D S A A U D S D S A A U D S D S A A U D S D 1. I t i s d e s i r a b l e t o r e q u i r e p u p i l s t o s i t i n a s s i g n e d s e a t s d u r i n g a s s e m b l i e s . 2. P u p i l s a r e u s u a l l y n o t c a p a b l e o f s o l v i n g t h e i r p r o b l e m s t h r o u g h l o g i c a l r e a s o n i n g . 3. D i r e c t i n g s a r c a s t i c r e m a r k s t o w a r d s a d e f i a n t p u p i l i s •a g o o d d i s c i p l i n e t e c h n i q u e . S A A U D S D 4. B e g i n n i n g t e a c h e r s a r e n o t l i k e l y t o m a i n t a i n s t r i c t e n o u g h c o n t r o l o v e r t h e i r p u p i l s . S A A U D S D 5. T e a c h e r s s h o u l d c o n s i d e r r e v i s i o n o f t h e i r t e a c h i n g n e t h o d s i f t h e s e a r e c r i t i c i z e d b y p u p i l s . S A A U D S D T h e b e s t p r i n c i p a l s g i v e u n q u e s t i o n i n g s u p p o r t t o t e a c h e r s i n d i s c i p l i n i n g p u p i l s . P u p i l s s h o u l d n o t b e a l l o w e d t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e s t a t e m e n t s of a t e a c h e r i n c l a s s . I t I s J u s t i f i a b l e t o h a v e p u p i l s l e a r n m a n y f a c t s a b o u t a s u b j e c t e v e n i f t h e r e i s n o i m m e d i a t e a p p l i c a t i o n . S A A U D S D T o o m u c h p u p i l t i m e i s s p e n t o n g u i d a n c e a n d a c t i v i t i e s a n d t o o l i t t l e o n a c a d e m i c p r e p a r a t i o n . S A A U D S D B e i n g f r i e n d l y w i t h p u p i l s o f t e n l e a d s t h e m t o b e c o m e t o o f a m i l i a r . S A A 0 D S D 1 1 . I t i s m o r e I m p o r t a n t f o r p u p i l s t o l e a r n t o o b e y r u l e s t h a n t h a t t h e y m a k e t h e i r o w n d e c i s i o n s . S A A U D S D 12. S t u d e n t g o v e r n m e n t s a r e a g o o d " s a f e t y v a l v e " b u t s h o u l d n o t h a v e m u c h i n f l u e n c e o n s c h o o l p o l i c y . S A A U D S D 13. P u p i l s c a n b e t r u s t e d t o w o r k t o g e t h e r w i t h o u t s u p e r v i s i o n . S A A U D S D 14. I f a p u p i l u s e s o b s c e n e o r p r o f a n e l a n g u a g e i n s c h o o l , i t n u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d a m o r a l o f f e n c e . S A A U D S D 15. I f p u p i l s a r e a l l o w e d t o g o t o t h e w a s h r o o m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n , t h i s p r i v i l e g e w i l l b e a b u s e d . S A 1 6 . A f e w p u p i l s a r e J u s t y o u n g h o o d l u m s a n d s h o u l d b e . t r e a t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . S A 1 7 . I t I B o f t e n n e c e s s a r y t o r e m i n d p u p i l s t h a t t h e i r s t a t u s l n s c h o o l d i f f e r s f r o m t h a t o f t e a c h e r s . S A A U D S D A p u p i l w h o d e s t r o y s s c h o o l m a t e r i a l o r p r o p e r t y s h o u l d b e s e v e r e l y p u n i s h e d . S A A U D S D 6. 7 . 8. 9 . 1 0 . A U D . S D A U D S D 1 8 . 1 9 . 2 0 . P u p i l s c a n n o t p e r c e i v e t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n d e m o c r a c y a n d a n a r c h y i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . P u p i l s o f t e n m i s b e h a v e i n o r d e r t o m a k e t h e t e a c h e r l o o k b a d . S A A U D S D S A A U D S D 169 APPENDIX C. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the A c c e s s i b l e P o p u l a t i o n 170 The major demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the a c c e s s i b l e p o p u l a t i o n of the presen t study are presented below (Canadian census d a t a ) . The degree to which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to a t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n may be made depends on the nature of the f i n d i n g t o be g e n e r a l i z e d and the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the v a r i a b l e s and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the t a r g e t p o p u l a t i o n (Bracht and Glass , 1968: 441). D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t D i s t r i c t h B C D Population (1971) 125,660 53,230 45,860 62,121 Popu l a t i o n (1976) 131,599 55,464 64,492 80,034 Ethn i c O r i g i n (1971) as percentage of p o p u l a t i o n B r i t i s h I s l e s 62.0 59.0 61.0 6 0.0 European 17.5 22.1 20.7 19.9 Scandinavian and S l a v i c 10.5 11.4 10.0 9.2 Asian 2.9 1.6 1.8 5.2 Other 6.7 5. 8 6.2 5.5 average Income (1971) Hales 7,264 7,590 8,361 7,559 Females 2,939 2,675 2,784 2,895 Family 10,493 10,987 11,181 10,691 Types of I n d u s t r y (1971) as percentage of t o t a l i n d u s t r y Primary 1.7 1.7 4.7 4.1 Manufacturing 17.9 21.0 17.5 19.2 C o n s t r u c t i o n 7.3 8.4 8.3 5.8 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n / Communication 10.9 9.7 12.6 14.2 Trade 22.6 20.0 17.8 17.1 Financ e / Insurance/ Beal E s t a t e 5.5 4.7 5.4 5.2 Community Bus i n e s s / Personal S e r v i c e 22.8 23.5 20.4 21.4 P u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n / Defence 4.8 4.5 6.2 5.8 U n s p e c i f i e d 6.2 6.2 6.8 6.9 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0064550/manifest

Comment

Related Items