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.

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 an the  thesis  advanced degree at Library  I further for  this  shall  agree  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  the  f u l f i l m e n t of  University  of  make i t f r e e l y  that permission  p u r p o s e s may  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  for  be It  financial  available  granted  by  the  i s understood gain  of  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  for  for extensive  permission.  Department  British  Columbia  shall  requirements  Columbia,  Head o f my  be  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying of  that  not  the  that  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  for  or  publication  a l 1 owed w i t h o u t  my  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 administrative functions above teachers between the Department of Education 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 principle 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 satisfaction 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 i s not  innovative should have less opportunity to encounter the authority dichotomy, and should therefore feel greater job satisfaction, A questionnaire was designed to measure the degree to which teachers recognize authority fragmentation, the innovativeness of the teacher, and job satisfaction f e l t 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 innovation 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 conflict.  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 f i r s t stage of the hypothesis.  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 i n each significant correlation. While the second stage of the hypothesis was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y supported, suggestive evidence was found which warrants further research.  ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter A. B. C. D.  1 : INTRODUCTION Authority fragmentation Innovation Job satisfaction 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 A. B. G. D. E. Chapter A. B. C.  RESULTS  Sample Demographic variables Item analysis Linear regression Differences between means ki DISCUSSION Sample size Demographic variables 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 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of Boards and the Department of Education i n the employment of teachers II.  4  Job s a t i s f a c t i o n inventory f a c t o r analysis  18  Rotated f a c t o r matrix of job s a t i s f a c t i o n items  24  IV.  C o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r evaluation c r i t e r i a items  28  V.  Correlation matrix f o r teaching techniques items  29  III.  VI.  Linear regression of innovation vs. authority fragmentation  VII. VIII.  31  Linear regression of authority fragmentation vs, job s a t i s f a c t i o n  33  Sorted mean scores and sign t e s t on means  35  INTRODUCTION Unity of command, and the scalar principle for authori t y in which i t i s incorporated, was f i r s t 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 Columbia.  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 i s there adaptation of the social organism to dual command." Another of Fayol's principles, that of unity of direction, i s a concommitant of unity of command. Fayol (1949, p. 2 5 ) defined unity of direction as "one head and one plan for a group of activities having the same objective,"  Clearly i f there i s more than one head for a group activity, there i s 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. I t i s a relationship between two individuals, one 'superior*, the other 'subordinate.' The superior frames and transmits decisions frith the expectation that they w i l l be accepted by the subordinate. The subordinate expects such decisions, and his conduct i s determined by them." When a superior evaluates the work performance of a subordinate, 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 c r i t e r i a 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 c r i t e r i a 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 i s  attempted in order to safeguard the subordinate's employment. Again, the superior's c r i t e r i a for recruitment or termination are the result of a decision process.  In modifying his conduct  to s u i t the c r i t e r i a of the superior, the subordinate person allows h i s behaviour t o be determined by the superior's decisions. The superior with the capacity t o hire, t o promote, or t o f i r e therefore has authority over the subordinate i n d i v i d u a l . When separate and autonomous agencies possess these two forms of authority, over evaluation and over r e c r u i t i n g and termination, unity of command i s v i o l a t e d . The Public Schools Act, which governs the employment of teachers In B. C , s p e c i f i e s the separation of the processes of evaluation and of s e l e c t i o n , promotion,  and termination. The  d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between the Department of Education and Boards of School Trustees i s shown i n Table I.  Citations  from the Public Schools Act are given i n Appendix 3 "to support the d i v i s i o n of authority l i s t e d i n Table I . The d i v i s i o n of authority between Boards of Trustees and the Dept. of Education creates a dichotomy of authority above public school teachers.  An example of t h i s authority dicho-  tomy i s seen i n the case of a teacher who, as a r e s u l t of innate i n s p i r a t i o n and of encouragement by the D i s t r i c t  Superintendent,  wants to use a videotape machine as a teaching a i d .  The D i s t r i c t  Superintendent, i n h i s e f f o r t s to improve educational standards i n h i s Superintendency  as required by the Public Schools, Act,  would encourage the teacher t o use videotape.  But the Board  of Trustees, who are elected by l o c a l property owners whose l e v e l of property tax i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o educational expenses,  Functional Responsibilities of Boards and the Department of Education in the Employment of Teachers Board of Trustees! — r e c r u i t i n g 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 — c e r t i f i c a t i o n of qualification of teachers — o v e r a l l 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 r e q u i s i t e equipment.  Obviously  the teacher cannot s a t i s f y the expectations of both agencies. While t h i s 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 fragmentation. An implication of t h i s authority dichotomy i s that the sources of c o n f l i c t i n g authority may  hold contradictory r o l e  expectations f o r the subordinate, i n t h i s case the teacher.  A  classroom teacher who i s aware of the authority dichotomy between the Board and the Department of Education may flict.  s u f f e r r o l e con-  But r o l e c o n f l i c t experienced by a teacher i s a separate  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c from that of perception of authority fragmentation, although these phenomena may  occur together.  This study addressed perception of authority fragmentat i o n , and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p with teacher innovativeness and with teacher job s a t i s f a c t i o n . Innovation Haberstroh (March, 1965,  P. 1172) defined innovation  i n the f o l l o w i n g terms 1 "...the aim of innovation may be stated as that of inducing f u n c t i o n a l change. Only i n part can the process of innovation be thought of as the e x p l o i t a t i o n of p o s s i b i l i t i e s newly opened up by technological progress. In larger part, innovation i s a reworking of f a m i l i a r f i e l d s of action as circumstances change..."  Despite the curriculum revolution during the l a s t decade (eg. completely new  c u r r i c u l a i n the physical and  biological  sciences, C u i s i n a i r e i n arithmetic, Introductory Teaching  Alpha-  bet (ITA) i n introductory reading), the increase i n audiovisual equipment a v a i l a b l e (eg. educational TV, videocorders, language • laboratory equipment, loop f i l m projectors), there i s a dearth of data on the amount of innovation a c t u a l l y occurring i n the classroom.  This lack of data i s remarkable i n the context of  the broad use of survey techniques i n the s o c i a l sciences. Anderson (1968, pp, lack of research.  41-43)  suggested two causes f o r t h i s  F i r s t , professional r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r con-  ducting research i n education has resided with schools of educat i o n ; these schools have been l a r g e l y i s o l a t e d from the main stream of s o c i a l science.  This i s o l a t i o n has r e s u l t e d i n educa-  t i o n a l research being l i m i t e d to d e s c r i p t i v e projects instead of explanatory e f f o r t s . of survey research was  Anderson's second reason f o r the lack the close i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of educational  research with c l i n i c a l psychology. Two  r e s u l t s of t h i s lack of survey research on  t i o n i n educational methods are a shortage  innova-  of discussion i n the  l i t e r a t u r e of innovation, and an absence of scales f o r the quant i f i c a t i o n of innovation. In the present study, i t was  hypothesized  that an  innova-  t i v e teacher would be more aware of the authority dichotomy as a r e s u l t of seeking authorization and/or equipment f o r the  introduction of novel teaching techniques.  An example may be  seen in the experience of a biology teacher in a senior secondary 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 experienced i n 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 dissection of cats by students and denied permission for the proposal. This example also illustrates the basis for the hypothesized 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 i n the biological sciences, and from his training as an educator. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction was defined in this study as the congruence 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 prevent 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 c r i t e r i a 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 oversensitivity 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 situation of junior and middle managers." While there are subjective c r i t e r i a of evaluation in the business world, there are at least some objective elements as well. In the educational f i e l d , virtually a l l the assessment c r i t e r i a 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 f e l t rewards offered by a teaching situation,  *  job satisfaction may be influenced. Another area i n which job satisfaction can be influenced by authority structure i s that of interaction among teachers and their superiors. Woodward (1965, P. 123) proposed that organizational 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 organizational 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.  I t i s not unreasonable to expect a relationship between  the character of such interaction and the job satisfaction experienced by a teacher. The areas of evaluation processes, f e l t rewards, and teacher interaction appeared to be subsumed under five dimensions of job satisfaction. 1.  These five dimensions were:  challenge of the present job situation; i e . does i t u t i l i z e a l l the incumbent's f e l t s k i l l s , 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 viewpoint .  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 s t a t i s t i c a l correlation between job satisfaction and perception of authority fragmentation can be, and here was, limited to just that. I t i s 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 i s influenced by a multitude of factors, including his personality, his family background, and his societal adjustment.  Job satisfaction i s  much too complex a phenomenon to be caused by a single factor such as perception of authority fragmentation. The search for a s t a t i s t i c a l correlation between perception of authority fragmentation, innovativeness, and job satisfaction can support a theoretically based (and a priori) relationship among these factors.  I t was for this reason that empirical  data was gathered and analyzed i n the present study.  Hypothesis to be tested It was hypothesized that teachers who are more innovative in their teaching methods w i l l encounter the authority fragmentation 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 s p l i t thwarts the teacher's innovative efforts, job satisfaction w i l l suffer.  Conversely, a teacher who i s less  innovative w i l l have less opportunity to encounter the authority fragmentation, and w i l l therefore feel greater job satisfaction. The hypothesis to be tested was:  The degree of percep-  tion of authority fragmentation by a teacher i s positively correlated with the degree of innovativeness, and negatively correlated with overall job satisfaction. Perception of authority fragmentation  «= function of Innovativeness  Job satisfaction  =  Perception of function of authority fragmentation  Chapter 2 METHOD Sample The present study dealt with public school teachers employed i n British Columbia. The sample of the teaching population 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 d i s t r i c t 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  d i s t r i c t 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 f i n a l survey instrument (shown in Appendix l) was presented to the subjects as a single questionnaire, i t was designed in three parts. The f i r s t section was designed to measure the degree to which a teacher recognized or was aware of the fragmentation of authority between the Department of Education 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. instrument had to be designed de novo.  Therefore an  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; f a c i l i t i e s , i e . 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 authority seen by the teacher as being held by the Department of Education 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 i n f l u 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 i s there now? (none) 1 2 3 4  5  6  7  (very much)  b.  How much should there be? (none)  1  2  4  3  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 i n an overall sense. In the construction of the f i r s t eight items a problem arose in semantic choicej  how should the influence of the Depart-  ment or Board be described? or power, or influence.  Control seemed as valid as authority,  A sample of seven persons with teaching  experience i n 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 classroom teachers. Indicate the ONE word which i s 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 i n 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 i n 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 (bureaucratic) 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 r e l i a b i l i t y of the scale, using s p l i t -  half correlation, was 0.227 for the half scale and O.37I for the total scale.  Anderson suggested that the low r e l i a b i l i t y 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 information sources other than textbooks, evaluation of students based on adaptable and appropriate c r i t e r i a .  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, i s 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 f e l t 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 respondent; and (c)  content and construct validity for those job  dimensions related to supervisor, higher echelon personnel, colleagues, 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 i n 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 i n i t s 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 representativeness of the sample to the population.  Job Satisfaction Inventory Factor Analysis Item Number Loadings satisfaction dimension  Twery et a l study hypothesized empirical loading loading  present study empirical loading  to job  23,30,36  23,30,36, 32,38  23,30,36,32, 38,22,25,29  supervisor  27,31.34, 37 26,33.39  27,31,34,37  coworkers  27,34,24, 31.37 26,33,39  higher  21,28,35  21,28,35  job duties  25,38  25,38  general attitude  echelon  relationship  between D. of Ed. and teachers  26,33,39,22 29,30,37 21,28,35  24,25,37  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 s e l -  ected by asking for volunteers from a class group of twentyfour. 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. questionnaire.  This item was deleted from the  The questionnaire, unchanged except for deletion  of the vague item and a t i d i e r 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 subjects; 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 i s there now?" items, a large amount of authori t y 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. l a + 5a) for each dimension, less the difference between the two responses (eg. l a - 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 f i r s t five items testing innovation were scored by subtracting the number of the response from six, i n 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 i n 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 orthogonal rotation, with number of factors unspecified i n the program 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. a l . 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 i s  shown in Table III. The interpretation of the five dimensions obtained i n this study, compared with those of Twery et. a l , , were as followst Twery definition  present definition  general attitude to job  satisfaction with present job situation  satisfaction with supervisor  satisfaction with District Superintendent as "a supervisor  coworkers  satisfaction with peer group, from both an internal and external viewpoint  satisfaction with higher echelon  satisfaction with administrative 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 i n 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. sis under these conditionsj  This matrix was the result of analythe 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 I I I ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX JOB SATISFACTION ITEMS Factors Item  A  B  21  0.0753  22  0.4965* -0.3467  -0.7063* -0.0481  23  -0.7676*  0.2040  24  -0.0304  0.1708  0.4477* -0.0875  25  C  D  E  0.01994  0.2564*  -0.2560  -0.4928*  0.0415  -0.2502  0.1997  -0.0416  0.0536  0.1482  -0.6088* -0.2365  0.1685  0.5873*  26  -0.2060  -0.0376  0.0008  27  0.0470  -0.0454  -0.2475  0.0704  28  -0.0123  -0.7185* -0.2592  -0.2281  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  32  -0.7776*  0.0430  0.0042  0.0943  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*  0.0695  -011519  0.1806  -0.1231  38 39  0.6460* -0.2852  0.8137* -0.1746 0.8139* 0.2922  0.7792* 0.1059  0.4596* -0.4711* -0.1096 0.6671*  0.1033 0.1401  A " s a t i s f a c t i o n with present job s i t u a t i o n B = s a t i s f a c t i o n with administrative procedures C = s a t i s f a c t i o n with D. of Education/teacher r e l a t i o n s h i p D = s a t i s f a c t i o n with peer group, both i n t e r n a l l y and external E = s a t i s f a c t i o n with D i s t r i c t Superintendent as a supervisor *  p * 0.05  The  s c o r i n g o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e produced e l e v e n  f o r each r e s p o n d e n t ; one s c o r e f o r i n n o v a t i v e n e s s ; f i v e f o r t h e f i v e dimensions o f a u t h o r i t y f r a g m e n t a t i o n ;  scores scores  and f i v e  s c o r e s f o r t h e f i v e dimensions o f j o b s a t i s f a c t i o n examined. Simple l i n e a r r e g r e s s i o n was performed on t h e s e s c o r e s u s i n g the SIMREG r o u t i n e o f t h e U. B. C. * T r i p program. was r e g r e s s e d w i t h each a u t h o r i t y f r a g m e n t a t i o n each a u t h o r i t y f r a g m e n t a t i o n job s a t i s f a c t i o n The and  Innovation  dimension; and  dimension was r e g r e s s e d w i t h each  dimension.  i n n o v a t i o n s c o r e s were s o r t e d i n t o two groups, above  below t h e sample mean s c o r e , a l o n g w i t h each o f t h e a u t h o r -  i t y fragmentation  scores i n turn.  T h i s produced f i v e s o r t s o f t h e  data, w i t h each s o r t c o n t a i n i n g S's w i t h a h i g h s c o r e  (above  the sample mean) on both i n n o v a t i o n and one o f t h e a u t h o r i t y fragmentation  dimensions.  These f i v e s o r t s were a n a l y s e d 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 t h e means o f t h e groups, overall  both  ( u s i n g 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  (using t--tests).  scores  A n a l y s i s was performed by t h e HOTEL r o u t i n e  o f t h e U. B. C. * T r l p program, w i t h p * 0 . 0 5 . Reliability t h i s study.  o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was n o t c a l c u l a t e d f o r  Resources a v a i l a b l e p r e v e n t e d  t h e use o f two s u r v e y s  i n order t o obtain t e s t - r e t e s t data f o r the instrument. use  o f s i n g l e items  t o assay  perception of authority  The  fragmentation  i n each o f f o u r dimensions, and i n t h e i n n o v a t i o n i n v e n t o r y , prevented  t h e use o f s p l i t - h a l f  correlations.  RESULTS Sample size 148  (32.9$) of the questionnaires in the main survey  were returned, with 96(21.3$) useable, of the 450 forms mailed. The maximum return period was twenty-one days from the date of mailing. The form used during the preliminary validation procedures and the small pilot survey were the same as that used in the main survey, except that the earlier forms contained one extra question. This similarity of the forms used allowed the responses obtained during the early survey process to be combined with the responses from the main survey. sample available for analysis was 121,  Thus the total  or 23.9$, 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 qualification had been obtained (ie. area of undergraduate  training).  Histograms are shown i n Appendix 2.  Item a n a l y s i s Using a 0.05  confidence l e v e l , Pearsonian c o r r e l a t i o n  c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the authority fragmentation scale i n d i c a t e d 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 a u t h o r i t y on each dimension  of fragmentation.  For example, of the 28  pairs  of items on present amount of authority, 14 were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d and 14 were not.  A response set would have produced  s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between most or a l l pairs; t h i s d i d not occur. S i m i l a r l y , c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s indicated an absence of response set i n the f i r s t f i v e multiple choice items of the innovation s c a l e .  The c o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r the frequency  questions tapping evaluation c r i t e r i a and teaching techniques are shown i n 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 a s t e r i s k s .  For example, a teacher who u t i l i z e s a student's  performance on standardized tests r e l a t i v e to norms f o r those t e s t s 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 l o g i c a l association among c r i t e r i a ,  Correlation Matrix for Evaluation Criteria Items His test average compared to the norms and school's passing grade  1.00  Norms of provincial achievement tests  0.26*  1.00  School or department norms for achievement tests  0.29*  0.64*  Average level of his classmates  0.17  -r0.04  1.00  0.04  1.00  His achievement compared to his ability  •0.39* -0.04  -0.06 -0.16 1.00  Home problems  -0.25  0.04  -0.01 -0.13  Emotional problems  -0.26*  0.02  0.02  Physical disability  -0.14  0.01  Part-time employment  -0.07  -0.14  Participation in extracurricular activities  -0.08  -0.11  0.42*  1.00  -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  0.01 -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 i t s e l f . *  p ^ 0.05  Correlation Matrix for Teaching Techniques Items Lecture  1 .00  Demonstration  0 .04  Experiment  -0 .01  1.00 0.34* 1.00  Class discussion  0 .01 -0.03  0.06  Student reports  0 ,09  0.30* 0.35* 1.00  Debates  0 .01 -0.03  0.13  1.00  0.05  0.26* 0.49* 1.00  Films and slides  -0 ,13  0.08  0.23  0.20  0.17  0.11  1.00  Recordings  -0 ,35* 0.06  0.10  0.26* 0.17  0.12  0.51* 1.00  Television  -0 ,03  0.07  0.15  0.16  0.36* 0.42* 0.31* 1.00  Field trips  -0 ,06  0.15  0.37* 0.17  0.29* 0.43* 0.40* 0.20  0.44* 1.00  Student projects  0 ,01  0.16  0.26*-0.06  0.24  Oral recitations  -0 ,09  0.11  Drill  -0 ,11  Working at the board  0.25  0.22  0.20  0.25  0.23  0.33* 1.00  0.07  0.26* 0.30* 0;31* 0.22  0.23  0.10  0.19  0.01  0.04  0.19  0.28*.0.09 -0.12 -0.12  -0 ,01  0.07  0.16  0.40* 0.15  Team competition  0 ,03  0.12  0.12  0.23  Reading in class  -0 ,12  0.07  0.02  0.32* 0.28* 0.19  Guest lecturer  -0 ,01  0.11  0.20  0.20  Individual library work  -0 ,09 -0.09  0.27  0.31* 0.46* 0.33* 0.47* 0.35* 0.42* 0.38* 0.30* 0.26*  0.07 -0.01 0.05  0.11  0.12  1.00 0.26*  1.00  0.03 -0.02  0.24  0.50*  1.00  0.15  0.17  0.11  0.39*  0.28*  0.24  0.35* 0.34* 0.23  0.21  0.06  0.40*  0.33*  0.39* 0.38* 1.00  0.31* 0.35* 0.24  0.32* 0.27* 0.21  0.24  0.37*0.34*0.26*0.17  0.24  0.57*0.19  0.13  -0.19 0.08  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  :0.03  1.00 0.16  ,0.30* 0.15  0.08  1.00  0.43* 0.28* 1.00  indicating that the item possesses both face and construct validity.  Construct validity i s 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 u t i l i z e s experiments also employs student reports, f i e l d 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 w i l l be recalled that the experimental model hypothesized that perception of authority fragmentation i s a function of innovativeness} and that job satisfaction i s a function of perception of authority fragmentation.  Regression of innovation  scores with each of the authority fragmentation dimensions produced s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant positive correlations between four of the five fragmentation dimensions and innovativeness. Three of the four fragmentation dimensions correlated with innovation had low, but s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant (p * 0.05) cients of determination.  coeffi-  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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y  LINEAR REGRESSION OF INNOVATION VS. AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION VARIABLES REGRESSED  F-FROB  Innovation curriculum authority technique "  0,0001* 0.0001*  0.1209* 0.1217*  0.1967 0.0500*  0.0138 0.0311  0.0123*  0.0510*  it  •facilities •role  it  overall  ti  it  R-SQUARED  Curriculum authority = perceived authority fragmentation i n curriculum dimension Technique authority = perceived authority fragmentation i n technique dimension F a c i l i t i e s authority - perceived authority fragmentation i n f a c i l i t i e s dimension Role authority = perceived authority fragmentation i n 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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 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 techniques dimension and satisfaction on the present teaching situation and the administrative procedures dimensions, and between perception 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 fragmentation and job satisfaction.  This inverse correlation was borne  out between perception of authority fragmentation on the techniques dimension and satisfaction with the current teaching situation.  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  F-PROB  R-SQUARED  Current situation-curric'm authority -techniques -facility " -role -overall  0.3711 0.0296*'' 0.8137 0.4662 O.7030  0.0068 0.0384* 0.0004 0.0046 0.0012  Admin, procedures-curric'm authority -technique -facility -role -overall  0.0189* 0,0011* 0.5910 0.1193 0.8795  0.0448* 0.0884* 0.0025 0.0198 0.0001  D, of Education-curric'm authority " " -technique " " -facility " -role " -overall  0.8779 0.8398 0.6419 0.8778 0.7803  0.0001 0.0002 0,0019 0.0001 0.0006  Coworkers-curric'm authority " -technique " -facility -role -overall  0.4129 0.4391 0.3290 0.7920 0.7706  O.OO58  Supervisor-curric'm authority " -technique -facility -role -overall  0.0623 0.2586 0.4652 0.496? 0.6028  0.0282 0.0107 0.0046 0.0040 0.0024  0.0052 0.0081 0.0005 0.0007  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 fragmentation recognition between innovation and job satisfaction, produced no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations.  The F-probabilities  ranged between O.318 and 0.949. This indicated that job satisfaction was not to any appreciable degree a direct function of innovation. 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,  l i s t 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  l i s t s 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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 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  Inov"l >Xfc FaciJ x 1 x2 S  InovVTectJ t  InovV :»X. RoleJ :  *i  *2  Inov\>X All J *1  5  *2  S  Satisfact.: Curr. S i t ' n 30.4  30.1 -  29.5  28.1 -  29.9  29.6 -  29.7  28.9 -  30.0  29.8 -  Adm. proc.  8.2  9.0 +  8.2  9.4 +  8.0  8.0 +  8.5  8.7 +  8.0  8.1+  D. of Ed.  7.7  7.6 -  8.0  7.8 -  7.8  7.5 -  7.8  7.6 -  7.6  7.5 -  Coworkers  16.4  15.1 -  16.5  16.8 +  16.3  15.8 -  16.9  16.8 -  16.1  15.8 -  D. Super.  13.4  12.7 -  13.3  12.7 -  13.8  12.9 -  12.9  12.5 -  13.2  13.1 -  Aut'y Frag: Curric 'm  2.7  8.9  +**  3.4  7.5  +**  3.8  6.5 +  3.3  7.3  +**  3.5  6.3+  Techniques  3.2  7.6  +**  2.4  9.1  +**  3.0  6.6 +*  2.8  7.6  +**  2.8  5.9 +  Facilities  9.8  11.5 +  9.8  10.1  11.8 +  Role  6.4  9.4 +  6.3  9.8 +*  6.2  6.6  8.9 +  Overall  6.3  8.3 +  6.1  7.3 +  Innov'n  73.9  97.4+**  74.7  * * p - 0.05 *  p * 0.10  11.1 +  96.1  +**  9.6  11.6 +  9.8 +*  4.9  11.8  6.5  8.7 +  6.5  8.4 +  3.7  10.0  +**  75.5  95.8+**  74.2  93.8+**  73.6  95.7  +**  7.9  13.3  +**  +**  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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y  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 i t s prediction that job satisfaction i s 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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant, the differences were consistent in direction with but one exception.  Four of the five satisfaction dimensions showed a differ-  ence between means i n the hypothesized direction. The f i 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 i n the survey  was entirely voluntary, with no material incentive offered. Demographic variables " I t w i l l 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 i n level of certification, but different i n 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.  I t was possible that teachers  of primary grades were underrepresented  i n 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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlation found between four of the five dimensions of authority fragmentation and innovativeness supported the hypothesized relationship between these variables.  Although the coefficient of determination for three  of these relationships was s t a t i s t i c a l l y 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 f i e l d covered by this'project w i l l  substantiate the correlations found and improve the coefficient of determination. A possible explanation for the absence of correlation between innovativeness and the f a c i l i t i e s dimension of authority fragmentation i s that physical plant i s 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 f a c i l i t i e s than buildings. Only three of the twenty-five regression analyses testing the second portion of the hypothesis showed s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations, due to chance.  These few correlations could have been  However, these significant relationships involved  the two authority fragmentation dimensions which showed the strongest correlation across two authority fragmentation dimensions, coupled with the absence of s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant correlations between innovation and job satisfaction directly, offers partial support for the experimental model employing authority 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 s t a t i s t i c a l l y 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 discriminated by the satisfaction instrument used. Combining the consistency of the direction of the d i f f e r ences between subset means with the result of the t-tests, which considered the c r i t e r i a of means, standard deviations and degrees of freedom, i t appeared that the job satisfaction instrument used was not sufficiently sensitive.  I t i s hoped that further  research, using a more precise job satisfaction scale, w i l l substantiate the trend seen i n the signed ranks test on the job satisfaction dimensions.  Chapter 5 CONCLUSION It was hypothesized that perception of authority fragmentation i s positively correlated with the innovativeness of a teacher; and that job satisfaction of a teacher i s inversely correlated with recognition of authority fragmentation.  Empir-  i c a l 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 s t a t i s t i c a l significance, 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 perception 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. Hopkins Press, 1968.  Baltimore:  Argyris, C, Personality and organization. Row, 1957.  New York:  Barnard, C. I. The functions of the executive. Harvard University Press, 1964.  John Harper &  Cambridge, Mass.:  Bedwell, C. E. The administrative role and satisfaction J. of Educational Sociology, 29, pp. 41-47.  in teaching.  Bell, G. D. Organizations and human behaviour: A book of readings. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice-Hall, 19o7. Blau, P. M. & Scott, W. R. Formal organizations: approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 19o2,  A comparative  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 d i s t r i c t 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: M e r r i l 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, 2 6 , 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 administration. 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 relationships 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. Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1964.  Toronto:  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. Crofts, 1936^  New York:  Appleton, Century,  Longenecker, J. G. Principles of management and organizational behaviour. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1969. March, J. G. ed. Handbook of organizations. . McNally, 1 9 6 5 .  Chicago:  Rand-  Mathis, C, The relationship between salary policies and teacher morale. J. of Educational Psychology, 5 0 , 6, 1959, pp. 275-279.  Owens, R, G. Organizational behaviour in schools. C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice-Hall, 1970. Public Schools Act.  Victoria:  Englewood  Queen's Printer, 1968.  Reavis, W. & Judd, C. The teacher and educational administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1 9 4 2 . 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, 1 9 6 9 . Sachs, B. M. Educational administration: Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1966.  A behavioural approach.  Scott, W. G. Organization theory: A behavioural analysis for management. Homewood, 1 1 1 . : Irwin^ I 9 6 7 . 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. Free Press, 1957.  2nd ed.  New York:  Stone, G . H . & Kendall, W. E. Effective personnel selection procedures. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice Hall, 1956. Taylor, F. W. The principles of scientific management. York: Harper, 1911. Thompson, J. D. Organizations in action. H i l l , 1967.  New York:  New  McGraw,  Twery, R., Schmid, J,, & Wrigley, C, Some factors in job satisfaction. 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:  Whyte, W. J. Jr. The organization man. Doubleday, 19567 Woodward, J. London:  Wiley, 1964.  Garden City, New York:  Industrial organization: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press, I965.  Worthy, J. C, Organization structure and employee morale. American Sociological Review, 15, April, 1950, pp. I 6 9 - I 7 9 , Worthy, J. C. Factors influencing employee morale. Business Review, 28, January, 1950, pp. 61-73.  Harvard  APPENDIX 1  1.  The a u t h o r i t y o f the Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n over the c u r r i c u l u m I uses a, How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much)  2. The a u t h o r i t y o f the Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n over t h e techniques I use: a. How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) e  3» The a u t h o r i t y o f the Dept o f E d u c a t i o n 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 t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b<> How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) 4 . The a u t h o r i t y o f t h e Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n over my r o l e as a t e a c h e r : a. How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) 5. The a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l o c a l Board o f School T r u s t e e s over the c u r r i c u l u m I use: a„ How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) 6„ The a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l o c a l Board o f School T r u s t e e s over t h e techniques I use: a. How much I s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 b. How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  ( v e r y much)  5  6  7  ( v e r y much)  7. The a u t h o r i t y o f t h e l o c a l Board o f School T r u s t e e s over the f a c i l i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n my s c h o o l : a. How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 b. How much should t h e r e be? (none)  1  2  3  4  5  6  4  5  6  7 7  ( v e r y much) ( v e r y much)  8. The a u t h o r i t y o f the l o c a l Board o f School T r u s t e e s over my r o l e as a teachers . . a. How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) .9. S u p e r v i s i o n f o r t h e Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n performed by the D i s t r i c t Superintendent: a . How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 • 3 ^ bo How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 ^  5 5  6 6  7 7  ( v e r y much) ( v e r y much)  10. S u p e r v i s i o n f o r the Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n performed by:| persons o t h e r than t h e D i s t r i c t S u p e r l n t e n d n e t : a. How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) 11. A s s i s t a n c e o r a d v i c e from t h e Dept. o f E d u c a t i o n a v a i l a b l e from persons o t h e r than the D i s t r i c t Superintendents a . How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 b 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) 12.  The D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s c o n t r o l over t h e l o c a l Board o f School Trusteess a . How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 5 6 . 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much should t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 ^ ' 5 6 7 ( v e r y much)  13.  The D i s t r i c t Superintendent°s a u t h o r i t y over the l o c a l Board o f School Trusteess a . How much i s t h e r e now? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much) b. How much s h o u l d t h e r e be? (none) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ( v e r y much)  14.  G e n e r a l l y i n a s s i g n i n g homework,, do you le A l l o w each student t o choose h i s own homework assignment? 2» A s s i g n d i f f e r e n t homework .to groups w i t h i n each s e c t i o n on the b a s i s o f i n t e r e s t o r a b i l i t y ? 3 . A s s i g n t h e same homework to everyone i n a s e c t i o n b u t make d i f f e r e n t assignments t o o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t ? 4o A s s i g n the same homework t o a l l s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t but suggest o p t i o n a l o r e x t r a c r e d i t assignments f o r those students who a r e i n t e r e s t e d ? 5. A s s i g n t h e same homework to a l l s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t ? 6 . Other ( s p e c i f y ) ,/ •  15„  G e n e r a l l y I n a s s i g n i n g p r o j e c t s , term papers, r e p o r t s , o r l i b r a r y r e s e a r c h , do you 1. A l l o w each student to choose h i s own p r o j e c t o r t o p i c ? 2. A s s i g n d i f f e r e n t p r o j e c t s o r t o p i c s t o groups w i t h i n each s e c t i o n on the b a s i s o f i n t e r e s t o r a b i l i t y ? 3 , A s s i g n t h e same p r o j e c t o r t o p i c t o everyone In a s e c t i o n b u t make d i f f e r e n t assignments to o t h e r s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t ? 4, A s s i g n the same p r o j e c t o r t o p i c t o everyone i n a l l s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t b u t suggest o p t i o n a l o r e x t r a c r e d i t assignments f o r i n t e r e s t e d students? 5* A s s i g n t h e same p r o j e c t o r t o p i c t o a l l s e c t i o n s o f the same subject? 6 . Other ( s p e c i f y ) ____  I 6 0 I n t e s t i n g s t u d e n t s , do you g e n e r a l l y 1. Make up s e v e r a l t e s t s f o r use w i t h i n one c l a s s ? 2. Make up d i f f e r e n t t e s t s f o r s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t on the b a s i s o f a b i l i t y ? 3 . Make up t h e same t e s t f o r a l l s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t b u t p r o v i d e e x t r a c r e d i t problems o r q u e s t i o n s ? 4. Use t e s t s 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 s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s ? 6 . Other ( s p e c i f y ) ;  17.  I n u s i n g textbooks f o r your c l a s s e s , do you 1. A s s i g n o u t s i d e r e a d i n g s i n the l i b r a r y on the t o p i c t h a t you are discussing? 2c Make s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t t e x t s o r books a v a i l a b l e f o r student use i n your c l a s s ? 3» From time t o time supplement the textbook t h a t you a r e u s i n g with a d d i t i o n a l r e a d i n g s from o t h e r books? 4. Use d i f f e r e n t textbooks f o r s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t 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 s e c t i o n s o f the same s u b j e c t ? 60 Other ( s p e c i f y )  In p r e p a r i n g a l e s s o n p l a n f o r your c l a s s e s , do you 1. Use s e v e r a l o u t s i d e sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n ? 2. Use the textbook f o r the b l a s s supplemented w i t h a d d i t i o n a l information? 3. Use the textbook f o r the c l a s s ? 4. Use the c u r r i c u l u m guide f o r the c l a s s ? 5. Other ( s p e c i f y ) •  19. I n d i c a t e the e x t e n t t o which you c o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s  i n a s s i g n i n g a grade t o a s t u d e n t i n your c l a s s , by c i r c l i n g the a p p r o p r i a t e number f o r each item. CO  # H CO  3  #!«? §8 l/l  t> >  F  His t e s t average compared to the norms and s c h o o l s p a s s i n g grade 9  Norms o f p r o v i n c i a l achievement t e s t s S c h o o l o r department norms f o r achievement tests Average l e v e l o f h i s classmates H i s achievement compared to h i s a b i l i t y  1  2  3  Home problems  1  2  3  5  Emotional  problems  1  2  3  5  disability  1  2  3  5  1  2  3  Physical  P a r t - t i m e employment P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n extracurricular activities Other  (specify)  4  4  5  5  3^  3*  fee' III III III CO  CO  CO fci  Lecture  1  c  3  5  Demonstration  1  2  3  5  Experiment  1  2  3  5  Class  1  2  3  5  1  2  3  5  Debates  1  2  3  5  F i l m s and s l i d e s  1  2  3  5  Recordings  1  2  3  5  Television  1  2  3  5  Field  1  2  3  projects  1  2  3  5  recitations  1  2  3  5  Drill  1  2  3  5  Working a t the board  1  2  3  5  Team c o m p e t i t i o n  1  2  3  5  Reading i n c l a s s  1  2  3  5  Guest  1  2  3  1  2  3  2  3  discussion  Student  trips  Student Oral  reports  lecturer  Individual l i b r a r y work Other  if  5  5  (specify) 4  5  21.  My s c h o o l c o u l d do a much b e t t e r job i f t h e r e were l e s s i n t e r f e r e n c e from above. s t r o n g l y a g r e e agree undecided disagree strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5  22o I wish v e r y much t h a t I c o u l d get away from t h i s s c h o o l . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 . 4 5 23.  I n a l l ways my SA  A 2  1  24.  present  job i s the b e s t job I've U .  1  D  2  had.  SD 5  4  3  My D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t l o t more. SA A  ever  should mix w i t h h i s t e a c h e r s a U 3  D  SD 5  4  25.  I am k e p t too l o n g i n the same t e a c h i n g assignment. SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5  26.  Compared w i t h the o t h e r people I have worked w i t h , I t h i n k t h a t my p r e s e n t c o l l e a g u e s a r e e x c e l l e n t . SA A U D SD 1 2 3 4 5  27.  My D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s h o u l d 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.  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e d tape makes i t d i f f i c u l t a good j o b . SA A U D 1 2 3 4  29.  T h i s s c h o o l i s a good p l a c e to t e a c h . SA A U 1 2 3  30. I am  e n t i r e l y s a t i s f i e d with my SA  A 2  1  31.  My D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t at a l l . SA A  1  2  D  4  to do SD 5  SD 5  position.  U 3 doesn't U 3  f o r me  D  4  understand D  SD 5 h i s teachers SD 5  32.  I p r e f e r my p r e s e n t t e a c h i n g assignment t o a l l o t h e r t^pes o f t e a c h i n g assignment, SA A U D SD 1  33.  2  1  A 2  2  2  2  My D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t from h i s t e a c h e r s . SA A 1  38.  2  SD 5  c o u l d use a l o t more t r a i n i n g U  D  SD  3  ^  5  3  3  4  5  D  SD  ^  5  obtains excellent cooperation U  D  SD  3  ^  5  My t e a c h i n g d u t i e s a r e l e s s than c h a l l e n g i n g . SA 1  A  U  2  1  D 3  3 9 . When I need h e l p I can always count SA A U  Only  D  I am e n t h u s i a s t i c about my p o s i t i o n . SA A U 1  37.  U  A d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s p r e v e n t me from d o i n g my b e s t . SA A U D SD 1  36.  5  3  My D i s t r i c t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t as a t e a c h e r . SA* A 1  35.  ^  I l i k e the p e o p l e I work w i t h v e r y much. SA  34.  3  2  3  SD ^  5  on my c o l l e a g u e s . D SD 4  5  s i x more q u e s t i o n s 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 c i r c l i n g the best response to each question. This information w i l 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 i s 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.  THANK  B.H.Ec.  YOU J  none  other  APPENDIX 2  DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: CERTIFICATION  40 -  41  30 -  relative frequency  23 22  20 -  10 -  14  12  E.B. E.A. P.C. P.B. P.A. P.A.M.  certificate  DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: DEGREE HELD  40  37  36 30  relative frequency  33  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  40 404  So-  relative frequency  31  lo 18 12  10 -  10  2  4  6  8 Score  10  12  14  AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION i TECHNIQUES DIMENSION y - 5.14 s -  50  3.668  51  40  30  -  20  -  relative frequency 22 20  10  2  ^  5  8  Score  10  12  I4~  AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATION t FACILITIES DIMENSION  ys to. £>& S=-  3-/7  40 -  41  30  relative frequency  24 20 -  20  20  10 8  2  4.6  8  10  Scores  12 14  AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATIONi ROLE DIMENSION y » 8.099  s - 3.63  30 A  25 20  ~22~  J  20  relative frequency  15  15  13  10  2  4  6  8  Score  10  12  14  AUTHORITY FRAGMENTATIONt OVERALL y  m  7.42  s - 3.70  40 .  30 -  relative frequency  30  23  20 -  16  15  15  10  11  2  4  6  8 Score  10  11  12  14  INNOVATION  y - 85.85 s - 13.00  40 -  34  30 relative frequency  33  25 20  10 -  14  12  60 "70 to  69  to  79  90 100  no'  89 99 109  119  80  to to  to  to  120  y - 29.55 s » 6.245  4038 35 30-  relative frequency  20-  19  17 10.  10  "To" 21 26 to to to 15 20 25 30  to  Score  31  to  35  to 40  JOB SATISFACTION: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES DIMENSION y - 8.289 s - 2.812  40  32  30  27 relative frequency  23  20 -  21  10 8  3  to  4  5  to  6  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 62  60  40 -  30 relative frequency  25  22  20  10 -  tl 4  to  6  7  to  9  to  8 10  Score  11  to  12  13  to  14  JOB SATISFACTIONS PEER GROUP DIMENSION  y «  16.41  s »  40 -  5.151  41 39  30  relative frequency  20 -  21 14  10 .  7 11 to  to  10 15  16 to  20 Score  21 to  25  26 to  31 to  30 35  JOB SATISFACTION: SUPERINTENDENT DIMENSION y - 13.24 s -  2.927  4 3  40 3 7  3 0  relative frequency  -  24 2 0  -  10 -  li  4  7  to  to  6  9  TT  to  12  13  16  "19"  15  18  20  to  Score  to  to  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 i s  shown below, FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF BOARDS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHERS Board of Trustees: — r e c r u i t i n g 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: — c e r t i f i c a t i o n of qualification of teachers — o v e r a l l 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 i s granted, follow. Section 128 reads as followsi The Board of each school d i s t r i c t 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 d i s t r i c t . Thus the Board has ultimate authority over the appointment of teachers within a school d i s t r i c t .  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 i s 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 d i s t r i c t , 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-  i t y granted to a Board to overrule the District Superintendent when appointing teachers, when the District Superintendent i s 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 i n part as follows: The Board of a school d i s t r i c t 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 i s appointed 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 d i s t r i c t 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 d i s t r i c t . There i s 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 allowance over and above the salary paid the individual for his level of certification.  This increase i n salary, along with the increased  responsibilities and duties, gives such appointments to administrative posts the quality of a promotion.  Again, such promotions  are given to the discretion of laymen who are property-owners within the school d i s t r i c t . Section 129 continues i n part as follows: The Board of a school d i s t r i c t may  (e) authorize the transfer at any time of any teacher employed in any public school in the school d i s t r i c t to any other public school in the school d i s t r i c t , 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 i s to take effect; ( i i ) i f the salary of a teacher i s 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 i s given supreme authority to transfer teachers between schools within the school d i s t r i c t at the pleasure of the Board.  The District Superintendent need only be consulted before  an immediate transfer i s made; no such consultation i s required i f the transfer i s 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 i s that of adjusting the location of teachers i n response to shifting pupil enrollment within a school district, there are other uses l e f t available by the provisions of the Act.  I t w i l l be shown  later that a Board may terminate the employment of any teacher who has successfully completed his one year probationary appointment i f that teacher has committed a criminal or morally reprehensible action.  However, this portion of the Act allows a Board  the option of harrassing a teacher through transfers when the  Board i s 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 d i s t r i c t may ( f l ) 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 incompetent in the discharge of his duties in the position, and in the event of such authorization.., Again the Board i s 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.  I t w i l l be shown later that evaluation of teachers  and administrators i s given to the District Superintendent,  des-  pite the complete control over the consequences of evaluation held by the Board,  The Board of a school d i s t r i c t may (g) authorize the assignment of teachers as provided^in the Actf Assignment of teachers refers to the precise teaching post which a teacher w i l l occupy in a d i s t r i c t ! eg. primary teacher i n CDE School, teacher of senior English in MNO  School.  The only provision in the Act for the assignment of teachers i s this instance. Superintendent  The Section defining the duties of the District provides that he may assign teachers within a  d i s t r i c t only under the authorization of the Board concerned. Again complete authority i s 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 i s open  to appeal by the teacher, giving the Board nearly complete authority for dismissal. Section I36 reads in part as follows* (1)  (2)  (3) (5) (6)  Where no agreement respecting teachers* salaries exists, the Board of each school d i s t r i c t shall establish annual salaries of the teachers employed in the public schools of the school d i s t r i c t , 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. and (4) ...(allow for deferment of salary payments at the request of a teacher).., ...(salary may be paid in twelve equal instalments through out the year)... 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 d i s t r i c t .  The Board i s given-complete discretion to settle upon salary schedules i n a d i s t r i c t .  Whether such salary payments  are for various levels of certification of qualification of teachers 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 Government, there i s 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 vocational school; or (d) a person who teaches in a d i s t r i c t 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 without 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 necessary 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 q u a l i f i 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 qualification 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 i s  further strengthened by the existence of a clause in the contracts between Boards and the local teachers' associations requiring that teachers be paid in s t r i c t 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 relating 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 i s visited as frequently as feasible and at least once in each school-year5...  Section 13 reads as follows: Each District Superintendent of Schools i s responsible for the supervision of the instructional programmes within his superintendency, and i s 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, i s given complete responsibility for supervision of the schools in a l l matters within his superintendency.  He i s also given the task of advising and instructing  teachers and principals under his supervision.  The District  Superintendent i s given responsibility for a l l aspects of supervision of the schools? yet an independent and autonomous body, the Board, i s given the authority for selection, placement, promotion, and termination of the personnel being supervised! Section 17 reads in part as follows: The Council of Public Instruction may, both,  by rule or order, or  (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 d i s t r i c t .  Here the Council of Public Instruction,  through the Department of Education, has the authority to prescribe  the duties of the teachers.  I t would seem that one body has the  authority to assign an individual to a position, and an independent body has the authority to determine the duties of that position. Section 9 reads in part as follows* (l) Each District Superintendent of Schools, in respect of his superintendency, shall (k) at some time i n the school-year, formally inspect, or cause to be Inspected by a person duly authorized in that behalf by order of the Council of Public Instruction, the work of (i) each teacher in the school d i s t r i c t authorized 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 d i s t r i c t ; and / ( i i i ) any teacher in the school d i s t r i c t with respect to whom the Board or the Superintendent of Education requests a report; and (iv) any teacher in the school d i s t r i c t who, on or before the t h i r t y - f i r s t 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 teaching 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 i t s local representative, the District Superintendent, i s given the duty of evaluating teachers who are selected, promoted, and terminated by the autonomous Board. Section 9 reads in part as follows: (l) Each District Superintendent of Schools, in respect of his superintendency, shall  (a) a s s i s t i n making e f f e c t i v e the provisions of t h i s Act, i n c a r r y i n g out the rules and orders of the Council of Public Instruction, and In c a r r y i n g out a system of education i n conformity with the s a i d provisions, r u l e s , and orders; (c) advise and a s s i s t each Board having j u r i s d i c t i o n i n h i s superintendency i n e x e r c i s i n g i t s powers and duties under t h i s Actj (d) f u r n i s h trustees and teachers with such information as they may require respecting the operation of t h i s Act; In a d d i t i o n to the requirement  of t h i s section of the  Act f o r the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and enforcement l o c a l l y of the Act, there are s e v e r a l sections c i t e d above which require that the Board consult with the D i s t r i c t Superintendent  before s e v e r a l  courses of action, i n c l u d i n g appointment of teachers and t r a n s f e r of teachers between schools. C i t a t i o n s from the Rules of the Council of Public I n s t r u c t i o n 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 f o r a period not exceeding one year. The probationary appointment s h a l l be designated i n w r i t i n g when notice of appointment i s given and may be terminated by the Board of School Trustees upon at l e a s t t h i r t y days' notice i n writing, which notice s h a l l expire with the termination 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 pursuant to the provisions of the Public Schools Act. The e f f e c t of these two rules i s that of allowing a Board to dismiss a teacher without a reason being s p e c i f i e d during the term of the i n i t i a l probationary year.  I f the teacher i s not  terminated during the f i r s t year, his engagement becomes permanent, and can only be terminated by the Board for cause of for gross misconduct.  I t i s advisable for the Board to ensure that a tea-  cher seems satisfactory during the f i r s t year of employment in the d i s t r i c t because i t would be much more d i f f i c u l t for the teacher to be terminated after the completion of the f i r s t year.  But the  Board i s not given the authority to supervise or evaluate the teacher, because these are the duties of the District Superintendent under the terms of the Public Schools Act. Rule 5.02  reads as follows:  Before a notice of termination i s given, the Board shall consider the District Superintendent's report on the teacher concerned, and shall confer with the District Superintendent or, i n 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 d i s t r i c t supervisory personnel shall be under the direction of the District Superintendent of Schools for the school d i s t r i c t 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 provisions of the Public Schools Act and the rules of the Council . of Public Instruction, The supervisory personnel referred to i n 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 i s 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}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101850/manifest

Comment

Related Items