DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 299 356 UD 026 410. AUTHOR Corcoran, Thomas B.; And...

ED 299 356

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTION

REPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 026 410

Corcoran, Thomas B.; And OthersWorking in Urban Schools.Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington,D.C.

ISBN-0-937846-74-088

175p.

Institute for Educational Leadership, 1001Connecticut Avenue N.W., #310, Washington, DC 20036(512.00, 1-9 copies; *10.50, 10-24 copies; *9.00,over 24 copies).Reports - Research/Technical (143)

MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.Educational Facilities Improvement; ElementarySchools; Elementary School Teachers; Middle Schools;)(Public School Teachers; School Organization;Secondary Schools; Secondary School Teachers;Surveys; Teacher Administrator Relationship; )(TeacherAttitudes; )(Teacher Morale; Teacher Shortage; TeacherStudent Relationship; )(Teaching Conditions; UrbanEducation; mUrban Schools; )(Urban Teaching

This document on the working conditions of urbanteachers reports data from a survey of 31 elementary, mithile, andsecondary schools in five urban school districts. More than 400interviews were conducted with teachers, school administrators,central office personnel, district officials, board members, andunion officials. The observations, interviews, and analyses confirmthat, in most of these schools, the working conditions of teachersare bleak and would not be tolerated in other professions. Aniong thefindings are the following: (1) physical conditions are sub-standardbecause of a lack of maintenance, repair, and space; (2) safety isnot a serious problem to teachers, except in very depressedneighborhoods; (3) teachers do not have even the basic resourcesneeded, let alone access to new technologies; (4) teachers considerhiring more personnel to address the personal problems of students ahigher priority than hiring more teachers to reduce class size; (5)teachers generally understand the cultural gulf between them andtheir students but are unable to deal with what they consideraberre.,t student behavior; (6) teachers perceive that they are losingcontrol over what they teach, primarily because of district-widetesting policies although they are in control of how they teach; and(7) teachers have little confidence in supervision, staffdevelopment, or central office leadership. Characteristics of goodworking conditions are identified. Tables illustrate the data.Appendices compare these findings with those of other studies,provide a list of about 100 references, describe the methodology, andcompare school effects. (BJV)

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 299 356 UD 026 410

AUTHOR Corcoran, Thomas B.; And OthersTITLE Working in Urban Schools.INSTITUTION Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington,

D.C.

REPORT NO ISBN-0-937846-74-0PUB DATE 88

NOTE 175p.

AVAILABLE FROM Institute for Educational Leadership, 1001Connecticut Avenue N.W., 1310, Washington, DC 20036($12.00, 1-9 copies; $10.50, 10-24 copies; $9.00,over 24 copies).

PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MFO1 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.DESCRIPTORS Educational Facilities Improvement; Elementary

Schools; Elementary School Teachers; Middle Schools;*Public School Teachers; School Organization;Secondary Schools; Secondary School Teachers;Surveys; Teacher Administrator Relationship; *TeacherAttitudes; *Teacher Morale; Teacher Shortage; TeacherStudent Relationship; *Teaching Conditions; UrbanEducation; *Urban Schools; *Urban Teaching

ABSTRACT

This document on the working conditions of urbanteachers reports data from a survey of 31 elementary, mid:119, andsecondary schools in five urban school districts. More than 400interviews were conducted with teachers, school administrators,central office personnel, district officials, board members, andunion officials. The observations, interviews, and analyses confirmthat, in most of these schools, the working conditions of teachersare bleak and would not be tolerated in other professions. Aniong thefindings are the following: (1) physical conditions are sub-standardbecause of a lack of maintenance, repair, and space; (2) safety isnot a serious problem to teachers, except in very depressedneighborhoods; (3) teachers do not have even the basic resourcesneeded, let alone access to new technologies; (4) teachers considerhiring more personnel to address the personal problems of students ahigher priority than hiring more teachers to reduce class size; (5)teachers generally understand the cultural gulf between them andtheir students but are unable to deal with what they consideraberre..t student behavior; (6) teachers perceive that they are losingcontrol over what they teach, primarily because of district-widetesting policies although they are in control of how they teach; and(7) teachers have little confidence in supervision, staffdevelopment, or central office leadership. Characteristics of goodworking conditions are identified. Tables illustrate the data.Appendices compare these findings with those of other studies,provide a list of about 100 references, describe the methodology, andcompare school effects. (BJV)

77

Working In Urban Schools

The Institute forEducational Leadership

3

The Institute for Educational Leadership wishes toackr wledge the assistance and support of theFord . .Indation, whose funding made the study ofteache working conditions and this publication possible.

1988 by the Institute for Educational Leadership. Allrights reserved. Published 1988.

89 90 91 92 4 3 2 1

Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN: 0. 937846-74-0

The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflectthose of the board and staff of the Ford Foundation.

Copies of Working in Urban Schools may be ordered from:

The Institute for Educational Leadership1001 Connecticut Avenue N.V., #310Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 822.8405

1 to 9 copies, S12.00 each10 to 24 copies, S10.50 each24 -I-- copies, S9.00 each

Add S2.00 per copy for postage and handling on billedorders.

WORKING IN URBAN SCHOOLS

Thomas B. CorcoranLisa J. WalkerJ. Lynne White

[ri Institute for Educationalja=3

LeadershipWashington D.C.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword vii

Pre; ce ix

Summary xi

Findings xiii

1. The Context: Reformers and Realities 1

2. The Physical Conditions: Red Tape and Begging 11

3. Resources and Teacher Workload: Buildinga House with No Nails 23

4. The Students: A Clash of Cultures 37

5. Teacher Autonomy in the Classroom: Control throughBenign Neglect 49

6. Teacher Influence and Collegiality: A Shell Game 59

7. Supervision, Professional Growth and Rewards 73

8. Leadership: Visionaries., Managers and Despots 89

9. The District Settings: A Long Way "Downtown" 97

10. The Effects of Working Conditions on Teachers:The Critical Mass 113

11. Conclusions 127

Appendices

1. Findings in Perspective 135

2. References 139

;. Conducting the Study 149

4. Comparison of School Effects 155

5. Project Participants 159

6v

FOREWORD

In my estimation, the most hopeful development in the education reformmovement of recent years has been the emphasis placed upon society's need torecruit and retain superior teachers for our public schools. There has beengrowing acceptance of the reality that without effective teachers, meaningfuleducational improvement will not occur. Our business leaders and electedofficials can use their influence to issue endless cogent reports and enactcountless pieces of enlightened legislation to improve schools; the reality is,however, that unless talented teachers in the classroom perform well, littlechange of a permanent nature will occur.

The problem of teacher recruitment and retention transcends just issues ofsalaries and other perquisites. We will never recruit and retain in the classroomsufficient numbers of talented teachers unless we treat them with the dignity andprovide the satisfactory working conditions that true professionals merit.

I am delighted that the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) has under-taken this important study of teacher working conditions in five large urbanschool districts. We are grateful to the Ford Foundation for its generous financialsupport and the Council of the Great City Schools for its crucial cooperation inIEL's unique effort to document and project important teacher workingconditions which have been ignored for too long both by the general public andeducational leaders.

I believe that this report has great implications for our efforts to improve ourschools. At a time when the business community is decentralizing and viewingheadquarters staff as a service agency to facilitate tne work of operating units,schools are still commonly operated in a hierarchic., context in their manage-ment style and philosophy.

This study, in documenting many conditions that depress both the morale andeffectiveness of teachers, is persuasive in helping to make the case for fundamen-tal change in the role, status and working conditions of classroom teachers.There is no issue of greater significance in education, particularly in our urbanschool systems. I am pleased that this IEL study makes such a unique contributionto this critically important concern in emphasizing that we will have to paymuch more attention to daily life within schools and provide more ampleresources to improve the buildings, the teaching materiais, and the supportavailable to teachers.

7

William S. WoodsideFormer Chairman and

Chief Executive OfficerPrimerica Corporation

andChair, IEL Board of Directors

September 1988

vii

PREFACE

The private sector is paying great attention to the impact of the workingenvironment on employee productivity and creativity. In the public sector,however, the same questions often focus narrowly on ways to make publicsector employees more productive. Are public employees efficient in the waythey conduct their work? Are they competent? How do they use their time?Certainly, these questions have been raised in the recent concern aboutAmerica's competitiveness in the classroom.

This report began as a way to answer more basic and underlying questions:What is the environment in which urban teachers work? What is their workload,what kind of space do they have in their schools and classrooms? Are theirresources sufficient to teach? In short, is the environment one which is conduciveto good and productive work? And how do these conditions affect teachers'attitudes toward their work and what they get done? These questions have beenasked with particular urgency in large urban districts, and it is in these districtsthat we focused our efforts.

There are several reasons for examining these. questions. If we are to improvethe quality of education in urban schools, we should know the factors that haveimpact. If schools are to be held more accountable for the progress they aremaking toward policy goals, we should have some idea what the environment isfor making these changes and how specific conditions will affect the outcomes.

Probably a more basic concern, however, is the ability of schools to attract andhold talented teachers in order to improve the outcomes of urban schools.Notwithstanding the urgent need to enomrage many more talented young menand women into teaching city schools a...e not as attractive as are their suburbancounterparts. Urban schools work harder to attract teacher candidates and tofind ways to support new candidates and hold experienced teachers. Few of theteachers we interviewed said they were ready to leave teaching but little in theirwork environments gave them reasons to stay. Certainly, the "sink or swim"approach to induction of new teachers may cost districts many new candidates.

At one level, the IEL study set out to describe how urban schools with goodand bad working conditions function as organizations and to describe whatteachers' jobs look like in these schools. At another level, we searched for thedifferences that explain how and why the conditions vary. In each district wevisited we found schools that were running well, where teachers were engagedand committed, where conditions were "better " sometimes against the odds.And, we found the opposite.

8 ix

x

This report has been helped enormously by the collaboration of the Council ofthe Great City Schools. Its Human Resources Subcommittee, chaired by RachelHedding of the Rochester, New York school board, served as the core of thestudy's advisory panel. The subcommittee has assisted us in reviewing the initialresearch design, making contacts with school districts, interpreting results anddiscussing the dissemination and use of the study's findings. Representatives ofthe National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers andprincipal representatives kept us on course by commenting on the researchdesign, translating organisational behavior terms into language that makes senseto teachers and principals and helping us interpret the findings. Other membersof the advisory panel have helped us in identifying pertinent research, comment-ing on presentation of the data and carefully reviewing the report.

We especially want to thank the superintendents and board members of thedistricts participating in the study (Denver, CO; Dctroit, MI; Indianapolis, IN;New Orleans, LA; and Rochester, NY) for agreeing to participate in the study,helping us identify the schools analyzed, and opening their central offices to ourresearch staff. Without their assistance and the helpfulness of the schools' staffs,this study would not have been possible. We thank the teachers, the principals,and central office staff for taking the time to be interviewed and sharing with ustheir perceptions of their schools.

Finally, this study would not have been possible without the assistance of theFord Foundation and the involvement and guidance of Edward J. Meade, Jr., chiefprogram officer with the Education and Culture Program. Questions raised byMeade began this study and started us off in the exploration of workingconditions in urban schools.

Working in Urban Schools offers a unique picture of day - today life in typicalurban elementary, middle and secondary schools. In its sample of 31 typicalschools, there are "good" schools and "bad" schools in terms of their workingenvironments. The findings identify conditions that make teachers' working livesmore difficult and have a negative impact on their attitudes and behaviors. Theyalso identify conditions that make teachers' work easier and have a positiveimpact on their attitudes. Most of all, Working in Urban Schools tells us thaturban schools are organizations that Lan be run effectively and where employeescan be treated as valued colleagues.

9

Michael Usdan, PresidentInstitute for Educational Leadership

September 1988

SUMMARY

As discussion about improving public education moves from student issues,such as requirements and testing, to the quality of teaching, education finds itselfon a parallel with the business sector. Working conditions become paramount.

The most difficult working conditions for teachers exist in our urban schools.To better understand this environment and the influence of working conditionson the performance of urban teachers, the Institute for Educational Leadership,with funding from the Ford Foundation and with the cooperation of the Councilof the Great City Schools, conducted a study of conditions in five urban schooldistricts.

The project collected descriptive data on 31 elementary, middle and secondaryschools, as well as statistical information from district officials. Teachers, schooladministrators, central office personnel, district officials, board members andunion officials were interviewed. Altogether, more than 400 interviewswereanalyzed.

The observations, interviews and analyses confirm that, in most of these 31schools, the working conditions of teachers are bleak and would not be toleratedin other professions. The major findings:

Physical conditions are sub-standard, even in newer buildings, primarilybecause of a serious lack of repairs and preventive maintenance. Teachersneed more space; some do not have their own classrooms. Yct, if otherworking conditions are good, teachers will tolerate poor physical condi .ons.

Safety is not a serious problem to teachers, except in those schools locatedin very depressed neighborhoods.

Urban teachers do not have even the basic resources needed, let aloneaccess to new technologies.

Urban teachers first want more personnel to deal with the personalproblems of students, rather than teachers to decrease class sizes.

Teachers generally understand the cultural gulf between them and theirstudents but arc unable to deal with what they consider aberrant studentbehavior because of their own orientations, skills or the lack of support onstudent discipline.

Behind their closed doors, urban teachers exercise a great deal of authorityover how they teach but perceive they are losing control over what theyteach, primarily because of districtwide testing policies.

Urban teachers have little confidence in supervision, staff development, orcentral office leadership but appreciate the effectiveness of principals indealing with "downtown."

10 xi

Despite these serious problems, working conditions and teacher effectivenesscan be enhanced with measures short of the massive restructuring that often isproposed to turn around the schools. While dramatic changes may be thelong-range goal, there arc intermediate ones that would greatly improve theenvironment for urban teachers.

Good working conditions for teachers in the "best" schools include anadequately niaint..c4 physical plant, staff collegiality, participation in decision-making and sem:Rive bit strong administrative leadership. Where these arepresent, teachers ire entousiastic, cooperative, willing to take responsibility andhave high morale.

Ironically, almost al! cf these conditions are not only out of the hands ofteachers, but depend more on districtlevel decisions than any in the building.

On the down side, all of the schools rated poorly by teachers were marked bya lack of resources, low staff collegiality, poor professional development, littleteacher influence over school decisions, few rewards and poor leadership. Thereis no question that the performance of teachers is negatively affected in theseschools. There is higher absenteeism, reduced levils of effort, less effectivenessin the classroom, low morale and reduced job satisfaction.

11

FINDINGS

Urban teachers in the schools studied by tEL labor under conditions thatwould not be tolerated in other pre fessional settings. This is true of teaching ingeneral, but the compounding of problems in urban schools creates extremel-,difficult and demoralizing environments for those who have chosen to teach.1 etefforts to ameliorate the conditions arc within the capacity of urban schoolleadership today, as intermediary steps toward restnicturing of the schools.

The physical condition of many buildings is substandard, due primarily to lackof repairs and preventive maintenance, problems created by "downtown" andnot under _he control of teachers. However, teachers appear to tolerate poorphysical conditions, if other aspects of their working conditions are adequate orbetter.

lack of space, even in newer school buildings, pre% ems some teachers fromhaving their own classrooms and most teachers from having sufficient storageand activity space for their students. Few teachers have adequate workspace toprepare for classes or meet with students

Teachers are (maims but not overly concerned :thout school safety, except invery depressed neighborhoods where "outsiders" threaten security within thebuilding.

Urban teachers often do not have even the basic resources needed forteaching. There are serious shortages of everything from r tt paper to text-books, teachers have limited access to modern office tc..nnologies, includingcopiers, let alone computers.

Even though class sizes arc comparatively large, 25.30 students on theaverage, teachers mint more personnel to help students with social and personalproblems rather than additional teachers.

While large class sizes and hours spent outside of class (at least 8 hours aweek) are not unusual for the teaching profession, they become more negatucfor urban teachers because of a lack of resources to get the job done. It isdifficult, for example, to teach a large class with textbook.s missing, Supplementalmaterials limited, and student counseling services unavailable in the school.

Both teachers and principaLs want to spend less time on paperwork .ind moreon professional growth and improvenr.ent of instruction.

Urban teachers struggle to deal with the cultures and problems of theirstudents, with li.aited succms. Where working conditions are better, the negatuceffects of student behavior are reduced. Teachers want more positive relationswith their students, but district policies, lack of support on discipline problemsand a widening gulf between the social backgrounds and values of teachers andurban students create enormous difficulties.

12-

O Teachers want parents to provide more support for their children and for themission of the schools, but they also understand the social and economic factorsaffecting their students' families.

Relationships between teachers and students were better in elementaryschools, in schools with strong administrative leadership (presumably because ofhelp on discipline and attendance problems), in schools where teachersexercised higher influence over classroom decisions and school policies, inschools with adequate resources and in schools with higher levels of staffcollegiality.

Urban teachers exercise a great deal of discretion over how they teach butperceive they gradually are losing control over what they teach to districtcurriculum policies and testing programs.

Standardized testing is viewed, both by teachers and administrators in urbanschools, as a threat to professional authority.

Other forms of monitoring the implementation of the curriculum, such asobservations, are considered weak by teachers.

Schools with teams or councils provide teachers with an important assetcontrol and influence over important decisions. These could be straightforward,intermediate steps toward restructuring of schools. But structures do notguarantee results. District and school building administrators must advocate andsupport teacher involvement, if it is to genuinely improve working conditions forurban teachers.

* Teacher involvement and collegiality are strongly influenced by the leadershipof the principal, the size of the school and the time provided for involvement.

Urban teachers do not trust the structure of supervision nor the capabilities ofadministrators to provide helpful supervision. Likewise, most administratorsbelieve supervision strategies are inadequate. These findings hold true even inthose districts that have moved to improve the process.

Urban teachers view staff development activities as weak. Most arc geared toelementary or new teachers and are hampered by lack of time and resources.Where teachers help plar. 41.4 implement staff development and the activities areconducted at the school site, inservice training is accepted more positively.

Urban teachers arc not rewarded extrinsically for the difficult work they do.Outside of a paycheck, teachers receive little recognition for, or appreciation of,their efforts.

The effectiveness of principals, in the eyes of urban teachers, diminishes asschools get bigger.

The characteristics of good leadership by principals include human relationsskills, technical competence, and instructional strengths. Ineffective principalsare inaccessible, disorganized, inconsistent at enforcing rules for staff andstudents, and often dictatorial,

13

While effective instructional leadership in principals is important to urbanteachers, equally important is their ability to acquire resources for their schools,maintain the physical plants and buffer teachers from th. bureaucracy.

Most of the problems that diminish the quality of the working conditions ofurban teachers require district-level action, such as workload and inadequateschool resources. Further, teachers do not have much confidence in districtleadership.

While most districts have improvement efforts underway, they have not beenwellcommunicated to teachers and convey a lack of stable direction.

Where the problems with working conditions are serious enough to impingeon the work of teachers, they result in higher absenteeism, reduced levels ofeffort, lowered effectiveness in the classroom, low morale and reduced jobsatisfaction.

Where working conditions are good, they result in enthusiasm, high morale,cooperation and acceptance of responsibility.

Working conditions characteristic of the "best" schools are adequatelymaintained physical plant, staff collegiality, participation in decisionmaking andsensitive, but strong, administrative leadership. These characteristics are morefrequently found in elementary schools in the IEL sample.

The working conditions in the "worst" schools are characterized by lack ofresources. low staff collegiality, poor professional development, low teacherinfluence over school decisions, low rewards and poor leadership.

14

HoW do working, conditionsaffect teachers' abilities todo their jobs?

The issue ... is not whetherindividuals are motivated or

basically competent to perform

their jobs, but whether they can

perform well given theirconditions of work and the

resources they have available. "Conditions and Resources of TeachingNational Education Association, 1988, p. 9.

15

1 THE CONTEXT: REFORMERS ANDREALITIES

Elor urban teachers, "quality of worklife" is not anrabstract concept. It affects their ability to do whatthey most want to doteach children and youth how tosucceed. It shapes their attitudes about students and theirown profession. It figures prominently in their commit-ment to teaching. .,

Beginning in the Spring of 1987, the Institute for Edu-cational Leadership examined working conditions in 31schools in five urban school systems. The study teamconducted more than 400 interviews with teachers,administrative and central office staff, school board mem-bers and union personnel. The purpose was two-fold: toprovide a rich description of conditions facing urbanteachers and to gain insight into how variations in condi-tions affect teachers.

The Reform Movement and WorkingConditions

The decision to conduct the study came as educationalreform in this country shifted from raising academic stan-dards and tightening up accountability to improving thequality of teaching. In the past, public school teachersoften were criticized collectively by the public and themedia as less than competent, lacking in commitment, orresponsii-le somehow for the inadequate achievement ofAmerican students. Today, good teachers are consideredessential and endangered. Recognition of the need torecruit and keep good teachers has led policymakers tofocus on professional standards, incentives, and work-place reforms.

These changes, aimed at altering the conditions underwhich teachers labor, must be based on realistic descrip-tions of their worklives. They should be responsive aswell to the needs of teachers as professionals in a work-ing environment and they must contribute to studentdevelopment and academic success.

16

ligniallEgliMMIIIK:11331111131131

. . . changes, aimed aialtering the conditionsunder which teacherslabor, must be based onrealistic descriptions oftheir worklives.

1

WORKING LN URBAN SCHOOLS

MESISHEMISEIER1112111EMIEUMI

. . . greaterparticipation indecisionmaking andrestructuring of schoolsto alter teacher roles,are distant from theday-to-day lives of mosturban teachers.

2

The School as a Workplace

The workplace reform and effective schools researchcontain similar propositions about the desired environ-ment. for professional work. Typically, these include:

Decent and safe physical conditionsAccess to the materials and equipment neededReasonable workloads and time for professionalresponsibilitiesSufficient autonomy to meet student needsActive participation in decisions affecting their workRegular opportunities for interaction and sharingwith colleaguesTreatment as professionals by superiors and by peersOpportunities for professional growthMeaningful recognition/rewards for their efforts andachievementsSupportive leadership

These ten dimensions of workplaces significantly affectthe behavior and attitudes of workers and are essential toattaining and maintaining high levels of performance.Taken together, they provide a model of a professionalenvironment. To some, they constitute the agenda for thereform of the school as a workplace.

The Call for Reform

Unfortunately, there is evidence that the proposed dra-matic changes in the teaching profession, includinggreater participation in decisionmaking and restructuringof schools to alter teacher roles, are distant from the day-to-day lives of most urban teachers.

National and state surveys of teachers' views onschools as workplaces and on proposed reforms providean unsettling picture of schools. Teachers express greatdissatisfaction with communications with principals, sel-dom work with or are observed by colleagues, and haveonly limited opportunities to be involved in decisionmak-ing. Just as significant, teachers report frequent problemswith obtaining adequate supplies and materials for teach-ing, inadequate space, and lack of equipment

The reform efforts of the early 1980s did little to buildteachers' trust that reform efforts are in their best inter-est. The 19q wort of the National Commission onExcellence ih Raucation and subsequent reform reports

expressed their concern that "not enough academicallyable students are being attracted to teaching." Theseearly reports called for higher entry standards, higher sal-aries, better working conditions, and new opportunitiesfor advancement for teachers. State responses varied; typ-ically they raised salaries for beginning teachers, raisedthe standards for entry into the profession and improvedteacher education. There were isolated, although wellpublicized efforts, to introduce new incentive structures,such as merit pay and master teacher programs, but, byand large, workplace issues were neglected.

As a result of the mounting evidence that talentedteachers were leaving the profession because of poorworking conditions and inadequate salaries, policymakershave turned their attention to the improvement of teach-ing environment& "Restructuring schools" and "profes-sionalizing teaching" have replaced "raising standards" asthe themes of the reform movement.

In 1986, the Carnegie Forum" on Education and theEconomy issued a dramatic call for the creation of "aprofession of well-educated teachers prepared to assumenew powers and responsibilities to redesign schools forthe future." The report recommended restructuringschools to provide more professional environments forteaching. This would free teachers to collectively deter-mine how best to meet the needs of their students andfulfill state and local goals, while holding them account-able for student progress. Not long after, the NationalGovernors' Association issued Time for Results, echoingthese recommendations, citing better work environ-ments, higher salaries, more policy influence, and careerladders as needed reforms in teaching. Both reportsargued that better working conditions would attract andhold better people and that teachers would be moreeffective if their conditions of work were changed.

The recommendations in these reports and the prom-ising experiments they have stimulated respond to thedesires of teachers for greater professionalism. However,they also depend upon a restructuring of the publicschools that is likely to take time. The proposed changesalso are likely to be costly, e.g., smaller classes, more. dis-cretionary time, and higher salaries; it is hard for teachersto believe that such reforms will come to pass in theimmediate future.

CONTEXT

esizminameammammlaml

... it is hardforteachers to believe thatsuch reforms will cometo pass in theimmediate future.

18 3


IMINE11211111115121112EISERMENI

. a revolution hasbeen underway inmanagement-laborrelations outside ofeducation, based on thepremise that anenterprise functionsbest flail stakeholdersparticipate in decisionsaffecting their work.

4

In the plans to empower teachers and alter profes-sional standards, the everyday problems that frustrateteachersshortages of materials, inadequate facilities, theabundance of paperwork, disrespectful studentsget lit-tle comment. This report focuses on the realities of urbanteaching that need immediate relief and that can beaddressed as initial efforts within broader reform plans.

Teacher Unions and Reform

Teacher unions also have been concerned with workreform in schools. Historically, they sought improvedworking conditions through collective bargaining withlimited success. Their efforts have often been obstructedby limitations on the scope of bargaining. The distinctionbetween policy, a prerogative of management, and work-ing conditions has proved to be difficult to make in edu-cation and has hampered efforts to solve workplace prob-lems through collective bargaining.

Furthermore, teachers' unions followed the model ofindustrial unionism and, as a consequence, tended toemphasize those improvements that would materiallybenefit all members and also strengthen the role of theunion. They opposed reforms that would differentiateamong teachers or blur distinctions between employeesand management.

However, the industrial union model of collective bar-gaining hasn't meshed well with professional needs andaspiratior ; of teachers. Adversarial bargaining led to thecentralization of authority and policymaking and effortsby administrators to limit the discretion and autonomy ofteachers. Concern over work rules competed withprofessional norms governing teacher behavior. Therehas been tension between teacher authority based onprofessional norms and standards of quality and the workrules defined by employers and by bargaining agree-ments.

Meanwhile, a revolution has been underway in man-agement-labor relations outside of education, based onthe premise that an enterprise functions best if all stake-holders participate in decisions affecting their work TheCarnegie Forum called for similar changes in educationto empower teachers. The "school team" model of stafforganization and career ladder described in the Carnegiereport are manifestly different from the industrial labor-

19

management model, and many feel that such reformsrequire new approaches to collective bargaining.

Experiments in collaboration have appeared in largeschool districts such as Miami-Dade, Cincinnati, Colum-bus, Toledo, and Rochester and in smaller ones such asHammond, Indiana and Sunnyside, Arizona. These experi-ments, while varying in their scope and in their specifics,are changing the roles and responsibilities of teachersand the way that decisions are made. And their visibilityis changing the character of national debates about thereform of the professional environment. The initiative hasshifted from state capitols to local policymakers andunion leaders.

There is still debate and ferment among union leadersabout the meaning and durability of these reforms. Manysee them as the flagships leading the way into a new eraof collective bargaining; others remain skeptical and areconcerned about the impact on their members.

Furthermore, there also are reasons to doubt the pub-lic will be willing to bear the costs of all proposedchanges. Some of the more expensive proposals mayprove difficult to sustain or extend. Many union leadersstill feel teachers are more concerned with "bread andbutter" issues and may see reforms as mere distractions iftheir basic needs for better salaries and working condi-tions are not met. And not all teachers want the newroles and responsibilities.

Nevertheless, teacher organizations are working withmanagement to restructure schools, seeking ways tomake them better and more effective workplaces. Theyare searching for ways to advance the profession, butalways with the caveat that the strategies cannot under-mine the bargaining process itself.

Urban Schools and the Conditions of Teaching

The need to make schools more effective while beingsensitive to bargaining implications is quite clear in urbanschools. In almost every instance where evidence is avail-able, urban teachers have been found to work under con-ditions dramatically worse than teachers in general,caused in many instances by continuing fiscal crises. Ifanything, the financial base of urban schools has wors-ened during this period of reform. From 1981 to 1986,federal revenues to the 44 largest school districts

20

CONTEXT

MINERESEIMIIIIEIVIIIMSERIII

. . . urban teachers havebeen found to workunder conditionsdramatically worsethan teachers ingeneral, caused inmany instances bycontinuingfiscal crises.

5


Large urban schools . . .

are less able to attractqualified teachers thansurrounding suburbanschools . . .

6

dropped by 20 percent. This change in support came atthe same time as local tax bases and aid to cities in socialservices, transportation and revenue sharing weredecreasing. Schools could not expect replacement reve-nues from local sources. Exacerbating this local resourceproblem were continuing inequities in state funding oflocal districts.

These districts, because of their fiscal problems, aremore likely to have aging school buildings and less likelyto be well equipped for new technologies. They havemore difficulty maintaining their schools. Class sizes arelikely to be larger and textbooks older.

Students in urban schools are poorer and more are "atrisk." Fewer middle-income families remain in the city.More children come from single-parent families and livein neighborhoods where unemployment is high, andhope is not. And the achievement gap between inner-citystudents and more advantaged students remainF high,despite recent gains by black and Hispanic youngsters.Further, the number of low-achieving youngsters andthose in need of special services appears to be increasing.

New demands for services, higher expectations forurban schools and a new philosophy of "doing more withless" have put urban school districts in a difficult placefor implementing educational reforms and raising studentachievement. Most have major initiatives underway:encouraging effective teaching; strengthening curriculumand management; designing alternate delivery systems forstudents needing and wanting specialized attention(including magnets, special academic or vocational pro-grams); expanding early childhood programs; expandingsocial support programs to keep students from droppingout; and building partnerships with business. These pro-grams are helping urban districts improve their effective-ness, but they place greater burdens on an inadequatefiscal base and often are implemented at the expense ofother equally valuable programs.

Large urban schools also face a staffing problem thatcould undermine their efforts to improve. They are lessable to attract qualified teachers than surrounding subur-ban schools, and their ratio of teaching vacancies wasthree times as high as other districts in 1983. With theaging of their teaching force and shortage of resources,the recruitment problem puts a premium on retaining

21

effective teachers and providing them the support andassistance they need. Like other districts, large urbanschools find it difficult to recruit adequate numbers ofminority teachers. Since 71 percent of all black studentsand 50 percent of all Hispanic students attend urbanschools, the lack of minority teachers makes it difficult tobridge the cultural differences.

Recruiting better teachers is not an easily solved prob-lem. Urban districts suffer from problems devastating toteacher morale: bureaucracies which stipulate teachingcontent and timing in order to build student achieve.ment, student discipline problems, a greater share of stu-dents with whom it is hard to achieve results, and poorphysical working conditions.

According to the Council of the Great City Schoolsreport, only 39 percent of city teachers feel respected bysoci?.ty compared to 47 percent of all teachers. A full 47percent feel that parental and community support for theschool in which they teach is only fair or poor. A recentsurvey of teachers by the Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching found that urban teachers facemore problems in their daily work, have less authorityand get less administrative support than other teachers.

Working in Urban Schools was undertaken to developbetter data on the conditions of teaching in urbanareas.We were interested in examining the dynamics of theworkplace and the conditions faced by teachers and tneirinfluence on teacher behavior and productivity. The sur-veys done in the past have little comparative data onurban schools and tell us little about how conditions inschools vary or why. Survey data do not reveal howteachers are affected by these conditions.

We have stayed close to the description of the schoolsas reported by the school staff and as observed by theresearchers. We examine the impact of these conditions,using both the teachers' descriptions and other districtdata. We have represented data graphically so that read-ers can get a sense of what the typical situation is inthese 31 schools, with variations where they exist.

The first chapter describes the physical shape of thebuildings, including the condition of the buildings, space,maintenance and security. The second examinesresources available and teacher workload. A third chapterdescribes the impact of student behavior. The fourth and

64,

CONTEXT

AWorking in UrbanSchools was undertakento develop better dataon the conditions ofteaching in urbanareas.

22 7


fifth chapters examine teacher influence, first in the class-room and then in other school decisionmaking. The sixthchapter, as well, examines teacher involvement withpeers. Supervision, professional development andrewards, all topics talked about as ways of investing inhuman resources, are examined in the sixth chapter.Finally, we look at the impact of district policies and theoverall effects of working conditions.

This is a study of a sample of urban schools. Our find-ings do not represent any one particular urban school ordistrict; they are drawn from a varied group of schools inurban districts. They provide useful insights into theprospects of changing the quality of worklife for urbanteachers.

23

8

24

What is the overall physical

condition of the school?

//Teachers feel powerless to

change the physical

conditions. ff.

J2 THE PHYSICAL CONDITIONS:RED TAPE AND BEGGING

What is it that impresses you as you enter a school?Is the building an inviting, pleasant placewith

life and interest, a home away from home, an environ-ment which stimulates excitement and encouragesexpression? Few would put the school building toponthe list of essential ingredients for a quality education.But again, can we delight in learning when the surround-ings are drab and desolate? Aren't school buildings thephysical expression of how a community cares for itsyoung?

Recent reports and news stories are rife with descrip-tions of older school buildings in a "critical state of disre-pair," maintenance deferred in order to shift funds to newprograms. A 1987 report of the Council of the Great CitySchools shows that 70 percent of the largest city schoolsare older than 25 years. Although older buildings oftenrequire more maintenance, only 3.5 percent of theannual budget is spent on maintenance in these 44 largedistricts, down from 6 percent four years ago. It is asteadily decreasing proportion of the school budget.

In 1983, the backlog of school repair and renovationprojects was estimated at $25 billion across the country,according to a study by the Council and two othernational organizations. These projects included majoritems such as plumbing, heating and cooling systems,electrical wiring, roofing, and asbestos removal. Thisdeferral of maintenance projects has continued. Accord-ing to the Council's 1987 report, 85 percent of the main-tenance funds are currently spent for "breakdown oremergency maintenance," not routine or annual work. Inone large urban district, for example, "the current main-tenance budget is enough to paint classrooms every 100years and to replace floor coverings once every 50years." (Education Week, 1987)

Despite these commonly held views and reinforcingstatistics, the findings from our 31 schools (Table 2:1)show that overall, when considering physical conditions,

.A..1. 2611

WORKING IN URBAN SCHOOLf

JEMmEinimmillinesiTABLE 2:1

OVERALL CONDITION OF BUILDINGS BY LEVEL OF E fiCPOIS(N=3.)

School Level Good

Assessment of Condition of BuildingAdequate Adequateto Good Adequate to Poor Poor

Elementary 1 3 4 3 0

(N= I 1 )Middle 4 3 0 2

(N= 10)Secondary 0 4 2 3

(N= 10)Total 3 7 11

12

space, maintenance and safety, teachers consider mostbuildings to be adequate. While physical conditions canvary significantly from building to building even within adistrict, only three schools were considered by teachersto be in "good" condition. Ten schools were reported asless than adequate. These judgments tend to be conserva-tive. Teachers appeared to accept as normal, and there-fore adequate, conditions that were at best bleak anddreary.

Teachers told us that,physical conditions have directpositive and negative effects on teacher morale, sense ofpersonal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom,and on the general learning environment. Building reno-vations in one district led to "a renewed sense of hope, ofcommitment, a belief that the district cared about whatwent on in that building," according to teachers. In dilap-idated buildings in another district, the atmosphere waspunctuated more by despair and frustration, with teach-ers reporting that leaking roofs, burned out lights, andbroken toilets were the typical backdrop for teaching andlearning.

Furthermore, there was little disagreement amongadministrators, teachers, and building representatives inall the schools as to the physical conditions of theschools and the nature of the problems encountered.Problems, when present, seemed fairly obvious to every-one. The grade level of the schools had no particularbearing on overall physical conditions.

The location of the school, however, was significant. Inthe three districts where inadequate facilities were

27

PIWSICAL CONDMONS

reported, each of the buildings was located in a low-income, inner-city neighborhood or downtown setting.These impoverished locations a xperienced problems ofoutsiders entering the building, vandalism, and unsafeparking lots. These schools were the only ones wheresafety was said to be an issue. Some newer buildingswere identified as inadequate; age of a building was lessof a factor than a history of disrepair and neglect.

The responses to questions about how the buildingwas to work inproblems with the condition of thefacility, adequacy of space, quality of maintenance, andbuilding safetyare shown in Table 2:2 according tolevel of school.

iNamsummimminiminaiTABLE 2:2

PROBLEMS WITH BUILDINGS BY LEVEL OF SCHOOL(N=31)

School Level Physical ConditionProblem Areas

Space Maintenance SafetyElementary

(N=11)Middle

(N=10)Secondary

(N= 10)

5

3

7

5

5

6

7

5

8

3

2

3

Total 15 16 20 8

Physical Conditions: Don't Renovate and CutMaintenance

According to administrators in a district with both ade-quate and inadequate buildings, a major fiscal crisisshelved a capital investment plan that would have refur-bished structures or built desperately needed newschools. Many buildings were over 50 years old. Thebuilding plan had to be curtailed and the maintenancebudget drastically cut. The area of the city with the old-est, most dilapidated buildings is predominantly blackand Hispanic. This area also has the fastest populationgrowth in the city. In response to pleas, the district reem-barked on a five -year capital investment plan, targetingmany of the schools in this section of the city. However,according to district administrators and teachers alike,the cutbacks have had a lasting impact on working condi-tions and educational quality.

.28 13


101111.1111111111111"and the only wayprincipals can getmaintenance done isthrough aggressivecomplaining."

In another district, physical conditions overall werefair to poor. For many years there was no regular or pre-ventive maintenance, just major repairs when somethingfell apart. Eight years ago renovations covered majorrepairs, such as roof replacement, window replacement,and internal work in many buildings, but other buildingswere left in bad condition. And now the district has lost

the ability to generate monies for capital improvements.The maintenance program is bogged down in "too muchred tape" complained many respondents, "and the onlyway principals can get maintenance done is throughaggressive complaining." According to district officials,the money for repairs is sufficient, but getting repairsdone is up to the principals.

These voices reflect a common chord. In all schools,respondents said that principal leadership is vital to keep-ing up with the maintenance and repair in buildings. Suc-cess depends on whether the principal places a highpriority on repairs and cleanliness. A real difference in abuilding can depend on whether the principal has a rolein hiring or selecting custodial staff. A union representa-tive claimed that "the head custodian is one of the mostsignificant persons in the life of a school."

Space

Even if the school is new, wellbuilt and maintained,professionals still need working space of their own. Yet,16 of 31 schools reported space problems, centeredaround the lack of classroomsthe effects of over-enroll-ment, reduced class size, and special education and reme-dial programs. Other common space problems describedwere the number of students compared to the size of the

14 29

room, the lack or quality of office space or teacherlounges, meeting space and common areas, and the lackof storage space. Table 2:3 identifies these space needs.

Teachers don't talk about just needing classrooms.Their comments are in terms of specific teachingspaceneeds. For example, especially at the elementary andmiddle school levels, teachers report needing rooms forspecial activities, meeting with parents, and remedial pro-grams. And they report that the teacher/student ratio isjudged by the district-wide average, not by the size of theroom. In other words, space is not matched to needs.

In ten of these sixteen schools, there are teachers whodo not have their own classrooms and "float" from roomto room. Floating often is coupled with no teacher officespace, workrooms or any storage space. Teachers saythey are reduced to wheeling their materials around oncarts from room to room.

"I Would Give Anything for a Classroom of MyOwn"

None of the four schools assessed as good in terms ofconditions was said to have space problems. The majorproblem cited among schools with space problems wasthe lack of classrooms. "I would do anythingfor a class-room of my own," said one teacher, "I now have scienceclasses plus labs in four different rooms." The only dis-trict where classroom space was not a problem in any ofthe schools studied was experiencing districtwideunder - enrollment.

According to teachers in one district, accommodatingspecial education classes has reduced classroom space.The role of special education in the districtwasexpanded, but no arrangement was made to supply thespace needed for classes of smaller size. This led to aspace squeeze, creating large class sizes in many build-ings, even at the elementary level. In some schools, stor-age space has been eliminated to provide needed expan-sion for other uses. As one elementary teacher indicated,"closets are being used for classrooms. The ditto machineis in a women's restroom." Another added, "the specialeducation cadre is off in an unsafe closet with no ventila-tion, no windows, and exposed heating pipes."

30

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

TABLE 2:3

Space Needs AsCited By TeachersPercentage of Total

Responses(N = 197)

More Classrooms* 20%Storage Space 18Larger Classrooms 16Teacher Workspace/ 13

OfficesFaculty Lounge 12Meeting Space 5More Space 4Restrooms 2Cafeteria/Auditorium 1

Departmental Offices 1

library 1

Phone Facilities 1

Other 6In 10 of 31 schools, someteachers had to shareclassroom space.

"The ditto machine is ina women's restroom."

15


limiiiiiiiINEENMERIEBBEINSI

". . . school custodianscan't screw a bolt in thedoor unless they callcentral administration."

"I Teach in a Storage Room"

In a second district, teachers reported similar prob-lems. "I have classes in a small lounge," said one. "It'swindowless. It's claustrophobic. People come in to usethe restrooms and disrupt classes." The feeling among theteachers was that there were simply too many studentsand not enough of anything else. Teachers sharing class-rooms contended the arrangement kept them disorga-nized and unfocused throughout the day. Shifting fromroom to room increases the need for places to storebooks and materials, but these also are lacking "I teach ina storage room," explained one teacher. "I've asked foryears for a place to store textbooks." The teachers'lounge was so small that teachers ate outside the schoolor in their classrooms. "That is a lost opportunity forinformal teacher interaction and collegiality," observed aschool principal.

Even in schools where there were enough classroomsbecause of under-enrollment, there were problemsbecause space was underutilized. Classrooms sat empty,rather than being assigned to teachers as office, work-room, or lounge space. Respondents felt that this dis-played an insensitivity to teachers' daily needs. Teachersworked in isolation in their classrooms. Interaction withother teachers was effectively cut off.

MaintenanceRespondents reported some type of maintenance prob-

lems in 20 of the 31 schools. Major maintenance issuesidentified weft:

Daily cleanlinessInadequate custodial staffsNeglect of needed repairsThe lengthy process of repair work

The major complaint was about unnecessarily compli-cated repair requisition orders that had to be processedthrough the central district office where response wasvery slow. On the other hand, aggressive principal leader-ship was often found to counter problems of "red-tape" atthe building level. Said one respondent, "Custodians arerestricted by union work rules and regulations. For exam-ple, school custodians can't screw a bolt in the door

16 31

unless they call central administration. It's a lengthy andbureaucratic process. As a result, we never get anythingrepaired." Minor problems neglected because of "red-tape" eventually turned into major problems, symptom-atic of overall building decline. Generally, there was theperception that maintenance personnel have beenreduced over the years, and their job descriptionsincreasingly specialized.

"It Took Hours of Begging to Get it Fixed"

"I had a broken clock in my classroom for five months.It took hours of begging, pleading, and writing invoicesto get it fixed_ That was time and energy that could havebeen used for instruction."

Other respondents felt slow repair times showed thatthe district didn't care about their building. "The centraloffice wants to abandon this building and doesn't want toput money into it," said one principal. "We have constantbreakdowns of the electrical, plumbing, heating systems.Bells do not work properly. It takes forever to get any-thing repaired. This building used to be immaculate, nowit's so filthy I have to wash my hands every period." As aresult, administrators and staff continually pestered thecustodial staff. This led to "a constant badgering of peoplewhich is negative and counter-productive," said the prin-cipal.

In one school, all those interviewed were in absoluteagreement about the signs of decay. The grounds wereunkept, the building in disrepair, the hallways littered and"dangerous." Windows often were broken and remainedso; hallways were dark from burned-out light bulbs.Respondents claimed there was no maintenance to speakof and not enough custodians or supplft. s to keep thebuilding clean.

Said one teacher union representative, "Teachers feelpowerless to change the physical conditions. The chiefadministrator could play a greater role in decision-making with regard to this." The building's operatingbudget did not begin to cover even daily maintenanceexpenses. The principal was buying toilet paper for theschool from his paycheck District administrators con-firmed that morale in the school was extremely low andthat the building should be condemned.

;,... 322

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

ImErissmormilimmil'This building used tobe immaculate; now it'sso filthy I have to washmy hands every period."

17


"We Make Do With What We Have"

When maintenance problems extended to daily clean-liness, it greatly affected teacher morale. Many schoolshave experienced steady cutbacks in custodial staff andcleaning supply budgets. This was countered in onebuilding where the principal embarked on a crusade tokeep the building clean. The principal's first priority wasto upgrade the custodial staff by paying personal atten-tion to hiring energetic people. In this building, custodi-ans were cleaning in the hall every period The pridethey showed in the building was obvious.

IIIIIIIMEMEME111111111111EBE Building pride extended to the students, as well. Theadults worked to maintain high expectations for students"We have made it a

cooperative di:wt." about the building, and the students responded. "Teach-ers, custodial staff; and principal have reinforced the ideaof keeping a good, clean school," said one respondent."We have made it a cooperative effort."

18

Safety

Although building safety has been reported to be aconcern of teachers, safety and security problems werereported in only 8 of the 31 schools, all of which were ininner-city, low-income neighborhoods or downtown.Safety was a problem in only three of the secondaryschools. Most teachers did not report being fearful aboutgoing to work, although some were cautious about com-

33

ing too soon or staying too late. Some noted the need forbetter lighting and monitoring of parking lots. Otherscomplained that building security needed to be steppedup to keep out non-students.

Teachers in one building finally raised enough moneytogether for new lighting in the parking lot whichseemed to decrease the problems. In another school,teachers pooled funds to pay for a security guard to mon-itor the parking lot.

A problem in some buildings was theft, usually break-ins after school hours. "Everyone has keys," one respon-dent said, "including custodians who have been fired.""You cannot leave valuables in the building," said another."The master keys were stolen, but the locks have notbeen changed."

The biggest problems did not seem to be caused bystudents but by outsiders. Building security was a factorin all the schools reporting safety problems because toomany outsiders had access, especially in buildings locatedin unsafe neighborhoods. Non-students came into thebuilding during school hours to steal equipment and sup-plies. Respondents cited too many unguarded entrancesand not enough security staff to patrol the building "Wehave funding for a security officer four days a week,which is not sufficient," an administrator said. "We needat least two full-time officers in order to monitor halls."One secondary school had 40 entrances and exits to thebuilding, "an impossible situation to monitor."

One teacher summed up the concerns of others: "Idon't feel afraid," she said, "but I've had to develop cop-ing strategies so my teaching job won't turn into a night-mare. The problem will come when my coping strategiesabsorb energy that I could expend on my students."

SUMMARY

In summary, the study determined that the physicalcondition of buildings was:

Not dependent on grade level of schoolNot dependent on age of buildingDependent on the condition of the neighborhoodsurrounding the schoolDependent on the role of district policyDependent on principal leadership

34

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS

ginionisimmilimmEN"I don't feel afraid, butI've had to developcoping strategies so myteaching Job won't turninto a nightmare."

19


Dependent on timely renovation and regular andpreventive maintenance

There were serious facilities problems in about one-third of the schools. The most common problems werepoor maintenance, lack of space, and failure to makemajor repairs. Good buildings were clean, safe, well-maintained, with adequate classrooms and common areasfor teachers and students. Table 2:4 describes the charac-teristics of good and poor buildings.

TABLE 2:4

CHARACTERISTICS OF "GOOD" AND "POOR" BUILDINGS

Facility Space MaintenanceGood Recent major renovations Ample, large classrooms No repair problems

New furnishings Teacher workspace Emphasis on cleanlinessWell maintained building Team offices Sufficient custodial staffEfficient cooling/heating Adequate storage space Adequate cleaning suppliessystem Renovated faculty lounge No delay on repairs

Pride in building

Poor Windows brokenLights burned outLong term decline,neglectPoor designShoddy constructionMajor repair problems

Not enough classrooms, Major repair problemsteachers "float" Shortages of cleaning suppliNo offices or teacher Custodial staff cutbacksworkrooms Lengthy process for repairsNo storage spaceSmall classroomsOvercmwding

SafetyMonitor building closelyAdequate becurity staffSecured parking area

Access of buildinges Inadequate security staff

VandalismUnsafe neighborhood

36

ap.

Are there adequate staff, ,

materials and equipment tomeet the needs of students?

" Many teachers buy theirown supplies because they are

so demoralized by begging and

pleading for materials. irf

.37

3 RESOURCES AND TEACHER WORKLOAD:BUILDING A HOUSE WITH NO NAILS

eachers often spend hours trying to locate thema-terials they need. When basic school resources, such

as textbooks, supplementary materials, audio-visualequipment, and support staff are lacking, teachers' ener-gies are drained away from students into activities akin toforaging. If their efforts fail, teachers purchase materialsthemselves, but often the end result is to limit classroomactivities and undercut expectations for success.

And if their workload is increased, through larger classsizes, additional paperwork, or non-instructional respon-sibilities, energy again is diverted away from the class-room into related but incidental pursuits. Often class-room effectiveness boils down to physical stamina andendurance.

Taken together, teaching resources and workload canmake or break effective teaching. Yet, a 1986 survey ofCalifornia teachers concluded that teachersoperate dailywith insufficient textbooks, materials, and equipment tocarry out their teaching tasks. A second report, under-taken by the American Federation of Teachers, entitledSchools as a Workplace, argued that school systems needto improve resource allocation, standards for equipmentand supplies, and availability of materials in order to alle-viatc stress. Pressures cited were long hours, too muchpaperwork, large classes and no planning time.

These two dimensions of working conditions, then, arevery closely interwoven and interdependent. Lack ofresources increases the teacher's workload. A heavyworkload makes it difficult for the teacher to effectivelyuse even those resources that arc available.

The Common Picture: We Don't Have theResources To Do the Job...."

In 25 of the 31 schools, resourcesmaterials, staff andequipmentwere rated as less than adequate. Nineteenof those schools were reported as definitely "inadequate."

23

WORKING IN URBAN satoots

In only six schools did teachers and administrators findtheir overall resources "adequate" or "adequate to good."None of the schools were perceived as having a "good"resource situation. There were no marked differences ofopinion between teachers and administrators about theadequacy of resources. Most administrators frankly admit-ted chronic and exasperating resource inadequacies.Table 3:1 summarizes the responses of teachers andadministrators to the resource situation in their schools.Table 3:2 goes one step further to show the number andlevel of schools with resource problems of stalling, mate-rials, or equipment.

IIIMENNINIIIMMINIIIMIE11TABLE 3:1

ADEQUACY OF ALL RESOURCES BY LEVEL OF SCHOOL(N=31)

School Level Good

Assessment of Adequacy of ResourcesAdequate Adequateto Good Adequate to Inadequate Inadequate

Elementary 0 I 2 1 7(N = 11)

Middle 0 0 2 3 5

(N = 10)Secondary 0 0 I 2 7

(N = 10)Total 0 1 5 6 19

ItimimminnummisimmalTABLE 3:2

PROBLEMS WITH RESOURCES BY LEVEL OF SCI1001.(N=31)

School Level Staff

Problem AreasMaterials Equipment

Elementary(N = 11)

Middle(N = 10)

Secondary(N = 10)

10

10

7

7

6

7

7

4

4

Total 27 20 15

24

Staffing: "Thesr Kids Need Special Help toMeet Their Needs"

There was virtual unanimity across all the schoolsabout the need for more staff. Of the 31 schools, 27 iden-

39

tilied insufficient staff as a problem area. Repeatedly,teachr and administrators cited the need for counsel.ors, specialists, social workers, security staff, custbdialstaff, and more teachers. But most of the needs cited,surprisingly, were not for more regular classroom teach-crs. More often than not, teachers requested support staff;such as counselors, nurses, social workers, security staff,and aides. The primary need was to have services andpersonnel to deal with students' academic and emotionalproblems and with discipline, especially bccause of thelarge class sizes.

Almost every school lacked support staff, such as socialworkers, counselors, and nurses. Many felt that supportstaff would provide more of an immediate benefit thanadding more teachers. It would take a lot of the pressureoff of us," said one teacher. Teachers linked the need forsupport staff with the complex needs of the student pop,ulation. In many schools, the majority of students neededspecialized attention. Counselors were needed to referfamilies to appropriate agencies that could help them.Many children needed support from other adults thatthey Gidn't have at home. Many students were from low-income, single-parent families, who came to school withmany more additional problems to classroom learning.'We are just able to deal with crisis intervention; there'sno time for prevention and no time for follow through,"said one teacher. Teachers often found themselves caughtup in students' personal problems to the extent that onsome days they played more the role of the social workeror counselor, less the role of instructor.

"Our school counselors don't have time to counsel stu-dents," one teacher said. "They spend 99 percent of theirtime on administrative tasks and responsibilities." Accord.ing to one principal in an elementary school, "We need afull-time social worker and counselor. We are now usingpart-time, retired junior high school counselors. We needa counselor three to five days a week instead of just oneday. We need an assistant principal in the building or aquasi-administrative assistant to help." Many elementaryschools were run by one overworked administrator, andeven teachers pointed out the need for an assistant prin.cipal.

"We need a social worker and a counselor to assistchildren with behavioral problems," said a teacher. "We

. 40111.._

RESOURCES

1111111191111111111111111111

Teachers often foundthemselves caught up instudents' personalproblems to the extentthat on some days theyplayed more the role ofthe social worker orcounselor, less the roleof instructor.

25

WORKING IN URBAN SC1100IS

TABLE 3:3

Staff Needs as Cited byTeachers

Percentage of TotalResponses(N = 412)

CounselorsTeachersTeacher AidesSocial WorkersClerical SupportSubstitutesSecurityMaintenanceNursePsychologistSpecial EducationAdministrativeOther

17%12109886664428

1111111111MMEREINIMINEIRIBIZA

"Special program staffhave to substitute on aregular basis whichlessens the quality ofour programs."

26

need aides because of the large classes." In another build-ing: "We need more counselors; the ratio is 1:400. Weonly have two clerks to handle attendance, schoolfinances, and the c Vice. So we're stretching it."

Counselor ratios at the secondary level were too high(ranging from 3:700 to 1:500, with most being 1:400 to1:450), and few counselors or other support personnelexisted at the elementary level.

The need for more classroom teachers usually wasmentioned in the context of reducing class size. Or in thecase of middle schools, more specialized teachers wereneeded to teach science, music, and physical educationto offer a more balanced and diverse curriculum. Otherstalling needs commonly repeated were for more custo-dians, security guards, and substitutes.

"Three or four years ago, we had a much more exten-sive curriculum for our students," said one administrator."Due to finances, we keep losing faculty. We should beoffering other classes." A teacher echoed the complaint:"We need additional staff for major academic subjectslanguage arts, science, math, social studies. Teachers aretrying to teach across subjects. There is not enough staffto teach classes the way the building is designed. We'reforced to teach closedclass subjects within an open-planbuilding."

In some schools, finding qualified substitutes was amajor problem. As one teacher remarked, "Special pro-gram staff have to substitute on a regular basis whichlessens the quality of our programs." One district permit-ted one full-time substitute for the building and gave dis-cretionary money for substitutes; if none were available,then a class was divided into thirds and teachers paidone-third of the daily substitute salary. Lacking substi-tutes, teachers were asked to cover classes during theirgroup period or to take additional students into alreadycrowded classes.

Said a respondent from another school: "The class sizeis outrageous, totally out of hand. I had to substitute 27times this year for other teachers at $7 per hour. Lots ofteachers show up late." And at another school: "Thisschool needs more substitute teachers. Every school hastwo school-based substitutes but often have five or sixteachers absent."

41

Materials: "Part of Every Paycheck GoesToward Buying Supplies"

With only six schools indicating that resourceswereadequate, teachers and administrators in the otherschools expressed over and over the need for morematerials. They reported shortages of everything fromtextbooks to toilet paper. For example, one teacher com-plained that "classes need desks and blackboards. I finallybought two small blackboards and pounded them intothe wall." This example was echoed by many who saidprincip s and teachers have to make purchases fromtheir own pockets. In one district, respondents reportedthat supplemental materials, dictionaries, reading kits, andscience equipment were not available in five of the sixschools studied. One high school teacher lamented, "Ihave three classes without textbooks. We are not allowedlab workbooks."

In some schools, teachers don't even have the mostbasic materialspaper, pencils, textbooks, reading kits,ditto fluidfor teaching. At the same time, they facelarge class sizes and no resource assistance. Teachersoften must beg or borrow resources from others orspend their own paychecks on supplies.

Some schools ration paper or keep it locked up, whichfurther demoralizes teachers. The process for distributingsupplies is experienced as demeaning and unprofessional."We have to ask the secretary for everythingpaper,pencils, crayons," said one teacher. "Most of the time, Ibuy my own supplies because I don't want to go throughthe secretary. The supply closet is her kingdom and she isvery protective about it." Said a second teacher, "We geta small package of chalk with eight sticks; ditto paper hasto be purchased out-of-pocket or borrowed from friendsat other schools. Workbooks are not even one per stu-dent."

"For the last four years," said another, "I have had tobuy ditto masters and paper from my own pocket. Theamount of supplies is dismal. There is no lab equipmentfor science and persistent shortages every year with text-books." A fourth teacher responded: "There are notenough reacting books for the students. No reading kits,tape recorders, workbooks, or other supplementals. Weeven have shortages of paper." And a fifth teacher com-

l. t, 42

RESOURCES

sisommemeimmom"I finally bought twosmall blackboards andpounded them into thewall."

27


IMENIENIMEEMINEINEINEEMMI

In several of the highschools, AV equipmenthad been stolen and notreplaced.

28

mented: "I just bought a case of ditto paper out of myown salary"

The lack of supplies directly affects teacher attitudes.Typical of the comments: "Many teachers by their ownsuppli because they are so demoralized by begging andpleading for materials." In most schools, there was a"rationing atmosphere" about basic supplies, summed upwell by the teacher who said, "It's like they want us tobuild a house but not use any nails."

Equipment: "We Have to Sneak to Use theXerox Machine"

In 15 of the 31 schools, there was limited availabilityor .access to such equipment as computers, copiers, tele-phones, and AV equipment. Both quantity and quality ofequipment were concerns.

The copy machine was a prized piece of equipment inalmost every school, and it was a major item of conten-tion. Because textbooks were not readily available in allschools and supplemental materials limited, the ability toquickly duplicate materials was prized and consideredessential by many teachers. As one teacher said, "We onlyhave one copier. The lines are long, and teachers wait along time." Or, an elementary principal said, "We onlyhave one copier that 65 people must use. Our budgetdoes not allow us to purchase or even rent one, so oursis broken down a lot. It's frustrating for teachers." Inother schools, teacher use of copy machines was limitedor not allowed because maintenance and paper were toocostly for constant use, which caused resentment amongstaff. From anoher building: "We have to sneak to use theXerox machine. They told us they bought it for theteachers, but now we're not allowed to use it."

Even respondents with fairly ready access to a copymachine complained that it always seemed to be brokenand that there was no money to fix it. Teachers often arcforced to fall back on the hand-cranked mimeo machines."I would love to use the copier instead of a messy dittomachine," one teacher said. "I know it if, a little thing butit would help so much."

In most schools AV equipment was available but verylimited. In several of the high schools, AV equipment hadbeen stolen and not replaced. In other schools, equip-

43

ment stayed in disrepair due to lack of funding. Oneteacher referred to the "hand-me-down" equipment in hisbuilding.

In a different school, a teacher responded: "The equip-ment is accessible but we need more of it, especially atelephone for the teachers. Teachers have requested anadditional telephone, even if it's a pay telephone, butrequests have been turned down." Lack of access to atelephone was decried by teachers in many otherschools, where they often had to share an office phone orgo out of the building to find a pay phone.

Concerning access and availability of computers foruse by teachers, one teacher expressed it best: "Comput-ers? We don't even have typewriters to type our tests."Easy access to computers was an anomaly in most of theschools. If computers were available, they were in com-puter labs or had to be shared by several teachers. Therewere extremes. In one district the only computers werein the library or computer lab, but teachers didn't haveaccess. In a second district, computers were more abut.-dant, and teachers had to share, but could use them. Buteven the availability of computers was a problem. Oneteacher said that computers wi=re in storage because theprincipal couldn't decide who would get them.

Distribution of Resources

In four of the five districts, respondents agreed thatalthough resources were limited, they were distributedfairly within the district. In one district, the distributionof resources was equitable in that it was based on a stu-dent formula. But some schools had a larger base ofresources to begin with than other schools, and the for-mula ignored those inequities.

Some schools have found ways to supplement existingresources. This was done mainly through fundraisers orinvolving parents. Sonic schools are able to take advan-tage of these alternatives, and some are not. "District dis-tribution doesn't take into account that some schoolshave more affluent student populations and are able todo fundraising. There is no parental fundraising in thisschool," said a teacher. "There is equal distribution offunds from the district," said a teacher from a differentbuilding, "but spending is different because some schoolshave a good PTA, parents give money, and there are busi-

c9.4 4

RESOURCES

TABLE 3:4

Typical EquipmentNeeds as Identified by

Teachers(N = 260)

Copiers 28%Telephones 20Computers 16Audio Visual Equipment 13Typewriters 11VCR 4Repair Old Equipment 3Other

"District distributiondoesn't take into.: -count that someschools have moreaffluent studentpopulations and areable to do fundraising."

29

...

they took on subsidized pilot programs. The principal ofanother school observed: "Comprehensive schools aretreated as second-class citizens."

Principal leadership also seemed to be the key tobuilding parental support, developing business partner-ships, and dealing with area superintendents and otherdistrict administrators to get additional resources. Thedistrict administrators agreed that principals play a largerole in whether a school experiences shortages or hasenough supplies for the year.

Workload

Class sizes of 25 students or more were reported byrespondents in 20 of the 31 schools, 19 of which weremarked by shortages of materials, staffinn needs, and lim-ited access to equipment. Moderate clan. sizes, 20-25 stu-dents, were found in 11 schools. None of the schools hadaverage class sizes below 20 students. Within eachschool, individual respondents reported exceptions tothe average class size. The exceptions were either specialeducation classes or small advanced placement classes atthe secondary level.

In general, there was consensus across all 31 schoolsthat contract agreements on class size were adhered to"as closely as possible." When there were deviations, theyusually were affirmed by the teachers. In several schools,however, this apparent good will and trust was compli-cated by other feelings: "When there is some deviationwith the contract, we agree to sign a waiver," said oneteacher. "There's some implicit pressure because youcould be transferred to another place if you don't agreeto pick up an extra class."

Class Size and Out of School Time

"Five full periods a day and 150 students is too much,"one teacher said. "Plus, I teach a full range of Englishcourses. We should reduce the teaching load to threeperiods a day. All teachers should be given a counselingperiod, something to allow one-on-one work with stu-dents. Teachers should not have to teach different levels,not three to four different preparations."

Additionally, the majority of teachers across all schoolsestimated their time outside the classroom on prepara-

4 6

RESOURCES

. principals play alarge role in whether aschool experiencesshortages or hasenough supplies for theyear.

31


TABLE 3:5

TYPICAL WORKLOADFOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

Average Class Size: 25 - 30 StudentsNo. of Preparations: 4 - 5 per daySchool Day: 6 hours, 45 minutesInstructional Hours

Outside of School: 10 - 17 hours per week

Noninstructional Duties: No Reported Duties (23%)Monitor Lunchroom (20% )Bus Duty (12 %)Before School ( 7% )All Other (38%)

TYPICAL WORKLOADFOR MIDDLE SCHOOL TEACHERS

Average Class Size: 25 - 30 StudentsTotal No. of Students: 135 StudentsNo. of Preparations: 2 - 3 per daySchool Day: 6 hours, 45 minutesInstructional Hours

Outside of School: 8 - 10 hours per wcek

Noninstructional Duties: Monitor Halls (23 %)No Reported Duties (20%)Monitor Lunchroom (13%)Bus Duties ( 8% )All Other (36%)

TYPICAL WORKLOADFOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS

Average Class Size: 25. 30 StudentsTotal No. of Students: 125 StudentsNo. of Preparations: 2. 3 per daySchool Day: 7 hoursInstructional Hours

Outside of School: 13 - 21 hours per week

Non instructional Duties: Monitor Halls (32 %)No Reported Duties (17% )Monitor Study Hall (15% )Monitor Lunchroom (15% )All other (21 %)

32

tion, grading papers and paperwork during a typical wcekto total at least eight hours, with many teachers reportingup to 15-20 hours. Teachers in only one school reportedthree to five hours weekly. These hours were in additionto the school day, which varied from 6 hours and 15minutes for elementary teachers in two of the districts to7 hours and 30 minutes for high school teachers.

47

Some individual teachers spent anywhere from 20-35extra hours on their work, per week. One principal pro-vided an explanation for this situation. "There are prob-lems in getting people to take on extra tasks--we have tooverwork the few who are willing," he said. "The youn-ger people will do it. Bait i- has been getting harder tofind people to do it."

However, there was a difference between teacher esti-mates of time spent out of class and those provid-xl byadministrators and department chairs. Teachers almostinvariably rated their amount of out of classroom effort ashigh, over 10 hours weekly. Administrators and depart-ment chairs rated teacher efforts as moderate, six to 10hours.

In 24 of the 31 schools, teachers were assigned dutiesfor which there was no compensation, including hailmonitoring, lunch duty, bus supervision, and study hall.

Only one elementary school claimed no assignedduties. In general, regular elementary classsroom teach-ers did not have an assigned duty, such as lunch or hallsupervision. In some secondary schools, teachers weregiven an "administrative assignment" by contract.Because this responsibility was negotiated by the bargain-ing unit, the assignment did not appear to be a strongpoint of contention. Middle school teachers did not haveassignments because of their team planning periods. Sev-eral secondary teachers indicated their desire to havemore "constructive" dutiesto use their time ind exper-tise to better ends than those of monitoring study halls oroffice phones. Compensation was not an issue becausethe assignments were negotiated into the contract.

In a second district, teachers had non-instructionalduties which were described in the contract and forwhich they received no extra compensation. The typesof duties were typical of other districtsmonitoring busloading, playground, hall, and cafeteria duty. At one mid-dle school, for example, teachers took on administrativeduties such as handling truancies and counseling tardystudents. In one elementary school, teachers wereassigned to clean up the faculty lounge.

Changes in Workload

Respondents in all schools reported a desire to changesome of the teachers' responsibilities. Reducing class size

RESOURCES

111111111111WERIEMINEMEIMI

`There are problems ingetting people to takeon extra taskswe haveto overwork the few whoare willing."

k '48 33


simmilimioNizinfiainal"I would cut teachers'workload in halfregarding the numberof students per day theyteach, butt wouldmonitor much moreclosely what they do."

34

was cited frequently as a needed change, as were timeallocations. Teachers expressed a desire to spend moretime planning and less on paperwork They also wantedmore accountabilityfrom the central office, parents andstudents. There was a strong sense that parents needed tobe more involved and that outreach efforts should beexpanded.

One principal commented: "I would cut teachers'workload in half regarding the number of students perday they teach, but I would monitor much more closelywhat they do. Smaller classes should mean differentteaching methods."

Most administrators, building representatives, anddepartment chairs would like to see teacher responsibili-ties changed. The most frequently expressed desire wasfor streamlining paperwork and reducing non-instruc-tional duties so teachers could have more time with theirstudents.

Summary

Resources were a problem throughout the schools westudied. In 25 of the schools, resources were rated as lessthan adequate and none of the schools was rated good.Schools needed additional staff, basic materials and equip-ment. In most instances, teachers'were concerned aboutadditional counseling and support staff, not additionalteachers. The lack of counselors, social workers, evenadministrative personnel in elementary schools, madedealing with student's problems a difficulty. There wereshortages of all materials and supplies from textbooks totoilet paper. Rationing was in effect in many schools.Copy machines were limited and a bone of contention,and telephones often not available.

These factors created a crippling combination in termsof teacher effectiveness and morale. As one principal said,"Our effectiveness varies from day to day; from total frus-tration to seeing bright spots. All of us in this building arepretty stressed out. We don't have the resources to dothe job satisfactorily. When we have the resources, wecan do it."

In addition to insufficient materials, scarce equipment,and inadequate staff, teachers in these schools were facedwith large classes and unending time demands with no

49

compensation. They prepare for larger classes withoutenough textbooks or easy access to copiers to produceinstructional materials. Because resources are limited,administrators are forced as their only option to ask moreof dedicated teachers. But administrators are put at a dis-tinct disadvantage when neither compensation or timecan be offered, nor additional materials and resourcesprovided to perform professionally.

50

RESOURCES

35

the tharacterittics orbehavior of students affectyour work as a teacher?

You go home tired mostdays. Sometimes you feel like the

gestapoyou have to repeat alot, can't back down, have toestablish authority ... There

seems to be a conflict between

the values of the home and

those of the school. fir

51

4 THE STUDENTS: A CLASH OF CULTURES

he attitudes and behavior of students play a major.1L. role in defining school working conditions and signif-

icantly affect teacher attitudes and work performance.Teachers' sense of confidence, or lack of it, depends ontheir ability to help students learn. In survey after surveyteachers have identified student discipline as their num-ber one concern. Student cooperation and teachers' abili-ties to direct the activity of their students are prerequi-sites to learning. In addition, most of a teacher's day isspent with students; if they are rude, noisy, or difficult tocontrol, the teacher's work is frustrating and exhausting.Conversely, if students are cooperative and pleasant, andespecially if they respond to the work with enthusiasm,teachers fmd their work rewarding and are motivated todo more for their students.

The Data

For the IEL study, then, the effect of student behavioron teachers was an important area to be explored espe-cially since the socio-economic characteristics of the stu-dent bodies in the 31 schools varied. The number of ele-mentary students eligible for free lunch in the schoolsranged from 24 percent to 82 percent, with a median of45 percent. In the middle schools, this indicator variedfrom 19 percent to 90 percent with a median of 59 per-cent. For the high schools, the number ranged from 13percent to 74 percent, with a median of 38 percent.

The proportions of minority students also variedwidely, from 32 percent minority to 100 percent in theelementary schools; 43 percent to 99 percent in the mid-dle schools; and 46 percent to 100 percent in the highschools. The respective medians were 74 percent, 82percent, and 67 percent. In general, this sample of urbanschools served students who were predominantly blackand Hispanic and likely to be poor.

Teachers Perceptions of their Students

For the most part, teachers' responses de- abed thenegative effects their students had on their 'Ivor:. crperi-

52 37


IIM=ElillIMIIIM111111111411111111111111

The dominant issue waspoor student discipline;it was a serious problemto the staffs in 24 of the31 schools and in allfivedistricts.

38

once in the schools. A minority mentioned positiveeffects such as "enjoying the students," "getting satisfac-tion from working with them," or "the students zrehappy to be in school." Most of the positive commentswere from teachers working with elementary students.

Positive relationships with students have a positiveeffect on teachers as these comments indicate:

I find that when I have students who are enthu-siastic, I become enthusiastic too. This is a normalbunch of kids. There are some awfully goo" kids andothers who aren't so good. They can achieve as wellas others.

Many kids in this neighborhood lack motivation,but some blossom and it is rewarding when it hap-pens.

I feel very good about the children I teach. I thor-oughly enjoy my job because I see positive resultsand growth.

Many teachers wanted more positive relations withtheir students but indicated that large class sizes, busingpolicit s that created long distances between home andschool, lack of time for individual work, lack of studentparticipation in extracurricular activities, and coping withsome students who were disciplinary problems wereobstacles to working effectively with students.

Problems with Students

Table 4:1 presents the concerns expressed most fre-quently by teachers about their students. The dominantissue was poor student discipline; it was a serious prob-lem to the staffs in 24 of the 31 schools and in all fivedistricts. Other frequently mentioned concerns werenegative student attitudes toward school, ps.or studentattendance., low student motivation, conflicts betweenschooling and the cultural background of student fami-lies, and lack of parental support. Questions of studentability, academic performance, and mobility were seldomraised by the respondents, although mobility was mentioned as a significant issue in several schools.

Table 4:2 displays the frequency with which commonstudent problems were mentioned by respondents in the

:53

STUDENIS

alisimewmusimerminTABLE 4:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT PROBLEMSBY DISTRICT AND BY LEVEL OF SCHOOL

District ElementaryLevel of SchoolMiddle High Schools

A DisciplineAttendanceMobilityCultural background

DisciplineAttendanceParent supportMotivation

DisciplineAttendanceCultural backgroundParent support

II Parent supportDisciplineAttendanceMotivation

DisciplineAttendanceParent supportMotivation

DisciplineAttendanceMotivationStudent attitudes

C DisciplineParent supportAttendanceCultural background

DisciplineAttendanceParent supportStudent attitudes

DisciplineStudent attinIdesAttendanceMotivation

D Parent supportAttendanceMobilityDiscipline

DisciplineMotivationParent supportStudent attitudes

DisciplineAttendanceMotivationStudent attitudes

E Parent supportDisciplineCultural backgroundAttendance

DisciplineAttendanceMotivationParent support

Student attitudesDisciplineAttendanceMotivation

five districts. Discipline was seen as serious by mostrespondents in all five districts. Perceptions of problemswith attendance, student attitudes, auk., parent supportvaried across the districts. The poorest districts and thoseexperiencing extensive busing seemed to suffer mostfrom these problems. Understanding the dimensions andcauses of these issues lies beyond the scope of this study,but these factors affect the quality of school life andworking conditions for most urban teachers.

iimmilmemiumsmommtTABLE 4:2

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS MENTIONING STUDENT CONCERNSBY DISTRICT

ADistrict

Discipline 72% 71% 92% 62% 77%Attendance 55 37 73 24 53Attitudes 10 7 52 59 41Cultural Background 36 14 35 24 29Parent Support 25 51 60 45 35Motivation 16 27 34 35 29

I, 54 39


Many teachers blamedschool and districtadministrat rs for notsupporting them withstrong disciplinepolicies and consistentenforcement.

Student Discipline

Many teachers and school administrators expressedfrustration and depression about the behavior of theirstudents. Teachers frequently complained about the lackof parental and administrative support to help with prob-lem students. Teachers at all levels, and in most of theschools, were troubled by poor student discipline. Sometypical comments were:

... we are prohibited from handling the chronicoffenders, our hands are tied.

There are too many student rights; they knowthey can do whatever they want and nothing can bedone, except suspend them.

Teachers and administrators also complained about theinstructional time lost because of poor discipline. lack ofrespect for teachers, in the form of verbal abuse fromstudents, was cited by some as a major source of discour-agement for teachers:

The attitudes of the kids, their talking back reallygets teachers down.

Student language, their use ceprofanity, is one ofthe negatives of teaching. You almost bece.neimmune to it.

Improvement of Discipline

Many teachers blamed school and district administra-tors for not supporting them with strong discipline poli-cies and consistent enforcement. They said it wasn'ttotally the students' fault because parents, teachers, andadministrators were not setting appropriate expectations.

Most of the respondents wanted tougher policies andprograms to remove chronic offenders from the class-room. Many mentioned the need for alternatives or forinschool suspension programs for chronic offendersrather than letting them remain in the classroom. Somementioned the need for stronger discipline codes, andmany called for stricter enforcement of policies.

Many also mentioned the need to reduce class size inorder to provide more personal assistance. In large

40 55

classes it is not possible to give much individual attentionto students. Teacners felt discipline problems wererelated to student frustration and failure. They also reiter-ated the need for more counselors and social workers inthe schools to help with difficult students and with familyproblems.

The Two Cultures

The schools and their staffs were trying to overcomethe effects of social and economic problems in theircommunities. Teachers expressed both sympathy andfrustration about the gap that had to be bridged:

...we have a rough bunch of kids. We serve twocommunitiesaround the school, Caucasian, andfrom open enrollment, black kids. There are stillhardcore rednecks in this area who give me fits, stillpeople trying to work these things out.

Lots of kids come from troubled homes; there aremany disruptions in a day. Lots of kids who come toschool angry, ready to see who can scream the loud-est. It's difficult getting them to sit in their seats.

Teachers were troubled by instances in which the lackof parental care and support brought harm to children orcontributed to their failure in school. Many expressedfrustration at their inability to intervene on behalf of thechild.

Some respondents felt many teachers simply didn'tknow how to cope with their new clients:

Some teachers rely on intimidation [with minoritykids]; once it fails, they feel help!ess. I try to getteachers to use more positive methods.... Teacherswho fail with fear tactics feel a loss of power.

The students are typical urban kidsloud,mouthy, noisy. The teachers don't know how to dealwith them or teach them.

The staff find the adjustment to working withthese kids difficult. They [teachers] are used to deal-ing with middle -class kids. These kids have languageproblems.... Parents have a language barrier.

...

56

STUDENTS

41


IBMIIIIIEVIIIENIESMINIESZIEN

The teachers said thatfamilies, their healthand their support foreducation, were thenumber one problem inurban schools.

42

Busing scrambled the kids. Teachers in the lowSES schools responded positively, teachers in thehigh SES schools couldn't handle it.... Some teach-ers lay down and die with low achieving kids.

Improving Student-Teacher Relations

Many teacher comments about disciplinary problemsimplied a serious, and perhaps widening gulf between theculture of the public schools and that of the poor, pre-dominantly minority students served by schools in urbanareas.

Some suggested better training for the teachers. A fewfelt that mcre contact with parents and the children's cul-ture would help teachers understand and be more sensi-tive. One teacher, however, summarized the views ofmany of those interviewed when she said:

You go home tired most days. Sometimes you feellike the Gestapoyou have to repeat a lot, can'tback down, have to establish authority.... Thereseems to be a conflict between the values of thehome and those of the school.

Parents and Poverty

The lack of parent support was described as a seriousproblem in about one-half of the schools, particularly inelementary and middle schools and in those schoolsreceiving large numbers of students from distant neigh-borhoods:

There is not much of parents coming in on theirown. It was kind of hard to see the empty seats atthe -nusic festival last week Students and their par-ents have limited loyalty to the school; sometimesit's just very hard to get here.

The two-year school makes it hard to get todevelop identity and commitment, even hard to getto know the kids and for them to know the staff.Busing makes it worse, parents don't know wherethe school is and can't get here for events. There isno PTA ... even free food doesn't attract people.

. 57

We can't reach the parents easily, and it is hard tocommunicate. The students and parents are not r 5involved in the school or as committed to it.

Teachers repeatedly expressed concern about the lackof parental care, describing how the responsibility for"caring" was being shifted to the schools. Many of thestudents needed affection and supervision at home. Theycame from broken homes, single parents, or had bothparents working and needed to know that somebodycared about them. The teachers said that families, theirhealth and their support for education, were the numberone problem in urban schools. Preoccupied with sur-vival, many families were unable to make education theirpriority, and this created stress for teachers. Childrenoften came with no breakfast and inadequate clothing,and they had no access to medical care:

The children are very young, and they need lotsof social and emotional support. The home situa-tions are not always good. 'Their lives are difficult.

My students' backgrounds are so different frommine. My parents were so supportive, but my stu-dents have difficulty in obtaining S2 fur sewing sup-plies.

Many of the teachers understood that life was not easyfor the families of their students and that it was not easyfor parents to cope with the schools:

The biggest frustration is parents who love theirchildren but who don't know how to help them.

Teachers are not very sensitive to making parentsfeel welcome. It's a predominantly white facultywith a predominantly black student population.

Parents are intimidated by our language and ourbehavior. They are not sure they know what wewant from them.

Improving Relations with Patents

The lack of parental understanding and support wasseen as major obstacle to educational success. Some

r-)t,

STUDENTS

The biggest frustrationis parents who lovetheir children but whodon't know bow to helpthem.

43


44

respondents despaired of finding solutions to these com-plex problems; rather, they pleaded for more publicunderstanding of the difficulty of their jobs. They pointedto the enormous range of needs in their classrooms andthe strain that children's problems placed on them.

Teachers expressed a desire for more administrativesupport in dealing with parents. There was a feeling inseveral districts that central office administrators hadadopted a policy of the "parent is always right," whichwas undermining the authority of teachers. Most felt theycould do a better job for their studems with adequateresources and stronger public and administrative support.Some called for stronger public policies to hold parentsresponsible for caring for and disciplining their children.

Motivation, Attitudes, and Attendance

The consequences of these value clashes and the lackof parental support became low student motivation, neg-ative attitudes, and poor attendance. Motivation wasdescribed as a major problem by about one-third of theteachers and school administrators. Attendance was aproblem in an equal number of schools, generally thesame ones. Typical comments were:

... many [students] believe that because their par-ents aren't making money, they have no chance todo better, no hope.

In general, the kids aren't too bad here, but teach-ers constantly face kids who don't want to be here.

I am affected by (student motivation) in terms ofexhaustion and burn-out. I have to learn to care less.I am constantly trying to get lower track students topass, to make up work missed, to go over materialsagain and again.

In this area, the kids are respectful. They havegood family background and are loving kids ... butthey lose interest in school about grades 5 or 6.

The lack of motivation leads to poor attendance:

I can't teach them if they are not here.

559

Students come to class at their convenience. Late-ness is a serious problem, and most teachers haveaccepted it. Our students could do the work; theyjust don't bother.

Attendance is an overwhelming problemhighvolume. Parents don't give priority to school; theykeep kids home. Usually just a lack of self-discipline,but sometimes watching siblings.

... there is an attitude among the kids that schoolis not a serious activity; there are serious attendanceand truancy problems here."

Improving Student Motivation

In the schools in which many staff described problemswith motivation and attendance, there were shortages ofcounselors, social workers, and other specialists. Teachersalso complained about the lack of strong attendance poli-cies or the failure to enforce them. They felt that bettersupport services, smaller classes, and more follow-upwould result in better attendance and higher levels ofmotivation.

Quite a few administrators and some teachers felt thatlow expectations on the part of teachers contributed tolow student motivation and to the accompanying atten-dance and discipline problems. Students, said one admin-istrator, are led to believe they can pass without doingthe work Standards have eroded, and students get passedalong until they are too far behind to do the work. Asanother principal noted: "Teachers did not choose thestudents, and the students did not choose the teachers. Ifthe staff decides collectively this will be a good school,then the students will do what is demanded by adults."

Anothe: administrator felt the problem was due to agenea dtion gap:

Not all teachers understand th.......itural differ-ences. They don't always give the kids the creditthey deserve and they have low expectations. Peo-ple don't see it in themselves. Some of the youngerteachers see it differently; they have higher expecta-tions and more energy. They have been aroundMore minority kids, went to college with them; theyare more comfortable.

60

STUDENTS

nasernmessionmosormei"If the staff decidescollectively this will be agood school, then thestudents will do what isdemanded .by adults"

45


111111ZIEZEZEMIKIMEMINIIIMI

. . . working conditionsin which teachers feel agreater sense of controlover their environmentsmay lead to morepositive attitudestoward students.

46

Motivation is a problem, and the problem worsens asthe students get older. Teachers had no easy solutions tooffer, but there was agreement that poor student motiva-tion affected teacher motivation.

Variations in Teacher Attitudes

Schools in which positive statements about studentswere most frequently expressed enrolled students withsimilar social and ethnic backgrounds as those schools inwhich more negative statements were expressed. How-ever, positive attitudes were more likely to be expressedin elementary schools and in smaller schools. Also, theywere associated with strong administrative leadership(presumably meaning more support on discipline),higher levels of teacher influence over classroom activi-ties and school policies, adequate resotis..7es, and higherlevels of staff collegiality. The most negative statementsabout students were associated with weak leadership,inadequate resources, large classes, low levels of teacherinfluence, and poor physical conditions.

It is not clear from this analysis whether having betterbehaved vad more highly motivated students led to pe -ceptions of better working conditions or whether betterworking conditions altered teacher perceptions of stu-dents. However, the "best" and "worst" schools, in termsof working conditions, did not differ significantly in termsof the social or ethnic composition of their student bod-ies. This at least suggests that working conditions inwhich teachers feel a greater sense of control over theirenvironments may lead to more positive attitudes towardstudents.

Summary

There were serious problems with students in most ofthe 31 schools. Discipline, attendance, motivation, poorattitudes toward education, and lack of parental supportwere the most frequently mentioned. Teachers saw thesefactors as having serious negative effects on their work-lives and their ability to perform their jobs. They also feltthe problems could be alleviated with better leadership,stronger policies, and adequate resources.

Teacher attitudes toward students varied directly withthe quality of working conditions in their schools. The

61

schools in which teachers expressed the most positiveattitudes toward students generally had better workingconditions and more professional climates. These schoolstended to be among those judged to have the best work-ing conditions overall.

6213

STUDENTS

47

How -Much control doteachers haVe,over what istaught and how to teach?

a Teachers don't have muchcontrol over what is taught, butthere is lots over how it is done."

"The pressure of testing is real

and it-will increase ... you have

to cover what is tested. If

63

5 TEACHER AUTONOMY: "CONTROLTHROUGH BENIGN NEGLECT"

krraditionally, public school teachers have been givenconsiderable autonomy in their classrooms. Boards of

education and school administrators have sought to limitteacher discretion through the development of curricu-lum guidelines, review of lesson plans, informal and for-mal classroom observations, and other monitoringdevices. Nevertheless, administra, ors have not penetratedvery far behind closed classroom doors.

In recent years, school districts have stepped upattempts to control teaching. More rigorous monitoringsystems, including student testing, and specified curricu-iar objectives, materials, sequence of lessons, content tobe covered, and timelines for content coverage areamong current strategies. This is true particularly inurban school districts where concern about low testscores and high dropout rates, especially among minoritystudents, has brought public demands for improvementand greater accountability.

Critics of these new accountability programs arguethat they restrict the ability of teachers to meet individ-ual needs, and, therefore, have negative effects on teachermorale, work effort, and turnover. Proponents contendthat the measures are necessar, to raise teacher expecta-tions for student achiev,,,,ent, ensure that students haveequal op, artunity to master the curriculum, and provideaccountability.

The Data

The five districts studied by lEl. have moved to stan-dardize their curricula, especially at the elementary level,and have taken steps to strengthen monit. ring of curricu-lum implementation. Two districts are implementing sys-tem-wide models of teaching that can be evaluated withcommon, measurable criteria. Teachers in all five districtsreported some loss of control over what they teach, butmost indicated that they still had considerable discretion.Some administrative intrusions into instructional prac-

6449


tices were reported, including the use of curricular morii-toting systems and an emphasis on the use of specificinstructional behaviors through inservice training pro-grams and supervision. In one district, elementary teach-ers felt that the "pacing" system used to monitor the rateof student progress was defining how and when teacherstaught particular subjects.

In spite of such initiatives, however, Table 5:1 revealsthat teachers in 27 of the 31 schools unanimouslyreported they had high discretion over how they taught,and in the remaining four schools teachers reportedmoderate to high influence. Their responses were some-what less unanimous when they were asked about theirinfluence over curriculum content; the data in Table 5:2show that in only one school were teachers unanimousabout having high control over curriculum. Staffs in 22schools reported they have moderate or moderate tohigh influence.

INEEMLIIIIIMMEEMINEEMEN

TABLE 5:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CONTROLOVER INSTRUCTIONAL METHODS

(N=31)

School Level HighModerateto high Moderate

Moderateto Low Low

ElementaryMiddleSecondary

1098

1

1

2

000

000

000

Total 27 4 0 0 0

EIMINEIMMEMINIIIIMETABLE 5;2

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR CONTROLOVER CURRICULUM CONTENT

(N=31)

School Level HighModerateto High Moderate

Moderateto Low Low

ElementaryMiddleSecondary.

01

0

51

6

442

1

32

1

1

0

Total 1 12 10 6 2

50 65

Variation Across the Five Districts

Teacher influence over curriculum and instruction didvary somewhat across the districts. Variations appeared tobe related to the methods of monitoring implementationof the curriculum. Six of the eight schools in whichteachers reported low levels of influence over curricu-lum content were located in a district with a strong mon-itoring procedure. It was the only district in which a"pacing system" had been implemented to monitor theprogress of covering core competencies in each elemen-tary classroom. Lesson plans were also regularlyreviewed. The other districts hao weaker systems, relyingon combinations of review of plan books, observations,and district testing programs to ensure curriculum imple-mentation.

Autonohly and the Level of Schooling

There was some variation in teacher influence by levelof schooling. Consistent with findings from other studies.high school teachers reported slightly more discretionthan other teachers. This came as no surprise, given thesubject matter orientation of high school teachers, theirstrong tradition of academic freedom, and the depart-mentalized strut.ture of high schools. The degree ofteacher autonomy in the high schools appeared to varywith the subject taught. Said one science teacher: "... itlooks as if language arts people arc given very little lee-way; lots of it in science, we can decide what we teach."

The response of the elementary staffs was more sur-prising because the focus on basic skills in urban districtsand stronger accountability measures were expected tohave had negative effects on teachers' discretion overcontent and pacing. And indeed, our elementary respon-dents reported that testing was influci.cing their teaching(this varied across districts) and that curriculum wasbeing more tightly monitored. Yet, they still believedthey exercised considerable control over what was beingtaught.

Somewhat surprisingly, middle school teachersreported less influence over curriculum than teachers atthe other two levels. The reasons for this arc not clear.Perhaps it is the effect of team structures on individualdiscretion (while increasing collective teacher influ-ence), or it may be due to greater use of competency

...;

TFACIIER AUTONOMY

miliMaigazummimmoThe degree of teacherautonomy in the highschools appeared tovary with the subjecttaught.

51


11111111111=MMININIIINIMINESIN

". . it is your room andyour course, as long asyou are withinreasonable guidelines,you are OK."

52

testing at this level. One principal noted: "The teamstructure helps push teacher performance; not all teachers want the team environment because it limits theiroptions." However, the slight loss of discretion appearedto be offset by increased collective influence overinstructional decisions and greater collegial interaction.

Instruction: "I'm pretty free to teach the way Iwant"

Typical responses were:

The staff have almost complete control of howthey teach.

They don't have much control over what istaught, but there is lots over how it is done.

I have absolute control over how I teachthat isthe best thing about being in this school.

There appeared to be no systematic efforts in the fivedistricts to reduce teacher control over their choice oftechniques, although there were voluntary programsoperating in several of the districts. These sought to alterclassroom methods by introducing effective teachingprograms. New supervisory procedures based on Made-line Hunter's work or a similar model of teaching alsowere being introduced in several districts, but they hadnot yet had an impact on teachers' sense of autonomy.

Curriculum: "Constraint but no real outsidecontrol"

Considerable teacher control over curricular contentalso was reported by respondents in 23 of the schools(74% ). They said they had moderate to high discretionin determining the content of their teaching. As oneteacher put it: "There is some constraint by tradition, butno real outside control. No one asks about what youteach or how you teach it." Another said "it is your roomand your course, as long as you arc within reasonableguidelines, you are OK." The work situations of aboutone third of the teachers intervim ed might be docribedas laissez-faire; there were no effective constraints onwhat they did, or didn't do, in their classrooms. However,

67

the majority reported some constraints on their curricu-lar decisions and monitoring of content coverage.

"Treating the text as the curriculum"

Some administrators felt that the constraints were self-imposed. Said 01):::

Teacher., can have control over Mr,. is taught,buy gr.:), allow curricoltun guidelines to dictate tothem what to teach. It is a misconception; guidescould be used more as just resources. Teachers havecontrol over how they teach."

A number of administrators, department heads, andsupervisors agreed that too many teachers were treatingtheir textbooks as the curriculum and not using the discretion they had:

Teaches treat the text as the curriculum, andthen feel that they are being controlled.

Teachers generally reported that they participated intextbook 7tion by serving on selection committees orreviewing books being considered. Typically, districtcommittees were selected by district supervisors. Some-times teachers in all schools were given the opportunityto review the books being considered. However, themajority of respondents were cynical about these proce-dures, indicating that most teachers usually were notconsulted and that when they were, their advice oftenwas ignored. "They arc handed down to us like the tableton the Mount," said one. Some said this resulted in theselection of inappropriate books. The perception thatadministrators do not respect teacher advic, on this sub-ject or on anything else was quite strong.

The Expansion of Testing: "Test scores as theend result"

Testing was influencing the curriculum in all five districts, but the degree varic.l. Three of the five districtsadministered both state and local tests. Three had corn-petcncy tests in various subjects. li-vo set districtwidefinal examinations in academic departments in the highschools. Only one of the five relied exclusively on the

88

TEACHER AUTONOMY

53


"It (the test] is a wastebecause the standardsare too low."

54

administration of a nationally normed test. Testing wasseen by both teachers and administrators as a major influ-ence over curriculum and as a threat to professionalauthority in all five districts. Teachers felt responsible forassuring their students had been exposed to the testedmaterial and expressed frustrati'Jn because the curricu-lum had become so test sensitive. Concerns about theimpact on teaching, testing's fairness to students, andreactions of parents were raised.

One principal expressed the views of many, saying:"Control is really being taken away from the teachers."Another said: "The administration sees the test scores asthe end result of what schools are doing." Anotherdescribed the effects in his school: "We have become sotest conscious that teachers are unwilling to take fieldtrips because of the need to cover the material." Theactual effects of testing on curriculum and program arebeyond the scope of this study, but such comments indi-cate the strength of teacher concerns about too muchtesting and tests that are not congruent with what isimportant in the curriculum.

Teachers expressed a variety of reactions to theexpanding testing pr6g,...-qs. The typical response wasreluctant acceptance. One teacher forecast:

The pressure of testing is real and it will increase.Knowing your students will be tested at the end ofthe year influences your curricular choices. Youhave to cover what is tested. There will be morepressure on teachersmore state testing.

Many were concerned about the use of the scores:"The test leads to part ;t demands and abusetheyblame the teachers," said one teacher. A few describedextreme responses by their peers: "There was hysteriaand anger about the tests, some advised cheating, andsome do it."

A few felt the tests were a positive factor, helping toshape up both students and teachers. "Teachers see thetest as a threat instead of a tool," said one. And a fewothers felt the tests being used were too easy. "... It [thetest] is a waste because the standards are too low."

A number of teachers were upset about the adequacyand fairness of the tests for their students; an elementaryteacher sat

t.J

Teaching is heavily influenced by [the test). Itstinks ... The test assumes kids can listPri, can sit intheir seat. It creates failures.

And a secondary teacher expressed a similar senti-ment:

I've only given the science [test] one time--anabysmal experience; the students were tested onthings we don't teach. If they take it seriously, theyhave to bring students up to par in science; theydon't have the money.

Another said: "I don't teach to the test because of itsdiscriminating qualities." A middle school teacher in thesame district said, "The custrict now controls the curricu-lum, and the tests determine what you cover; the cover-age is difficult except for the higher classes."

Concern about testing did not affect all teachersequally, however. Somc said the tests had little or noeffect on them; this was often due to their assignment,occasionally to the attitudes of the leadership in theirbuildings. Teachers of subjects other than math, English,and reading were seldom affected more than marginally.In several districts, only teachers of the basic skills wereaffected beyond the elementary grades. In addition, theattitude of the principal toward the tests and his/her tr.!of test results either exaggerated the effects of testing onteaching or buffered teachers from them. At a middleschool with a reputation for good test scores, a teachercomplained: "There is lots of stress on test taking skillshere because of [the school's] reputation."

"Freedom to teach, but carefully monitor"

Twenty-nine of the 31 schools have some process tomonitor the implementation of curriculum besides tests.The processes used varied across districts, and within dis-tricts, across grade levels. Teachers generally rated thesemonitoring systems as weak. In almost every school,there were teachers who said they deviated from the dis-trict guidelines and were able to do as they pleased mthe classroom.

A principal described the environment in his middleschool in these terms:

1

70

TEACHER AUTONOMY

In almost every school,there were teachers whosaid they deviated fromthe district guidelinesand were able to do asthey pleased in theclassroom.

55

WORKING: IN URBAN SCHOOLS

SESSEEKERNMENISmumilui

`There are certainguidelines, but once thedoor is closed, you dowhat you want; there i3good teaching and badteaching going on."

56

I give teachers the freedom to teach but I keep ontop of what they do. My motto is `Give them thefreedom to teach, but carefully monitor their work:

His approach, however, was far from the typical model.In over one-fourth of the schools, located in four of thefive districts, teachers and administrators agreed therewas no regular monitoring of what was taught. One prin-cipal admitted that "... I wonder myself, I look at the testscores and make observations, but there is no formal wayto monitor. You just have to trust that it is done." Teach-ers in another building said "... we don't have anyonemonitoring; if we don't agree with certain topics, we skipthe material."

It is more important to meet student needs than, it is tofollow curriculum guidelines strictly." Some teachersthought there should be more monitoring, "We havetotal control," said one. "There are certain guidelines, butonce the door is closed, you do what you want; there isgood teaching and bad teaching going on."

The most common mechanisms for monitoring thecumLulum %N, ere checking lesson plans, informal observa-tion, and district-wide tests. Schools in one district reliedsolely on review of lesson plans and infrequent informalobservations. In two other districts, however, collectionof lesson plans was prohibited in the teacher contract,although they uld be reviewed during a classroomvisit. District-wide tests were used to monitor the prog-ress of covering the curricula in high schools in four ofthe five districts and also were used at other levels in twoof the five districts. Unit tests in basic skills, teacherschedules, reading reports, pacing charts, weekly or quar-terly plans, and external administrative teams were alsoused, but less frequently.

Some schools used pacing systems; their impact wasdescribed by one principal this way:

They [teachers] don't have much control overwhat is taught, but lots over how it is taught. Thereare lots of parameers in this building, in terms ofpacing Teachers deride how to reach their bench-marks. Very few [of them ] are off when these param-eters are checked. If the parameters are not set, thepacing is not there.

71

A teacher in the same school gave a more mixed com-mentary on pacing:

[There isj not much [control]; we arc on a pacingschedule; if you want to deviate by enriching activi-ties, you are not written up but you are told you areoff task Pacing helps and hinders my teaching.Sometimes I want to spend more time on a subject,so I just do."

Not surprisingly, this school was located in the districtin which staff reported the lowest level of discretion inmaking curricular dec":;ions.

Summary

Teachers reported having considerable discretion overwhat they taught and how they taught it. They gave morevaried responses to questions about their influence overcurriculum content, pacing, and sequence of curriculumthan they did to questions about selection of instruc-tional methods. There was some variation in teacherautonomy across the five d!stricts; teaching staffs in onedistrict gave systematically lower assessments of theircontrol over curriculum than teachers in the other dis-tricts. This seems to have been the result of strongermonitonng procedures in that district. High school andelementary teachers reported having somewhat higherdegrees of discretion than did middle school teachers.Almost all teachers expressed concern on the increaseduse of testing.

72

TEACHER AUTONOMY

57

I

' 4

1

Ai Participation is a shell game.There is a world of difference in

participation that is simply a

word game and participationthat is meaningful. No onelistens to what we say; we don'tcount. "

6 TEACHER INFLUENCE ANDCOLLEGIALITY: A SHELL GAME?

Tf teachers have considerable control over their class-1room relationships with students and how they teach,they are at the other extreme when it comes to otherdecisiGns which affect their work Yet, it is this decision-making that has become the focus of workplace reformin general, and the education reform movement specifi-cally. How teachers communicate and interact withschool and district administration and how they workwith their peers have important influence over schoolcultures and structures and now are receiving consider-able attehtion by the reform movement.

While our data document the generally low level ofteacher influence over school policies and support theiienefits of increasing teacher influence over school pol-icy and strengthening collegiality, it is clear that existing

of school organization, such as team structures orschool councils, can produce significant benefits for bothteachers and their schools. These findings suggest thatcareful consideration should be given to more conven-tional forms of teacher participation as well as to greaterresL-ucturing.

Tile costs associated with making team planning orstaff councils function effectively may be no less thanthose associated with other forms of school site manage-ment, bur there may be less opposition from administra-tors.

However, participatory structures do not ensure genu-ine participation or higher levels of teacher influence.The data reveal clearly how vulnerable the: are tomanipulation or neglect by school administrators or toweak policy implementation and monitoring by districtofficials. The district must play an advocacy role ifteacher participation is to be successful at the schoollevel. The roles and responsibilities of district staff in sup-porting participatory structures at the school level needto be carefully examined.

Finally, genuine participation in decisionmaking is

59


more likely if time is allocated danng the workday; itcan't t depend upon volunteer time over the long run.

lack of time was cited as the major reason for poorcommunication and as a major obstacle to cooperationwith other staff. Provision of adequate time for teachershas costs associated with it, and many urban districts maynot be able to afford it. However, attempts to build colle-gial climates without addressing the time issue seemdoomed to failure.

The Response from Teachers

Levels of teacher participation and collegiality gener-ally are less than teachers desire and vary greatly frombuilding to building v shin and among districts, accord-ing to our findings. Only three schools were rated asmor than moderate in the level of teacher influenceover decisions, and only six were rated as more thanaverage in collegiality.

Grade level had some ttfect on both conditions. Tables6:1 and 6:2 display the levels of teacher participation andcollegiality in the 31 schools. High school staffs generallyreported lower levels of participation and collegiality.Only two of the 10 high schools in the sample wererated "moderate" or above in influence on decisions andonly three of the 10 were moderate or above in collegial-ity.

School administrators, not surprisingly, rated teacherinfluence higher than did teachers. Seventy-two percentof the administrators said teachers had moderate to highinfluence over school policies, but only 45 percent of theteachers agreed.

TABLE 6:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR INFLUENCE OVER DECISIONSBY LEVEL OF SCHOOL

(N = 31)

Level of Teacher Influence over School DecisionsModerate Moderate

School Level High to High Moderate to Low Low

Elementary 0 3 3 3 2Middle 0 0 5 3 2Secondary 0 0 2 2 6

Total 0 3 20 8 10

60 75

TEACHER INFLUENCE

TABLE 6:2

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF COLLEGIALITY BY LEVEL OF SCHOOL(N=31)

School Level High

Level of Teacher CollegialityAbove Below

Average Average Average LowElementaryNliddleSecondary

000

221

442

325

222

Total 0 5 10 10 6

Links between influence and Collegiality

There was a correlation between the levels of teacherinfluence and staff collegiality. Ten schools out of 31were rated as "moderate" or better in influence and as"average" or better in collegiality. Five of these were ele-mentary, while only two were high schools and threewere middle schools. Of the 13 schools that were rated"low" or "low to adequate" on both dimensions, six werehigh schools.

Patterns of Teacher Influence

Teacher and administrator ratings did not differ fromprevious research. In general, they reported high teacherinfluence over decisions close to the classroomsettinggoals, selecting materialsand low influence over deci-sions generally made at the school or district level, suchas hiring staff, developing budgets, and allocating ts ne.

However, staffs in schools with teams and councilsreported they had more imluence over priorities, curric-ulum, staff development, evaluation of programs, schoolrules, budget development, resource allocation, and stu-dent assignments than did staffs in schools without suchstructures. High school teachers generally reportedsomewhat 'Pore influence over curricular decisions,development of budgets, and allocation of resources andless influence over planning inservice training, evaluatingschool programs and defining school rules. This is a con-sequence of the delegation of decisions to departmentswhich tend to function in a moze democratic, collegialmanner than staff structures at the elementary level.

r^.4

1. 61


TABLE 6:3

PERCEIVED LEVEL OFTEACHER INFLUENCE

HighSetting GoalsSelecting MaterialsDefining Rules

ModerateDetermining ContentPlanning InserviceAllocating TimeAssigning StudentsEvaluating Policies

LowHiring StaffEvaluating StaffDeveloping BudgetsResource Allocation

". . . teachers basicallydeal only with children,and we only wave atother teachers."

62

Teachers listed student assignments, time allocation,application of disciplinary codes, teaching assignments,and class size wh'n asked to identify decisions overwhich their colleagues would like to have more influ-ence.

Table 6:3 displays the levels of teacher influence in the31 schools in 12 critical decision areas. Teachers consis-tently reported having greatest influence over selectionof instructional materials and least influence over hiringand evaluating staff and developing school budgets.

Teacher influence in the other nine areas varied widelyamong the school staffs. In schools with strong councilstructures or teaming, teachers i ported higher levels ofinfluence.

Little Teacher Influence, Low Collegiality

The schools rated as "low" in teacher influence andcollegiality had a number of things in common. First,their teachers reported feeling isolated and divided. Someblamed this on the profession itself: "Each classroom islike a kingdom, and the teacher is king or queen." Onesaid that "teachers basically deal only with children, andwe only wave at other teachers."

Another, expressing the view of many 7ondents,complained that:

There are many opportunities to cooperate if youwant to take advantage of them. Some don't want tocooperate. There are problems among ethnic groupson the staff; there are cliques.

While rare, there were festering racial diNisons amongthe faculty in some schools. Tluze :how ed up in resent-ment among white teachers about aflirmative etion andtransfers made to balance a staff racially and frustrationamong minority teachers about the attitudes of whitestaff toward minority students. Events celebrating ethnicholidays and minority culture sometimes contributed tothe problems. The result was described by one teacher:

"People see each other as groups, not as individu-als. Ethnic groups sit together at faculty meetingsand at lunch. There are barriers."

'77

"Opportunities, Yes--But MeaningfulOpportunities, No!"

Divisions also existed between staff and administration.In several of the schools the faculty was described asbeing divided into "those who support the principal andthose who don't."

Communication between teachers and building admin-istrators was reported as poor in schools rated low oncollegiality. Teachers described a "we-they atmosphere"and "almost no communication between the administra-tion and the faculty." Building leaders were more likely tobe perceived as autocratic. Teachers felt they had influ-ence "only by complaining." They were "seldom askedtheir opinion" or if they were, "the principal just wentthrough the motions" and "input was not given consider-ation." Many felt manipulated by aggressive administra-tors:

Real participation no! Real decision makingno! There is lots of pseudo-decision making but it'snot real.... We need to act more like a professionnobody's really asking us; lots of decisions are madebefore the teachers even meet.

INEVEMBIEWISMINEMEMMINTABLE 6:4

TFACHER LNFLUENCE

EnssimmiffizsommisassTeachers felt they hadinfluence "only bycomplaining."

SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS WITH HIGH AND LOW RATINGSON INFLUENCE AND COLLEGIALITY

High Influence Low Influence

High Collegiality

Broad range of facultydecisionmaking

Decisions by votingStrong committeesTeam planningTime for teams to meetPrincipals activeGood staffadministrative

relations(N= 10)

High staff inputTeam planningStrong, "directive"

principalsSmall medium size schools

Low Collegiality Scheduling problemsFeelings of inequityMixed staffadministrative

relations(N= 3)

Weak administratorsSmall schoolsTurnover of leadersStable facultyTeam planningTimc for teams to meetHigh sharingPoor staadministrative

relations(N=2)

Teachers isolatedPoor communicationsAutocratic leadersInfrequent meetinnyslarger schoolsPrincipal invisibleTeacher burnoutPoor staadministrative

relations(N =101

63


Another teacher put it more bluntly: "We are con-sulted but not listened to." Another said:

... Participation is a shell game. There is a worldof difference in participation that is simply wordplay and participation that is meaningful. No one lis-tens to what we say; we don't count!

However, building administrators in these schoolsexpressed their own frustration with changing manage-ment philosophies:

I would be willing to come up with a shareddecisionmaking model, but I never really knowwhere the superintendent stands on this issue.... Hewants teachers to have a share in the decisionmak-ing and then cads and says 'No, that's not what Imeant by it'.

Administrators in these schools consistently ratedteacher influence higher than the teachers did but alsoexpressed strong feelings that you could not "run aschool by committee" and that "somebody had to be incharge."

Participatory Structures

Structures for participation in decisionmaking andbuilding collegiality existed in most af these schools. Forexample, seven of the 13 schools with low collegialityand participation had faculty councils, and all of theseven high schools rated low on both dimensions haddepartmental structures. But structures did not guaranteeresults.

Councils were seen as ineffective in these schools:

The principal gets resentful if you disagree withher.

... If the principal is not in agreement, he doesexactly what he wants to do.

Scheduled meetings were not held or they were heldbut "no action followed the discussions." Departments, ifU y existed, seldom met and meetings were brief, focus-ing on bureaucratic concerns rather than curriculum or

64 79

teaching. Administrators often felt the staff did not likefaculty meetings and sought their favor by not holdingthem. Staff reported they had limited access to theirbuilding administrators and little opportunity to discussschool issues.

High Participation/Collegiality: "TrustandReaRmableness"

In contrast, in the ten schools rated as "adequate" orbetter on both variables, faculty reported high levels ofcollegiality/sharing and high influence over a range ofdecisionmaking opportunities. "Coop ration is unusuallyhigh in this building; there are few people who don't getalong," said one. "Comparatively, this is a better placethan other places I have worked; people cooperate," saidanother. Decisions were often made by faculty vote. Prin-cipals were perceived as active leaders and the buildingsgenerally had good staff-administration relations. Perhapsthe best way to Describe the relationship between theadministration and faculty in these schools is mutualrespect. Typically:

There's lots of trustand reasonableness. Theteachers have common goals with the administra-tion;. The principal and vice-principal are a comple-mentary team as well, so we are in this together.

Faculty meetings were held regularly and weredescrid as being "two-way rather than just informationgiving' "Weekly meetings are lively and there is goodparticipation," commented a teacher. And another said,"Teachers give input and the principal values the opin-ions and suggestions of the faculty." The key differenceseemed to be the belief that opinions were respected andsuggestions or decisions were acted upon. "She places ahigh priority on follow-through on teacher concerns,"one teacher said of a principal. There was recognition ofconstraints:

... she listens then she does what she can. Down-town edicts are inflexible, but we do get resultshere.

The principal genuinely wants our input, but youcan't deal with the big isst es because they costmoney.

80

TEACHER INFLUENCE

Staff reported they hadlimited access to theirbuilding administratorsand little opportunity todiscuss school issues.

65


migarmigomes=imi"Cooperation is prettygood and has improvedsince the principalintroduced teaming."

INNEMENEMZE=TABLE 6:5

"Teams Provide Opportunities"

Teachers and administrators reported that strong com-mittees existed and that teachers planned together. Themiddle schools, in particular, often used team structuresfor teachers in the core academic areas to foster greaterinfluence over workrelated decisions and greater collegi-ality. Weekly team meetings provided opportunities forterchers to talk together about students, the academicprogram and other professional concerns. "Cooperationis pretty good and has improves since the principal intro-duced teaming," said one teacher.

The teams had joint planning lime and met with prin-cipals frequently. In some schools, decisions made by theteam once were the prerogative of the principal or otheradministrators. The team members felt they were makingimportant decisions. In most instances, they had influ-ence over schedules and student assignments, and in sev-eral cases they developed their own budgets.

rhen we examined the overall effect of team struc-tures on teacher influence 2-7.2 ^ollegiality, we found aninteresting relationship. Of the 10 schools rated as "ade-quate" or better on both participation and collegiality,seven had some form of team structure. All 10 schoolswith teams rated average or above in either influence orcollegiality. Table 6:5 displays these findings. Teachers ontrams felt more involved in decisionmaking and reportedstronger collegial relationships with their peers. Teamstructures appear to enhance discourse among teachersand lead them to feel a greater sense of control overdecisions affecting their work.

TEACHER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGIALITY IN SCHOOLSWITH TEAM STRUCTURES

(N = 11)

Collegiality High High-ModerateInfluence

Moderate Moderate-Low Low

HighAverageHighAverageLowAverageLow

00000

0I

1

00

03220

00200

00000

Total 0 2 7 2 0

66 81

In the two cases where schools with teams reportedless than adequate levels of collegiality, there were prof;.lems because of time. In one school, teams had to meetat lunch. In both cases, the schedules did not permit spe-cialists to meet or to communicate with the core aca-demic teams. In addition, specialists had one planningperiod, while the core teams had two daily. There wasconsiderable conflict over the perceived inequities inthese schools. In the four schools with teams and withparticipation rated as less than moderate, principals werenot sharing schoolwidc decisions with stall. As a resultthe authority of the teams over curricular and instruc-tional matters was perceived by teachers to be threat-ened by central office policies on testing and curriculum.

Other Modes of Participation

Participation in decislorimaking to,,:c a variety of formsin thc schools we sampled. In most, traditional bimonthlyor monthly faculty meetings were convened by princi-pals. In one district, principals by contract could holdone faculty meeting per week, but only one principal didso. More often than not, the meetings that were held didnot promote either collegiality or participation. Mostteachers reported the agendas usually were set by theprncipal, items were dispensed with in a business-likemanner and there was little or no time for genuine fac-ulty dialogue and participation.

High schools (IL: have departmental meetings by sub-jec. area. In these schools, not surprisingly, teachers saidthat collegiality was stronger at the departmental levelthan school-wide. Regular departmental meetings, how-ever, were often (An held or were abbreviated, appar-ently, because they were unpopular with many teachers.This may be bcr"isc meetings often were mere conduitsfor "information processing" from "the top" rather thanreal opportunities for communication, sharing orthoughtful decisionmaking.

Elementary schools in the,sample, generally, providedfew opportunities for grade-level meetings unless theywere conducted before school or over lunch. Meetingsof this sort were held in over half of the elementaryschools, usually as a result of teacher initiative. Whenthey were required or "encouraged" by administrators,teachers expressed resentment.

82

TEACHER INFLUENCE

difibb--41111111131111111=111153111111

More often than not, theme, 'tings that were helddid not promote eithercollegiality or partici-pation.

67

WORKING IN urmAN SCHOOLS

The Effect of School Councils

Table 6:6 displays data showing the distribution of the18 schools with faculty councils. The data show no clearrelationship between the existence of such councils andteachers' sense of influence and collegiality. The reasonfor this apparent paradox is that the roles and effective-ness of the councils in our sample of schools were deter-mined by many factors, including tilt leadership style of

MMINEEMEffinganiTABLE 6:6

TEACHER INFLUENCE, COLLEGIALITY, AND SCHOOL COUNCILS(N= 19)

Collegiality High High-AverageInfluence

Average Average-Low Low

High 0 0 0 0 0HighAverage ll 1 2 0 0Average 2 3 2 0Low.Average o 0 3 2 1

Low 0 0 0 2 1

Total 0 3 8 6 2

"The district is goingthrough -gn identitycrisis, tryi,ri, to raisestandards anddecentralize decisionsat the same time,"

68

the principal and the character of the faculty, district pol-icy and practice. Two of the five districts had councils inevery building which included the building representa-tives. However, the actual influence of the councils andthe scope of their decisionmaking varied enormouslyacross schools within these two districts. One problemwas that authority of the councils was not well defined.The districts had not delegated specific decisions to thecouncils. In addition, district officials did not appear to beholding the principals accountable for making the schoolcouncils work There were policies specifying the com-position of the councils and the frequency with whichthey should meet, but there was no monitoring of theirimplementation. Sometimes district policies seemed tobe in .onflict. "The :1:strict is going through an identitycrisis, trying to raise standards and decentralize decisionsat the same time," said one respondent.

Other Factors Affecting TeacherInfluence and Collegiality

Conditions also varied by type and style of leadership.Even when faculty were provided with time tO meet, the

83

meetings were not necessarily participatory if the princi-pal wanted to be autocratic. For example, in one city, adistrict-wide policy provide(' -13, dismissal one day perweek to accommodate district and building needs formeetings. One week was designated for all-school facultymeetings; a second, for departmental or grade-level meet-ings within buildings; a third, for district-wide grade orsubject meetings; and fourth, for some kind of inservicetraining. However, the data from this district indicate thatactual communication and participation varied consider-ably, building to building. Even with a distnct-wide pol-icy supporting participation and collegiality, variables,such as Idership at the building level, can adverselyaffect the implementation of a well-intentioned policy.

Administrators commonly claimed that they solicitedinformation from teachers prior to reaching deci...onsabout school policy, but such consultation was nut clearto their teaching staff For such forms of participation tobe perceived as genuine by teachers, they had to belieNethere was an intent by the administration touse theadvice solicited. If teachers regularly were consulted andif their input were respected arni regularly used, teachersthen perceived themselves as participating in decisions.When consultation was sporadic, however, or teach(contributions used selectively, the sincerity was ques-tioned. Consultation should not be excluded or underval-ued as a form of participation bilt it is often ambiguousand perceived differently by various participants.

Factors Which Affect Partic:oation

Two other factors also affected the opportunities forteachers to participate in decisionmaking and to developcollegial relations. School size was one. The ten schoolsrated highly on collegiality and participation had some-what smaller student enrollments than the others in thesample. Size seems to be related to both perceivedopportunities for participation and collegiality. The exis-tence of formal structures for participatiun and time forstaff to work together may partially, but riot totally, offsetthe effects of large size.

Time also was an important factor. Teachers reportedthey had little time to do much of anything outside oftheir classroom teaching. The daily schedule was full. Iftime was notprovided for teachers to meet within the

TEACHER INFLUENCE

IIESIEZNIZIENIMERSENEllEgil

Even with a district-wide policy supportingparticipation andcollegiality, variables,such as leadership atthe building level, canadversely affect theimplementation of awell-intentioned policy.

The existence offormalstructures for participa-tion and timepr staff towork together maypartially, but not totally,offset the effects of largesize.

84 69

WORKL' NG LN URBAN SCHOOLS

workday, collegiality suffered. Weekly or monthly depart-ment or staff meetings did not seem to compensate forthe lack of tiine within the ordinary workday. In somecases, teachers used time before or after school or duringlunch to talk to colleagues, but that was seldom seen asadequate.

8570

ifif The process is only aformality; no one can evaluate

me in ten minutes.'',

87

SUPERVISION, PROFESSIONAL GROWTHAND REWARDS

kr he password for recent rounds of education reformI has been accountability. Certainly the spotlight of

policy has lingered more than a few moments on ways tomake sure teachers are doing what they should. Oftensupervision, professional growth and rewards take on anaura of "policing" a delinquent workforce, identifyingdeficiencies, withholding rewards and requiring training.Yet each of these activities plays a critical role in motivat-ing teachers, building personal and professional skills, anddeveloping commitment to the instructional program.

Supervision is the primary means of control overinstruction, and research emphasizes the importance offrequent and effective supervision. State and local poli-cies emphasize supervision and evaluation; however,emphasis has often been placed on evaluation. Supervi-;,*)n has been used to assure compliance with policy andminimum standards of performance, ..nd the focus hasbeen on the elimination of poor teachers rather thanprofessional growth. As a consequence, supervision is nota frequent, meaningful nor effective activity.

In order to work, supervisory relationships :nest bebuilt on trust, open communication, commitment to indi-vidual and organization learning, and visibility for evalua-tion. Effective supervision requires follow-up work. How-ever, principals, overworked with administrative duties,often find it difficult to do more 0 n the prescribed min-imums of supervision. Time and ,:rgy must be commit-ted to improving any noted deficiencies, but most lead-ers, if they has e the time, lack the skills for clinical work.

These tensionsbetween assistance and policing,commitment to the process and pro forma activityareunderscored in our findings. Observation of teachers wasinfrequent, little time was spent, and the feedback wasnot useful. Administrators felt they had little time to com-mit to it and were burdened by the process. Teachers feltthe activity was of little use to them. New teachers wereleft to "sink or swim" on their own. Generally, teachers

88

. . . teachers believedthe process should bemore collegial andhelpful, while someadministrators wantedless paperwork andmore teeth.

73

WORKM IN URBAN SCHOOLS

believed the process shoulo be more collegial and help-ful, while some administrators wanted less paperworkand more teeth. The fact that three of the five districtswe visited had recently introduced new evaluation sys-tems, developed jointly with the teachers' union, shouldraise questions about accountability and its usefulness.

"A necessary evil"

Overall, the staff in 18 schools judged supervision intheir schools to be inadequate. A few felt the process wasthreatening. As one said: "Teachers do not trust the evalu-ation process; they don't believe that someone wants tohelp them. They see eva'!ation as punishment." An angryteacher described the process in her school as "tough.... a no win situation for teachers." Most, however,described it ac benign, even trivial:

Apparently if your kids are good and there are nocomplaints, you are OK

It is a necessary evil am:. we suffer through it.

It's pro forma, done to meet the requirements.

Table 7:1 summarizes assessments of the supervisionand evaluation processes in the schools. The unexpectedfinding is that high school teachers have significantlytower opinion', of the procedures in their schools thando elementary and middle school teachers. In only onehigh school was supervision judge! adequate. Because allhigh schools 1Lid department cha'rs #7,1 subject matterspecialists involved in the evaluation process, this finding

sisitts=TABLE 7:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF SUPERVISION AND EVALUATION(N= 31)

Teacher AssessmentModerate Low

Level of School High High Moderate Moderate Low

Elementary 0 1 7 2 1

Middle 0 1 4 3 2High School 0 t; 0 10 0

Total 0 2 11 15 3

74 8 9

SUPERVISION

is somewhat surprising. It may be eAplained by the gen-erally poorer relationships between high school adminis-trators and teachers in this sample of schools or perhapsis reflective of poor morale among high school teachers.

The assess:_ients by teachers and administrators ofsupervision in their schools are compared in Table 7:2.The data show that while administrators held more favor-

MiSENEMEUEMENMEMEntTABLE 7:2r

COMPARISON OF TEACHER AND ADMINISTRATOR ASSESSMENTS OFSUPERVISION AND EVALUATION

(N = 349)

GoodPercent of Respondents

Adequate Inadequate No Data TotalTeachersAdministrators

41

4564

30lc

2216

100100

able opinions of current practices than did teachers,almost no one thought the processes more than ade-quate. Three of the districts recently had introduced neNvevaluation procedures, each one developed in collabora-tion with the teachers' association, that were intended tobe fairer, more rigorous, and more helpful. Many respon-dents describe these new procedures as improvements,but only a minority of the teachers gave them passingmarks. Two districts provided that teachers be placed onperformance appraisal and be observed by teams, butthese measures seldom were used.

Observation: "Only a formality"

Observations were made, although not always regu-larly or frequently, in all of the schools. The minimumrequired generally were conductedno more, no less.Their infrequency and short durations prompted teachersto judge the process inadequate:

I think it is a big farce, the observation of tenuredteachers once a year is a waste of time.

... The process is only a formality; no one canevaluate me in ten minutes.

.,90 75


111111111121111111111M1121111MIREli

The more positiveconzments feedbacktended to come fromstaff in schools wherethe supervisors badbeen trained in clinicalevaluation.

Assistance: "All I have to do is ask"

The question about assistance brought similarresponses. In all but one of the schools, the majority ofstaff said that assistance was available for teachers withproblems. Most of it was informal, arranged and deliveredby school personnel The burden of taking the initiativeoften seemed to rest with the teacher: "Everyone is will-ing to help; all I have to do is ask," said one. 'Assistance isgiven from other teachers; not from administrators, theyare overburdened with discipline," commented another.

'Hie most common forms of administrative initiativewere postobservation conference discussions, provision

There also were a handful of extreme cases:

I have been in this school for nine years and havebeen visited twice.

In some schools, there was considerable informalobservation, and principals frequently were in the class-rooms:

... the principal is in my room a lot. He brings innew teachers from other buildings to observe, lovesto participate and see what the kids are doing.

My cluster coordinator is great.... he is alwayspopping in. He'll see what's good and let me know.He points to my growth.

Feedback

Feedback was provided to staff in all of the schoolsexcept one. However, a majority of rest,inses did notconsider the feedback as useful. Many felt they receivedsuggestions only because supervisors were supposed toprovide them. Most teachers described feedIN t withterms such as "limited utility," "fi ivolous" or 'fuzzy." Themore positive comments on feedback tended to comefrom staff in schools where the supervisors had beentrained in clinical evaluation: "The feedback is helpfulbecause it is so detailed, so specificit made me realizewhere I need improvement," said one teacher.

76 91

SUPERVisION

of materials or arrangement for informal support fromother teachers. Observing other teachers was mentionedby teachers in six schools, and one high schoe requiredv.ch teacher to make five classroom visitations, includingMO in another school and at least two in a different sub-ject area. The school used staff development funds to payfor the released time.

Some schools provided professional growth plansmutually developed by the teacher and the supervisor.However, the quality and seriousness of these effortsdepended upon the supervisor.

"Sink or Swim"

New teachers frequently needed help but received lit-tle in most cases. They often had special needs, particu-larly with classroom management, but it was apparently"sink or swim" in most of the schools. When asked aboutassistance, one said "... from the administration, no; butwe understand that it is because of time constraints andthat new teachers have to sink or swim." A seconddescribed the orientation as "... and here is your room."Still another explained:

There was no orientation for first-year people. Iheard about the requirements from a friend. Therewas no guidance from the principal. He said heknew nothing about it ... You pick things up fromother people.

Several princIpals admitted that teachers who neededhelp had resigned or been let go without receiv,ng it.Two districts used academies to provide training andassistance to new teachers and teachers having problems,but these programs generally received mixed reviewsboth from people who had attended programs and thosewho had not.

One district had a new mentoring program which wasrkscribed favorably by most teachers and less favorablyby administrators (two principals spoke strongly in favorof the plan). One teacher said, "The mentoring programhas been undercut by the principalsthey are saying`hands off'." But others spoke of the help mentors hadprovided.

92


insitommismazi."The whole process iscumbersome; it treatsall teachers the same,which they are not."

78

If I could change this process ..."

All administrators, building representatives, andselected teachers were asked how they would changethe process of supervision and evaluation. Not unexpect-edly their answers differed. The most common responsesby administrators concerned time, paperwork, and stan-dards. Most of them stressed the sheer number of evalua-tions they had to complete and the paperwork associatedwith them. "There are too many steps, too much red tapeand paperwork; you find yourself doing the bare mini-mum," said one. A number suggested reducing observa-tions and reports on effective teachers so t'iey could con-centrate on those with problems. A typical comment:"The whole process is cumbersome, it treats all teachersthe same, which they are not". This problem was particu-larly acute for those supervising large numbers of non-tenured staff "You don't need to evaluate them for fiveyears to certify them out of the probationary stage," wasone observation.

Quite a few felt the process should have more teeth. Amiddle school principal said: "We need to b^ clearerabout what is excellent or superior." Some wanted toalter the forms or the indicators.

Teachers felt the process should be more collegial,more help.ul, and more poltive. One expressed theviews of most:

If I were an administrator, I'd try to spend moretime viewing the teacher, informally. I'd have morevisibility and make supervision a priority.

About one-fourth suggested peer evaluation or mentor-ing as desirable alternatives. Typical comments were:"Mentor teachers are good, helpful because peers arecompetent, understanding" or "new teachers should bepaired with mentor teachers," and "peer evaluationwould eliminate the stress and anxiety for teachers."There also we a few opposes to mentors because theyfeared div.siveness. About an equal number felt that morefrequent observations would be better. And a handfulbelieved there should be rewards associated with goodperformance.

Professional DevelopmentNot a High Priority

Research suggests that mastery of new skills is a strongmotivator for employees and contributes to job satisfac-

93

SUPERVISION

tion. Furthermore, staff development is important forschool improvement and more effective wheal deliveredat the local level and related to staff needs.

Yet, 18 of the schools gave lessthanadequate ratingsto professional development opportunities. The quality ofprograms and teachers' access to them varied acrossschools and districts. As Table 7:3 reveals, staff in elemetary schools generally reported greater satisfaction withthe opportunities available to them than did their col-leagues teaching in the higher grades.

mismanimmosiimosimasuTABLE 7:3

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT(N= 29)

Good GoodAdeq

21

0

N'',equate

5I

2

AdeqInad

27

3

Inadequate

21

3

GradeLevel

ElementaryMiddleHigh

Schools

00

0

Total 0 3 8 12 6

The data from the study suggest several reasons forthis difference. First, elementary schools were morelikely to plan and implement their own inservice trainingprograms. Second, their teachers were more likely to beinvolved in both the planning and the training. Third, thedistrict staff development academies or teacher centerswere viewed more positively by elementary teachers;academy courses seemed to be more suitable and moreacceptable to elementary than to secondary teachers.

Involvement as "Knowledgeable Professionals"

Teacher assessment of professional developmentopportunities was positively related to the amount ofteacher input into the planning of inservice training, theprovision of programs at the school site, and the use ofteachers as workshop leaders. Staffs in 12 of the schoolssaid they influenced the planning of inservice activities intheir buildings. This varied from being consult( : toactually designing and conducting programs. "Teachersfelt they had a part in making the program a success andfelt they were treated like knowledgeable professionals,"said one. Staff in eight of these schools rated their oppor-

9 4 79

WORKING IN URBAN SC1100IS

ImmlinisellININEErammoTABLE 7:4

TEACHER ASSESSMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAND INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING

(N=29)Good GoodAdeq Adequate Adeq-Inad Inadequate

Teacher InvolvementYesNo

00

30

53

48

06

Total 0 3 8 12 6

ogimmiunsissulmonagai"Downtown complicatesit; things are suggestedthat are of noparticular importance."

80

.

tunities as adequate or better. This is clearly not a ran-dom pattern.

There were nine schools in which the staff reportedlittle or no inservice training at the school; six of thesewere in two districts. In eight of these schoc Is the staffrated the professional development opportunities as inad-equate or split between inadequate and adequate.

Time and Timing: "Everyone is Tired"

Conversely, having programs in the building appearedto be a necessary but not sufficient condition for a posi-tive assessment by the staff. One teacher said: "It finser-vice training) comes from downtown or the school; Iprefer the latter. Downtown complit.atc. s it, things arcsuggested that are of no particular importance."

However, not all building level efforts earned positiverat ngs from teachers. "The programs are Mickey Mouseand don't meet our needs" was one comment.

Such responses most often occurred in buildings inwhich time constraints and limited resources affected thequality of the programs. "We are limited to two hoursafter school; everyone is tired," said one teacher, andanother added, "We have one or two released days ayear; it is not enough."

Time for inservice training was a problem across thefive districts. The time available range"' from two halfdays a year to four half days plus two hours a month afterschool. In some cases, schoollevel programs were runafter school and participation was required; others wereconducted during onehour staff meetings. Some pro-grams were conducted on weekends. Teachers com-plained that it was "hard to get involved; you get tired

9 5

and your family needs you." Released time was providedfor some teachers in a few schools to attend districtworkshops or attend conferences. One principal "pro-vided coverage herself' to encourage people to go toworkshops. Professional days also were available, butwhile these mechanisms gave individuals opportunities,they did not provide experiences for teams or depart-ments that would alter their work norms or their meth-ods. Large blocks of time for focused activities were sel-dom available.

Building Level: "Less money and time to getthings done"

Resources for staff development also were a problem.Only high schools in two districts actually had staff devel-opment funds allocated by the district. These were con-trolled by the principals. The other schools depended ontheir own talents and ingenuity or what the district staffcould provide. One principal, noting that funding had sig-nificantly decreased over recent years, said: "There is lessmoney and time to get things done; opportunities forworkshops are reduced." Some used money from fund-raisers for in service training programs. Money also was qproblem for the teachers. There were many complaintsabout lack of compensation for afterschool workshops orprograms held in the evenings. Teachers also were con-cerned about the rising cost of college credits. In at leastone of the districts, state law required teachers to takecollege credits every five years, and they had to pay thetuition.

Academies: "I have been to the Academy; itwas fair"

In the four districts with academics, this commentfom a building representative in an elementary schoolexpressed the mixed reactions of many teachers to centralized staff development centers. Several :actors pro-duced the lukewarm attitude: limited access, not usefulto veterans, more useful to elementary teachers, pro-grams not useful at the school site. In one case, theaccess for teachers was extremely limited because "atten-dance is voluntary and released time is not easy to get."Participation took individual initiative and some adminis-trative support. Few of the respondents even mentioned

. ; 96

SUPERVISION

milomminiumintmmissiLarge blocks of time forfocused activities wereseldom available.

81


simammoi="For some reason,classes of elementaryteachers are taught atan elementary level asif we are children."

82

the program. In another district, the program was newand few teachers had yet participated, but there wassome enthusiasm for the concept: "The Center is a begin-ning; other than that, there has never been much," wasone comment.

In the other two cases, teachers were very aware ofthe programs offered by the academies and mentionedthem frequently, and critically. The positive and negativecomments were about equal in number. The vast major-ity felt the programs offered were most useful to newteachers, but of less or no value to "veterans." Bothoffered special programs for new teachers, and a fewpeople suggested these gave them the image of"... serv-ing rookies." Still others were unhappy with the contentof the offerings. "For some reason, classes of elementaryteachers are taught at an elementary level as if we arechildren," complained a teacher. Others criticized theacademies as "... just a cheap way to earn credits" or thatthe programs were so "heavy on jargon and had littlerelevance to teaching." One said: "... it is seen as some-thing that is done to you." The academies had their sup-porters as well; they were less specific in their com-ments. They praised the choices offered and the fact theydid not have to pay university tuition to get gooa train-ing.

Two of the academies provided substitutes to releasepeople for programs. That may be one reason why teach-ers complained the programs filled up quickly and werehard to get in. In the other, district staff indicated theywere no longer using the academy and that its programswere being cut back (in the other district the programwas expanding). In both sites, elementary teachers weremore likely to be positive about the academies than sec-ondary teachers. This difference may be due to the pro-gramming. Secondary teachers complained there wa' seldom anything in their content fields, or they preferred totake university courses.

Teacher Rewards and Recognition

In the workplace reform literature, recognition andrewards are a fundamental part of employee motivationand staff-employee relations. Rewards which are helpfulare most often connected to professional work, are pub-lic and have a value. Yet little to nothing is done to

9

SUPERVISION

reward effort in these urban schools, according to amajority of teachers in 28 of the 31 schools.

As indicated in Table 7:5, the rewards for teaching areclearly seen as inadequate by the teach( s in 17 of the 31schools, and inadequate to barely adequate in eleven

iingiEBERNEKEsimEsmazzaTABLE 7:5

TEACHER RECOGNITION BY LEVEL OF SCHOOL(N=31)

School Level Good

Assessment of Teacher RecognitionAdequate Adequateto Good Adequate to Inadequate Inadequate

ElementaryMiddleSecondary

000

000

1

20

632

458

Total 0 0 3 li 1 17

schools. In only three schools did respondents assessteacher recognition as adequate. And none was ratedgood. There was virtually no evidence in most of theschools of any formal reward system, outside of the nor-mal paycheck Notes in mailboxes, small tokens or pre-sents, annual faculty luncheons, and announcements atstaff meetings or in teacher bulletins about special deedsand accomplishments about sum it all. These informalgestures heavily depended on principal leadership style.Teachers reported being acknowledged thrc..0,h profes-sional development opportunities, extra release or plan-ning time, or additional compensation in very fewschools.

As one principal said: "Teachers get informal apprecia-tion from me. It's not as effective as it should be; I don'thave the time I need. I try to recognize three teacherseach faculty meeting. Formal recognition is poor, poor,poor. No release time, professional development, or sum-mer work" One frustrated teacher noted that "teachersare rewarded by being assigned the most difficult stu-dents." Or as another teacher said, "They leave you aloneif you are doing an excellent job."

Teachers don't perceive the informal and typicallyinfrequent "pats on the back" by principals as beingmeaningful recognition. Some teachers even see them asfavoritism on the part of principals. One teacher said that

98

. . . There was virtuallyno evidence in most ofthe schools of anyformal reward system,outside of the normalpaycheck.

83


INESEMENEILKIIIIIIIIIREEEZEI

Most principals believethat rewards areadequate to good intheir schools.

84

"teachers feel there arc ulterior motives to recognition. Itcauses jealousy. If you win something or have talentedstudents, then you get recognized. But not for doing agood job, day after day." In one high school with a lowlevel of collegiality and morale the principal gave a "tro-phy for perfect attendance." It was his only attempt torecognize teachers. Teachers found it insulting to berewarded in the sa ' way as students.

There is a major difference in the data, however, whenpnnupals arc asked about the adequac) of rmards. Mostprincipals believe that rewards are adequate to good intheir schools. In only a few schools did the principalsagree with the perceptions of teachers. As one principalsaid, "We don't do too well with recognizing teachers. Afew efforts are underway, but there is a lack of day-to-dayappreciation. It undermines satisfaction."

One of the four schools rated adequate, a middleschool, provided a marked contrast. The principaldescribed her efforts as "giving both informal and formalappreciation, everyone gets something. No favoritism orpets. I opened up academy positions to all teachers. Iwrite about 20 letters each year to teachers who havegone beyond the call of duty." Another principal used theschool-based substitutes whenever possible to provideextra release time for teachers.

In the absence of formal recognition, teachers fre-quently mentioned the importance of teaching's intrinsicrewards. "Many staff feel as I do; there's no prestige inteaching There is gratification from student gains, butwhen they're absent, there's no reward," said one. Otherteachers shared their views: "I feel good if I have a yearwhere most of the kids are successful" and "The rewardsof teaching are intrinsic; you are not going to get flowersor speeches about yourself. The satisfaction of taking astudent from one point to another is the reward of teach-ing."

The lack of teacher recognition was even more appar-ent at the district level. In 19 of the 31 schools, respon-dents reported they weren't aware of any district, unionor community recognition of teachers. In the other 12schools, teachers pointed to "Teacher of the YearAwards," which only acknowledged a handful of teachers,or Teacher Appreciation Week luncheons. Overall thepublic is seen as unsupportive of teachers' efforts and the

9J

media as negatis e. "We Ass s get negatis c feedback, thepublic is always finding fault. They never show theachievements we've made; we're always downed by thepublic," said one teacher bitterly. Another expressed thissentiment: "There's no recognition for being an outstand-ing teacher. I am not even talking about monetaryrewards, but at least public recognition in newsletters orin downtown documentation." Another teacher shared,"Never any recognition for a job well done. I've receivedoutstanding evaluations every year but have never gottenthe district commendation I'm supposed to get. Teacherswould strive harder if there was some recognition."Unions also did little to recognize individual teachers,although they promoted recognition for teachers as agroup through publications and other public relationsefforts.

On the other side, respondents in 14 schools reportedsanctions. Typically, there are informal and formal repri-mantis for such things as excessive abs' -ices or lateness,missed duty periods, or being illprepar. for classwork.Principals use letters of warning, letters t reprimand, aformal evaluation process, or suspension without bene-fits. Most teachers felt some sanctions were appropriate,especially in cases of incompetence. The main concernabout sanctions was unjust or public reprimands whereteachers were confronted in the middle of the office,over the public address system, or through announce-ments in bulletins. Teachers in one school said, "We aremostly punished, ostracized over the intercom for notturning in a form. The principal has no rapport withteachers. She confronts teachers in front of the studentsor other teachers. She is vindictive and grudging. Never athank you for your work"

Summary

Supervision, professional development and rewardswere rated as inadequate in most of the schools that IELstudied. Tensions clearly existed between administratorsand teachers over the purpose of supervisory relation-ships. Teachers felt the process should provide them withuseful advice; administrators tended to see the process asa mechanism for eliminating bad teaching. Both felt thesupervisory process was not useful. Teachers wereinsulted by pro forma observation; administrators com-

, 1 0 0

SUPERVISION

tHiwzainicamissizassem

'The satisfaction oftaking a student fromone point to another isthe reward of teaching."

85


86

plained that they should not have to waste their time onannual evaluations of experienced teachers.

Staff development also was judged inadequate. Elemen-tary teachers had higher opinions of the inservice train-ing than other teachers, and many teachers said that theprograms appeared to be geared to elementary teaching.The districts did not appear to have programs in place forinduction of new teachers, and a "sink or swim" attitudeprevailed. Academy programs got mixed reviews in thefour districts where they existed. School based programsplanned by teachers got somewhat higher evaluations,but these were few and far between.

In 28 of the schools we examined, teachers said noth-ing was done to reward effort and in 19 of the schools,teachers said they were unaware of any district, union,school or community recognition program of teachers.

101

I t

What is the role of anadministrative leader?

can disagree with theprincipal without fearing for yourlife. '

8 LEADERSHIP: VISIONARIES, MANAGERSAND DESPOTS

Cchool leaders must do five things. They must guideLioperations so that schools run smoothlya technicalfunction. They must cultivate the human potential of theorganization, providing growth opportunities to thestaffthe human function. They must bring expertknowledge as an educational leader to counsel teachersand support and oversee the instructional programtheeducational function. They must provide symbolic lead-ership, representing the school's important valuesthesymbolic function. And they must build a strong profes-sional culture to guide staffthe cultural function.

Effective leadership played a critical role in shaping theworking conditions in the schools examined in the IELstudy Teachers almost unanimously cited the work ofschool principals and department chairs as a major andessential force shaping the environments in their schools.

Leaders were able to influence the conditions or tobuffer their impact on teachers. Typically, it was the prin-cipal who was seen as providing, or failing to provide,good conditions for teaching School leaders weredescribed as major forces in initiating improvements andin supporting, encouraging, and integral% faculty coop-eration and performance. They set the tone in theschools and were the prime forces in creating positiveclimates for teaching and learning While school adminis-trators often were hampered or constrained by districtpolicies and lack of resources, the best leaders still madea difference.

School Leadership"It all depends on theprincipal"

There was rich, detailed information on leadership inalmost all of the schools. Generally, references to man-agement and leadership identified the school principal asthe key figure. There were also references to assistantprincipals and department chairs. This information was

104

szczasnessammormairmiTeachers almostunanimously cited thework of schoolprincipals anddepartment chairs as amajor and essentialforce shaping theenvironments in theirschools.

89

WORKING IN URBAN SCHOOIS

analyzed with particular attention to the quality of tech-nical, human, and educational leadership: the results thenwere compared to reports from the IEL interview teamsfor validation. The skills and the attributes of principalsseen as important by teachers were confirmed. Oftenthese were expressed in qualitative terms, e.g., "goodcommunicator," "terrific fiindraiser," "poor supervisor."

Based on this information, a general assessment wasmade of the quality of leadership in the buildings. Theresults of this assessment are in Table 8:1. A clear patternemergesleadership in elementary schools is more posi-tively assessed than for the other two levels, followed byleadership in the middle schools. Leadership in five of thehigh schools was deemed ineffective. This might beexplained by the larger size and more bureaucraticnature of high schools. Staff simply have less personalcontact with administrators on a daily basis than those inthe lower grades.

IngE2=====1TABLE 8:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS 0i 'HIE QI,AIM OP SC11001, LEADERSHIP(N=. 41)

Effective Adequate IneffectiveInsufficient

Data

ElementaryMiddleHigh Schools

5

3I

4

3i

245

00I

Total 9 10 11 1

90

I lowevcr, analysis of the data from the five highschools where leadership was perceived ineffectivereveals other factors to be at work as well. Three princi-pals were near retirement (at the end of the year) andwere described as cynical, indecisive, and arbitrary. Staffsaid they were disrespectiul of teachers, ignored teacherinput, and played favoritism. In all three cases, supervi-sion was perceived as weak and the administration unin-volved in instruction. In sum, the human and educationalfunctions of leadership were not being performed effec-tively.

In the other two high schools with ineffective leader-ship, the principals were new but perceived as relativelyweak and ilicnstent. In both cases, teachers com-t

...

plained about problems with discipline in the school andsaid the administration had little interest in curriculumand instruction. In these cases, none of the three essentialleadership functions were being executed satisfactorily.

In five of the six other schools where leadership wasconsidered ineffective, a common pattern emergedaweak administrator wno was inaccessible, disorganized,inconsistent at enforcing rules for staff and students, per-mitted no debate or dissent, was seen as vindictive andharassing, and did not support teachers. In these fivecases, the school leadership failed to perform any of theessential functions well. The sixth school had experi-enced considerable turnover in leadership, and staff feltthe new principal, while technically competent, was alsoseeking promotion by being tough and rigid about rules,going by the book. In this case, too, teachers complainedabout poor discipline, undeserved reprimands, and lackof input into school decisions. Human leadership wassorely lacking.

Where school leadership was perceived to be ade-quate, a more mixed pattern was found. In all ten cases,the administrators were seen as technically competent.llowever, their educational and human leadership skillsvaried in quality.

Four were described as traditionalist, strong, decisive,respected but bureaucratic, and directive. They ran "tightships" but provided for little teacher input and were notmotivators. Their greatest virtues in the eyes of teacherswere their predictability and emphasis on order.

In three other cases, the leaders were complimentedfor good communications with staff, working well withstudents, and being effective at representing the schoolexternally. They were not participative =lagers, butthey were respected. However, faculty members complained that the principals were not involved in instruc-tion and curriculum, nor were they regarded as strongsupervisors or disciplinarians.

The situation was different in the final three schoolswith adequate leadership. In each case, an aggressiveprincipal was attempting to raise standards and improvethe quality of instruction. All were skilled at clinicalsupervision and were promoting staff development activi-ties to improve teaching. They encouraged collegialityand involved faculty in school decisionmaking. :There

106

i.EADERSI11P

91


ImensisnimemaimesscissMost staff members feltthe principal was hyingto improve the school,but some saw teachersbeing manipulated andthe principal hying toadvance professionallyby 'getting poorteachers.'

92

was, however, considerable faculty resistance, and theirstaffs had divided opinions about the quality of their lead-ers. Accusations of unfairness, manipulation, lack ofrespect, stubbornness, and lack of warmth showed up.Conversely, other staff members praised them for highstandards, energy, and efforts to improve the school.

The three principals faced different situations. One hadtaken over an integrated elementary school whose chi!then came from extremely poor families. Tot scoreswere low, and there was racial tension among the stu-dents and faculty. Morale was low. The principal, a first-time administrator, was trying to motivate the facultythrough staff development and participatory planning,with little district support. Half of the teachers wereresponding enthusiastically Others felt the principal wastoo "strong-willed" and too "aggressive," and resented theefforts to change the school. SUCCM of the principal'sefforts was in doubt because of inadequate resources,staff resistance, and fatigue.

In the second case, the school's student achievementwas lower than others that served similar populations inthe district. The principal had been appointed to makeimprovements and was strong, visible, and positive. Teamplanning was being emphasized and electives were beingreduced to direct more attention to the academic core.This generated resentment among the teachers of elec-tivces and some support from the core teams. The short-run result was divisive. An experienced trainer, the prin.cipal also was providing staff development and rewardingClose who respunded. Most staff members felt the pnnupal was trying to improve the school, but some sawteachers being manipulated and ,he principal trying toadvance professionally by "getting poor teachers." Theprincipal was receiving support from the district, how-ever, and morale appeared to be improving.

The third case was a high school with a reputation forhigh levels of academic achievement. Most staff had beentogether for some time and held high expectations forboth teachers and students. The principal was trying tomaintain these standards but was meeting resistance fromteachers new to the school who felt they were lyingasked to do too much. Clinical techniques and staff par-ticipation were being used to maintain the school'sprofessional culture. Yet, some teachers saw the principal

107

as cold and unfair, and repined repeated trivial prohler.iswith the administration. Both the principal and the unionrepresentative felt the situation was improving.

In all three schools, the principals had been in theirpositions for less than two years. They had good techni-cal skills and expert knowledge of education. They NN ere

respected for their expertise. They also were attemptingto cultivate the human potential of their staffs and, cer-tainly, they were all seen as strong symbolic leaders.Their problems arose from the cultures of their schoolsand resistance from some of their stafi; who did notshare their professional norms. The absence of strongrewards and incentives for the staff and the lack of timeto meet with teachers made the task of altering staffbehavior difficult. Leadership in these schools was moredifficult to assess. It was not clear whether the leaderswere overzealous and ineffective human leaders orwhether they were simply dealing with difficult, recalci-trant teachers.

Leaders in nine of the 31 schools received almost uni-versal praise from teachers. They appeared to be techni-cally competent, good with people, and strong instruc-tional leaders. They differed in stylelive fostered demo-cratic decisionmaking, while four were described withadjectives such s "good listener," "rcsixmsive," and"decisive 'fiible 8:2 lists the common characteristics ofthese school leaders as perceived by their staffs. Oneteacher, speaking of a new principal, said: "Al}' reward ishow the principal runs this school."

Principal as Boundary Spanner

Perhaps the most striking data in our study are com-mentaries on the myriad roles principals play in urbanschooLs. Instructional leadership was important to teach-ers in our study. But principals often were cited becauseof their ability to advocate for their schools, to getaround rules and bureaucracy, to find wa) s to keep con-trol of their buildings through "aggressive complaining."

Principal leadership was key to:

G.:tting repairs madeKeeping up maintenance in the buildingGetting control over hiring the custodianAssuring an atmosphere where cleanliness is impor-tant

,i108

LEADERSIIIP

It was not clear whetherthe leaders wereoverzealous andineffective humanleaders cr whether theywere simply dealingwith difficult,recalcitrant teachers

93


NOININERIESEEMESESES:=1

TABLE 8:2

TEACHER PERCEPTIONSOF THE ATTRIBUTES OF COMPETENT SCHOOL LEADERS

Al fRIBUTE

High expectat.ons

COMMENTS

'He gives tLe best teachers to the slowest students. A teacher wouldnot be teaching here [with] negative attitudes about students."

Takes initiative "A moverpeople work for him."

Encourages collegiality ...she allows disagreement, allows inr.ov anon and risk taking. Agood listener, allows input, a fair person."

Respects teachers You can disagree with the principal without fearing for your life."Treats us like professionals."

Focu,cd on instruction I am glad to finally get an administrator who knows curriculum andinteracts with teachers about teaching"

Supportive supervisor She provide ...,Jistancc, she was a teacher herself and she gibespractical advise."

Gives extra "This principal takes Lie lunch duty so we can have an hour lunch ..."

Respected externally "The principal ,s assertive and influential ... has some leveragedowntown."

SCLUICS additional resources Anything we, need digs principal will get, he will take the time to runall over the city. He is well-liked downtown and he gets what hewants "

94

O Countering 'red tape' for repairs at tne district level

In resource poor buildings, principals had to take onsupply problems by:

Buying toilet paper from their paychecksO Fighting to gc.z: needed instructional resourcesO Developing resources by parent involvement, fund-

raisers, and participating in pilot projectso Dealing with area superintendents and district per-

sonnel to get additional resources.

Interceding with district personnel, involving parentsand community, supporting staff development, andengaging teachers in building decisionmakingall ofthese activities won principals high praise from their staff.Clearly, these leaders are one of the keys to moderatingworking conditions.

Conclusion

The quality of leadership varied widely across theschools and across the five districts. Elementary teachers

109

were somewhat more positive about the leadership intheir schools than their colleagues in the secondaryschools. Middle school teachers were more positive thantheir high school counterparts. This consistent correla-tion between staff-administration relationships and thelevel of schooling suggests school size and organizationalcomplexity may affect teachers' perceptions of leaders, orthe actual performance of leadership functions, or both.The key issue may be the frequency and character of theinteractions between teachers and administrators.

While leadership styles in the schools varied, the lead-ers viewed most positively by teachers seemed to beeffective at the technical, human and educational aspectsof their jobs. They were not necessarily democratic man-agers, but they were attentive to teacher concerns andperceived as caring, responsible, and responsive. Lesseffective leaders often were perceived as ineffective ineither the educational or human dimensions of theirwork. If a school leader was ineffective in both of theseareas, teachers were highly critical and often alienatedfrom the administration. They seemed to be willing toaccept some weaknesses in their leaders if competencewas demonstrated in other areas.

110f, ;

LEAI)ERSIIIP

95

What are the Most-important workingconditions issuesdistrict.?

9 THE DISTRICT SETTINGS: A LONG WAY'DOWNTOWN'

'The previous sections reported the perceptions ofI teachers and administrators as to the conditions of

teaching and the impact they have on teachers. Thesedata have been examined by level of school and analyzedto identify patterns in "good" and "poor" worksites.Working conditions, it is evident, are shaped by policies,practices, and conditions at the building level. Schoolsoperating within the same district exhibited widely vary-ing working conditions for teachers.

However, because district leaders set goals, policy, andexpectations for the system, they certainly influenceworking conditions in the schools. This section examinesthe influence of the school district on working conditionsfrom the perspectives of both teachers and central officepersonnel. Finally, initiatives to alter working conditionsundertaken by the five districts included in the study willbe described briefly.

District Leadership and Policies

During the past three decades there has been a steadydrift of authority away from the school building to thedistrict office as a result of collective bargaining and fed-eral and state regulations. It is probably more accurate tothink of schools as being comanaged by district andbuilding administrators, although the balance of powerand authority in this partnership varies enormously fromdistrict to district.

Even in situations in which some form of schoolsitemanagement prevails, districts typically exercise enor-mous influence on school conditionscreating theaccountability mechanisms, setting priorities for con-struction and maintenance, defining resource and timeallocation, determining the latitude of principals, negoti-ating teacher workload and responsibilities, and definingcriteria for student success or failure. District leadeis--the board of education, the superintendent, and the cen-

112

EEMBRINSIESEERIZEINEEIMISINI

Schools operatingwithin the same districtexhibited widelyvarying workingconditions for teachers.

97

'WORKING LN URBAN SCHOOLS

The data show that mostof the issues upsettingteachers requiredistrict action.

tral office staffplay critical roles in shaping the condi-tions that this study has shown are important to teachers.

District leaders also are in the best position to initiateactions t improve conditions, or obstruct them: theyhave the opportunity to plan and coordinate; they con-trol critical resources; and, ultimately; they decidewhether schools, their leaders, and their staffs are suc-cesses or failures.

Teachers and administrators were asked directly aboutmajor problems affecting teaching in the district. Theywere asked about district policies relevant to the majordimensions of school working conditions and questionedabout communication with district personnel. Centraloffice personnel and key decisionmakers, including theboard president, superintendent, and president of theteachers' organization, were interviewed. All of the inter-views were coded for references to district leadershippolicies, practices, initiatives, and problems.

Teacher Perceptions of Workplace Problems

The data in lable 9.1 show that most of the issuesupsetting teachers require district action. Problems suchas the quality of school leadership, lack of public respectfor teaching, large class sizes, lack of planning time, andlack of materials and supplies, which teachers perceive tobe obstacles to their success in the classroom, cannot beresolved at the school level. Other issues such as studentdiscipline, student attendance, and staff collegiality canbe addressed at the building level, but their resolutionoften depends upon the adequacy of resourcesa factorcontrolled by the district.

When the issues are examined by level of schoolacross the five districts, some common themes are appar-ent. In the elementary schools, the major issues con-cerned workload, class size and the lack of preparationtime; elementary teachers feel overloaded with work.Other issues emerge, but they are specific to each dis-trict.

In the middle schools, there also was concern aboutclass size, but poor student discipline emerges as thedominant issue. In the high schools, concerns shiftedstrongly to student behavior. Poor discipline, motivation,and attendance were the common concerns.

113

Disrittcr

IneaffiMasinintiommemanTABLE 9:1

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF MAJOR WORKPLACEISSUES BY DISTRICT AND LEVEL OF SCHOOL

District ElementaryLevel of School

Middle High SchoolA Lack of prep time Poor discipline Poor school

Poor school Lack of public leadershipleadership respect Poor discipline

Poor discipline Lack of staff Lack of collegialityinfluence

B School duties Class size Lack of suppliesLack of prep time Lack of supplies and materialsLack of parent and materials Student apathy

support Poor discipline Poor schoolleadership

C Discipline Discipline DisciplineLack of district lack of district Student attendance

support support Student apathyLack of parent lack of parent

support support

D Class size. Discipline Lack of suppliesLack of prep time Quality of teachers Student apathyLack of supplies Lack of staff Student attendance

and materials influence

Lack of respect Poor discipline Student attendanceby district Lack of respect Poor disciplineleaders by district Poor facilities

Lack of public leadersrespect Lack of public

Heavy workloads respect

There also was variation across the districts. In districtC, for example, strong concern was expressed in all ofthe schools about student discipline. "The kids are hardto control; I am tired of being a Scrooge every day," saidone teacher. In district E, the lack of respect for teachersand teaching by the district leaders and the general pub-lic were the dominant issues.

In district B, on the other hand, the major concernswere the more conventional ones of class size, materials,adequate time, and student behavior.

Lack of parental support also was an issue in severaldistricts, but it was closely associated with the questionof discipline. Busing in two districts had made it difficultfor parents to come to the schools and widened the gulfbetween the home and the school.

114 99


INISSIOSSIMEREMEE3=221

Discipline andattendance were notseen as major issues bydistrict leaders, andlack of respect was onlymentioned in onedistrict.

100

In district D, the only common themes were the lackof materials and discipline. In general, the major workingconditions issues concerned the lack of resources.

Finally, in the last of the five districts, there were twocommon and closely related issuesleadership and dis-cipline. "Some rather serious offenses to teachers are notremedied, .... it is a flaw at the district level," said oneteacher. And another: "Weak leadershipand extremelypoor leadershipthese are the issues."

Comparative Perspective on Workplace Issues

Teachers and school administrators saw the problemssimilarly, as Table 9:2 shows. The central issues for teach-ing staff, cutting across the five districts, were discipline,class size, student attendance, lack of teacher influenceover school policies and decisions, and the lack ofrespect for teachers by district leaders. These issuesranked high in at least three of the five districts. With theexception of student attendance, school administratorsmentioned the same issues.

Central office administrators provided more diverseresponses. The most frequently mentioned issues werelarge class sizes, teacher salaries, and lack of teacher influ-ence. Salaries were given lower priority by the staff in theschools. Discipline and attendance were not seen asmajor issues by district leaders, and lack of respect wasonly mentioned in one district.

The perspc,tives of district leaders on working condi-tions issues are likely to differ somewhat from those ofschool staffs because of their resporiAffity for account-ability to the public, fiscal responsibilities, and the pres-sure of interest groups. It is not surprising that they iden-tify issues with fiscal implications, such as salaries andconditions of facilities as the major issues, whereasschool personnel are particularly concerned about nitty-gritty issues such as discipline, preparation time, andquality of school leadership. Both groups expressed con-cern over class size.

Teacher Perceptions of District Administration

Teachers generally did not hold high opinions of thecentral administration or leadership in their districts, andsome were cynical and bitter. They believed, for exam-

115

DISTRICT

ICSIESMOSIMMEMENIEME11TABLE 9:2

COMPARATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF MAJOR WORKPLACEPROBLEMS AND ISSUES

Central. OfficeDistrict Administration School Administration Teachers

A Inadequate facilitiesClass sizeRelations with school

administratorsLack of teacher influencePaperwork

B Lack of materials and suppliesClass sizeTeacher salariesQuality of school leadershipPoor facilities

C Class sizeDisciplineStudent mobilityTeacher influence over

curriculumTeacher salariesQuality of school leadership

D SafetyClass sizelack of teacher influencelack of materialsStudent attendance

E Teacher salarieslack of public respect/

supportStudent attitudeslack of district respect/

supportTeacher stressClass size

DisciplineInadequate prep timelack of respect for teachersLack of teacher influencelack of collegiality

Class sizeLack of materials and suppliesPaperworkStudent apathyTeacher recognition

DisciplineStudent attendancelack of teacher influencelack of parent supportClass size

Class sizePrep timelack of teacher recognitionlack of trustPaperworkStudent motivation

Lack of district respect/support

Lack of public respect/support

Lack of teacher influenceParent supportClass sizeDiscipline

DisciplineQuality of school leadershiplack of prep timeClass sizeLack of teacher influencelack of district support/

respect

lack of materials and suppliesDisciplineInadequate facilitiesClass sizelack of teacher influence

Disciplinelack of district respect/

supportStudent attendanceLack of parent supportTeacher salarieslack of teacher influence

Class sizeLack of suppplies and

materialsDisciplineStudent attendanceInadequate prep time

lack of district respect/support

lack of public respect/support

DisciplineQuality of building leadershipStudent attendanceClass size/workload

pie, that the central offices did not respect them. As evi-dence, they cited low salaries, lack of input into deci-sions, lack of support for teachers, and negative state-ments about teachers by district officials. "Downtown isnot behind the teachers; they don't respect our con-cerns," said one teacher. They complained about inequi-ties in treatment. "If you are not involved with athleticsor on the glory road, you don't count." Low morale,teacher turnover, absenteeism, and a loss of efficacy wereattributed to this gulf between teachers and the districtleaders.

116

suatimesimasianamsies"If you are not involvedwith athletic: or on theglory road, you don'tcount."

101

WORKLNG IN URBAN SCHOOLS

Many expressed anger about accusations by citizensand public officials that the teachers were racist. P r.yblamed the district administration for contributing to thenegative image of teachers and, therefore, to the lack ofpublic support. "We are treated as non-persons by thedistrict," said one. Added another: "There is a blame-the-teacher syndrome systemwide."

A teacher spoke of a dilemma confronting teachers inurban areas:

The more you care, the more you giveandsometimes it is stressfulthe more it hurts whenyou fail to meet the expectations of parents, admin-istrators, the local board. Teachers are caught in themiddle. There is no appreciation from the parents,the community.

Another frustrated elementary teacher said:

Parents here are not supportive in any way. Theyseldom give teachers praise, and they try to run theschool. They will not get involved with the wholeschool, they are concerned only about their child.They immediately run to the building administrationwhen a problem occurs.... Central administration... immediately sides with the parents.

Teachers expressed frustration in particular about theperceived lack of support in dealing with students. "Theprincipal tries to be fair-minded about serious disciplin-ary incidents ... but there is never any support fromdowntown," observed one teacher. A middle school mathteacher summed up feelings of teachers in her districtwhen she said:

The number one problem is discipline, the num-ber two problem is discipline, and the number threeproblem is discipline; downtown doesn't supportdiscipline at the building level.

A perception of lack of support surfaced in other areas.Teachers complained about how long it took to processsimple paperwork They saw the systems as big, imper-sonal and unresponsive to their needs. For example,teachers and administrators in all five districts describedhow long it took to get basic maintenance and repairs

102

done. This particularly was a problem in two districts.People knew that maintenance was underfunded, but thelack of response was still annoying. "The bureaucracy isunreal; it takes many requests," commented one teacher.

Part of the problem appears to be poor communica-tion. Building level staff did not perceive themselves ashaving much input into district policy decisions or evenhaving access to district officials. Said one frustratedteacher: "Those clowns never come to our schools, sothey have no understanding of the problems we face."Another explained that "there are no communicationchannels between teachers and the central office, no ave-nues to discuss practice." One teacher observed that Itsdowntown and politics; I have feelings of hopelessnesswhen I have no say."

In two districts, teach. :; and building administrators inseveral schools complaineu of inequities in the distribu-tion of resources and opportunities across schools. Theysaid that what a school received depended upon theprincipal's clout and ability to manipulate the bureau-cracy. Examples of the frustration:

The district doesn't recognize the inequities in thesystem; they create showpieces and then point totheir success.

It depends on the principal's clout with down-town; our principal doesn't have it because he hasother priorities.

The 'silk stocking' schools get better teachers, bet-ter students.

Principals who have direct contact with centraloffice administrators and school board membersreceive more than others.

Finally, teachers questioned the legitimacy of some dis-tricts' initiatives. Changes came and went, quickly. "They[the Central office staff] read an article, whip out an acronym, and off we go," said one teacher. "The board is con-stantly changing its priorities and the superintendent fol-lows their whims," commented another. And "Just whenyou are used to it, they change it again; there is a lack ofclear direction and stability." Teachers expressed support,

i1'©

DISTRICT

0===tgaiimaistingi"It's downtown and

politics; I have feelingsof hopelessness whenhave no say."

103


104

however, for changes affecting their work environmentpositively, such as policies to reduce class size or the useof schoolbased mentors and schoolbased inscrvice training programs. They were not opposed to change per sebut wanted to have a voice in shaping it and wanted tounderstand the rationale underlying it.

These perceptions of lack of support, inequities, andlack of direction may not accurately describe policies inthe five districts, but they are an accurate reflection of

Ojstrktitiiie-5-**islet601110t*i0ticgee.*:

schoii)"con`ditit?:is' )y ,

:s tti t,

..

*"4.1.4*"Ar#41.41,teil**44t.0.14'1***41*iAitcd'.04-006 aB96;1':Boris;:Boris;'Cid.414pAct

iiooty,,Asoffyi,A.PosOffOtt0004:0tcii*LiV'00.***:#1**01'1.044400;14014$113

.

to :04;644 the ainoi i t: of authority the giveetofirjnOtiAls,a04,:theil*e7,..otlatirdrie,oykive

ti4d)***-0.*.rittg9f0,;4.'qea*file.::#001.tit.OPY-M00.01040ch

to0:4,-,tp**Foso;setting 140 organization aii4014

the eapecxatidris.andvvrlc riaiiias of their:

4:;iiii)4.,,*1e#iiikt4f0'1Of Atilt 10±1c

:providing' ltbe erne ain :** .6* prof -0.:46-01.,cioplopoeht;. ,

tipoijogjivotkiiigtkipt eaffjo44c 04-',-±ficI*1 40001 pOkips; ..

de§iSigrigs,* .0cbgtiitioil-Phdr419,rdsSiireP'to teachers ;. ;

.,40400jog-Sfoilerit, attendance areas; and. clOniOgrhectiteria for stuilentsuec*or14-

tire with tiromOricinstariclards; attendanceis°41,11rcnIOPtkciscipOlaiy codes, an 1041.

gr4-1949n,requirelPFlits.

11 :9

how many urban teachers feel. The systems arc large, andthe teachers feel isolated, ignored, and powerless to influ-cnce the system-wide decisions that affect their work.

Top Down Improvement Initiatives

Recent improvement initiatives in many urban districtsnegatively affect teacher working conditions. Their gen-eral intent is increased central office control over instruc-tion and tighter coupling between the classroom and thedistrict. At least three of the five districts examined inthis study have undertaken such policy changes in super-vision, curriculum development, and monitoring of cur-riculum.

The underlying assumption appears to be that teachersare not doing an adequate job and need tighter supervi-sion and accountability to raise their level of effort, keepthem on track, and improve coordination. This search fortighter coupling often results in new policies andimprovement programs designed in the district officewith little, if any, teacher input, and implemented in atop-down fashion.

Considering the pressure on district leaders to raisetest scores, certain top-down policies are understandable,particularly if local policymakers believe such approacheswill produce quick gains in achievement and hold offpublic criticism. But such pins may be short-lived andthe unanticipated consequences costly. Tighter couplingto achieve effective schools may simply produceincreased bureaucratization and a higher level of medioc-rirp

The data from the IEL study suggest that increased uni-formity combined with stricter controls over teacherwork may lower morale, level of effort, and professional-ism among the teaching staff. Stronger accountabilitymeasures without compensating steps to enhanceteacher discretion and participation may raise the levelsof conflict among teachers and administrators and lead toa "work-to-rule" attitude. The press toward efficiency isnot necessarily bad; it may even be essential in some dis-tricts, but it is unlikely to build a foundation for long-term improvements unless accompanied by other mea-sures that produce and protect strong, professional cul-tures in the schools.

DISTRICT

lEIMIE=M1111i11111111111=111

The underlyingassumption appears tobe that teachers are notdoing an adequate joband need tightersupervision andaccountability to raisetheir level of effort, keepthem on track, andimprove coordination.

105

WORKING IN URBAN SC11001ti

IN=1111111=1115111111EMIERI

. . . the role of thedistrict shifts fromcontrol to theencouragement,support and nurturingof desired workcultures in schools . . .

106

An Alternative View

There are alternatives. Districts Can take steps to helpbuilding leaders develop school cultures that promoteand support goal consensus, cooperation, achievementorientation, problem-solving, and high discretionaryeffort among their staffs. In this view, people and theresources they bring to their jobs are the major assets ofa good school. Good school mann:as, then, are thosewho create conditions under which people perform attheir best.

Three of the districts studied have initiated changesthat increase teacher influence over decisions andstrengthen professional cultures in the schools. One is astrong initiative designed to Restructure the schools, theother two are more limited efforts that are highly depen-dent on the style of leadership in the building. Neverthc-less, all three districts, recognize that long term imptove-ment depends upon altering the working conditions andthe roles of teachers.

From this perspective, the role of the district shiftsfrom control to the encouragement, support and nurtur-ing of desired work cultures in schools and to therecruitment and development of the talent needed forimprovement. Emphasis is placed on encouraging schoollevel responsibility rather than on gaining greater controland uniformity. School staffs are asked to identify andclarify school problems, develop and implement plans,make decisions about assignment of resources, and planstaff development activities.

The district's role in this approach is to provide direc-tion and resources. These include moral support, incen-tives for participation, time, funds, and technical assis-tance. The district, of course, continues to set the param-eters within which schoolbased improvement occurs bysetting overall goals, defining indicators of quality,reviewing plans, and monitoring implementation. Districtleaders have both the authority and the responsibility tocreate the conditions for optimal school effectiveness.The issue facing them is how best to do this.

District Improvement Initiatives

Like most urban school districts, severe fiscal con-straints hampered the efforts of the five districts studied

'121

by IEL to improve the quality of their programs. Theseverity varied across the districts.

Nevertheless, all of the districts had tried to improvethe quality of their schools. They had developed newpolicies and programs and, in some instances, hiridedeliberate efforts to alter the working conditions ofteachers. Examples of these initiatives are describedbelow.

Class Size Reduction

Three of the districts had reduced class sizes for theearly grades. In one case, the reduction was for pre-IC andkindergarten only; in the other two, it was for first andsecond grades. In both cases, the districts reduce(' theaverage class to 20 or 21 students. Two of the districtshad adopted specific formulas for the allocation ofpara-professionals to assist with large classes.

These efforts were appreciated by teachers in the ele-mentary schools, but secondary teachers felt the reduc-tions had been made at the expense of their workload.Actually, student loads were lower in the secondaryschools, but there were enormous inequities within thesecondary schools, leaving some teachers with largenumbers of students.

Control of Curriculum

None of the five districts was happy with their management of curriculum. Two districts were moving toincrease teacher involvement in curriculum developmentand decentralize curriculum management, after an earlierattempt to centralize control. One district was moving inexactly the opposite direction. None seemed to havefound the balance between accountability and teachercommitment and ownership that they sought.

Nor were the districts pleased with their proceduresfor monitoring curriculum implementation. District offi-cials generally felt teachers had too much discretion overwhat was taught. Three districts were relying heavily onlocal tests of basic competencies to ensure some unifor-mity, and one was moving in that direction. The develop.ment of these tests was seen as one way of relaxing reli-ance on specific curricular guidelines.

422

DISTRICT

PIZZ=21111MBINIENIMISIMMINI

None seemed to havefound the balancebetween accountabilityand teacher commit-ment and ownershipthat they sought

107


Mill1=111131111111111111SEIBEIS

None of the districts,however, had been ableto address thefundamental obstacleto strengtheningcollegiality, lack oftime, because of :heirfiscal problems.

108

Improving Staff Collegiality

Leaders in all districts expressed concern aboutimproving staff collegiality in their schools, but only twohad taken any action. One district was moving rapidlytoward the adoption of school-site management, and theother had introduced a packaged "effective schools" pro-gram which purported to strengthen collegiality. None ofthe districts, however, had been able to address the fun-damental obstacle to strengthening collegiality, lack oftime, because of their fiscal problems.

Supervisior Jf Instruction

All districts had revised their approach to supervisionwithin the past two years. Four of them had developednew instruments and were training administrators to doclinical supervision, but implementation was uneven andobstructed by lack of time and too much paperworkOne district was implementing a mentoring system usingteachers to help others having difficulty.

Professional Development

All districts had taken steps to improve the amountand quality of staff development available to teachers,but, again, they had moved in different directions. Onedecentralized some responsibility and funding for staffdevelopment after a decade of strong centralization oftraining programs in a district academy. Two districtsrecently had opened academies, as well as three teachercenters, two of which were union initiatives. Two dis-tricts had been able to negotiate more noncontact daysand increase the time available for inservice training.

Only one district provided management developmentprograms for principals. Two districts were hoping toparticipate in academies for principals being opened intheir area. In the two remaining districts, administratorshad only sporadic access to professional development.

School Management and Teacher Influence onDecisions

In two districts, the administration and the union lead-ership had been discussing school-site management withstrong teacher involvement in decisionmaking. Both of

12 3

these districts had some experience, though not alwayssuccessful, with participatory mechanisms in the schools.One effort was about to be implemented although thedetails were not clear, while the future of the other initia-tive was in doubt due to growing tensions over contractnegotiations and teacher concerns about salaries. In athird, an "effective schools" program provided someopportunity for teacher input into setting goals and prior-ities and development of building plans, but no commit-ment had been made to permanent structures for teacherparticipation. The other two districts had not addressedthe issue.

Three of the districts were engaged in some collabora-tive planning and decisionmaking with union leaders atthe district level. These efforts appeared to be fragile buthad produced some significant successes: adoption ofschoolsite management and a mentoring program in onecase, and class size reduction in another.

Teacher Recognition and Respect for Teaching

Only one district was really addressing the issue ofrewards and incentives for teachers. It had adopted anew career ladder model that offered professionaladvancement for teachers. The others Ind addressed theissue only in a token manner.

Possibilities of Improvement

The opinions of leaders in the districts ranged fromextremely optimistic to quite pessimistic about the possi-bilities of improving conditions for teachers and schooleffectiveness in the next few years. In fact, they wereabout equally divided in all districts except one. Opti-mism reigned in the one district undertaking radicalreforms. The pessimism was based on forecasts of fiscalconstraint, the optimism on the hope that reforms beingput in place would work without additional resources.

Summary

Teachers identified a number of workplace problemsthat required district action. However, they expressed lit-tle confidence in the ability of the districts to address andresolve school problems. They felt they were notrespected and had little input into district deliberations.

124

DISTRICT

Three of the districtswere engaged in somecollaborative planningand decisionmakingwild union leaders atthe district level.

109


They complained about lack of support from district offi-cials. At the same time, district officials were undertakinginitiatives to address some of the issues such as class sizeand teacher participation in decisionmaking.

District officials tended to identify issues with fiscalimplications, such as facilities and salaries, as the majorproblems confronting them, whereas teachers identifiedissues such as discipline, availability of preparation timeand the quality of school leadership. District size anddecisionmaking structure have an impact in these dis-tricts, as teachers feel isolated and at great distance fromthe central office. Even where districts had initiativesunderway to change conditions, teachers perceived thatthe changes were top-down, constantly changing, and notdesigned to assist them at the school level.

125110

What is the impact ofworking conditions onteachers?

112 127

I compare this to a businessoffice. Why doesn't the

community recognize us as a

profession and see our shortages

of supplies and pay? If

10 THE EFFECTS OF WORKING CONDITIONSON TEACHERS: THE CRITICAL MASS

What impact do working conditions have on teach-ers or on schools? Do they affect teacher attitudes

and behaviors? Are some conditions more critical toteacher behavior than others? Do these conditions influ-ence the quality of instruction and/or the quantity of ser-vices provided to students?

The IEL data suggest some answers to these questions.They provide a foundation for the development ofsomestrong hypotheses about how working conditions affectteachers and, consequently, students and overall schooleffectiveness.

Previous research linked working conditions in schoolsand teacher perceptions of their working conditions totheir attitudes and behaviors in the classroom. Accordingto the research, the most vital resources in effectiveschools were the effort, commitment, and involvement oftheir teaching staffs and leaders.

Our data on teacher attitudes and behavior confirmthese findings. Teachers interviewed felt the workingconditions in their schools had significant effects, positiveand negative, on their colleagues. The most frequently

lEallERM11111111111111iNESIMMEI

TABLE 10:1

TEACHER BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES POSITIVELYAFFECTED BY WORKING CONDITIONS

Level ofSchool

TeacherAttendance

Level ofEffort

ClassroomEfficacy

Sense ofCommunity Morale

JobSatisfaction

Elementary 7 7 4 7 4 3(N = 11)

Middle 3 2 3 7 2 2(N = 10)

High 1 2 2 5 2 3(N = 10) .

(N = 31) 11 11 9 19 8 8

1:28 113


cited negative effects were absenteeism, reduced levelsof efforts, lowered effectiveness in the classroom, lowmorale, and reduced job satisfaction. The most com-monly mentioned positive effects were on attendance,level of effort and a sense of community. Tables 10:1 and10:2 show these effects by school level.

EMERZESEMEMENEENESEM

TABLE 10:2

TEACHER BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES NEGATIVELYAFFECTED BY WORKING CONDITIONS

Level ofSchool

TeacherAttendance

Level ofEffort

ClassroomEfficacy

Sense ofCommunity Morale

JobSatisfaction

Elementary 3 0 4 1 3 3(N = 11)

Middle 2 6 4 0 6 5(N = 10)

High 5 5 5 0 5 5(N = 10)

(N = 31) 10 11 13 1 14 13

111111111111=18111=1111SERVIE5

Schools perceived asbaying problemsgenerally bad 96percent staff attendanceor better.

114

Teacher Attendance

In 11 of the 31 schools, working conditions had posi-tive effects on the attendance of the teaching staff. Sevenof these were elementary schools. Teachers in an addi-tional 10 schools reported that working conditions hadlittle or no effect on staff attendance. However, respon-dents reported negative effects on attendance in theremaining 10 schools. In the majority of schools, teachersreported that attendance was good and that few teachersused the maximum number of sick days. The answersabout staff attendance are consistent with the statisticsprovided by the districts. Actual staff attendance ratesranged from 85 percent to 98 percent. Schools perceivedas having no problems generally had 96 percent staffattendance or better. In those schools with staff absentee-ism rates higher than 5 percent, respondents generallyperceived attendance to be negatively affected by work-ing conditions.

The reasons most frequently cited for low absenteeismamong teachers were positive relations with students,strong collegiality among the staff, good school physicalconditions, and good leadership. As one teacher said,

-129

"You want to come here each day because of the stu-dents, rapport among staff, and positive principal atti-tude." The opposite was true in schools where teachersfelt the need to take "mental health days" due to stressand fatigue. Aba-nteeism was related to stress caused bypoor discipline, overcrowding, heavy workloads, lack ofadministrative support, or poor physical conditions in theschool. As one teacher said, "Every now and then daysare taken just for rest."

Effort Level

Teachers' levels of effort were negatively affected in 11of the schools. None of these were elementary schools,so school 'evil and organization, and possibly the age andattitudes of the students, again seemed to be significantfactors. The same factors that affected attendance affectedlevel of effort. In addition, teachers frequently said theirefforts were taken for granted. "Some see no reason towork hard; it doesn't matter and no one appreciates it,"said one teacher.

Responses in the 11 schools in which teachers saidthey were motivated to work harder suggest that stu-dents often were the major motivating factor in maintain-ing high levels of effort in spite of other working condi-tions issues. As one principal stated, "The teachers areprofessionals and give 110 percent. They want the chil-dren to do better." One teacher shared, "There are timeswhen you want to say the heck with it. Then a little shin-ing light emerges, and you think maybe things are alrightafter all."

The assessments of overall staff effort by the teachersand administrators were consistent with the data onhours of extra work reported by individual respondentsin the elementary schools and middle schools. That is, ifthe respondents in a school generally reported high lev-els of extra effort, they also thought others were workinghard, too. Or conversely, if individuals reported relativelylow levels of discretionary effort, they also reported nega-tive effects from the working conditions.

However, high school teachers generally reported theyput in more time and effort than their colleagues. Theyoften were critical of others for no longer giving theirbest effort because of the working conditions in thebuilding.

, 130

EFFECTS

tamisiminNimmoransi'There are times whenyou want to say the heckwith it. Then a littleshining light emerges,and you think maybethings are alright afterall."

115


rimeNEMIZIENIMMIERNIE

`ibis is a very bigb-stress job. I feel wipedout, not burned out."

116

Effectiveness in the Classroom

The respondents were very clear about the impact ofconditions on teachers' feelings of effectiveness in theclassroom. The majority of those interviewed in 13schools felt the classroom effectiveness of the staff wasaffected negatively by conditions in their school.

Staff of an additional nine schools reported that work-ing conditions, no matter how inadequate, had little orno impact on their effectiveness. They shut their doorsand did their jobs. There were no significant differencesacross the levels of schools. One teacher's comment sum-marizes many: "This is a very high-stress job. I feel wipedout, not burned out. Exhausted. But every 30 minutes ihave to present the most dynamic lesson possible."

Teachers singled out different aspects of working con-ditions as lowering their effectiveness, but the majorproblems were lack of resources, poor physical condi-tions, large class sizes, and lack of supportive principalleadership. As the union president in one district stated,"The most important issues facing teachers are reductionin class size, planning time, physical plants, and sufficientmaterials. Morale is low. No salary raises and teachers arelocked out of decisionmaking at the school level. Mostteachers feel unable to be effective." A teacher com-mented: "I compare this to business offices. Why doesn'tthe community recognize us as a profession and see curshortages of supplies and pay."

Sense of Belonging

The staff of only one school reported negative effectson the sense of community among the staff. At first, thisappears to contradict other data suggesting that collegial-ity, cooperation, and communication were less than ade-quate in many schools. However, respondents under-stood the question to refer to a sense of belonging in aninformal, social sense. They distinguished this from thepatterns and opportunities for professional communica-tion and collegiality within a school. In addition, whilerespondents seemed quite willing to criticize the workeffort, attitudes, and effectiveness of their colleagues, theywere seldom willing to suggest the school was anythingbut one large happy family. One teacher stated, "When Iget tired, I'm going to quit. If I didn't enjoy the job, Iwouldn't be here."

131

Morale

Yet in 14 of the 31 schools teachers felt working con-ditions had negative effects on teachers' morale. This wasespecially true at the high school level where workingconditions at 5 of the 10 schools were reported to havenegative effects on morale. Of all the teacher attitudes,morale appears to be the one most affected by workingconditions and the one teachers are most willing toadmit. As one superintendent said:

Working conditions affect teacher morale mainly.There has been no significant pay raise in eightyears; salaries were just getting competitive but noware falling behind. The district does not have theresources to give teachers the support servicesneeded to deal with student problems. Most teach-ers probably feel they are able to be effective onlydue to the fact that they can close the door and arein an isolated island.

One principal said:

We're all very strapped and strained in this school.We bust our butts all day and go home feeling we'rebarely doing an adequate job. The frustration buildsup constantlythe higher the standards, the worsethe strain.

Lack of building leadership contributed to low morale.We do have a morale problem due to lack of support atevery administrative level. Faculty in general feel theprincipal is not a strong leader," said one teacher. "Thehardest thing for me to cope with is the morale of thepeople I work with. The morale problem stems from theleadership in the buildingfrom them [administrators]not communicating with each other and them [adminis-trators] not communicating with the faculty," saidanother.

In at least three of the districts, the primary culpritscausing low morale were not school-level factors. Oneteacher said morale was not affected in the classroomwith students, "but it's downtown policies, feelings ofhopelessness when I can't control and have no say."

In schools where morale was positive, respondentspointed to the staff and administrators as making the crit-ical difference. "Morale is good here in spite of every-thing. We have a Fair principal, participation in decisions,

EFFECTS

117

WORKING IN URBAN SCII0OLS

11111111SEEINESIMMEISIIIIIIIII

'Things don't work, thefacilities areinadequate, thestudents come fromdiverse neighborhoods.Yet we seem toovercome the problemsand succeed."

118

and a nice climate," said one teacher. Another elaborated:"Morale is good, this is a strange school. Things don'twork, the facilities are inadequate, the students comefrom diverse neighborhoods. Yet we seem to overcomethe problems and succeed. The school works in spite ofthe difficulties due to the staff." The IEL data show thatsuch schools are the exception rather the norm; gener-ally higher morale was associated with both positive lead-ership and teaching climates and good physical workingconditions.

Job Satisfaction

The majorities of the staffs in 13 of the 31 schoolsreported their job satisfaction adversely affected by work-ing conditions in the schools. There were no differencesamong the school levels. Effects on overall job satisfac-tion did not correlate highly with responses concerningmorale or classroom effectiveness. "I don't really think ofmyself as a professional, no respect or money. If it werenot for the kids, I would not do it at all," explained oneteacher.

To check the impact of these conditions across the dis-tricts, we compared data on teacher perceptions of conditions and teacher attitudesbehavior from pairs ofschools serving the same grade levels in each district.Fourteen of the 15 pairs comprised schools whose work-ing conditions, as perceived by their staffs, differed. Wefound strong support for the contention that workingconditions in schools affect teachers' attitudes and behav-iors. In 12 sets of paired schools the data show similarpositive correlations between working conditions andreported teacher attitudes and behaviors. In these cases,better working conditions appear to be consistently asso-ciate; with more positive attitudes, higher levels of workeffort, and a greater sense of efficacy. In the other twocases, the comparisons showed that better conditionswere not associated with more positive teacher attitudesand behaviors. The full analysis of these pairs can befound in Appendix 4.

The "Best" and "Worst" Work Sites

Data on 10 dimensions of working conditions in the31 schools were compiled into an index and the schoolswere then ranked from best to worst.

-13 3

The top five schools are described in Table 10:3. Coin-cidentally, there was at least one school from four of thefive districts. Perhaps not so coincidentally, three of thefive were elementary schools. Elementary schools aresmaller and have a less differentiated workforce, highergoal consensus, and more frequent contact betweenteachers and administrators. The schools varied widely inthe social and ethnic backgrounds of their students andin the size of their enrollments, but all schools enrolledmore than 60 percent minority students.

When specific working conditions were examined,these five schools had some similarities. All were rated asadequate or better by the staff interviewed on fourdimensions: physical plant, collegiality, participation indecisionmaking, and administrative leadership. Four ofthe five had similar positive ratings on teacher influenceover curriculum and instruction. On the other six dimen-sions of the quality of school worldife, however, therewas considerable variation.

When the total sample of schools was ranked in termsof the staff's perceptions of teacher attitudes and behav-ior, the five schools described in Table 10:3were amongthose with the most positive ratings.

Three of the five schools described in the table hadteam teaching and three had councils for faculty partici-pation in decision making. When all schools were rankedby staff perceptions of teacher attitudes and behavior, fiveof the top ten schools had teaming and seven of theschools had permanent councils.

The schools perceived as having the worst overallworking conditions, using the dimensions studied by 1E1,were examined similarly. The five lowest rated schoolsare described in Table 10:4. These schools were charac-terized by poor resources, heavy workloads, low collegi-ality, poor supervision, low teacher influence over schooldecisions, low rewards, and poor leadership.

134

EFFECTS

sztegemmammusammWhen all schools wereranked by staffperceptions of teacherattitudes and behavior,five of the top tenschools had teamingand seven of the schoolshad permanentcouncils.

119


iiiiimmineranaminnimTABLE 10:3

WORKING CONDITIONS IN HIGHEST RATED SCHOOIS

SchoolsDimension Elementary Middle Elemen « Elemen High School

Physical Good plant Good plant Good plant Good plant New plantConditions Safe, clean, A/C, clean. clean, pride in Clean, safe, but Attractive and

school. Priority Pride in school. Priority crowded. clean.of principal. condition. cf principal. Lacks meeting Cooperation to

space. keep it up.

Resources Adequate staff. Adequate staff. Inadequate Inadequate Well-equipped,No problems No problems staff, need staff, need needs remedial

w/ supplies. w/ supplies specialists/ counselor/ AP. staff.counselor. Need nurse.Supplies Short onrationed. supplies.

Workload Classes 28+ Classes 2'+ Classes 25 Classes 20.25 Classes 25.30.

High level of Variable extra High extra High effort. High extraextra effort. No effort. Minor effort, duties. Duties. effort. Duties.duties. duties.

Students 800+ 1200+ 300 300 1900% Minority 99% 90% 60% 65% 99%% Poor 45% 85% 50% 30% 50%

Comments Discipline Minor concern Discipline Minor concern Disciplinegood. Good with discipline. good. little with discipline. good. Lowparent Mostly positive parent Low parent parentinvolvement. comments involvement. involvement. involvement.Mostly positive about students. Largely Mixed Largely

comments Fair parent positive comments positiveabout students. involvement comments about students commentsAbsenteeism a Low about students. Good about students.problem. absenteeism. Low attmlance. Attenthnce

absenteeism, problems.

Classroom High level of Moderate High level of Moderate High level ofInfluence autonomy. No autonomy, autonomy autonomy, autonomy No

real Lessons Tests act as lesson plan realmonitoring. reviewed monitors, review monitoring.

120

The schools reporting the most negative effects onteacher attitudes and behavior also were examined. Th..most consistent effects were on teacher effort, classroomeffectiveness, mora' ., and job satisfactionadverselyimpacted the schools at the bottom of the ranking. Inaddition, the five schools perceived as having the worstoverall conditions were among those having the most

negative effects on teacher attitudes and behavior.

.13 5

MINIMEMMIIBINimsflinTABLE 10:3, continued

EFFECTS

SchoolsDimension Elementary Middle Elementary Elementary 'Ugh SchoolCollegial Good, but Tcaming. Adcquatc. Good, but no Adcquatc.Relations tcaclicrs crcatc Common rime Gradc Lrvel time to mcct. Activc

thc to plan. mcctings and committeesopportunities. shared in. and

service. department,

Supervision Frcquent Proccss Clinical Frcqucnt Proccssobservation. followed, pro approach. obscrvation. followed, sccnAssist ancc forma. Too Time a Proccss sccn as as pro forma.providcd. Too much probicm: but helpful.much paperwork. process sccn as Paperwork apaperwork. Lack of time. helpful. problcm.

Professional l'rincipal School Icvcl School levc1 Use district Usc districtDevelopment encourages it program, but program with programs and programs. No

Somc activity planned by the macher input. principal plans school activity.at school staff principal, Usc district. school activity, Little teachermeetings. resources. input.

School l'rincipal socks Trams an Staff council Largely DcpartmcntsInfluence input. major vchicic. and .,taff informal. and

Committees Staff has mcctings arc Principal committeesarc activc. moderate cffcctive, initiates. provideHigh lcvcl of influence. Ntodcratc Moderate vchicic.influcncc. influence. influence. Moderate

influencc.

Rcwards and Adcquatc, Adcquatc. Inadequate. Inadequate. InadequateRecognition informal Informal Not much No formal and Some informal

rcwards used appreciation formal but wcak informal rccognition.well. sonic informal rccognition.

rccognition.

Administrative Wclilikcd. Strong, ow Encrgctic, Wcillikcd. Visible, newLeadcrship liandpickcd autocratic. supportive Handpicked principal.

staff, openly Takcs input clinician. staff. Open, Encouragesinvolvcs stair and gcts cxtra Respected involvcs staff. participation.Focus on resources for Democratic. Good clinician. Brings incollegial thc school. Out of thc resources.rclations. school a lot.

Ten schools in which staff reported the most negativeeffects had four common characteristics: poor ref.OUL-C,low collegiality, low rewards, and low levels of teacherinfluence on school decisions. Six of the 10 had poorleadership; in three of the other four cases, the principalswere new to the school and were rated as adequate bytheir staffs. Characteristics of the schools with the lowestcombined ranking arc described in Table 10:4.


1111=ininingininnimenE1TABLE 10:4

WORKING CONDITIONS IN LOWEST RATED SCHOOLS

SchoolsDimensions Middle Elementary Middle Middle High School

Physical Inadequate. Adequate. Inadequate. Adequate. Old, Inadequate.Conditions Lack of Generally well- Dirty and but wellkept. Unclean, in

classroom kept. Lack of crowded. Many Security a poor repair.apace. Not meeting space. repairs needed. problem. Litter. Someclean, in poor Some vandalism.repair. Security vandalism. Security aproblems. problem.

Resources Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Inadequatestaff. Need staff. Need staff. Need staff. Need staff. Needteachers & counselors & teachers & counselors and counselors andcounselors. specialists. specialists. elective staff. teachers. LackLack Lack supplies. Lack supplies. Lack supplies supplies &substitutes, & equipment equipment.supplies &equipment

Workload Classes 30 +. Classes 27+. Classes 30+. Classes 28+. Classes 25.Low level of Aver. level of High level of Low level of Low level ofextra effort. effort. No duties. effort. Light extra effort. extra effort.Duties. duties. Duties. Light duties.

StudentsNumbcr 550 550%Minority 99% 60%%Poor 90% 45%Comments Poor discipline, Serious

1200 35070% 99%80% 45%

60099%70%

Some discipline Serious Disciplinelow parent discipline problems, low discipline problems, lowinvolvement. problems, low parent problems, low parentAbsenteeism parent involvement. parent involvement.high. involvement. Absenteeism involvement. Absenteeism

Attendance fair. high. Absenteeism high.high.

Classroom Low autonomy. Low autonomy. Low autonomy. Average. High.Influence Tight review of Pacing system Pacing system Review of No regular

lesson plans and tests and tests. lesson plans. monitoring.

X37

EFrECTS

IMEGIBIEMEMEMESIMEnianTABLE 10:4, continued

Dimensions Middle

CollegialRelations

SchoolsElementary Middle Middle

Inadequate, notime andfriction amongthe staff. Lowcooperation.

Inadequate, notime and fewmeetings. Splitbetween oldand new staff.Lowcooperation.

Supervision Compliance w/ Compliance,process, but not but seen as proseen as helpful. forma. Little

value.

ProfessionalDevelopment

SchoolInfluence

Rewards andRecognition

AdministrativeLeadership

Inadequate,limited to 2districtworkshops peryear. No schoolactivities. Nostaff input.

Low staffinfluence,committeesinactive.

Few informaland no formalrewards orrecognition.No positivefeedback.

Ii; ccessibleprincipal, seenas incompetent& autocratic.Not active inprogram. Weakon discipline.

Inadequate,splitadministration.Lowcooperation.

Inadequate, notime and fewmeetings. Lowcooperation.

Compliance, Compliance,but seen as pro minimal done.forma. Littlevalue.

Adequate, Adequate, Inadequate,school & school & districtdistrict district programprograms. Staff programs. Staff afterschool, noinput. input. school activity.

No staff input.

Low staffinfluence,faculty divided& principaldoesn't seekinput.


Some haveinfluencethroughcommittees.Principalcooperates Nv/older staff.


Low staffinfluence.Principal makesall decisions.


Weak and Autocratic Inaccessibleincompetent principal, keeps autocraticprincipal. Seen order but has principal. Seenas vindictive & little as incompetent,dishonest. Not involvement in overbearing.involved in program. Weak onprogram. Weak discipline.on discipline.

High School

Inadequate,varies withdepartments.Few meetingsand littlecontact acrossdepartments.

Compliance,seen as helpfulto new staff.

Inadequate,limited to 2districtworkshops peryear. No schoolactivities, nostaff input.

Low staffinfluence onschool, someinput in somedepartments.


Weak leader,vindictive.Littleinvolvement inprogram. Weakon discipline.

138

123


Summary

The data supf:Jrt the hypothesis that working condi-tions affect teacher attitudes and behavior, particularlytheir level of fifort, attendance, sense of efficacy in theclassroom, vnorale, and job satisfaction. The data also sug-gest that some dimensions of working conditions havemore effect than others on teachers. If a school has goodphysical working conditions, high levels of teacher influ-ence, good leadership, and high levels of collegiality,other deficiencies, while still important, may not haveserious negative effects on the staff: Under such condi-tions, teachers feel more positive about their work andmore effective in their classrooms, make extra efforts,and have higher morale and higher attendance. In theworst schools, none of the critical conditions were pres-ent and resources were terribly inadequate. Under suchconditions, teachers became frustrated and discouraged.Their morale sank to low levels and their work effort andattendance were affected. They felt they were ineffectivein their classrooms as a consequence of conditions in theschools.

In between these extremes were schools with a mix ofstrengths and weaknesses. Some of them had good lead-ership but terrible resource deficiencies, had extremelydifficult student populations, or lacked good collegialrelations due to conflicts among the staff. Others hadhigh levels of collegiality and teacher influence, butlacked good leadership or had terrible physical workingconditions. The patterns varied. The point is that if theydid not have the entire gestalt of positive factors, teach-ers found them to be inadequate workplaces, and theirattitudes and behaviors were affected accordingly. Inthese schools, teachers coped but were unable or unwill-ing to give their best efforts.

These data suggest several levels of conditions.Resource adequacy and at least some other positive fac-tors are necessary to keep a school functioning. However,to make a school function well, a combination of factorsis required.

139

124

Do viroeking conditions have

126

"Good physical workingconditions, high levels of

collegiality, high levels of teacher

influence on school decisions,

high levels of teacher control

over instruction and strong,

supportive leadership were

consistently found in the schools

most highly rated by teachers. i"

141.

11 CONCLUSIONS

P he findings from Working in Urban Schools paint ableak picture of the conditions of urban teaching,

These findings are consistent with national and stateteacher surveys, but urban conditions are worse. (SeeAppendix 1 for comparisons.) If the general findings arecompared to the ideal model emanating from the work-place reform and the effective schools research, it is clearthat these urban schools have a long way to go. Unsup-portive leadership, lack ofrespect, low participation inpolicymaking, limited opportunities for collegiality, lackof recognition and inadequate professional e. Jelopmentopportunities seem to be the norms of teaching ratherthan the exceptions. In urban areas, however, theseissues take on a different and debilitating scale given theresource problems, the bureaucracy; and the specialneeds of students.

Two factors of working conditionssupervision andprofessional developmentdid not appear consistentlyrelated to the teachers' assessments of their schools or tothe data on teacher attitudes and behavior. This may bebecause teachers generally felt that both supervision andstaff development were weak or irrelevant, and that otheropportunities for professional growth were assessed asmediocre at best. With the remainder ofthe conditions,better conditions had more positive impact on teachers'behaviors and on their attitudes, and vice versa.

The Effects of the Good Workplace

The common characteristics of the schools receivingthe most positive comments were:

Strong, supportive principal leadershipGood physical working conditionsHigh levels of staff collegialityHigh levels of teacher influence on school decisionsHigh levels of teacher control over curriculum and

instruction

These working conditions were positively related tohigher levels of teacher attendance, higher levels of dis-

142

11122110111=1111121211211111=1111111

In urban areas,however, these issuestake on a different anddebilitating scale giventhe resource problems,the bureaucracy, andthe special needs ofstudents.

127


1111151BANEMEESEMESIBMIN

. . . schools with highlevels of collegiality andteacher control overcurriculum still badnegative impacts onteacher morale becauseof the lack ofleadership, or the lackof space, poor physicalconditions andinadequatemaintenance in thebuildings.

128

cretionary effort, higher morale, and a greater sense ofefficacy in the classroom.

Furthermore, these characteristics appeared as a ges-talt Schools with two or three of the characteristicsdidn't have as high ratings as those with all five character-istics. For example, schools with high levels of collegial-ity and teacher control over curriculum still had negativeimpacts on teacher morale because of the lack of leader-ship, or the lack of spat.., poor physical conditions andinadequate maintenance in the buildings.

Conversely, the worst sites were consistently charac-terized by:

Inadequate staff and materialsLow collegialityLow levels of teacher influence on school decisionsLow rewards

Furthermore, six of the 10 schools in this category hadpoor leadership as well, and the principals were new tothe remaining four schools.

What is clear once again, however, is the role thatresources play in establishing minimally acceptable con-ditions. The schools rated 'best" in the study were notnecessarily resource-rich. However, they had decentphysical working conditions (enough space, reasonablemaintenance and physical surroundings), teachers hadtime for collegial relationships with their peers, theywere involved in decisionmaking, and they felt that theadministrative leadership in the building respected themand set the tone for teaching and learning.

Having adequate resources helped schools in themiddle compensate for other problems. While teachersdescribed concerns, these concerns did not seriouslyaffect their behavior or morale. All schools at the bottom,however, were resource poor, and their lack ofresourcesstaff, materials, equipment, fundshad a defi-nite impact on the staff behavior and morale. Many of theteachers in these schools were simply going through themotions. They showed up, they taught their classes. Theydid not put in much extra effort. Most of them did notexpect to be successful given the conditions underwhich they were working. In the four schools wherethere were new administrative leaders, the schools couldbe on the way back up to acceptable functioning. But inthe remaining schools in which there were poor working

143

conditions, there were few factors that made the build-ings good for teachers, and consequently, for students.

Administrative leadership is key to how building con-ditions, policies and practices affect teachers. For all ofthe most highly rated schools, strong administrative lead-ership was an important factor. And, in several cases ofschools in the middle grouping, good administrative lead-ership had a mediating influence on particularly poorconditions, such as the lack of resources and materials orpoor physical conditions. The leaders in these schoolswere not always democratic, and not always instruction-ally strong, but the buildings operated efficiently.

These data suggest there are minimum conditionsbelow which teacher morale and effort suffer and schoolconditions deteriorate. These minimums include tolera-ble school leadership, sufficient staff and materials tokeep the school operating day-to-day and adequate facili-ties. Under these conditions, teachers will cope withlarge classes, accept autocratic management or tolerateisolation from their colleagues. To raise morale and effortlevels, however, schools must have strong, visionary lead-ership, provide opportunities for collegial interaction,provide teachers influence over policy and some controlover curricula, and have adequate and attractive workspace.

Recent Reforms and Working Conditions

The reform recommendations in the Carnegie Forum'sreport, A Nation Prepare4 and the National Governors'Association's report, Time for Results and the experi-ments they have stimulated are responsive to the desiresof teachers for increased participation in decisionmaking,more frequent interaction with their colleagues, morerespect and support. They also are dependent uponchanges in structure and policy in public schools thatwill take time to implement.

The message of the IEL report in this context is several-fold. First, the findings of Working in UrbanSchools confirm the importance of reform recom-mendations for a professional and creative workenvironment. The conditions in schools rated highly inour study all include broad involvement in decisionmak-ing, collegial work environment and control over class-room activity. Thus, these long term changes affecting

144

CONCLUSIONS

issamomagmassamossiss

All schools at thebottom, however, wereresource poor, andtheir lack ofresourcesstaffmaterials, equipment,fundsbad a definiteimpact on the staffbehavior and morale.

129


. . . there are importantinterim changes thatwill affect theday-to-day workinglives of teachers thatcan be made by urbanleaders without majorrestructuring.

teacher roles, professionalism and school decisionmakingare as important for urban schools as any others.

Second, there are important interim changes thatwill affect the day-to-day working lives of teachersthat can be made by urban leaders without majorrestructuring. These changes include altering resourcesand physical environment, as well as more conventionalmethods of involving teachers in decisionmaking. Forexample, elected school councils, or ways to engageteachers in instructional tasks with their peers, such asteam teaching and planning, have been tried and imple-mented in schools in the past. They work, and, as is cer-tainly the case in team teaching, they have clear benefitsfor students. These changes can be made at the buildinglevel, and they can be enhanced by district policy andresources. They offer an interim and incremental changein urban schooling which, according to our data, wouldhave major positive effects on teacher attitudes andbehaviors, and thus, teachers' willingness to commit timeand energy to their work And they can be a startingpoint for broader, more radical change.

But participatory structures will not work with-out district support, commitment of resources, andmonitoring. A signature of nearly every district initia-tive was lackluster implementationon academies, onschool councils, on other participatory structures. Theexistence of participatory structures does not guaranteethat teachers will be involved in decisionmaking or workwith their peers. These structures did not work inschools where administrative leadership wasn't actuallysupportive, or where there were actions to sabotage theworking structures. Nearly every district had some initia-tive underway to involve teachers in decisionmaking.But, in many instances, these efforts were not real. Thatis, no time or resources were committed to implementa-tion by the central office. District officials were preoccu-pied with budgets, contract negotiations and school poli-tics, and simply did not devote enough attention to theseteacher issues. There is a caution here for districts under-going more radical restructuring. Monitoring time needsto be invested and resources need to be available ifchanges are to result in more discretion to teachers andprincipals.

The districts have directed their effort, energy,resources and monitoring time to conformance with

145.k

basic skills teaching, testing and pacing programs. Theseare in place in every district and often produce com-plaints from teachers that they have little control overwhat they are teaching, and even how they are teachingit. Given the importance placed on teacher influenceover curriculum and instruction in the 1EL data, how toallow discretion over what and how to teach while stillassuring that all students meet academic goals is a majorissue Clearly, district goals are important and critical tobasic minimum academic achiever-cm. But once theschools are in order and student performance is improv-ing, this area may be one where districts need to look forbalanceenough discretion to get a teaching staff com-mitted to their work and to ensure that students con-tinue to gain academically. Again, here the district rolein implementation may have to cede some groundonce the programs are operating in the interest ofproviding teachers with mere control over whatand how to teach.

Third, nottling is clearer in our study than thefact that resources and the management ofiesources matter. Making changes in these areas wouldmake the lives of teachers easier, lighten their workloads,and strengthen their commitment to their jobs. Theseinclude such basics as enough textbooks and materials,adequa.c counseling staff and teachers' aides to provideindividevi ..stention to needy students, and maintenanceprocedures that aren't cumbersome and meet the needsof the building.

Urban teat Iv'rs should not have to choose betweensalaries and adequate working conditions. 11.1 miny ofthe schools we visited were resource poor. Poor build-ings, too little space, little 'n the way of building sigets,inadequate textbooks and teaching materials, too fewsupport staff..'ie list goes on and on.

These factors do matter. They have an impact onteachers and they have an impact on teaching. Someadministrative leaders were able to pull their buildingsabove the limits of their resources because they werevisionaries, they fought for their buildings, they foundways to make do. Too, resources were not controllingfactors if the physical conditions were good, leadershipwas good, teachers worked together and had controlover what they taught. But the lack of resources createsenvironments that over time are stressful, difficult to

146

CONCLUSIONS

131


imansiSizamiminimmoAdministrators canmake buildings workfor teachers when notmuch else seemspositive.

132

bearand that undermine the efforts of energetic admin-istrative and teacher leaders.

Fourth, the roles played by administrative leadersare very important. Administrators can make build-ings work for teachers when not much else seemspositive. Teachers gave highest ratings to principals andother building leaders who they felt respected them. Butthey also were supportive of autocratic leaders who per-formed leadership roles, effectively kept the building inorder, and created conditions in which teachers couldteach.

Given the critical importance of these leadership roles,more attention needs to be given to the use of perfor-mance-based criteria for selection and evaluation ofadministrative leaders. Urban districts that are not nowusing assessment centers or performance-based selectionprocesses should consider instituting them, as an invest-ment with a potentially high payoff. Teachers should beinvolved in the selection process serving as members ofselection committees and interviewing candidates. Evalu-ation of building administrators should include their abil-ity to motivate staff, promote cooperation, and build astrong professional climate.

One point that came to our attention during our visitsto the 31 schools was the lack of involvement of teachersin decisionmaking and leadership positions. Particularlyin areas close to the classroom and curriculum, teachers'leadership abilities should be tapped to help addressmany of the critical education issues in urban schools.

Fifth, it is necessary for districts to look at thesereforms as a package, not as a piecemeal fix. In all ofthe schools rated highly in the IEL study, physical condi-tions, involvement in decisionmaking, control over theclassroom and leadership appeared as a package. Tryingto Inc" one part of the puzzle won't work Comprehen-sive integrated change is necessary.

Finally, it would be hard to miss the messageconveyed by the impact of district policy on teacherattitudes and behaviors. Teachers feel great distancefrom district administrators. They believe central officesdo not respect them. They see district policies as quicklychanging, often in conflict, and having punitive impact.Given the reported impact on teacher morale, turnover,

147

absenteeism and loss of effectiveness, district administra-tors and school board members should take this to heart.The IEL interviews confirm tension and lack of trustbetween teachers and the district offices, much of it theresult of accountability pressures. It will be impossible tomake major changes in the way urban schools run with-out high expectations of the administration, the staff, andthe students. Treating teachers as valued and well-edu-cated professionals will be the only way to make theseimprovements. To do thisas in any other area ofemploymentwe must improve the conditions underwhich they work.

.148

CONCLUSIONS

1111111EMEIMEMINIENIIIIII

21-eating teachers asvalued and well-educated professionalswill be the only way tomake theseimprovements. To dothisas in any otherarea of employmentwe must improve theconditions under whichthey work.

133

APPENDIX 1: IEL FINDINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

There arc six surveys which have examined working conditions factors: a nationatsurvey, relcfccd to as the Conditions and Resources of Teaching (CART) survey, con-ducted for the National Education Association (Bacharach, Bauer, and Shedd, 1986);the 1986 Metropolitan Life survey (Harris and Associates); a national survey conductedby the Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching (Wirthlin Group, 1987); anEagicton survey of New Jersey teachers (Center for Public Interest Polling, Rutgers,1986); a survey conducted of California teachers carried out by the Policy AnalysisCenter for Education (1986); and interviews of North Carolina educators carried outfor the Public School Forum of North Carolina (Navran Associates, 1987).

CARNEGIE PUBLIC SCHOOLMETROPOLITAN FOUNDATION FORUM (NORTH

IEL STUDY CART SURVEY LIFE SURVEY FAGI ETON POLL PACE SURVEY SURVEY CAROLINA)Physical Conditions

Three of the 31 Majorir, a Disparity Inurban schoolsurban teachers school plant;

were Judged rated their mos: schoolgood and nearlybuildings as plants were

rated asbelow average Inadequate.Inadequate.In cleanliness BasicTeachers(51%), heating maintenance

seemed (54%), and budgets wereresigned to verycooling (71%). the first to gopoor conditions.46% said the when cuttingoverall physical costs.condition of theschool wasbelow avcrap,c

Spacc

Schools were Close to half theMeeting spacc 2somc teacherspremium,teachers In 10 reportedclasses taught Inschools did not occasionaltemporary

have classrooms problems withbuildings.of their own. 16 space.Professionals inof 31 schoolsschools do nothad serioustake for grantedspacc problems.adequate spaccand supplies.

Safety

Most teachers54% of the

Interviewed didurban teachers

not find safety a rated theirmajor Issue.

schools asSafety problems

below averagewere reported on security.in only 8 of the31 schools.

149135

TWORKING IN URBAN SCHOOLS

CARNEGIE PUBLIC SCHOOL

METROPOLITAN FOUNPACION FORUM (NORTH

IEL STuoll CART SURVEY LIFE SURVEY EAGLETON POLL PACE SURVEY SURVEY CAROLINA)

Supplies and Materials

65% of urban 15% of the 28% of urban 25% reported Schools are

schools had teachers had teachers had shortages of relying onshortages of frequent shortages of supplies and technologies

huh .tional problems with supplies and materials. that are 10 and

materials. supplies and matedats. 20 years old.

workbooks. Most have littleaccess totcicphoncs.

Stair

27 of the 31 Counseling

schools personnel too

reported staff limited.

shortages(87%),especially needfor counselingstaff.

Chu Size

Class size 'vasover 25 in 20 ofthe 31 schoolsIn the ILL study.

68% wcrc 32% 91 urban 74% of Class sizes largedissatisfied with teachers were elementary and too fewclass size. dissatisfied with teachers had teacher aides.

Median size class sizes, class sizes more

was 25. than 25. 26% ofsecondaryteachers faced150 or morestudents.

Hours

Teachers 25% attic 50% reported Teachers

reported an teachers I I hours et average 50

average of 13 reported 20 more, hours per week,

hours outside of extra hours or 25 hours ofclass In more per week, which is inelementary direct studentschools, 9 hours instruction orin middle counseling,schools and 17 25% overtime.hours In highschools In theIEL study.Averagecontractworkday was6.5 forelementary andmiddle schools;7 for highschools.

Planning Time

Teachers were 48% of teachersdissatisfied with had difficultytime for In. finding planningschool planning time.and paperwork.

136

lack of planning 35% oftime and Californiapaperwork was teachersthe most reported nofrequent source uhcduleilof Job planning time.dissatisfaction,cited by 28% ofthe teachers.

150

PERSPECTIVE


IEL STUDY CART SURVEY LIFE SURVEY FAG LETON POLL PACE SURVEY SURVEY CAROLINA)

StudentsStudent 53% of urbandiscipline and and 30% ofmotivation has a nonurbanmajor impact on teachers saidteachers. In disruptiveschools with behavior was agood working problem; 25%conditions sai,, underteachers seldom noulishmentmentioned was a problemstudents as a in urbanproblem. schools

compared to13% elsewhere.

Classroom Autonomy

Teachers in Teachers had Only 1 teacher 36% of urban58% of the control over in 20 was teachers saidschools instructional dissatisfied they had noreported low methods, and about control control overto moderate less over over what and selectingcontrol over content. how to teach. textbooks; 29%content, pacing said no control:Ind sequence. over courseTeachers content; andgenerally 17% said noreported high control overcontrol over setting goals formethods students.

Collegial Work

Opportunities 56% wanted 80% of the Only one infor cooperation time to observe teachers were seven teacherswere peers teaching; satisfied with reportedinadequate in 61% wanted opportunities structured time16 of the time to talk to for interaction. to work withschools (52% ), colleagues. colleagues.but were higherin schoolswhere therewas teamteaching.

DecisionrnakingTeacher Teachers Only 50% said Only 1 in 7influence was reported limited they were teachers wasgenerally low in opportunities involved in happy withIEL study, for involvement decisionmaking. level ofalthough it was except on what 70% wanted involvement.higher in one to teach, more influence,district because textbookof participatory selection andmanagement. how to teach,

151137



IEL STUDY CART SURVEY LIFe SURVEY EAGLETON POLL PACE SURVEY SURVEY CAROLINA)

SupervisionSupervision was 27% of teachers 38% felt their 54% felt the Evaluationviewed as reported last evaluation process was fair. systems are toohelpful in 42% problems w'h was unhelpful; Less than half inflexible.of the schools; feedback from 27% helpfuL felt they gotweak, annoying administrators useful feedback.and threatening more thanin the other occasionally.58%. This isconsistent butmore harsh thansurveys.

Professional Development

Training Only 12% rated (i4% of theopportunities inservice teachers saidwere weak and training as they were notinadequate in effective. involved in18 schools. planning staff

developmentprograms.

Rewards

Rewards were Few tangiblereported as non rewards toexistent in most encourageof the 31 performance.schools.

Leadership

Teachers in only More than 50% 18% of all A majority felt 54% of urban9 schools rated of the teachers teachers they received teachers saidadministrative said they had mentioned too little administratorsleaders as infrequent problems with professional were beloweffective. 11 of contact with administrators, support. 42% average inthe schools hau administrators such as lack of cites lack of eliminating redineffective and i's said they admihistrative assistance with tape forleadership. seldom talked support, parents and teachers andLeaders who to ineffective students. 40% said theywere cited 25 administrators school policies were belowineffective were about and ineffective average indisorganized, educational discipline providingbad content or policies. 29% support foradministrators performance, said teachers.and ineffective administratorsIn handling werepeople. inaccessible.

Respect

Lack of respectby parents.students,administratorsand communityWas perceivedas a seriousproblem byteachers.

138

11% of teacherscited lack ofrespect 25 themost importantreason forleavingteaching. Morethan half feltrespect wasproblem.

1 2

APPENDIX 2: REFERENCES

THE CONTEXT: REFORMERS AND REALITIES

Bacharach, SM., Bauer, S.C., Shedd, J.B. (CART). Thelearning workplace The conditions and resources ofteaching. Ithaca, NY: Organizational Analysis and Prac-tice, 1986.

Bird, T. & Little, J.W. How schools organize the teachingoccupation. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 86(4) :

493-511.

Center for Public Interest Polling. The NewJersey publicschool teacher: A view of the profession. New Bruns-wick, NJ: The Eagleton Institute, 1986.

Corcoran, TB. Teacher participation in public schooldecisionmaking: A discussion paper. Paper presentedat a meeting of the Work in America Institute, Febru-ary, 1987.

Darling-Hammond, L Beyond the commission reportsThe coming crisis in teaching. Santa Monica, CA: TheRand Corporation, 1984.

Firestone, WA & Heniott, RE. Prescriptions for effectiveelementary schools don't fit secondary schools. Educa-tional Leadership, 40(3), 51-53, 1982.

Goldsclunidt, SM., Bowers, B., & Stuart, L The extentand nature of educational policy bargaining. Eugene,OR Center for Educational Policy and Management,1984.

Harris and Associates. Metropolitan Lift Survey of theAmerican teacher 1986: Restructuring of the teachingprofession. New York: Metropolitan Life, 1986.

Johnson, S.M. Teacher unions in schools. Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press, 1984.

Kerchner & Mitchell. Teaching reform and union reform.The Elementary School Journal, 86(4), 449-470, 1986.

K.oppich, J., Gerritz, W. & Guthrie,J.W. A view from theclassroom: California teachers' opinions on working

153 139


140

conditions and school reform proposals. Palo Alto,CA: Policy Analysis for Calfornia Education, 1986.

Little, J.W. Norms of collepality and experimentation:Workplace conditions in schools. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340, 1983.

Lortie, D. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL University of Chi-cago Press, 1975.

McDonnell, LM., & Pascal, A. Teacher unions and educa-tional reform. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation,Center for the Study of the Teaching Profession, 1988.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Marsh, D. Staff development andschool change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 1978.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. ANation at risk: The imperative for educational reform.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1983.

National Governors Association. Time for results. Wash-ington, DC: Author, 1986.

Oakes, Jeannie. Improving inner-city schools Currentdirections in urban district reform. The Center forPolicy Research in Education. Santa Monica, CA: TheRand Corporation, 1987.

Peters, TJ., & Waterman, R.H. In search of excellence.New York: Harper & Row, 1982.

Public School Forum of North Carolina. The condition ofbeing an educator. An analysis of North Carolina'spublic schools. Raleigh, NC: Author, 1987.

Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. Effective schools: A review. TheElementary SchoolJournal, 83(4), 427-452, 1983.

Rosenholtz, SJ. Effective schools: Interpreting the evi-dence. AmericanJournal of Education, 93(3), 352-388, 1985.

Schlechty, P.C. & Vance, V.S. Recruitment, selection andretention: The shape of the teaching force. The Ele-mentary School Journal, 83, 469-487, 1983.

Stein. Quality of worklip in action: Managing for effec-tiveness. New York, NY: American Management Associ-ation, 1983.

Stein & Kantor. Building the parallel organization: Towardmechanisms for permanent quality of worklife. Journalof Applied Behavior Science, 16, 371-388, 1980.

154

Sykes, G. Public policy and the problems of teacher qual-ity: The need for screens and magnets. Shulman &Sykes (ed.). Handbook on research on teaching andpolicy. New York: Longman, Inc., 1983.

The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. ANation prepared Teachers for the 21st Century. NewYork, NY: Author, 1986.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-ing. An imperiled generation - Saving urban schools.Princeton, NJ: Author, 1988.

The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS). Chal-lenges to urban education: Results in the making.Washington, DC: Author, 1987.

Yanketovich & Immerwahr. Putting the work ethic towork. New York: The Public Agenda Foundation, 1983.

T'-{E PHYSICAL CONDITIONS:RED TAPE AND BEGGING

American Association of Administrators, Council of theGreat City Schools, National School Boards Association.The maintenance gap: Deferred repair and renovationin the Nation's elementary and secondary schools.Washington, DC: Author, 1983.

Lightfoot, S.L The good high school Portraits of charac-ter and culture. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Montague, W. Districts scramble to cope with buildingneeds, Education Week, June 3, 1987.

Public School Forum of North Carolina. The condition ofbeing an educator: An analysis of North Carolina'spublic schools. Raleigh, NC: Author, 1987.

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., andSmith, A. Fifteen thousand how Secondary schoolsand their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1979.


The Council of the Great City Schools (CGCS). Chal-lenges to urban education: Results in the making.Washington, DC: Author, 1987.

.155

REFERENCES

141


142

RESOURCES AND TEACHERS WORKLOAD:BUILDING A HOUSE WITHOUT NAILS

American Federation of Teachers. Schools as a work-plac The realities of stress. Washington, DC: Unpub-lished text, 1981.

Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C., & Shedd, J.B. (CART). Thelearning workplace The conditions and resources ofteaching. Ithaca, NY: Organizational Analysis & Prac-tice, 1986.

Center for Public Interest Polling. The NewJersey publicschool teackar: A view of the profession. New Bruns-wick, NJ: The Fngleton Institute, 1986.

Koppich, J., Gerritz, W. & Guthrie, J.W. A view from theclassroom: California teachers' opinions on workingconditions and school reform proposals. Palo Alto,CA: Policy Analysis for Calfornia Education, 1986.

Public School Forum of North Carolina. The condition ofbeing an educator:- An analysis of North Carolina'spublic schools. Raleigh, NC: Author, 1987.

STUDENTS: A CLASS OF CULTURES

Koppich, J., Gerritz, W. & Guthrie, J.W. A view from theclassroom- California teachers' opinions on workingconditions and school reform proposals. Palo Alto,CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1986.

Lortie, D. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL University of Chi-cago Press, 1975.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Marsh, D. Staff development andschool change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 1978.

Stein. Quality of worklift in action: Managing for effec-tiveness. New York, NY: American Management Associ-ation., 1r

Stein & Kantor. Building the parallel organization: Towardmechanisms for permanent quality of worklife. Journalof Applied Behavior Science, 16, 371-388, 1980.


TEACHER AUTONOMY:CONTROL THROUGH BENIGN NEGLECT

Corcoran, T.B. & Wilson, B.L The search forsuccessfulsecondary sthools. The first threeyears of the Second.ary School Recognition Program. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, 1986.

Raywid, MA, Tesconi, CA, & Warren, D.R Pride andpromise Schools of excellence for all thepeople.Westbury, NY: American Educational Studies Associa-tion, 1984.

Yankelovich & Immerwahr. Putting the work ethic towork. New York: The Public Agenda Foundation, 1983.

TEACHER INFLUENCE AND COLLEGIALITY:A SHELL GAME

Bacharach, S.M., Bauer, S.C., Shedd, J.B. (CART). Thelearning workplace The conditions and resources ofteaching. Ithaca, NY: Organizational Analysis & Prac-tice, 1986.

Barth, RS. Sandboxes and honeybees. Education Week,May 9, 1984.

Cuban, L Transforming the frog into a prince: Effectiveschools research, policy, and practice at the districtlevel. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151,1984.

Duke, D.L, Showers, B.K., & Imber, M. Teachers andshared decisionmaking: The costs and benefits ofinvolvement. Educitiorud Administration Quarterly,16( 1), 93-106, 1980.

Little, J.W. Norms of collegiality and experimentation:Workplace conditions in schools. American Educa-tional Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340, 1983.

Lortie, D. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-cago Press, 1975.

SUPERVISION, PROFESSIONAL GROWTH &REWARDS

Joyce, BR, Showers, B. Power in staffdevelopmentthrough research on training. Alexandria, VA: Associa-

157 -I-

REFERENCES

143

WORKLNG LN URBAN SCHOOLS

tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development,1984.

Levine, D.U., & Stark, J. Instructional and organizationalarrangements that improve achievement in inner-cityschools. Educational Leadership, 40, 41-46, 1982.

Little, J.W. Norms of collegiality and experimentation:Workplace conditions in schools. American Educa-tional Researchjournal, 19(3), 325-340, 1983.

McLaughlin, M.W., & Pfiefer, RS. Teacher evaluation:Learning for improvement and accountability. PaloAlto, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Financeand Governance, 1986.

Morris, V, Crowson, RL, Porter-Gehrie, C., & Hurwitz, E.The urban principal Discretionary decisionmakingin a large educational organization. Chicago, IL Col-lege of Education, Univusity of Illinois at Chicago,1981.

Newberg, NA, & Glatthom, A.G. Instructional leader-ship: Four ethnographic studies on junior high schoolprincipals. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania,1983.

Purkey, S.C., & Degan, S. Beyond effective schools togood schools: Some first steps. R & D Perspectives,Center for Educational Policy and Management, Spring,1985.

Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. Effective schools: A review TheElementary School journal, 83(4), 427-452, 1983.

Roberts, J.M.E., & Woolf, B. State-sponsored in-service Apilot study of impact. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Associ-ation, Montreal, Canada, April, 1984.

Venezky, RL, & Winfield, L Schools that succeed beyondexpectations in teaching reading. Newark, DE: Univer-sity of Delaware, 1979.

Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L, McLaughlin, M.W., &Bernstein, H.T. Case studies for teacher evaluation: Astudy of effective practices. Santa Monica, CA: TheRand Corporation, 1984.

Yankelovich & Immerwahr. Putting the work ethic towork. New York: The Public Agenda Foundation, 1983.

158144

LEADERSHIP: VISIONARIES, MANAGERSAND DESPOTS

Bacharach, S.B., Bauer, S.C., & Shedd, J.B. (CART). Thelearning workplace The conditions and resources oft?aching. Ithaca, NY: Organizational Analysis & Prac-tice, 1986.

Brookover, WB., Beady, C., Flood, P., Schweizer, J., &Wisenbacker, J. School social systems and studentachievement Schools can make a difference. NewYork: Praeger, 1979.

Cusick, P The egalitarian ideal and the American highschool. New York: Longman, 1983.

Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, AA. Corporate cultures The ritesand rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1982.

Gardner, J. The tasks of leadership: LeadershippapersWashington, DC: The Independent Sector, 1986.

Hallinger & Murphy. Assessing the instructional manage-ment behavior of principals. The Elementary School

Journal, 86(2), 217-247, 1986.

Lightfoot, S.L. The good hegh school Portraits of charac-ter and culture. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. The structure of educationalorganizations. In M. Meyer and associates (Eds.), Envi-ronments and organizations Theoretical and empiri-cal perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.

Miles, M. Mapping the common properties of schools. InR Leming and M. Kane (Eds.). Improving Schools.Using what we know. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.

Peters, TJ., & Waterman, R.H. In search of excellence.New York: Harper & Row, 1982.

Pettigrew, A.M. On studies in organizational cultures.Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581, 1979.

Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. Effective schools: A review. TheElementary School journal, 83(4), 427-452, 1983.

Sergioranni. Leadership and excellence in schooling. Edu-cational 'Leadership, 41(5), 4-13, 1984.

15'9

REFERENCES

145


146

THE DISTRICT SETTINGS:

A LONG WAY 'DOWNTOWN'

Clark, D.L, Lotto, LS., & Astuto, TA. Effective schools andschool improvement: A comparative analysis of twoline of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly,20(3), 41-68, 1984.

Cuban, L Transforming the frog into a prince: Effectiveschools research, policy, and practice at the districtlevel. Harvard Educational Review, 54(2), 129-151,1984.

Eberts, R.W., & Stone, JA. Unions and public schoolsThe effect of collective bargaining on American edu-cation. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath & Co, 1984.

Finn, C.E. Teacher unions and school quality: Potentialallies or inevitable foes. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(5), 331-338, 1985.

Johnson, S.M. Teacher unions in schools. Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press, 1984.

Talbert. School organization and institutional changeExchange and power in loosely-coupled systems. PaloAlto, CA: Institute for Research on Education, Finance,and Governing, 1981.

Yin, RK Case study research: Design and methods. Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984.

THE EFFECTS OF WORKING CONDITIONSON TEACHERS: THE CRITICAL MASS

Brookover, W.B., & Lezotte, LW. Changes in school char-acteristics coincident with changes in studentachievement. East Lansing, MI: College of Urban Devel-opment, 1977.

Corcoran, T.B. An assessment of common methods ofteacher participation in public school decisionmaldng.Paper prepared for Work in America Institute, 1986.

Firestone, WA., & Herriott, RE. Prescriptions for elemen-tary schools don't fit secondary schools. EducationalLeadership, 40(3), 51-53, 1982.

Lawlor, E.E. The desigr, of effective reward systems. In J.Lorsch (Ed.) Handbook of Organizational Behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 255-271, 1987.

160

Locke, EA, Scliweiger, DA, & Latham, G.P. Participationin decisionmaking: When should it be used? Organiza-tional Dynamics, 15(3), 65.79, 1986.

Lortie, D. Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chi-cago Press, 1975.

McLaughlin, M.W, & Marsh, D. Staff development andschool change. Teachers College Record, 80(1), 1978.

Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. School reform: The district pol-icy implications of the effective schools literature. TheElementary SchoolJournal, 85(3), 353-388, 1985.

Rosenholtz, SJ. Effective schools: Interpreting the evi-dence. Americaidournal ofEducation, 93(3), 352-388, 1985.

Rosenholtz, Sj. Organization inducements of teaching. Aninterim report. submitted to the National Institute ofEducation, 1986.

Stedman, LC. A new look at the effective schools move-ment, Urban Education, 20(3), 295-326, 1987.

Stein. Quality of worklift in action: Managing for effec-tiveness. New York, NY: American Management Associ-ation, 1983.

CONCLUSIONS

Bacharach, S.M., Bauer, S.C., Shedd, J.B. (CART) Thelearning workplace The conditions and resources ofteaching. Ith 'ea, NY: OrganizationalAnalysis 8c riac-tice, 1986.

Center for Public Interest Polling. The NewJersey publicschool teacher: A view ofthe profession. New Bruns-wick, NJ: The Eagleton Institute, 1986.

Harris and Associates.Metropolitan Life Survey of theAmerican teacher 1986: Restructuring of the teachingprofession. New York: Metropolitan Life, 1986.

Koppich, J., Gerritz, W. & Guthrie, J.W. A view from theclassroom.- California teachers' opinions on workingconditions and school reformproposals. Palo Alto,CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1986.

National Governors Association. Time for results. Wash-ington, DC: Author, 1986.

1e1.

REFERENCES

147


Public School Forum of North Carolina The condition ofbeing an educator. An analysis of North Carolina'spublic schools. Raleigh., NC: Author, 1987.

The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. A

Nation prepared Teachers for the 21st Century. New

York, NY: Author, 1986.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-

ing. An imperiled generation Saving urban schools.

Princeton, NJ: Author, 1988.

182148

APPENDIX 3: CONDUCTING THE STUDYThe Teacher Working Conditions Project collected

descriptive information on teaching conditions in 31schools in five urban school districts. Collaborating onthe project was the Council of the Great City Schools,and members of its Human Resources Subcommitteeformed the core of our advisory panel. In addition todeveloping a rich description of actual conditions inthese urban schools, we examined the relationshipsbetween district and school policies'practices andteacher efficacy, commitment, morale and job satisfac-tion.

The Research QuestionsThe project set out to address five questions about

teaching in urban school districts:

1) What are the conditions of teachers' work in theselected schools and school districts?

2) How do workplace conditions in these urbanschools vary and what appears to explain the varia-tions?

3) What workplace conditions most affect the morale,job satisfaction, and commitment of teachers inurban districts?

4) Are specific district and school policies and prac-tices associated with positive work environmentsfor teachers?

5) What implications do these data have for policychanges at the district and school levels?

The Conceptual FrameworkThe 1E1, research design is based on research and com-

mon sense that tell us that teachers' efforts, commitmentand involvement are perhaps the most vital of schoolresources.

Various studio and national teacher surveys have doc-umented high levels of teacher dissatisfaction, often withdisturbing results. For example, only 23 percent ofteacher respondents in one national survey, The Condi-tion and Resources of Teaching (CART), indicated theywould choose teaching again, if given the choice. Othersurveys show that scarcity of materials, lack of funding,

163


and lack of administrative and parental support contrib-ute to teachers' low regard for their professional role.

The CART survey, sponsored by NEA, identifiedteacher dissatisfactions with their ability to communicatewith building-level administrators. Moreover, teachersonly occasionally discussed critical topics such as neededresources, school goals, training needs, and classroomperforrnane with administrators. This lack of interactioncontributed to their overall sense of professional isola-tion.

According to surveys conducted by Policy Analysis forCalifornia Education (PACE) and Metropolitan Life, teach-ers are more satisfied and more effective when they arepermitted to exercise professional judgment and choicein school matters, such as organizational policies, aca-demic and curriculum issues, student discipline prob-lems, and teaching assignments, including teacher selec-tion. Yet only 30 percent of urban teachers appear tohave significant decisionmaking authority in academiccurriculum matters. Teachers interpret exclusion fromdecisionmaking as a lack of respect, personally andprofessionally.

Existing research also links teacher perceptions oftheir working conditions to their attitudes and behaviorsin the classroom. According to Lortic. teachers view theirwork in terms of their ability to affect student growthand development. It is this sense of impact which bringsteachers to commit themselves to the challenges ofteaching, and involves them in exercising judgement. Ifteachers continually experience failure and frustration,the effort they must put in is too "costly" and conse-quently leads to withdrawal of effort, absenteeism and,ultimately, attrition.

These factors influencing :...2chers are similar to thoseidentified in the broao-..... organizational literature as thekey components in determining a high quality of worklifeefficacy, satisfaction, control, belonging, recognition,congruence of values, and level of effort.

The 12 factors listed below were identified for exami-nation in the IEL study:

Condition of physical plant and safetyMaterial and human resourcesTask definition and workload

150 1.64

STUDY

$ tudent characteristics

Autonomy/discretion in instructionProfessional collegiality/cooperationInfluence and decisionmaking involvementSupervision/evaluationRewards/recognitionProfessional developmentLeadership behavior in the schoolsDistrict leadership

These factors and the research design are shown in theProject Framework, Table A3:1.

ISIZEIMERIESEIVINEMBEEMITABLE A3:1

DISTRICT'POLICIES

ANDPRACTICES

t1

SCHOOLPOLICIES

ANDPRACTICES

PROJECT FRAMEWORK

-->

-->

--->

TEACHER WORKINGCONDITIONS

VARIABLES

Physical conditionsMaterial resourcesSupport servicesTask definitionNoninstructional dutiesStudent characteristicsInstructional activitiesDecisionmaking involvementCommunicationCollegialitySupervisionProfessional developmentRewards

TEACHER BEHAVIORSAND ATTITUDES

EfficacySatisfactionControlBelongingRecognitionCongruence of valuesLevel of effort

Data were collected from teaching staffand administra-tors in a sample of schools in each of the five urban dis-tricts. These districts were selected to be geographicallydiverse, to have diverse student characteristics,and to berepresentative of both major national teacher unions.Most critical of all, however, district leadership was inter-ested in being involved in the study, a necessary condi-tion for our data collection. Presumably, this cooperationmay skew results to reflect districts with more positiveworking conditions. But that is only a guess.

165 151


152

The Districts

The five diste-ts were selected with the cooperationof the Council on the Great City Schools and are mem-bers of that organization. They represent different regionsof the country and vary in their size, ethnic composition,and resources. The population of the five cities rangedfrom 250,000 to slightly over one million, and studentenrollments varied from slightly over 30,000 to nearly200,000. The ethnic composition of the cities also vari. I.Two had black majorities. One had a large Hispanicminority. On average, over 40 percent of their popula-tions were minority in 1980. However, in 1985.86, fourof the five districts had predominantly minority schoolpopulations. In two ot the districts, nearly-90 percent ofthe students were black and in another district nearly 40percent were Hispanic.

Large numbers of students in these five districts werefrom poor families. The 1980 census data show the per-centage of children from families below the poverty linein the five districts to have ranged from about 20 percentto slightly over 50 percent. These figures provide a con-servative estimate of the problem and obviously are out-dated.

The number of teachers employed in the five dist: letsin 1985.86 ranged from about 1,500 to nearly 3,500. Intwo of the districts teachers were represented by affili-ates of the NEA, and in the other three they were repre-sented by AFT affiliates.

The districts also varied in their wealth and in theirsupport for public education. Per pupil expenditures var-ied in 1985-86 from under $3,000 to over S5,000. Localtax effort also varied. In 1985, the effective tax rates in

the five districts ranged from less than S1 per S100assessed valuation to over S4 per S100.

The schools are above average, average, or below aver-age in achievement. This categorizati,o is based on testdata provided by the district and reflects the schools' rel-ative standing among similar schools within the district.Precise comparisons of student achievement are not pos-sible because the districts use different tests and differenttypes of test scores.

The Schools

In each district, at least two elementary, middie, andhigh schools were examined. The schools selected aretypical of the district, neither the best nor the Worst interms of physical conditions or measures of performance.They are not special schools, such as magnets, or schoolswith selective admissions policies. They were chosen byschool district leadership using these criteria andchecked with union leadership to ensure agreement thatthese were typical schools. Table A3:2 displays the char-acteristics of the 31 schools.

Their enrollments vary widely. The elementary schoolsrange in size from 300 students to 900; the mean enroll-ment is 605. The middle schools and junior highs rangefrom 300 to 1,200 with a mean size of 650. The highschools enroll from 600 to 1,900 students with a meanenrollment of over 1,100. Only two of the high schoolshave enrollments under 1,000.

Data Collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected atboth the district and school levels, using semi-structuredinterviews and data collection forms. School data wascollected through observations, review of documents,and interviews with school administrators and teachers.Eight to 15 teachers (depending on the size of theschool), the building representative for the teachers asso-ciation, and building administrators were interviewed ateach school. The interview team recorded its own obser-vations of conditions at each school. In addition, the dis-trict was asked to provide statistical information on stu-dert and staff characteristics, resources, and school per-formance.

District officials, leaders of the teachers' organization,and board members also were interviewed. Additionaldistrict data werc collected through review of docu-ments. Document review was especially importantbecause of the possibility of discrepancies between writ-ten policies and actual practice in the schools. In addi-tion, other factors such as management-labor relations,provisions of the bargaining agreement, teacher/pupilratios, classroom space, and number of in service trainingdays were examined because of their potential bearing

167

STUDY


limEIREENERssigimitessmigiTABLE A3:2

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOOLS

SchoolsGradeLevel Enrollment

PercentMinority

PercentPoor

Attendance(ADA)

StudentAchieve: :nt

District A1 7-12 1400 45 25 85 Above Average

2 7-12 900 67 32 86 Below Average

3 7-12 2200 70 80 86 Below A% erage

4 7-12 1100 82 56 87 Below Average

5 K6 700 94 40 92 Average

6 K-6 650 60 45 93 Average

District B

1 9.12 600 99 70 83 Below Average

2 9.12 1300 99 62 89 Below Average

3 6.8 1200 90 85 92 Above Average

4 6-8 600 99 90 89 Below Average

5 K-5 600 83 80 95 Above Average

6 K-5 900 100 83 95 Below Average

District C

1 9-12 1300 58 38 84 Average

2 9-12 1500 47 50 86 Average

3 7.8 600 43 59 83 Average

4 7.8 1000 43 60 82 Above Average

5 K6 500 32 74 93 Average


District D

I 9-12 1900 99 47 83 Average

2 9-12 1500 99 52 80 Average

3 6-8 350 99 45 82 Above Average

4 6-8 600 97 45 83 Average


6 K-5 500 57 29 86 Average

District E

1 9.12 1300 49 18 88 Above Average

2 9-12 1500 51 13 85 Average

3 7-8 500 55 19 93 Av--Ige4 7-8 400 50 38 89 Average

5 K- ii 300 60 50 94 Below Average

6 K6 800 74 24 96 Below Average7 K6 500 81 69 97 Below Average

Note: Numbers have been rounded in order to protect the identity of the schoolsAlso, the listing for District A includes four grade 7 12 juniocsemor high schools. Two of these weretreated as high schools and two as junior high schools fur the st,mly. Only staff and students from theappropriate grades were included in the analysis.

on how specific policies and practices were implementedwithin schools.

Overall, a total of 420 interviews were conducted andthousands of pages of notes analyzed.

168154

4111.1..111

APPENDIX 4: COMPARISONOF SCHOOL EFFECTS

School Conditions as Predictors of EffectsTo determine whether particular conditions have a

stronger or more consistent effect on teacher workingconditions, data from the two elementary, middle andhigh schools in each of thedistricts were compared. Byexamining the data from these pairs of schools, theeffects of variations in working conditions stemmingfrom differences in policy environments, funding levels,collective bargaining agreements and district professionalcultures were minimized.

The: Elementary Schools

The elementary schools data reveal a clear pattern; rel-atively better working conditionsare related to relativelymore positive teacher attitudes and behavior and theconverse also is true. This is seen in the school pairs

EiMSEEMBEEMENEEMENTABLE A4:1

WORKING CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS ON TEACHERSANALYSIS OF MATCHED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

School SFS Working Teacher JobPairs (%) Conditions Leaders Attendance Effort Efficacy Commtioky Morale SatisfactionAl 50 Good Good + + 0 4. + 0A2 24 Poor Adeq 0 + 0A3 69 Poor Good + + 0 4. 0B1 69 Good Goo-1 + + + + + +B2 30 Poor Adeq + 0 0 0 0 0CI 74 Poor Adeq 0C2 31 Good Good + + + + + +DI 79 Adeq Good + + + + 0 +D2 83 Poor Poor + + + 0E1 41 Adeq Adeq + + 0 + 0 0E2 44 Poor Poor 0 0 0

The schools in each set are from the same district. The SES data are bzed on the percentage of studentseligible for free lunch. The working conditions column represents an index created from ten indicatorsand summarized as Good, Adequate and Inadequate. The leadership column reflects a similar generalmsessment. The effects data is summarized using pluses ( + ), minuses ( ), and zeros (0) to representthe aggregate assessment of effects made by respondents.

169 155


labeled B, C, D and E in Table A4:1. Set A included threeschools from a single district, and there were clear differ-

ences in both working conditions and effects between Aland A2. Good leadership in A3 appears to have partiallycompensated for less adequate physical working condi-tions.

One significant aspect of the data is that the socio-eco-nomic status (SES) of the students appears not to have asconsistent an effect on the teacher attitudes and behav-

iors as school working conditions. In sets A and B,

schools enrolling larger percentages of students with low

SES show more positive teacher data than the pairedschools. This pattern dots not hold up in set C, and thereis little variation in the SES of the students in the paired

schools in sets D and E. Many studies contend the SES of

stuaents is the primary predictor of achievement, bur

thesi studies seldom controlled for teacher working con-ditions. If better working conditions produce more posi-tive teacher attitudes and higher levels of effort, theimproved conditions might positively affect the levelsofachievement in urban schools.

The Middle Schools

The data on working conditions in the middle schoolsare presented in Table A4:2. Three sets of schools appearto support the general hypothesis of a positive correla-

tion between teacher working conditions and teacherattitudes and behavior. The schools in the other two sets,C and E, are not strikingly different and show somewhatsimilar patterns of teacher effects. School Al wasdescribed as having stronger administrative leadershipthan A2; this may explain the more negative pattern inthe effects data for the latter site. However, this relation-ship between stronger leadership and the effects dal~ isnot found in set E in which the two schools weredescribed as hav;ng similar differences in leadership. Inthe other two sets of paired schools, B and D, differencesin working conditions show strong positive correlationswith the teacher effects data. In both sets, the schools areserving similar student populations, yet appear to havestrikingly different sets of teacher attitudes and behaviors.

170

156

COMPARISON

INIIIIBIER1112111KEEMBSE511

TABLE A4:2

WORKING CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS ON TEACHERSANALYSIS OF MATCHED MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOLS

School SES Working Teacher JobPairs (%) Conditions Leaders Attendance Effort Efficacy Community Morale SatisfactionAI 19 Adeq Adeq 0 0 + + - 0A2 38 Adeq Poor 0 - - + -BI 43 Poor Poor 0 0 0B2 45 Adeq Adeq + + + + + +CI 59 Adcq Good 0 0 0C2 60 Adeq Good + 0 0 + 0

DI 85 Good Good + + + + + +D2 90 Poor Poor 0 0

El 83 Poor Adeq 0 + 0E2 57 Poor Poor 0 +

The schools in each set arc from the same distr._ _ The SES data are based on the percentage of ,tudentseligible for free 1-tich The working conditions column represents an index created from ten indicatorsand summarized as Good, Adequate, and Inadequate. The leadership column reflects a similar generalassessment The effects data is summarized using pluses ( + ), minuses ( ) and zeros (0) to representthe aggregate assessment of effects made by therpondents.

11EINESEMINniemitissinisininTABLE A4:3

WORKING CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS ON TEACHERSANALYSIS OF MATCHED HIGH SCHOOLS

School SES Working Teacher JobPairs (%) Conditions Leaders Attendance Effort Efficacy Community Morale SatisfactionAl 18 Adeq Adeq 0 0 + 0A2 13 Poor Poor 0 - -BI 47 Adcq GoodB2 52 Poor Poor 0 0

Cl 38 Adcq Adcq 0 0 0C2 51 Poor Poor

DI 74 poor Poor 0D2 83 Adcq Adeq 0

El 33 Good Adcq + + 0 + + +E2 44 Poor Poor 0 0 + 0E3 32 Poor Poor 0 0 0 0 +The schools in each set are from the same district. The SES data arc based on the percentage of studentseligible for free lunch. The working conditions column represents an index created from ten indicatorsand summarized as Good Adequate, and Inadequate. The leadership column reflects a similar generalassessment. The effects data is summarized using pluses ( + ), mini..es ( ) and zeros (0) to representthe aggregate assessment of effects made by the respondents.

1.71 157

NVOIlkiNG IN URBAN ;CHOWS

The High Schools

Data from four sets of the high schools, A, B, C and E,presented in Table A4:3 clearly support the hypothesisthat teacher attitudes and behavior vary directly withworking conditions. The data from set D do not supportthis conclusion. The major differences in the workingconditions are in the quality of the physical plants andleadership in the two schools, and it may be that betterphysical facilities and leadership do not adequately com-pensate for the resource problems that besetbothschoolsratgre is, however, no adequate explanation forthis inconsistency in the high school data The highschools in set B are particularly interesting because theschools have roughly similar student characteristics butdissimilar working conditions and teacher attitudes.

172158

APPENDIX 5: PROJECT PARTICIPANTS


ADVISORY PANEL

Maurice CabaLegislative LiaisonPortland Public Schools

Paula CozadPrincipal, Breithaupt Vocational Technical

CenterDetroit Public Schools

Joseph FernandezSuperintendentDade County Public Schools

Tom FranklinConsultantCouncil of the Great City Schools

Rachel HecklingMember, Board of EducationRochester City Schools

Sam HuskExecutive DirectorCouncil of the Great City Schools

Susan Moore JohnsonAssistant ProfessorHarvard Graduate School of Education

Marsha LevineAssociate Director/Education IssuesAmerican Federation ofTeachers

Edward MeadeSenior Program OfficerThe Ford roundation

Mary Nicholsonne, PrincipalHartford Heights Elementary SchoolBaltimore City Schools

Ellen Peclunart, Associate DirectorThe Center for Early AdolescenceUniversity of North Carolina

Justo RoblesProfessional Associate - IPDNational Education Association

James ScanunonDenver Public Schools

Leontine D. ScottAssociate SuperintendentPhiladelphia Public Schools

Gaya ShakesTeacherRochester Public Schools

Joseph B. SheddOrganizational Analysis & PracticeCornell, New York

Gary SykesMichigan State University

Gary ThompsonColumbus, Ohio Public Schools

Vera WhitePrincipalDistrict of Columbia Public Schools

Irene YamaharaAssociate SuperintendentLos Angeles Unified Schools

John YrchikResearch SpecialistNational Education Association

173 159


STAFF

Lisa J. Walker, Project DirectorJ. Lynne White, Project Research DirectorThomas B. Corcoran, Senior Research

ConsultantJean Miller, Project Coore'nator

Interview Staff

Wendi Kohli, Assistant Professor, SUNY,Binghamton, NY

Norm Fruchter, Academy for EducationalDevelopment

Roger Banks, Harvard Graduate School ofEducation

Juanita Wagstaff, The Ohio State UniversityCollege of Education

Elizabeth L Hale, Vice President, IELJacqueline Danzberger, Local Improvement

Programs, IEL

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INSTITUTEFOR EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP, INC.

Gregory R. AnrigPresidentEducational Testing Service

David BergholzChairmanAdvisory CommitteePublic Education Fund Network

James B. CampbellPresidentMISSCO Corporation

Thomas E. CroninMcHugh Distinguished Professor of

American Institutions and LeadershipColorado College

Harold Howe, IISenior LecturerHarvard UniversityGraduate School of Education

James A. KellyPresidentNational Board for Professional

Teaching Standards

John May, TreasurerPresidentCommon Sense Management

Floretta D. McKenziePresidentThe McKenzie Group

Lourdes MirandaPresidentMiranda Associates, Inc.

160174

David IL ParkerSenior Executive Vice-PresidentRyder System, Inc.

Neal R. PeirceContributing EditorThe National Journal

Carlos RamirezPublisher and Chief Executive OfficerEl Diario

Albert ShankerPresidentAmerican Federation of Teachers

Michael D. UsdanPresidentThe Institute for Educational

Leadership

Arthur WhitePresidentWhite, Yankelovich, Skelly

Consulting Group, Inc.

Eddie N. WilliamsPresidentJoint Center for Political Studi..$

William S. Woodside, ChairFormer Chairman and Chief

Executive OfficerPrimerica Corporation

Working

to Urball

Schools111,. IM

UFl The Institute for=G = Educational Leadership

175

Date post:	19-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 299 356 UD 026 410. AUTHOR Corcoran, Thomas B.; And...

Documents