UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Factors related to teacher job satisfaction Roberts, William John 1971

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A4_5 R62.pdf [ 3.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101850.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101850-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101850-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101850-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101850-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101850-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101850-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101850-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101850.ris

Full Text

FACTORS RELATED TO TEACHER JOB SATISFACTION by William John Roberts B. Sc., University of British Columbia, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in the Faculty of Commerce We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April , 1971 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l 1 owed w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l umbia V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada Classical management theory holds that an individual within a complex organization should receive orders from only one superior; thereby providing the worker with unity of command. While functional specialization within large organizations prevents the explicit application of the unity of command principle, current organizational theory recognizes the merit of the basic concept. The British Columbia Public Schools Act divides adminis-trative functions above teachers between the Department of Educa-tion and local Boards of School Trustees. The Department is given complete authority for classification of teachers for certification, for curriculum content and textbooks, for work methods within the classroom, and for supervision and evaluation of teachers. The local Board is given complete authority for selection, hiring, promotion, assignment, and termination of teachers. This division of authority between the Department of Education and Boards of School Trustees violates the prin-ciple of unity of command; and produces fragmentation of authority in the administration of teachers and their employment. It was hypothesized that the degree to which a teacher recognized this fragmentation of authority would be directly related to the innovativeness of the teacher; and that job satis-faction would be inversely related to the recognition of authority fragmentation. Those teachers who are more innovative in their teaching methods should encounter the dichotomy in the process of obtaining authorization/equipment for novel teaching techniques. When the authority fragmentation thwarts the teacher's innovative efforts, job satisfaction should suffer. A teacher who is not innovative should have less opportunity to encounter the author-ity dichotomy, and should therefore feel greater job satisfaction, A questionnaire was designed to measure the degree to which teachers recognize authority fragmentation, the innova-tiveness of the teacher, and job satisfaction felt by the teacher. The questionnaire was validated using a panel who completed the form and were interviewed for their impressions of the items, and through a pilot mail survey. The questionnaire was then mailed to a random sample of B. C, school teachers. 121 useable responses were obtained from a total sample of 508 subjects. Item analysis was performed on completed questionnaires to detect set responses, and to establish construct validity. The items in the job satisfaction section of the form were factor analyzed to determine the number of satisfaction dimensions tapped by the instrument. The results of the questionnaires were scored to produce one score for innovativeness, five scores for recognition of authority fragmentation (one score for each dimension isolated), and five scores for job satisfaction (one score for each dimension of satisfaction isolated). Linear regression analysis was performed between innova-tion scores and authority fragmentation scores; and between authority fragmentation scores and job satisfaction scores. Regression analysis was also performed between job satisfaction and innovativeness directly to check for contradiction of the hypothesized mediating function of perception of authority con-f l i c t . Hotelling's statistic and t-tests were performed on job satisfaction scores when S's were sorted into subsets above and below the sample mean on both innovation and one authority fragmentation dimension at a time. Statistically significant correlations (p^O.05) were found between innovativeness and four of the five dimensions of authority fragmentation, supporting the first stage of the hypo-thesis. Three of the twenty-five pairs of authority fragmenta-tion dimensions and job satisfaction dimensions showed significant correlations, T-tests did not reveal significant differences between satisfaction scores when S's were sorted on innovation and authority fragmentation scores. The second stage of the hypothesis was not supported. The scatter of points around the regression line was large in each significant correlation. While the second stage of the hypothesis was not statistically supported, suggestive evidence was found which warrants further research. ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION A. Authority fragmentation B. Innovation C. Job satisfaction D. Hypothesis to be tested Chapter 2t METHOD A. Sample B. Questionnaire design . C, Preliminary validation D. Further validation E. Scoring authority fragmentation F. Scoring innovation G. Scoring job satisfaction H. Scoring demographic data I. Statistical analysis Chapter Jt RESULTS A. Sample B. Demographic variables G. Item analysis D. Linear regression E. Differences between means Chapter ki DISCUSSION A. Sample size B. Demographic variables C. Linear regression D. Differences between means Chapter 5: CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY Appendix 1 : QUESTIONNAIRE Appendix 2s RELATIVE FREQUENCY HISTOGRAMS Appendix Jt CITATIONS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT I,. Functional responsibilities of Boards and the Department of Education in the employment of teachers 4 II. Job satisfaction inventory factor analysis 18 III. Rotated factor matrix of job satisfaction items 24 IV. Correlation matrix for evaluation c r i t e r i a items 28 V. Correlation matrix for teaching techniques items 29 VI. Linear regression of innovation vs. authority fragmentation 31 VII. Linear regression of authority fragmentation vs, job satisfaction 33 VIII. Sorted mean scores and sign test on means 35 INTRODUCTION Unity of command, and the scalar principle for author-ity in which i t is incorporated, was first discussed specifically by the classical approach to management theory. The proponents of the classical school of management theory, eg. Gulick (1937), Taylor (1911), Urwick (1943), and Fayol (1949), devoted their attention to development of a set of rules or principles which could be used as prescriptive guides by practising managers. The present study was based upon the principle of unity of command as applied to public school teachers in British Colum-bia. The principle was used as a basis for the formulation of an empirically testable hypothesis. -The experimental hypothesis related unity of command for teachers to teacher innovativeness and to teacher job satisfaction. Unity of command Fayol (1949, P. 24) defined unity of command as follows* "For any action whatsoever, an employee should receive orders from one superior only....In no case is there adaptation of the social organism to dual command." Another of Fayol's principles, that of unity of direction, is a concommitant of unity of command. Fayol (1949, p. 25) defined unity of direction as "one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective," Clearly i f there is more than one head for a group activity, there is the possibility of unity of command being violated. Fayol's use of the word "command" appears synonymous with Simon's conception of authority. Simon (I957t P. 125) defined authority as "...the power to make decisions which guide the actions of another. It is a relationship between two individuals, one 'superior*, the other 'subordinate.' The superior frames and transmits decisions frith the expectation that they will be accepted by the subordinate. The subordinate expects such decisions, and his conduct is determined by them." When a superior evaluates the work performance of a sub-ordinate, the subordinate can be expected to adapt his'behaviour to suit the evaluator in order to influence favourably the results of the evaluation. The evaluator uses a set of evaluation criteria which are the result of a decision/choice process. Since the subordinate attempts to maximize his score on the evaluation, he tries to comply with the appropriate criteria as he perceives them. Thus the evaluator's decisions determine the conduct of the subordinate} and the evaluator has authority over the behaviour of the individual being evaluated. An individual could be expected to modify his behaviour to accommodate a superior who has the capacity to recruit, promote, or terminate the individual's employment. Such accommodation is attempted in order to safeguard the subordinate's employment. Again, the superior's criteria for recruitment or termination are the result of a decision process. In modifying his conduct to suit the c r i t e r i a of the superior, the subordinate person allows his behaviour to be determined by the superior's decisions. The superior with the capacity to hire, to promote, or to f i r e there-fore has authority over the subordinate individual. When separate and autonomous agencies possess these two forms of authority, over evaluation and over recruiting and termin-ation, unity of command i s violated. The Public Schools Act, which governs the employment of teachers In B. C , specifies the separation of the processes of evaluation and of selection, promotion, and termination. The division of responsibilities between the Department of Education and Boards of School Trustees i s shown in Table I. Citations from the Public Schools Act are given in Appendix 3 "to support the division of authority l i s t e d in Table I. The division of authority between Boards of Trustees and the Dept. of Education creates a dichotomy of authority above public school teachers. An example of this authority dicho-tomy i s seen in the case of a teacher who, as a result of innate inspiration and of encouragement by the Dis t r i c t Superintendent, wants to use a videotape machine as a teaching aid. The Dis t r i c t Superintendent, in his efforts to improve educational standards in his Superintendency as required by the Public Schools, Act, would encourage the teacher to use videotape. But the Board of Trustees, who are elected by local property owners whose level of property tax i s directly related to educational expenses, Functional Responsibilities of Boards and the Department of Education in the Employment of Teachers Board of Trustees! —recruiting and appointment of teachers —promotion of teachers to administrative posts —assignment of teachers to posts and transfer between schools —establishment of salaries and schedules —termination of teacher employment Department of Educations —certification of qualification of teachers —overall supervisory authority of schools —prescription of teacher duties —inspection of teacher's work and reporting thereon —determination of temporary or permanent status of certificate of qualification — o f f e r recommendations to the Board to guide the actions of the Board. may be reluctant to supply the requisite equipment. Obviously the teacher cannot satisfy the expectations of both agencies. While this problem would seem to be a matter of coordination/ cooperation between the Board and the D i s t r i c t Superintendent, i t i s the teacher who bears the brunt of the authority fragmen-tation. An implication of this authority dichotomy i s that the sources of conflicting authority may hold contradictory role expectations for the subordinate, in this case the teacher. A classroom teacher who i s aware of the authority dichotomy between the Board and the Department of Education may suffer role con-f l i c t . But role conflict experienced by a teacher i s a separate characteristic from that of perception of authority fragmentation, although these phenomena may occur together. This study addressed perception of authority fragmenta-tion, and i t s relationship with teacher innovativeness and with teacher job satisfaction. Innovation Haberstroh (March, 1965, P. 1172) defined innovation in the following terms 1 "...the aim of innovation may be stated as that of inducing functional change. Only in part can the process of innovation be thought of as the exploitation of p o s s i b i l i t i e s newly opened up by technological progress. In larger part, inno-vation i s a reworking of familiar fields of action as circum-stances change..." Despite the curriculum revolution during the last decade (eg. completely new curricula in the physical and biological sciences, Cuisinaire in arithmetic, Introductory Teaching Alpha-bet (ITA) in introductory reading), the increase in audiovisual equipment available (eg. educational TV, videocorders, language • laboratory equipment, loop film projectors), there i s a dearth of data on the amount of innovation actually occurring in the classroom. This lack of data i s remarkable in the context of the broad use of survey techniques in the social sciences. Anderson (1968, pp, 41-43) suggested two causes for this lack of research. F i r s t , professional responsibility for con-ducting research in education has resided with schools of educa-tion; these schools have been largely isolated from the main stream of social science. This isolation has resulted i n educa-tional research being limited to descriptive projects instead of explanatory efforts. Anderson's second reason for the lack of survey research was the close identification of educational research with c l i n i c a l psychology. Two results of this lack of survey research on innova-tion in educational methods are a shortage of discussion in the literature of innovation, and an absence of scales for the quan-t i f i c a t i o n of innovation. In the present study, i t was hypothesized that an innova-tive teacher would be more aware of the authority dichotomy as a result of seeking authorization and/or equipment for the introduction of novel teaching techniques. An example may be seen in the experience of a biology teacher in a senior secon-dary school. The biology .curriculum, set by the Department of Education, provides the opportunity for the use of vivisection of mammals as a teaching aid. The particular teacher, who had completed three years of medical training and was thus experi-enced in dissection, sought permission to dissect dead cats. The District Superintendent encouraged the teacher in this effort. The Board, under pressure from the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was opposed to the dissec-tion of cats by students and denied permission for the proposal. This example also illustrates the basis for the hypothe-sized relationship between perception of authority fragmentation and job satisfaction. The biology teacher encountered authority fragmentation in an area where he possessed expertises both from his background in the biological sciences, and from his training as an educator. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was defined in this study as the con-gruence between personal needs and the perceived institutional fulfillment of those needs in the job situation. Although this is synonymous with the definition of morale given by Guion (1958, p. 2), use of the term morale in this study was avoided to pre-vent confusion between motivation and satisfaction, both of which terras are frequently included in morale. The relevance of the authority dichotomy above teachers to their job satisfaction may be seen as a consequence of the social ethic as developed by Whyte in The Organization Man. Evans (1961, p. 543) stated "The ideology of the organization man has at least two interrelated sources: occupational and organizational. Occupationally, the amorphous character of managerial work encourages the use of subjective criteria for evaluating performance.... Organizationally, the absence of norms of procedural due process of law, such as the right to appeal the decision of a superordinate, junior and middle managers are encouraged to become 'conformists,* developing an over-sensitivity to the expectations of superordinates in order to insure positive appraisal and corresponding rewards. Otherwise put, the ideology of the organization man is an adaptation to certain normless elements in the work situa-tion of junior and middle managers." While there are subjective criteria of evaluation in the busi-ness world, there are at least some objective elements as well. In the educational field, virtually a l l the assessment criteria are subjective in nature. Existing in an environment of subjec-tive evaluation, teachers can be expected to be concerned with the mechanics of evaluation. This concern with evaluation should in turn sensitize teachers to the authority structure under which they work, and in the context of which they are evaluated. The authority fragmentation above teachers may be related to job satisfaction through areas other than evaluation. Using a path-goal theory of motivation, Vroora (1964, p.246) stated that individuals are satisfied with their jobs to the extent that their jobs provide them with what they desire; and that people desire rewards from their jobs. Where the authority dicho-tomy impinges on felt rewards offered by a teaching situation, * job satisfaction may be influenced. Another area in which job satisfaction can be influenced by authority structure is that of interaction among teachers and their superiors. Woodward (1965, P. 123) proposed that organi-zational planners should develop an organization which best f a c i l -itates the interaction of people within i t , even i f such design objectives dictate departure from classical constructs of organi-zational theory. In the cases of the teacher requesting videotape equipment and of the biology teacher requesting permission to dissect cats, the authority dichotomy subjected the teacher to conflicting authority sources. This conflict was a result of and an influence on the interaction of the teachers and their superiors. It is not unreasonable to expect a relationship between the character of such interaction and the job satisfaction exper-ienced by a teacher. The areas of evaluation processes, felt rewards, and teacher interaction appeared to be subsumed under five dimensions of job satisfaction. These five dimensions were: 1. challenge of the present job situation; ie. does i t utilize a l l the incumbent's felt skills, and does the situation allow self-actualization in Maslow's terminology. 2. satisfaction with the District Superintendent as a supervisor, and his influence on working conditions. 3. satisfaction with the teacher's colleagues as a group, from both an external "and an internal view-point . 4. satisfaction with administrative procedures. 5. satisfaction with the functional relationship between teachers (both the individual teacher and the teaching community) and the Dept. of Education. A search for statistical correlation between job satis-faction and perception of authority fragmentation can be, and here was, limited to just that. It is important to note that the existence of such a relationship implies no cause-effect relationship whatsoever. Indeed, Bell (196-7» P. 10) noted that a person's satisfaction with his job situation is influenced by a multitude of factors, including his personality, his family background, and his societal adjustment. Job satisfaction is much too complex a phenomenon to be caused by a single factor such as perception of authority fragmentation. The search for a statistical correlation between percep-tion of authority fragmentation, innovativeness, and job satis-faction can support a theoretically based (and a priori) relation-ship among these factors. It was for this reason that empirical data was gathered and analyzed in the present study. Hypothesis to be tested It was hypothesized that teachers who are more innova-tive in their teaching methods will encounter the authority frag-mentation between the Department of Education and the Board of School Trustees in the process of obtaining authorization and/or equipment for new or unusual teaching techniques. When the authority split thwarts the teacher's innovative efforts, job satisfaction will suffer. Conversely, a teacher who is less innovative will have less opportunity to encounter the authority fragmentation, and will therefore feel greater job satisfaction. The hypothesis to be tested was: The degree of percep-tion of authority fragmentation by a teacher is positively correlated with the degree of innovativeness, and negatively correlated with overall job satisfaction. Perception of authority «= function of Innovativeness fragmentation Perception of Job satisfaction = function of authority fragmentation Chapter 2 METHOD Sample The present study dealt with public school teachers employed in British Columbia. The sample of the teaching pop-ulation to whom questionnaires were sent was selected randomly from a l i s t of a l l teachers currently employed in B. C, This l i s t included teachers, principals, vice-principals, and district supervisory staff, but not District Superintendents. A sample of 500 teachers was taken from a l i s t of the 22,000 practising teachers. No weightings were made for size or location of the district employing the teachers—thus the sample should have been representative in a l l aspects (eg. geographically, level of certification, years of experience). Questionnaire design Although the final survey instrument (shown in Appendix l) was presented to the subjects as a single questionnaire, i t was designed in three parts. The first section was designed to measure the degree to which a teacher recognized or was aware of the fragmentation of authority between the Department of Edu-cation and the local Board of School Trustees. A literature search revealed that no research had been performed on the relative authorities of the Department of Education and Boards of School Trustees from any viewpoint; and certainly not from the viewpoint of a teacher. Therefore an instrument had to be designed de novo. Four major dimensions of a teacher's work environment which could be influenced by the authority dichotomy above the teacher were: techniques, particularly those used routinely for classroom instruction; curriculum, both content and structure; facilities, ie. the physical plant within which the teacher worked; and the overall role of the teacher as an educator, A question was constructed to sample the amount of author-ity seen by the teacher as being held by the Department of Educa-tion or by the local Board over each dimension. The four items testing the influence of the Department over the four areas were grouped together to emphasize for the respondents the contrast between the four dimensions. These four items were followed by the grouped items measuring the influence of the Board over the four dimensions. Each item had two parts; one asking how much influence existed now, and the other asking how much influ-ence there should be. The second part of each item was a decoy item, designed to distract the subject's attention from the intended use of the information and thereby reduce the effect of social approval bias. A sample item i s i The authority of the Dept. of Education over the Curriculum I use: a. How much is there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) These grouped items were followed by three decoy items (questions #9-1l) with the same structure. Finally two items were devised to measure the relative influence of the Department to that of the Board in an overall sense. In the construction of the fir s t eight items a problem arose in semantic choicej how should the influence of the Depart-ment or Board be described? Control seemed as valid as authority, or power, or influence. A sample of seven persons with teaching experience in B. C. were presented with a form which asked: Please choose the THREE words which most accurately describe the effective relationship of supervisory personnel (ie. Board of Trustees and/or District Superintendent) over class-room teachers. Indicate the ONE word which is the most accurate of the three. Authority Control Dominance Influence Power Predominance Pressure Sway The unanimous choice of the subjects was authority, which was then employed in the questionnaire. Although the items measuring recognition of authority fragmentation were presented as direct questions, both the decoy items and the method of scoring rendered the items indirect in this study. The innovation scale, consisting of seven items, was adapted from Anderson (1968). Anderson conducted a study in the United States on the conflict between the structured (bureau-cratic) nature of educational administration and the professional autonomy of teaching standards. He developed an instrument to measure the personalization of instruction (defined as attempts to allow for individual differences amongst students or attempts to assist individual students) under different administrative hierarchies. The reported reliability of the scale, using split-half correlation, was 0.227 for the half scale and O.37I for the total scale. Anderson suggested that the low reliability of the instrument was due to the multidimensional character of the variable measured. Seven items were selected from Anderson's scale and reworded to reflect the teaching environment in B. C. These items were used to measure innovation indirectly by examining the variety of teaching methods used, eg. teaching techniques (lecturing, class discussions, student reports, experiments), use of infor-mation sources other than textbooks, evaluation of students based on adaptable and appropriate criteria. Variety of teaching methods was then expressed as a measure of innovation. This indirect measure of innovation was necessitated by the limited resources available for this project, which prevented the quantification of both present teaching methods and changes from that status quo. The rationale for this indirect measurement was that an individual using a greater variety of books, or techniques, or whatever, is probabilistically more likely to include new, and innovative elements. Conversely, teachers using only a few methods are less likely to include innovative items in their repertiore. As well, teachers using fewer methods may be locked into habitual responses in their teaching, with the corresponding tendency to ignore new methods as they become available. To sample job satisfaction felt by the subjects, an instrument was required with these attributes: (a) brevity, because the questionnaire measuring authority fragmentation and innovation was already quite long; (b) ease of administration, because the questionnaire was to be mailed to the subjects and offered no response incentive beyond the idealism of the respon-dent; and (c) content and construct validity for those job dimensions related to supervisor, higher echelon personnel, col-leagues, and working conditions. A search of the literature was undertaken to find an instrument whose results were documented. The Job Satisfaction Inventory, designed by Twery, Schmid and Wrigley (1958) for a study of U. S. Air Force personnel, met the chosen parameters. The Inventory consisted of twenty-one statements about the job situation (eg. My squadron could do a much better job i f there were less interference from above). Each item was rated on a five point scale ranging from agree strongly to disagree strongly. The form was short, easily administered, and sampled the desired job satisfaction dimensions. Adaptation of the item wording was required, however, to make the instrument appropriate to the present study. In the adaptation, two items were deleted because they lacked face and construct validity for teachers. In the remaining items equivalent educational terms were substituted for military terminology (eg. this base became this school, my supervisor became my District Superintendent, military assignment became teaching assignment). No other modifications were made. Twery et. a l . provided no validity data for their study. Reliability was measured using factor analysis. Table II shows the hypothesized factor loadings and the empirical loading found in Twery*s study, along with the empirical factor loadings found in the present study. The item numbers.in the table are those used in the questionnaire for the present study. The close match between the hypothetical and empirical factor loadings was a definite recommendation for this scale, and was a major factor in its selection for use in this study. Six questions relating to demographic characteristics of the respondents were placed at the end of the questionnaire. These demographic data allowed the characteristics of the sample to be compared with population data contained in the Annual Report of the Department of Education as a check on the represen-tativeness of the sample to the population. Job Satisfaction Inventory Factor Analysis Item Number Loadings satisfaction Twery et al study present study dimension hypothesized empirical empirical loading loading loading general attitude 23,30,36, 23,30,36,32, to job 23,30,36 32,38 38,22,25,29 supervisor 27,34,24, 27,31.34, 27,31,34,37 31.37 37 coworkers 26,33,39 26,33.39 26,33,39,22 29,30,37 higher 21,28,35 21,28,35 21,28,35 echelon job duties 25,38 25,38 relationship 24,25,37 between D. of Ed. and teachers Preliminary validation The complete questionnaire, with the items of the three sections numbered sequentially, was- administered to a sample of seven graduate students in the Faculty of Education who had recent classroom teaching experience in B. C. The subjects were sel-ected by asking for volunteers from a class group of twenty-four. The subjects were individually given the forms to complete, along with a covering letter of introduction which was to be enclosed with the mail questionnaire. No information was given the subjects before the t r i a l other than that this study was designed to examine teacher attitudes; and asking them to respond in the context of their most recent teaching situation. A l l subjects were interviewed immediately after they had completed the form for their reactions and opinions about the questionnaire. Further validation One question which was vague to the preliminary panel was rephrased to eliminate the ambiguity suggested by the panel. The questionnaire, otherwise unchanged, was then mailed to a random sample of 50 teachers selected from the l i s t of 500. Eighteen questionnaires were returned, a l l of which were useable. These results were used to test the scoring program for the questionnaire. The question which had been rephrased was omitted by the majority of the respondents. This item was deleted from the questionnaire. The questionnaire, unchanged except for deletion of the vague item and a tidier physical layout, was commercially printed along with the covering letter. This printed form was then mailed to the remaining k$Q subjects in the sample. A total of 500 questionnaire forms were mailed to sub-jects; eight preliminary forms were administered to the validation panel; giving a total sample size of 508, Scoring authority fragmentation Two items in the questionnaire sampled each of the five hypothesized dimensions of authority fragmentation between the Department of Education and the local Board of School Trustees. Each item tested the perceived amount of authority held by either the Department or the Board. For each dimension, as measured by pairs of "how much is there now?" items, a large amount of author-ity held by both agencies implied fragmentation of that authority. Conversely, a large amount of authority held by only one, or by , neither, agency implied an absence of authority fragmentation between those agencies. Accordingly, the sum of the two item responses (eg. la + 5a) for each dimension, less the difference between the two responses (eg. la - 5a), indicated the amount of authority fragmentation. This scoring gave a high score i f both agencies possessed a large amount of authority, and a low score i f only one or neither had much authority. A score was thus calculated for each dimension of fragmentation. The res-pondents* scores ranged from 2 to 14 with mean scores of 10.7, 8.1, 5.3, 5.1 and 7.4. Scoring innovation The first five items testing innovation were scored by subtracting the number of the response from six, in order to give a higher numerical item score to those subjects who employed a greater variety of techniques. The next two items, measuring importance of factors in evaluation and frequency of use for teaching techniques, were constructed to give the person who used a greater variety of factors/methods a higher score when the responses to that item were summed. An overall score for innovation was obtained by taking the sum of the item responses. The greater the sum of the item responses, the greater the variety of techniques, etc., employed by the respondent. As explained in Chapter 1, the variety of methods used was employed as a measure of innovativeness. The respondents' scores ranged from 60 to 132 with a mean score of 85.8. Scoring job satisfaction The raw responses to the job satisfaction items were factor analysed using the U. B. C. *Facto program and ortho-gonal rotation, with number of factors unspecified in the pro-gram control and the communalities of the correlation matrix set at one. Five dimensions of job satisfaction were identified. in Table II on page 18, and were compared with the factor loadings for the comparable items in the Twery et. al. study. Items with a loading of greater than 0.3300 on any dimension in the rotated matrix were used to score that dimension. The rotated matrix is shown in Table III. The interpretation of the five dimensions obtained in this study, compared with those of Twery et. al,, were as followst Twery definition present definition general attitude to job satisfaction with present job situation satisfaction with satisfaction with District supervisor Superintendent as "a supervisor coworkers satisfaction with peer group, from both an internal and ex-ternal viewpoint satisfaction with satisfaction with administrative higher echelon procedures (eg. red tape) job duties satisfaction with the functional relationship between teachers (both self and others) and the Department of Education. A l l items were weighted equally when item responses were being summed to obtain a dimension score. A composite score representing overall job satisfaction as a combination of the five dimensions was not calculated. Lack of knowledge on the interaction of the dimensions prevented such a manipulation. The demographic data Demographic data were recorded directly from the item responses. Relative frequencies of the categories of response for each item were calculated for comparison with data on the total teacher population. Statistical analysis Chi-square tests were performed on the two demographic variables for which population parameters were available. The tabulated chi-square value was based on a 5% confidence level. Pearsonian correlation coefficients were calculated for the individual items in the authority fragmentation and the innovation scales using the INMSDC routine of the U. B, C. *Trlp program. These coefficients were used to check for homogeneity amongst items, and for set responses. The rotated factor matrix produced by factor analysis of the job satisfaction scale using the U. B. C. *Facto program, is presented in Table III. This matrix was the result of analy-sis under these conditionsj the main diagonal of the correlation matrix remained unchanged} communal!ties were not estimated by iteration; the main diagonal of the correlation matrix was set at 1; and the number of factors was determined by the number of eigenvalues of the correlation matrix which were greater than one. TABLE III ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX JOB Factors SATISFACTION ITEMS Item A B C D E 21 0.0753 -0.7063* -0.0481 0.01994 0.2564* 22 0.4965* -0.3467 -0.2560 -0.4928* 0.0415 23 -0.7676* 0.2040 -0.2502 0.1997 -0.0416 24 -0.0304 0.1708 0.5873* 0.0536 0.1482 25 0.4477* -0.0875 -0.6088* -0.2365 0.1685 26 -0.2060 -0.0376 0.0008 0.8137* -0.1746 27 0.0470 -0.0454 -0.2475 0.0704 0.8139* 28 -0.0123 -0.7185* -0.2592 -0.2281 0.2922 29 -0.3604* 0.2979 0.1651 0.6975* -0.0355 30 -0.6022* 0.2916 0.0884 0.4673* -0.0142 31 0.0572 -0.2754 0.2217 -0.2032 0.7792* 32 -0.7776* 0.0430 0.0042 0.0943 0.1059 33 -0.0995 -0.0028 0.1727 0.7954* -0.0843 34 -0.0452 -0.3260 0.1953 -0.0372 0.7298* 35 0.1767 -0.8573* -0.0290 -6.1400 0.0812 36 -0.7690* 0.0541 0.2405 0.3057 -0.0431 37 -0.0677 0.1395 -0.4142* 0.4596* -0.4711* 38 0.6460* 0.0695 -011519 -0.1096 0.1033 39 -0.2852 0.1806 -0.1231 0.6671* 0.1401 A " satisfaction with present job situation B = satisfaction with administrative procedures C = satisfaction with D. of Education/teacher relationship D = satisfaction with peer group, both internally and external E = satisfaction with Dis t r i c t Superintendent as a supervisor * p * 0.05 The s c o r i n g of the questionnaire produced eleven scores f o r each respondent; one score f o r innovativeness; f i v e scores f o r the f i v e dimensions of aut h o r i t y fragmentation; and f i v e scores f o r the f i v e dimensions of job s a t i s f a c t i o n examined. Simple l i n e a r regression was performed on these scores using the SIMREG routine of the U. B. C. * T r i p program. Innovation was regressed with each a u t h o r i t y fragmentation dimension; and each a u t h o r i t y fragmentation dimension was regressed with each job s a t i s f a c t i o n dimension. The innovation scores were sorted i n t o two groups, above and below the sample mean score, along with each of the author-i t y fragmentation scores i n turn. This produced f i v e s o r t s of the data, with each s o r t containing S's with a high score (above the sample mean) on both innovation and one of the aut h o r i t y fragmentation dimensions. These f i v e s o r t s were analysed f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the means of the groups, both o v e r a l l (using H o t e l l i n g ' s T^ s t a t i s t i c ) and on i n d i v i d u a l scores (using t--tests). A n a l y s i s was performed by the HOTEL routine of the U. B. C. * T r l p program, with p * 0.05. R e l i a b i l i t y of the questionnaire was not c a l c u l a t e d f o r t h i s study. Resources a v a i l a b l e prevented the use of two surveys i n order to obtain t e s t - r e t e s t data f o r the instrument. The use of s i n g l e items to assay perception of aut h o r i t y fragmentation i n each of four dimensions, and i n the innovation inventory, prevented the use of s p l i t - h a l f c o r r e l a t i o n s . RESULTS Sample size 148 (32.9$) of the questionnaires in the main survey were returned, with 96(21.3$) useable, of the 450 forms mailed. The maximum return period was twenty-one days from the date of mailing. The form used during the preliminary validation proce-dures and the small pilot survey were the same as that used in the main survey, except that the earlier forms contained one extra question. This similarity of the forms used allowed the responses obtained during the early survey process to be com-bined with the responses from the main survey. Thus the total sample available for analysis was 121, or 23.9$, o£ 50? possible. Demographic variables Chi-square tests were performed on certification level and bachelor degree held. For certification level, the calcu-lated chi-square was 7,84} the tabulated value was 9,49 (p 0,05), For degree held, the calculated chi-square value was 20,08; the tabulated value was 11.07 (p * O.05). The sample was the same as the teaching population in level of qualification, but different in the area in which quali-fication had been obtained (ie. area of undergraduate training). Histograms are shown in Appendix 2. Item analysis Using a 0.05 confidence level, Pearsonian correlation coefficients for the authority fragmentation scale indicated absence of a response set; both over the present amount of authority (how much should there be?) items, as well as over the paired items measuring the present amount of authority on each dimension of fragmentation. For example, of the 28 pairs of items on present amount of authority, 14 were significantly correlated and 14 were not. A response set would have produced s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations between most or a l l pairs; this did not occur. Similarly, correlation coefficients indicated an absence of response set in the f i r s t five multiple choice items of the innovation scale. The correlation matrix for the frequency questions tapping evaluation c r i t e r i a and teaching techniques are shown in Tables IV and V. The evaluation c r i t e r i a matrix shows those c r i t e r i a which are considered together by teachers; associated c r i t e r i a are marked by asterisks. For example, a teacher who u t i l i z e s a student's performance on standardized tests relative to norms for those tests does not consider that student's achievement compared to his a b i l i t y nor any emotional problems the student may have. Examination of Table IV reveals a logical association among c r i t e r i a , His test average com-pared to the norms and school's passing grade Norms of provincial achievement tests School or department norms for achievement tests Average level of his classmates His achievement com-pared to his ability Home problems Emotional problems Physical disability Part-time employment Participation in extra-curricular activities Correlation Matrix for Evaluation Criteria Items 1.00 0.26* 1.00 0.29* 0.64* 1.00 0.17 -r0.04 0.04 1.00 •0.39* -0.04 -0.06 -0.16 1.00 -0.25 0.04 -0.01 -0.13 0.42* 1.00 0.02 -0.08 0.50* 0.86* 1.00 0.07 -0.12 0.44* 0.62* 0.70* 1.00 -0.01 0.03 0.15 0.36* 0.35* 0.38* . 1.00 -0.26* 0.02 -0.14 0.01 -0.07 -0.14 -0.08 -0.11 0.01 -0.08 0.14 0.34* 0.38* 0.33* 0.-56* 1.00 Items are ordered across top of matrix in same order as along side; coefficient of 1.00 indicates correlation of an item with itself. * p ^ 0.05 Correlation Matrix for Teaching Techniques Items Lecture 1 Demonstration 0 Experiment -0 Class discussion 0 Student reports 0 Debates 0 Films and slides -0 Recordings -0 Television -0 Field trips -0 Student projects 0 Oral recitations -0 D r i l l -0 Working at the board -0 Team competition 0 Reading in class -0 Guest lecturer -0 Individual -0 library work Items are ordered across correlation of an item .00 .04 1.00 .01 0.34* 1.00 .01 -0.03 0.06 ,09 0.13 .01 -0.03 ,13 0.08 ,35* 0.06 ,03 0.07 ,06 0.15 ,01 0.16 ,09 0.11 ,11 0.01 ,01 0.07 ,03 0.12 ,12 0.07 ,01 0.11 ,09 -0.09 1.00 0.30* 0.35* 1.00 0.05 0.26* 0.49* 1.00 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.26* 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.16 0.37* 0.17 1.00 0.51* 1.00 0.25 0.36* 0.42* 0.31* 1.00 0.29* 0.43* 0.40* 0.20 0.44* 1.00 0.26*-0.06 0.24 0.22 0.20 0.07 0.26* 0.30* 0;31* 0.22 0.04 0.19 0.07 -0.01 0.11 0.25 0.23 0.33* 1.00 0.23 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.28*.0.09 -0.12 -0.12 1.00 0.26* 0.24 0.39* 1.00 0.50* 0.28* 0.16 0.40* 0.15 0.05 0.31* 0.35* 0.24 0.03 -0.02 0.12 0.23 0.32* 0.27* 0.21 0.24 0.15 0.17 0.11 0.32* 0.28* 0.19 0.35* 0.34* 0.23 0.21 0.06 0.40* 0.33* 0.20 0.37*0.34*0.26*0.17 0.24 0.57*0.19 0.13 -0.19 0.31* 0.46* 0.33* 0.47* 0.35* 0.42* 0.38* 0.30* 0.26* 0.08 0.02 0.20 0.27 1.00 0.24 1.00 0.39* 0.38* 1.00 :0.03 0.16 0.08 1.00 ,0.30* 0.15 0.43* 0.28* 1.00 top of matrix in same order as along side; coefficient of 1.00 indicates with itself * p * 0.05 indicating that the item possesses both face and construct val-idity. Construct validity is indicated because the associations revealed coincide with common pedagogical practice. The techniques matrix, Table V, shows the associations between teaching techniques reported by respondent teachers. A teacher who lectures does not use recordings, A teacher who utilizes experiments also employs student reports, field trips, student projects, and individual library work. Again, the logic of the associations and their agreement with common pedagogical practice indicate both face and construct validity in this item. Linear regression It will be recalled that the experimental model hypothe-sized that perception of authority fragmentation is a function of innovativeness} and that job satisfaction is a function of perception of authority fragmentation. Regression of innovation scores with each of the authority fragmentation dimensions pro-duced statistically significant positive correlations between four of the five fragmentation dimensions and innovativeness. Three of the four fragmentation dimensions correlated with inno-vation had low, but statistically significant (p * 0.05) coeffi-cients of determination. The results of this regression analysis are shown in Table VI. Scores for each authority dichotomy dimension regressed with each job satisfaction dimension produced three statistically LINEAR REGRESSION OF INNOVATION VS. AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION VARIABLES REGRESSED F-FROB R-SQUARED Innovation curriculum authority technique " 0,0001* 0.0001* 0.1209* 0.1217* •facilities •role it it 0.1967 0.0500* 0.0138 0.0311 it overall ti 0.0123* 0.0510* Curriculum authority = perceived authority fragmentation in curriculum dimension Technique authority = perceived authority fragmentation in technique dimension Facilities authority - perceived authority fragmentation in facilities dimension Role authority = perceived authority fragmentation in role dimension Overall authority *= perceived overall authority fragmentation between the Department of Education and the local Board * p * 0.05 significant correlations among twenty-five regressions. A l l of these three correlations had low, but statistically significant (p 0.05) coefficients of determination. The results of this regression analysis are shown in Table VII, The significant correlations found in this analysis occured between perception of authority dichotomy on the techni-ques dimension and satisfaction on the present teaching situation and the administrative procedures dimensions, and between per-ception of authority dichotomy on the curriculum dimension and satisfaction on the administrative procedures dimension. These.authority dichotomy dimensions which correlated with job satisfaction were the same dimensions which correlated strongest with innovativeness. However, the hypothesis predicted an inverse relationship between perception of authority fragmen-tation and job satisfaction. This inverse correlation was borne out between perception of authority fragmentation on the techni-ques dimension and satisfaction with the current teaching situa-tion. But the correlation in the other two instances, between satisfaction with administrative procedures and both curriculum and technique authority dichotomy was in the opposite direction to that hypothesized. The regression analysis supported the f i r s t stage of the hypothesis, concerning the relationship between innovation and perception of authority dichotomy, but did not support the second stage, concerning the relationship between perception of authority LINEAR REGRESSION OF RECOGNITION OF AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION VS. JOB SATISFACTION VARIABLES REGRESSED Current situation-curric'm authority -techniques -facility " -role -overall Admin, procedures-curric'm authority -technique -facility -role -overall D, of Education-curric'm authority " " -technique " " -facility " -role " -overall Coworkers-curric'm authority " -technique " -facility -role -overall Supervisor-curric'm authority " -technique -facility -role -overall F-PROB R-SQUARED 0.3711 0.0068 0.0296*'' 0.0384* 0.8137 0.0004 0.4662 0.0046 O.7030 0.0012 0.0189* 0.0448* 0,0011* 0.0884* 0.5910 0.0025 0.1193 0.0198 0.8795 0.0001 0.8779 0.0001 0.8398 0.0002 0.6419 0,0019 0.8778 0.0001 0.7803 0.0006 0.4129 O.OO58 0.4391 0.0052 0.3290 0.0081 0.7920 0.0005 0.7706 0.0007 0.0623 0.0282 0.2586 0.0107 0.4652 0.0046 0.496? 0.0040 0.6028 0.0024 Current situation = satisfaction with present teaching situation Admin, procedures •= satisfaction with administrative procedures D, of Education = satisfaction with Department of Education/teacher relationship Coworkers = satisfaction with colleagues, as a group Supervisor « satisfaction with District Superintendent as a supervisor. * p 0.05 dichotomy and job satisfaction. Regression of innovativeness with job satisfaction directly, to check the hypothesized mediating role of authority fragmenta-tion recognition between innovation and job satisfaction, produced no statistically significant correlations. The F-probabilities ranged between O.318 and 0.949. This indicated that job satisfac-tion was not to any appreciable degree a direct function of innova-tion. Differences between means Analysis of group mean scores between groups which were above the mean in both innovation and one authority fragmentation dimension score, and groups below the mean in one or both factors, produced mixed results. Table VIII summarizes the results of sorting the responses above and below the sample mean on innovation and one authority fragmentation score, list s the means for the subset of responses which was below the sample mean on one or both of the two factors at the top of the columns lists the means for the subset which was above the sample mean on both of the factors at the head of the column. The column headed S shows the direction of the differ-ence between the two subset means; those differences which were statistically significant are marked with asterisks, Hotelling's T 2 statistic indicated a significant (p «^0.05) difference between the two groups on each sort over innovation Sorted Mean Scores and Sign Test on Means Dimension Inovj>-Xt CurrJ xL x2 S InovV-TectJ t Inov"l >Xfc FaciJ x1 x2 S InovV :»X. RoleJ : * i *2 5 Inov\>X A l l J *1 *2 S Satisfact.: Curr. Sit 'n Adm. proc. D. of Ed. Coworkers D. Super. 30.4 30.1 -8.2 9.0 + 7.7 7.6 -16.4 15.1 -13.4 12.7 -29.5 28.1 -8.2 9.4 + 8.0 7.8 -16.5 16.8 + 13.3 12.7 -29.9 29.6 -8.0 8.0 + 7.8 7.5 -16.3 15.8 -13.8 12.9 -29.7 28.9 -8.5 8.7 + 7.8 7.6 -16.9 16.8 -12.9 12.5 -30.0 29.8 -8.0 8.1+ 7.6 7.5 -16.1 15.8 -13.2 13.1 -Aut'y Frag: Curric 'm Techniques Facilities Role Overall 2.7 8.9 +** 3.2 7.6 +** 9.8 11.5 + 6.4 9.4 + 6.3 8.3 + 3.4 7.5 +** 2.4 9.1 +** 9.8 11.1 + 6.3 9.8 +* 6.1 7.3 + 3.8 6.5 + 3.0 6.6 +* 7.9 13.3 +** 6.2 9.8 +* 6.5 8.7 + 3.3 7.3 +** 2.8 7.6 +** 9.6 11.6 + 4.9 11.8 +** 6.5 8.4 + 3.5 6.3+ 2.8 5.9 + 10.1 11.8 + 6.6 8.9 + 3.7 10.0 +** Innov'n 73.9 97.4+** 74.7 96.1 +** 75.5 95.8+** 74.2 93.8+** 73.6 95.7 +** * * p - 0.05 * p * 0.10 and one authority fragmentation dimension. This indicated that when a l l eleven scores were considered together, a group effect was sufficiently strong to differentiate between the groups on an overall basis. However, t-tests performed on each pair of means for each score showed a significant difference on the innovation scores and the authority fragmentation scores. No statistically significant differences were found on any of the job satisfaction dimensions at either the 0.05 or the 0.&0 levels of confidence. The difference between the groups shown by the Hotelling test therefore, was a result of a group effect arising from the strength of the differences on the innovation and authority fragmentation scores, which overpowered the smaller differences between groups on the job satisfaction scores. Again, the second stage: of the hypothesis with its prediction that job satisfaction is an inverse function of authority fragmentation recognition was not supported. Although none of the differences between the subset means on the job satisfaction dimensions were statistically significant, the differences were consistent in direction with but one excep-tion. Four of the five satisfaction dimensions showed a differ-ence between means in the hypothesized direction. The fi f t h dimension showed a consistent difference in the direction opposite to that hypothesized. Chapter 4 DISCUSSION Sample size The response rate of greater than thirty percent on the main survey was good when the circumstances of the questionnaire are examined. The questionnaire was lengthy, containing 84 items and covering 8 pages. The topics probed by the questionnaire were potentially sensitive for a classroom teacher; bearing on the teacher's attitudes toward his or her local Board of School Trustees and District Superintendent. Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, with no material incentive offered. Demographic variables " It will be recalled that analysis of the certification level and bachelor degree held by the sample indicated that the sample was the same as the total teaching population in level of certification, but different in degree held. This difference in degrees held was due to an overrepresentation of Arts graduates in the sample. No population parameters were available on distribution of teachers among grade levels. It was possible that teachers of primary grades were underrepresented in the respondent group because more than half of the unuseable questionnaires were returned partially completed by primary teachers. These incomplete forms f e l l into two groups: either the teacher was unable to assess the relative authorities of the Department of Education and the local Board (and said so on their form); or the teacher omitted the items measuring evaluation criteria, saying that they did not evaluate students now that parents of primary students receive anecdotal report cards. Apparently primary teachers did not perceive anecdotal reporting as an evaluative appraisal of their students. Linear regression The statistically significant correlation found between four of the five dimensions of authority fragmentation and innova-tiveness supported the hypothesized relationship between these variables. Although the coefficient of determination for three of these relationships was statistically significant, i t was low in absolute terms. This low value for R-squared indicated a wide scatter of points around the regression line derived from the regression. This scatter around the regression line was understandable when the crudeness of the authority fragmentation scales was considered. This project constituted original research in the area examined, and therefore the questionnaire items were designed to scan a wide variety of attitudinal dimensions. The resulting questionnaire items were less specific than would be items intended for subsequent research in a narrower area. It is to be hoped that refinement of items and a precise focus on a smaller area within the field covered by this'project will substantiate the correlations found and improve the coefficient of determination. A possible explanation for the absence of correlation between innovativeness and the facilities dimension of authority fragmentation is that physical plant is not as crucial to teacher initiated innovation as are curriculum, teaching techniques, and teacher role. The physical plant may be perceived as a fixed (ie, nonadjustable) circumstance around which innovation must be adapted. Thus teachers would tend to focus their innovative efforts on more minor facilities than buildings. Only three of the twenty-five regression analyses testing the second portion of the hypothesis showed statistically signi-ficant correlations, These few correlations could have been due to chance. However, these significant relationships involved the two authority fragmentation dimensions which showed the strongest correlation across two authority fragmentation dimen-sions, coupled with the absence of statistically significant correlations between innovation and job satisfaction directly, offers partial support for the experimental model employing auth-ority fragmentation recognition as a mediating variable between innovativeness and job satisfaction. Differences between means Although none of the differences between subset means on the job satisfaction dimensions were statistically significant, the consistency of the direction of the differences was i n t r i -guing. The consistency of the direction of mean differences for four of the five job satisfaction dimensions suggested the existence of a correlation which was not sufficiently discrimi-nated by the satisfaction instrument used. Combining the consistency of the direction of the differ-ences between subset means with the result of the t-tests, which considered the criteria of means, standard deviations and degrees of freedom, i t appeared that the job satisfaction instrument used was not sufficiently sensitive. It is hoped that further research, using a more precise job satisfaction scale, will sub-stantiate the trend seen in the signed ranks test on the job satisfaction dimensions. Chapter 5 CONCLUSION It was hypothesized that perception of authority frag-mentation is positively correlated with the innovativeness of a teacher; and that job satisfaction of a teacher is inversely correlated with recognition of authority fragmentation. Empir-ical data has supported the f i r s t stage of the hypothesis. Partial support was given to the second stage of the hypothesis. The data did not support the hypothesis with statistical signi-ficance, but the trend of the data was in the predicted direction for four of the five dimensions of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was found to have no correlation with Innovativeness directly; in contrast with the suggestive evidence for an inverse relationship between job satisfaction and percep-tion of authority fragmentation. This study was exploratory in character, and thus employed a broad approach in order to sample as wide an area as possible. The cost of this broad approach was a sacrifice in the specificity of individual items, and in the depth to which any one dimension of the several variables was examined. Further research should attempt to refine the questionnaire items probing recognition of authority fragmentation; to refine the measure of innovation used; and to study any of the dimensions of authority fragmentation in relation to either innovativeness, job Anderson, J. G. Bureaucracy in education. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1968. Argyris, C, Personality and organization. New York: Harper & Row, 1957. Barnard, C. I. The functions of the executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. Bedwell, C. E. The administrative role and satisfaction in teaching. J. of Educational Sociology, 29, pp. 41-47. Bell, G. D. Organizations and human behaviour: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs , N. J . : Prentice-Hall, 19o7. Blau, P. M. & Scott, W. R. Formal organizations: A comparative  approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 19o2, Blumberg, A. & Weber, W. Teacher morale as a function of perceived supervisor behavioural style. J. of Educational Research, 62, 3, Nov., 1968, pp. 109ff. Bruner, J. Social psychology and perception. In Maccoby, E . , Newcomb, T . , & Hartley, E . , eds. Readings in social psychology. Rev. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1958. Buck, R. C. School district reorganization: Some considerations for sociological research. J. of Educational Sociology, 28, pp. 25-29. Campbell, R., Cunningham, L . f & McPhee, R. The organization and  control of american schools. Columbus, Ohio: Merril l , 1965. Chase, F. S. Factors productive of satisfaction in teaching. University of Chicago: Ph. D. dissertation, 1951. Cleminson, G. The major purposes and functions of a supervisor as perceived by teachers. J. of Educational Research, 6l, 9, May, 1968, pp. 3&7ff. Coughlan, R. J. Dimensions of teacher morale. American Educational  Research Journal, 7, 2, March, 1970, pp. 221-223. Cummings, L. L. & Scott, W, E. Jr, Readings in Organizational  Behaviour and Human Performance. Homewood, 111,: Irwin, 1969. Erikson, R, The legal position of the state superintendent of public instruction. J. of Educational Sociology, 34, pp. 34-37. Evan, W, M. Organization man and the due process of law, American  Sociological Review, 26 , 4, August, 1961, pp. 540-546. Evans, G. A. Job satisfaction and teacher militancy. Monograph from Educational Research & Development Council of Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, 1969. Fayol, H, General and industrial management. Translated by Constance Stevens, London: Pitman, 1949. Getzels, J. V/., Lipham, J. M,, & Campbell, R. F. Educational  administration as a social process. New York: Harper, Row, 1968. Gross, N. & Herriot, R. E. Staff leadership in public schools: A sociological inquiry. New York: Wiley, 1965. Gross, N., Mason, W. S.,-& McEachern, A."W. Explorations in role  analysis: Studies of the school superintendency role. New York: Wiley, 1958. Guion, R. M. Industrial morale: The problem of terminology. Personnel Psychology, 11, 1958, pp. 59-64. Gulick, L. & Urwick, L. eds. Papers on the science of admini-stration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, 1937. Halpin, A. & Croft, D. The organizational climate of schools. Chicago: Midwest Administration Centre, University of Chicago, 1963. Heald, J. E. & Moore, S. A. The teacher and administrative rela-tionships in school systems. New York: McMillan, 1968. Johnson, F. H. A history of public education in British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada: Publications Centre, University of British Columbia, 1964. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioural research. Toronto: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1964. Lane, W. R., Corwin, R. G., & Monahan, W. G. Foundations of  educational administration: A behavioural analysis. New York: McMillan, 196?. Leitz, F. W. & Azzarelli, J. J. eds. Struggle for power in education. New York: Centre for Applied Research in Education, 1956: Linton, R. The study of man. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts, 1936^ Longenecker, J. G. Principles of management and organizational  behaviour. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill , 1969. March, J. G. ed. Handbook of organizations. Chicago: Rand-. McNally, 1965 . Mathis, C, The relationship between salary policies and teacher morale. J. of Educational Psychology, 50 , 6, 1959, pp. 275-279 . Owens, R, G. Organizational behaviour in schools. Englewood Cliffs , N. J . : Prentice-Hall, 1970. Public Schools Act. Victoria: Queen's Printer, 1968. Reavis, W. & Judd, C. The teacher and educational administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942 . Robinson,. J. P., Athanasiou, R., & Head, K. B. Measures of  occupational attitudes and occupational characteristics. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969 . Sachs, B. M. Educational administration: A behavioural approach. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1966. Scott, W. G. Organization theory: A behavioural analysis for  management. Homewood, 1 1 1 . : Irwin^ I 967 . Sieber, S. D. & Lazarsfeld, P. F. The organization of educational  research. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University Cooperative Research Project 1974, 1966. Simon, H. A. Administrative behaviour. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press, 1957. Stone, G . H . & Kendall, W. E. Effective personnel selection procedures. Englewood Cliffs , N. J . : Prentice Hall, 1956. Taylor, F. W. The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper, 1911. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw, H i l l , 1967. Twery, R., Schmid, J,, & Wrigley, C, Some factors in job satis-faction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 18, 1958, pp. 189-202. Urwick, L. F. The elements of administration. New York: Harper, 1943. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Whyte, W. J. Jr. The organization man. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 19567 Woodward, J. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press, I965. Worthy, J. C, Organization structure and employee morale. American Sociological Review, 15, April , 1950, pp. I69- I79, Worthy, J. C. Factors influencing employee morale. Harvard  Business Review, 28, January, 1950, pp. 61 -73. APPENDIX 1 1. The authority of the Dept. of Education over the curriculum I uses a, How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 2. The authority of the Dept. of Education over the techniques I use: a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b e How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 3» The authority of the Dept of Education over the f a c i l i t i e s  a v a i l a b l e i n my schools a, How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b<> How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 4. The authority of the Dept. of Education over my r o l e as a teacher: a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 5. The authority of the l o c a l Board of School Trustees over the curriculum I use: a„ How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 6„ The authority of the l o c a l Board of School Trustees over the techniques I use: a. How much Is there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 7. The authority of the l o c a l Board of School Trustees over the f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n my school: a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 8. The au t h o r i t y of the l o c a l Board of School Trustees over my r o l e as a teachers . . a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 5 6 7 (very much) .9. Supervision f o r the Dept. of Education performed by the D i s t r i c t  Superintendent: a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 • 3 ^ 5 6 7 (very much) bo How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 (very much) 10. Supervision f o r the Dept. of Education performed by:| persons other than the D i s t r i c t Superlntendnet: a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 11. Assistance or advice from the Dept. of Education a v a i l a b l e from persons other than the D i s t r i c t Superintendents a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 (very much) 12. The D i s t r i c t Superintendent's c o n t r o l over the l o c a l Board of School Trusteess a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 5 6 . 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 ^ ' 5 6 7 (very much) 13. The D i s t r i c t Superintendent°s authority over the l o c a l Board of School Trusteess a. How much i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) b. How much should there be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (very much) 14. Generally i n assigning homework,, do you le Allow each student to choose h i s own homework assignment? 2» Assign d i f f e r e n t homework .to groups within each section on the basis of i n t e r e s t or a b i l i t y ? 3 . Assign the same homework to everyone i n a section but make d i f f e r e n t assignments to other sections of the same subject? 4o Assign the same homework to a l l sections of the same subject but suggest optional or extra c r e d i t assignments f o r those students who are interested? 5. Assign the same homework to a l l sections of the same subject? 6 . Other (specify) , / •  15„ Generally In assigning projects, term papers, reports, or l i b r a r y research, do you 1. Allow each student to choose h i s own project or topic? 2. Assign d i f f e r e n t projects or topics to groups within each section on the basis of i n t e r e s t or a b i l i t y ? 3 , Assign the same project or topic to everyone In a section but make d i f f e r e n t assignments to other sections of the same subject? 4, Assign the same project or topic to everyone i n a l l sections of the same subject but suggest optional or extra c r e d i t assignments for interested students? 5* Assign the same project or topic to a l l sections of the same subject? 6 . Other (specify) ____ I 6 0 In t e s t i n g students, do you generally 1. Make up several tests f o r use within one class? 2. Make up d i f f e r e n t tests f o r sections of the same subject on the basis of a b i l i t y ? 3 . Make up the same t e s t f o r a l l sections of the same subject but provide extra c r e d i t problems or questions? 4. Use tests prepared by the department or by s p e c i a l i s t s ? 5. Use p r o v i n c i a l l y standardized tests? 6 . Other (specify) ;  17. In using textbooks f o r your classes, do you 1. Assign outside readings i n the l i b r a r y on the topic that you are discussing? 2c Make several d i f f e r e n t texts or books a v a i l a b l e f o r student use in your class? 3» From time to time supplement the textbook that you are using with a d d i t i o n a l readings from other books? 4. Use d i f f e r e n t textbooks for sections of the same subject based on t h e i r a b i l i t y ? 5. Use the same textbook f o r a l l sections of the same subject? 60 Other (specify) 19. In preparing a lesson plan f o r your classes, do you 1. Use several outside sources of information? 2. Use the textbook f o r the blass supplemented with a d d i t i o n a l information? 3. Use the textbook f o r the class? 4. Use the curriculum guide f o r the class? 5. Other (specify) •  extent to which you consider the following factors i n your c l a s s , by c i r c l i n g the Indicate the i n assigning a grade to a student appropriate number for each item. His t e s t average com-pared to the norms and school 9s passing grade Norms of p r o v i n c i a l achievement tests School or department norms f o r achievement tests Average l e v e l of h i s classmates # H CO #!«? t> > F 3 §8 CO l/l His achievement compared to h i s a b i l i t y Home problems Emotional problems Physical d i s a b i l i t y Part-time employment 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n extra-c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s Other (specify) 3 ^ CO III fee' III 3 * CO III CO fci Lecture 1 c 3 5 Demonstration 1 2 3 5 Experiment 1 2 3 5 Class discussion 1 2 3 5 Student reports 1 2 3 5 Debates 1 2 3 5 Films and s l i d e s 1 2 3 5 Recordings 1 2 3 5 Te l e v i s i o n 1 2 3 5 F i e l d t r i p s 1 2 3 if 5 Student projects 1 2 3 5 Oral r e c i t a t i o n s 1 2 3 5 D r i l l 1 2 3 5 Working at the board 1 2 3 5 Team competition 1 2 3 5 Reading i n c l a s s 1 2 3 5 Guest l e c t u r e r 1 2 3 Individua l l i b r a r y work 1 2 3 5 Other (specify) 2 3 4 5 21. My school could do a much better job i f there were l e s s interference from above. strongly agree agree undecided disagree strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 22o I wish very much that I could get away from t h i s school. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 . 4 5 23. In a l l ways my present job i s the best job I've ever had. SA A U D SD 1 2 . 3 4 5 24. My D i s t r i c t Superintendent should mix with h i s teachers a l o t more. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 25. I am kept too long i n the same teaching assignment. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 26. Compared with the other people I have worked with, I think that my present colleagues are excellent. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 27. My D i s t r i c t Superintendent should have more t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge about h i s p o s i t i o n . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 28. Administrative red tape makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r me to do a good job. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 2 9 . This school i s a good place to teach. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 30. I am e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d with my p o s i t i o n . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 31. My D i s t r i c t Superintendent doesn't understand h i s teachers at a l l . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 5 3 2 . I prefer my present teaching assignment to a l l other t^pes of teaching assignment, SA A U D SD 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 3 . I l i k e the people I work with very much. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 5 3 4 . My D i s t r i c t Superintendent could use a l o t more t r a i n i n g as a teacher. SA* A U D SD 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 5 . Administrative rules and regulations prevent me from doing my best. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 3 6 . I am enthusiastic about my p o s i t i o n . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 7 . My D i s t r i c t Superintendent obtains excellent cooperation from h i s teachers. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 8 . My teaching duties are l e s s than challenging. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 ^ 5 3 9 . When I need help I can always count on my colleagues. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5 Only s i x more questions on the next page, and you're f i n i s h e d I In order that the data from this survey may be analyzed fully please provide the following information by circl ing the best response to each question. This information wil l be used only to group the responses to the rest of the questionnaire. . 40. Which grades do you presently teach? kindergarten 1-3 4-7 8-10 11-12 other 41. What is your general subject area currently taught? math sciences humanities vocational P,E. other, 42. What is your current certification level? EB EA PC PB PA PA(Mas) other 43. How many years of teaching experience do you have? 0 -5 6-10 11-15 15-25 more than 25 years 44. How many students are enrolled in your school? less than 100 101-300 301-500 501-700 more than 700 45* What is your bachelors degree? B.Ed. B.A. B.Sc. B.P.E. B.H.Ec. none other THANK YOU J APPENDIX 2 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: CERTIFICATION relative frequency 40 -30 -20 -10 -41 12 23 22 14 E.B. E.A. P.C. P.B. P.A. P.A.M. certificate DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: DEGREE HELD 40 36 30 33 37 relative frequency 20 10 11 B.ED. B.A. B. B. B. none other Sc. • P.E. H.E. degree AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION: CURRICULUM DIMENSION y - 5.32 s • 3.49 40 relative frequency So-lo 10 -404 31 18 12 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Score AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION i TECHNIQUES DIMENSION y - 5.14 s - 3 . 6 6 8 50 51 40 30 -relative frequency 20 -20 22 10 2 ^ 5 8 10 12 I4~ Score AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION t FACILITIES DIMENSION relative frequency 40 -30 20 -10 ys to. £>& S=- 3-/7 41 8 20 24 20 2 4 . 6 8 10 12 14 Scores AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATIONi ROLE DIMENSION y » 8 .099 s - 3 . 6 3 30 A 25 2 0 J ~22~ 2 0 relative frequency 1 5 1 5 1 0 1 3 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 Score AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATIONt OVERALL y m 7.42 s - 3.70 relative frequency 40 . 30 -20 -10 16 23 15 30 11 15 11 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Score INNOVATION 40 -y - 85.85 s - 13.00 relative frequency 30 20 14 10 -25 34 33 12 60 "70 80 90 100 n o ' 120 to to to to to to 69 79 89 99 109 119 y - 29.55 s » 6.245 40-relative frequency 30-20-10. to 15 10 "To" to 20 17 35 38 21 26 to to 25 30 31 to 35 19 to 40 Score JOB SATISFACTION: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIMENSION 40 y - 8.289 s - 2.812 relative frequency 30 20 -10 -32 27 3 5 to to 4 6 23 21 8 7 to 8 9 to 10 11 13 to to 12 14 15 JOB SATISFACTION* DEPT. OF EDUCATION DIMENSION y - 7.6?8 s » 1.795 relative frequency 60 40 -30 -20 10 -tl 4 22 to 6 62 25 7 9 to to 8 10 11 to 12 13 to 14 Score JOB SATISFACTIONS PEER GROUP DIMENSION y « 16.41 s » 5.151 relative frequency 40 -30 20 -14 10 . 41 39 21 7 11 16 21 26 31 to to to to to to 10 15 20 25 30 35 Score JOB SATISFACTION: SUPERINTENDENT DIMENSION y - 13.24 s - 2.927 relative frequency 40 3 0 -2 0 -10 - l i 4 7 to to 6 9 3 7 T T to 12 4 3 24 13 16 to to 15 18 "19" to 20 Score APPENDIX 3 Appendix 3 CITATIONS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT In British Columbia the employment of teachers, and the administration of teachers as employees, is. divided between the Department of Education and a particular Board of School Trustees by the Public Schools Act and the Rules of the Council of Public Instruction. The functional division of responsibilities is shown below, FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARDS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS Board of Trustees: —recruiting and appointment of teachers —promotion of teachers to administrative posts —assignment of teachers to posts and transfer between schools —establishment of salaries and schedules —termination of teacher employment Department of Education: —certification of qualification of teachers —overall supervisory authority of schools —prescription of teacher duties —inspection of teacher's work and reporting thereon —determination of temporary or permanent status of certificate of qualification — o f f e r recommendations to the Board to guide the actions of the Board Citations from the Public Schools Act: Citations from the Act, explaining the division of authority, and the terms through which this authority is granted, follow. Section 128 reads as followsi The Board of each school district shall, as required from time to time, after considering the recommendation of the District Superintendent of Schools, appoint or authorize the appointment of properly qualified persons as teachers in the school district. Thus the Board has ultimate authority over the appoint-ment of teachers within a school district. The Board need only consider, as distinct from heed or comply with, the recommendation of the District Superintendent when appointing teachers. The Board may delegate the appointing of teachers to the District Superintendent; but the District Superintendent s t i l l acts within the scope authorized by the Board. This means that the District Superintendent is only acting as an agent of the Board, under their direction. There may be some question of the wisdom of having the Board, whose members need only be property • -owners within the school district, wielding supreme authority over the appointment of individuals as teachers when those individuals have extensive academic training of a professional nature. As well, the author-ity granted to a Board to overrule the District Superintendent when appointing teachers, when the District Superintendent is required by the Act to have both teaching experience and graduate study in education, may be questioned. However, both of these questions l i e beyond the scope of this study. Section 129 reads in part as follows: The Board of a school district may (a) appoint or authorize the appointment of teachers as (i) principals, each of whom shall have charge of the organization, administration, and supervision of the public school or schools of which he is appoin-ted principal? ( i i ) head teachers of public schools... ( i i i ) vice-principals, each of whom shall, during the absence of the principal, have a l l the powers and exercise a l l the duties assigned to a principal} (iv) school district supervisory personnel.,.as may be authorized by the rules and orders of the Council of Public Instruction... (A) ...(such appointments to be probationary for two school-years),.. (B) ...(probationary appointments subject to cancellation by the Board)... The Board has supreme authority over the appointment of teachers to administrative posts within the school district. There is no stipulation that the Board should even consider the advice of the District Superintendent when making appointments under Section 129. The administrative positions mentioned in this Section of the Act commonly command an administrative allow-ance over and above the salary paid the individual for his level of certification. This increase in salary, along with the increased responsibilities and duties, gives such appointments to adminis-trative posts the quality of a promotion. Again, such promotions are given to the discretion of laymen who are property-owners within the school district. Section 129 continues in part as follows: The Board of a school district may (e) authorize the transfer at any time of any teacher employed in any public school in the school district to any other public school in the school district, and in the event of any such authorization (i) the transfer shall be effected by notifying the teacher, in writing, of his transfer, stating the reasons for the transfer and the date on which the transfer is to take effect; ( i i ) i f the salary of a teacher is to be decreased by the transfer, then...the Board may adjust the salary.,.only at the beginning of the next school year; ( i i i ) the transfer shall be made only after consultation with the District Superintendent of Schools; (f) authorize the transfer of a teacher to be effective at the close of or at the beginning of a school term without stating the reason for the transfer... The Board is given supreme authority to transfer teachers between schools within the school district at the pleasure of the Board. The District Superintendent need only be consulted before an immediate transfer is made; no such consultation is required i f the transfer is to be effective at the beginning or end of a school term. The Board need not comply with the opinions expressed by the District Superintendent preceding a mid-term transfer. While an obviously functional use of this Section of the Act is that of adjusting the location of teachers in response to shifting pupil enrollment within a school district, there are other uses left available by the provisions of the Act. It will be shown later that a Board may terminate the employment of any teacher who has successfully completed his one year probationary appoint-ment i f that teacher has committed a criminal or morally reprehen-sible action. However, this portion of the Act allows a Board the option of harrassing a teacher through transfers when the Board is in disagreement with the teacher but does not have grounds to terminate his contract. An admittedly extreme example would be that of a music specialist teaching music (eg. instrumental or choral) to senior secondary students in a school near his place of residence being transferred to a single room primary school enrolling several grades in a rural area some distance from the teacher's residence. The possibility of an event should not be dismissed when laymen have authority over the working conditions of personnel with para-professional qualifications. Section 129 continues in part as followsj The Board of a school district may (fl) after consultation with the District Superintendent, authorize the termination of the appointment of a teacher to any position under clause (a)((see page 5)) where i t considers him inefficient or incompe-tent in the discharge of his duties in the position, and in the event of such authorization.., Again the Board is given supreme authority to rescind any promotions to administrative posts which i t has previously granted. The District Superintendent need only be consulted, but not heeded nor obeyed. Since the Board controls both appoint-ment to and removal from administrative posts, i t effectively controls promotional channels open to teachers within a school district. It will be shown later that evaluation of teachers and administrators is given to the District Superintendent, des-pite the complete control over the consequences of evaluation held by the Board, The Board of a school district may (g) authorize the assignment of teachers as provided^in the Actf Assignment of teachers refers to the precise teaching post which a teacher will occupy in a district! eg. primary teacher in CDE School, teacher of senior English in MNO School. The only provision in the Act for the assignment of teachers is this instance. The Section defining the duties of the District Superintendent provides that he may assign teachers within a district only under the authorization of the Board concerned. Again complete authority is given to the Board, Four clauses of Section 129, (h, i , j , m) provide that the Board may dismiss or suspend a teacher for cause, i n e f f i -ciency, or gross misconduct. Only dismissal for cause is open to appeal by the teacher, giving the Board nearly complete authority for dismissal. Section I36 reads in part as follows* (1) Where no agreement respecting teachers* salaries exists, the Board of each school district shall establish annual salaries of the teachers employed in the public schools of the school district, (2) Subject to subsections (3), (4), and (5), a l l established salaries shall be payable in ten equal instalments, one at the end of each month, except the months of July and August. (3) and (4) ...(allow for deferment of salary payments at the request of a teacher).., (5) ...(salary may be paid in twelve equal instalments through out the year)... (6) The Board of a school district may prepare and adopt salary schedules applicable to a l l classes of teachers employed in the public schools in the district. The Board is given-complete discretion to settle upon salary schedules in a district. Whether such salary payments are for various levels of certification of qualification of tea-chers or for supplementary allowances for administrative positions. While there are limitations elsewhere in the Act on the number of teachers whose salaries are sharable with the provincial Govern-ment, there is no limitation explicitly placed on the magnitude of the salaries paid teachers by a Board. The Sections of the Act cited thus far form the basis of authority for the Boards to perform the functional duties accorded them in Table I. The Sections of the Act substantiating the functional duties of the Department of Education in Table I follow. Section 149 reads as follows: No person shall be employed as a teacher in any public school unless he holds a teacher's certificate of qualification Issued to him by the Department of Education, or a letter of permission issued to him under clause (b) of section 8, except that (a) a person employed as a substitute teacher for one month or less; or b) a person teaching in a night school; or c) a person engaged as a short-term instructor in a voca-tional school; or (d) a person who teaches in a district college or regional college or only in Grade XIII, and who possesses the appropriate qualifications prescribed by the Council of Public Instruction, may be employed with-out such teacher's certificate of qualification or letter of permission. Section 7 reads in part as follows: The Superintendent of Education shall: (j) have charge of the issuing of such certificates of qualification for teaching as may be deemed desirable or nec-essary by the Council of Public Instruction. Section 17 reads in part as follows: The Council of Public Instruction may, by rule or order, or both, (f) determine the grades and classes of certificates of qualification to be issued to teachers or to other persons to whom this Act applies and govern the granting of the certificates» Section 18 reads in part as follows: The Council of Public Instruction may... (e) suspend or cancel for cause the certificates of qualifi-cation of any teacher} The Department of Education, in concert with the Council of Public Instruction, have complete control over the certificates of qualification available to teachers as a necessary condition of employment. Because the individual Boards have established salary schedules based on the level or grade of certificate of qualifica-tion held by a teacher, the Department of Education effectively determines the salary level of a teacher when issuing a particular level of certificate. This determination of salary level is further strengthened by the existence of a clause in the contracts between Boards and the local teachers' associations requiring that teachers be paid in strict conformity with their level of c e r t i f i -cation. Section 9 reads ln part as follows: (l) Each District Superintendent of Schools, in respect of his superintendency, shall (g) advance and endeavour to maintain standards of tuition and instruction within the public schools by advising and instructing teachers and principals in a l l that may tend to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of their school; (h) exercise supervisory authority in a l l matters rela-ting to school organization, instruction, counselling services, and discipline, and shall encourage the raising of the level of pupil achievement and the advancement of public educations (i) ensure that each public school is visited as fre-quently as feasible and at least once in each school-year5... Section 13 reads as follows: Each District Superintendent of Schools is responsible for the supervision of the instructional programmes within his superintendency, and is responsible to the Superintendent of Education for the attainment of the standard of public education required by the Superintendent of Education. The District Superintendent, as a local representative of the Department of Education, is given complete responsibility for supervision of the schools in a l l matters within his superin-tendency. He is also given the task of advising and instructing teachers and principals under his supervision. The District Superintendent is given responsibility for a l l aspects of super-vision of the schools? yet an independent and autonomous body, the Board, is given the authority for selection, placement, pro-motion, and termination of the personnel being supervised! Section 17 reads in part as follows: The Council of Public Instruction may, by rule or order, or both, (e) prescribe the duties of a l l teachers? The Board has been shown previously to have complete authority for the assignment of teachers to teaching positions within a school district. Here the Council of Public Instruction, through the Department of Education, has the authority to prescribe the duties of the teachers. It would seem that one body has the authority to assign an individual to a position, and an indepen-dent body has the authority to determine the duties of that posi-tion. Section 9 reads in part as follows* (l) Each District Superintendent of Schools, in respect of his superintendency, shall (k) at some time in the school-year, formally inspect, or cause to be Inspected by a person duly author-ized in that behalf by order of the Council of Public Instruction, the work of (i) each teacher in the school district author-ized to teach under a non-permanent c e r t i f i -cate of qualification: and (i i ) each teacher on probationary appointment in the school district; and / ( i i i ) any teacher in the school district with respect to whom the Board or the Superintendent of Education requests a report; and (iv) any teacher in the school district who, on or before the thirty-first day of March in that school-year requests that a report be made with respect to himself; and may, at any time during the school-year, formally Inspect the work of any other teacher in the school district; (l) before the close of the school-year, submit a report in writing to the Superintendent of Education...on the tea-ching ability and efficiency of those teachers listed in paragraphs (i) and ( i i ) of clause (k) ((above)) upon whose work he deems a report necessary,... The Department of Education, through its local representa-tive, the District Superintendent, is given the duty of evaluating teachers who are selected, promoted, and terminated by the auto-nomous Board. Section 9 reads in part as follows: (l) Each District Superintendent of Schools, in respect of his superintendency, shall (a) assist i n making effective the provisions of this Act, in carrying out the rules and orders of the Council of Public Instruction, and In carrying out a system of education in conformity with the said provisions, rules, and orders; (c) advise and assist each Board having jurisdiction in his superintendency in exercising i t s powers and duties under this Actj (d) furnish trustees and teachers with such information as they may require respecting the operation of this Act; In addition to the requirement of this section of the Act for the interpretation and enforcement loca l l y of the Act, there are several sections cited above which require that the Board consult with the D i s t r i c t Superintendent before several courses of action, including appointment of teachers and transfer of teachers between schools. Citations from the Rules of the Council of Public Instruction Rule 5.01 reads as follows* The Board of School Trustees of a school d i s t r i c t may appoint a teacher on probation for a period not exceeding one year. The probationary appointment s h a l l be designated in writing when notice of appointment i s given and may be terminated by the Board of School Trustees upon at least th i r t y days' notice in writing, which notice shall expire with the termi-nation of the probationary period. Rule 5.04 reads as follows* Every probationary appointment, i f not so terminated under Rule 5.01, i s a continuing engagement u n t i l terminated pur-suant to the provisions of the Public Schools Act. The effect of these two rules i s that of allowing a Board to dismiss a teacher without a reason being specified during the term of the i n i t i a l probationary year. I f the teacher i s not terminated during the fi r s t year, his engagement becomes permanent, and can only be terminated by the Board for cause of for gross misconduct. It is advisable for the Board to ensure that a tea-cher seems satisfactory during the fi r s t year of employment in the district because i t would be much more difficult for the teacher to be terminated after the completion of the first year. But the Board is not given the authority to supervise or evaluate the teacher, because these are the duties of the District Superin-tendent under the terms of the Public Schools Act. Rule 5.02 reads as follows: Before a notice of termination is given, the Board shall consider the District Superintendent's report on the teacher concerned, and shall confer with the District Superintendent or, in the case of a teacher in a graded school, with the principal or the District Superintendent, or both. While this rule amplifies the terminations provisions of the Act, i t s t i l l only requires that the Board consider the District Superintendent's report and confer with the District Superintendent or the principal or both. After such consideration and consultation, the ultimate authority for termination of a teacher's employment rests with the Board, Rule 7.01 reads as follows: Grades and classes of certificates of qualifications to be issued to teachers or to other persons to whom the Public Schools Act applies shall be as authorized by order of the Council of Public Instruction. As discussed on page ten above, the Council of Public Instruction, and the Department of Education, have complete authority over the licensing of teachers. Rule 11.04 reads as follows: A l l school district supervisory personnel shall be under the direction of the District Superintendent of Schools for the school district concerned. With the approval of the Board, he shall assign them their duties, and they shall be responsible for their discharge to him, subject to the provi-sions of the Public Schools Act and the rules of the Council . of Public Instruction, The supervisory personnel referred to in this rule are directors of instruction, supervisors, and teacher consultants. Under Section 129 (a) (v) of the Act, these supervisory personnel are appointed and terminated by the Board. Immediately after appointment, they come under the supervision and direction of the District Superintendent, There is a dichotomy of authority between the Board as the agent for selection and termination of supervisory personnel, and the District Superintendent as the person required to direct, supervise, work with, and evaluate these individuals. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101850/manifest

Comment

Related Items