University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Self-perceived job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Self-perceived job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SELF-PERCEIVED JOB SATISFACTION AND DISSATISFACTION OF URBAN ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS by Anne Shier Elder A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) May 1989 UMI Number: DP25268 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Disssftaîion ByfcilisMng UMI DP25268 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 E)S U k ' E , d L Ê 3 7 This dissertation, written by Anne Shier Elder under the direction of h.^x... Dissertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H ILO S O P H Y Dean of Graduate Studies Date . . er.. 30, . . . 1 . 988. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chojrmfsdn 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply indebted to the classroom teachers who took time from their very important duties to participate i in this endeavor. Their participation made the project possible. Thanks also go to the school district in which the study was conducted. It would not have been feasible to proceed with the project without its endorsement. I would like to acknowledge the assistance and support I received from the members of my Guidance Committee— Audrey J. Schwartz, John W. Stallings, Everett M. Rogers, M. Frances Klein, and Donald Wickert. I wish to thank each of them for their fine teaching and encour- ; agement. I am especially grateful to Audrey Schwartz for ; her continued interest and patience and for the many hours ^ she spent reading, questioning, and commenting upon the manuscript. I Finally, thank you to my husband, Robert, for un- ' ceasing patience, support, positive reinforcement, and , inspiration. i 111 ; TABLE OF CONTENTS j I Page : ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................... v I FIGURE ix I ' Chapter 1 I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................. 1 Introduction Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem Purposes of the Study Questions to be Answered Assumptions Importance of the Study Definitions of Terms Delimitations Limitations Methodology Outline of the Remainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 19 Introduction Theories of Motivation and Behavior Job Satisfaction in the Workplace Demographic Information on Teachers General Profile of Teachers Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers Importance of Teachers ' Summary of Literature t I V I Chapter Page III. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES............ 53 ; Introduction 1 Overview of Methodology ] Research Design I Selection of the Subjects I Instrumentation Field Procedures ; Data Collection I Analysis of Data Summary of Chapter ; IV. FINDINGS.................................... 67 : Introduction : Characteristics of the Sample Characteristics of the Schools ' Sub-Areas of Job Satisfaction j Findings Related to the Questions ! Multiple Regression Analysis Summary of Findings Discussion of Findings ; V. SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, I CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS........... 141 ; Summary ! Selected Findings Conclusions Recommendations REFERENCE LIST ...................................... 150 APPENDIXES 157 A. Letter of Authorization I Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire I Personal Data Form.......................... 158 B. Cover Letter Informed Consent Declaration Follow-up Letter............................ 173 C. Comments by Respondents............. 177 i LIST OF TABLES ; Table Page 1. Number of Schools in Geographic Regions...... 59 ; 2. Questionnaires Sent to Urban Classroom Teachers.................... 64 3. Questionnaires Sent to Urban Classroom Teachers by Geographic Location.............. 64 4. Characteristics of the Sample................. 71 5. Characteristics of the Schools................ 74 6. Sub-Areas of Teacher Job Satisfaction........ 77 7. Comparison of Subscale Neutral Points and Obtained Means.................... 78 8. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Grade Taught................ 80 ; 9. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Grade Taught............ 81 10. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Grade Taught............. 82 11. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Class Size............... 82 12. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pay and Class Size...................... 83 13. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Year- Round Calendar................................ 84 ! 14. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Year-Round Calendar....................... 85 15. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Year-Round Calendar..... 86 I ' 16. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with the Work Itself and Year-Round Calendar............ 87 V I Table Page 17. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Advancement and Year-Round Calendar........................................ 88 18. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Year-Round Calendar...............................*...... 89 19. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Year-Round Calendar........ 90 20. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and SES of Students........ 91 21. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Transiency Rate..................... 92 22. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Gender................... 93 23. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pay and Gender................ 94 24. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Gender.................. 95 25. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Gender...................... 96 26. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Marital Status.......... 97 27. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Responsibility and Marital Status......................................... 98 28. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with the Work Itself and Years of Teaching Experience. . ........ 99 29. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Advancement and Years of Teaching Experience...................................... 100 30. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Years of Teaching Experience...................................... 101 vil Table Page 31. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Years of Teaching Experience....... *........................... 102 32. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Years of Teaching Experience........................... 103 33. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pay and Years of Teaching Experience.................. 104 34. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Years of Teaching Experience................... 105 35. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Years of Teaching Experience.................... 106 36. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Years at Current School......................................... 107 37. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Years at Current School...................................... 108 38. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Years at Current School............................... 109 39. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Responsibility and Years at Current School............................... 110 40. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Years at Current School............................... Ill 41. Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Years at Current School......................................... 112 42. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Supervision................ 115 V l l l ' Table Page 43. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Colleagues................. 116 44. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Working Conditions........ 117 45. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Pay........................ 118 46. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Responsibility. . ......... 119 47. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with the Work Itself........... 120 48. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Advancement................ 121 49. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Security................... 122 50. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Recognition. .......... 123 51. Multiple Regression Analysis for Satisfaction with Parents.................... 124 L_- I X FIGURE Figure Page 1. Variables, Sources of Data, and How the Variables Are Operationalized............... 58 1 CHAPTER I ' STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 i i Introduction The United States is facing a shortage of teachers. With the publication of A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform in 1983 (National Commission on I Excellence in Education) , the nation was told of the "crisis" in the country's educational system. The Commis sion charged that the "mediocre educational performance" ; in the United States would have been viewed as an "act of ! war" had it been imposed on the country by a foreign ! government (p. 5). The teaching profession is described in the report as drawing members who are "not academically fit" and who are inadequately prepared by teacher training institutions (p. 22). i Dariing-Hammond addressed the current status of the teaching profession in her study, Bevond the Commission , Reports: The Coming Crisis in Teaching (1984) . She : reported that the nation's teaching force would soon develop a serious shortage of qualified teachers. Any I I efforts made toward successful educational reform would be ' undermined if the problems of attracting and retaining capable teachers were not first addressed. McLaughlin, Pfeifer, Swanson-Owens, and Yee (198 6) reported that current reform efforts fail to address the conditions that develop a personal feeling of failure and demoralization in "even the most dedicated teachers" (p. 422). A study group organized by the California Roundtable met in 1983 to look at the issues facing the teaching profession in California. They reported that there would be a significant need for teachers in California's schools during the 1980s and 1990s because of an increase in pupil enrollment and faculty retirements and resignations. They concluded that there would not be a sufficient number of qualified teachers available to meet this demand (Smith, 1983) . They also stated that the fact that teaching was not an attractive career choice would contribute to the shortage. Considerable research has been done on the subject of teacher satisfaction; however, there is conflict on how to define satisfaction and how to measure it. Several studies have looked at teachers' job satisfaction in relation to Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs and found that lower level needs (physiological, security, belong ingness) were met in the teaching field, while higher level : needs (esteem and self-actualization) were not (Chapman & ' Lowther, 1982; Sweeney, 1981; Williams, 1978). Holland ' (1973) reported that vocational satisfaction depends on the congruence between one's personality and one's work environment. Background of the Problem There has been a significant decline in the number of people choosing to enter the teaching profession. An annual survey of entering college freshmen conducted at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in 1982 showed that in that class there was less interest in entering teaching than in any other entering class previ ously. Only 4.7 percent wanted to become teachers, whereas in 19 66, 21.7 percent of entering freshmen aspired to enter the teaching profession ("Declining Interest," 1983). The growth of opportunities for women and minorities in the labor market is having a great impact on the teaching profession. Women have traditionally comprised the majority of the teaching force and they still do. However, academically gifted women increasingly decline to pursue teaching in preference for other fields. Women's occupation selections have changed from education, English, and the social sciences to business and commerce and the health professions. The proportion of degrees granted to women in biological sciences, computer sciences, engineer ing, and law increased tenfold from 1970 to 1980 (Dariing- Hammond , 1984) . j A California Roundtable study reported that oppor- I tunities in other professions were keeping many bright I women and minorities from entering teaching. In 1984, four I to 13 times as many degrees as in 1970 were granted to I ' women in engineering, law, dentistry, and medicine, while the number receiving degrees in education had declined. In 1970, 19 percent of freshmen nationally said they planned to choose teaching as a career; in 1982, only 5 percent said so. The report stated that projections of ' supply were probably inflated because many people acquire teaching credentials as "insurance," but never use them professionally. Moreover, national studies indicate that ' many of the brightest teachers leave the profession after teaching for only a few years ("Teaching," 1985). In September, 1984, 146,000 new graduates were competing for 142,000 teaching positions. In September, 1985, that same number of graduates was able to select from 157,000 jobs and the trend is accelerating. Nationally there will be a 7 percent shortage of qualified teachers. By 1992, when the projected output from colleges and universities will have fallen to 137,000, the total positions available will have grown to 209,000 (Norris, 1985a). Large urban school districts have been the first to i feel the effects of the shortage. In Washington, D.C., school officials sought 2,000 new teachers for the 1985-86 r ^ I school year and it was anticipated that even higher numbers I of new teachers would be needed the following school year (Norris, 1985a). Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has been i engaged in major recruitment drives for the past four years. Advertising in professional journals and newspapers in major cities and recruiting on college campuses through out the country (and in Spain and Mexico) have been part of successful efforts to hire new teachers. A total of 1,600 new teachers was employed for the 1984-85 school , year. The recruitment campaign continued in 1985 with a , goal of 2,500 new teachers, in 1986 with a goal of 2,600 I new teachers, and in 1987, with a goal of 1,600 ("Teacher : Positions," 1987). A yearly increase of more than 30,000 students coupled with a large number of teacher retirements have caused the high number of vacancies; the majority of these vacancies were at the elementary level (Woo, 1986). As has happened in previous teacher shortages, the current developing shortage is bringing about a relaxation of the standards that govern teacher certification and hiring. This has begun in the larger metropolitan areas ' where the shortage is already felt. Houston, Washington, New York, and Los Angeles are hiring individuals to teach who are not fully trained and certified. More than 13,000 ^ non-qualified teachers have been employed in New York City ' alone (Watts, 1986). The National Center for Education Statistics reports that 2 percent of all teachers were not certified to teach in their principal field of assignment in 1983-84. Approximately 9 percent of all newly hired public school teachers and 21 percent of private school teachers were not certified to teach in their principal field of assignment that same year (Plisko & Stern, 1985). In order to fill its growing number of vacancies, LAUSD has resorted to hiring teacher candidates with emergency credentials from the State Department of Educa tion. These emergency credentials are given to college graduates who have a bachelor's degree, but have completed no course work in education methodology. Many of these teacher candidates have never been in a classroom (other than as a student) prior to their first day of teaching. The emergency credentials are renewed yearly, provided that the teacher has completed at least six semester units of course work and received a satisfactory evaluation from the school-site administrator. Local union representatives are distressed at the district's willingness to hire non- credentialed teachers. They believe such hiring lowers standards (Woo, 1986). As the teacher shortage gains momentum, an increasing number of other school districts also will be forced to fill vacancies with untrained teachers. ------- --------------------- - -- - 7 Statement of the Problem The biggest issue in education today is how to attract, train, and retain qualified teachers for tomor row's classrooms (Commons, 1985). Without a sufficient number of teachers, other issues in education cannot be addressed. The Commons Report (1985) clearly stated the problem: California will not have enough teachers. Education is a service industry, and the provider of that service is the teacher. The schools must recruit nearly 85,000 additional teachers by the end of the decade. They must be good teachers, or the product they turn out will be inferior. (p. 9) Dariing-Hammond (1984) reported that the "best and the brightest" are leaving teaching. She suggested that in order to retain the teachers who are gifted and tal ented, the teaching profession must be restructured. The alternative, she stated, is to fill vacancies with the least academically qualified and "sabotage" the nation's children's opportunities for success in the future. Purposes of the Study The purposes of this study were to determine the factors that contribute to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of urban classroom teachers with their jobs in order to propose changes at the school site and in district policy that will contribute to the retention of teachers in the teaching profession. Ten sub-areas of job satisfac tion were identified: Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibility, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, Recognition, and Parents. Questions to be Answered This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. How do the following factors at the school site contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers? a. Size of the school b. Geographic location of school c. Grade taught d. Class size e. Year-round calendar 2. How do the following factors related to students contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers? a. Socioeconomic level b. Racial-ethnic background c. Student transiency rate 3. How, if at all, do the following teachers' personal characteristics affect the relationships between school site factors and student factors on the one hand I and various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfac- , I j tion on the other? I a. Gender I I b. Age c. Marital status I d. Number and ages of children e. Years of teaching experience I I Assumptions : This study was predicated on the following assump- * I tions: 1. Teachers who are satisfied with their jobs are less likely to leave teaching than are teachers who are ' dissatisfied with their jobs. 2. The findings of this study can be used to assist school site administrators in developing policies that will contribute to the retention of experienced teachers. 3. The findings of this study can be used to assist school districts in developing policies that will con tribute to the retention of experienced teachers. ; 4. The findings of this study can be used to assist ' school districts in developing policies that will help to ' attract qualified recruits to the teaching profession. Importance of the Study It is time that a study be conducted to identify the reasons veteran teachers are leaving and a plan to retain them be developed and implemented. This study sought to identify factors that lead to teachers * satis faction and dissatisfactions with their jobs. Findings based on the data were used for purposes of making recom mendations that will keep qualified teachers from leaving teaching. Only when the human resources that are necessary for effective instruction are in place can the mandates for educational reform be carried out. Not only is teaching not attracting intelligent, capable recruits to the profession, some teachers who are currently teaching are not satisfied with the profession and often are expressing a desire to leave. Every year the National Education Association polls thousands of teachers, asking about their views and the conditions in which they teach. Between 1971 and 1981, the proportion of respondents who said that they would not teach if they could choose again more than tripled, rising from 10 percent to approximately 40 percent. Almost half of the current teaching force said it plans to leave the profes sion before eligibility for retirement (NEA, 1982). Recent trends in which there were more teachers than jobs to fill are being reversed. In January, 1985, the number of teaching vacancies had increased by 28 percent from the previous year. The number of jobs to be filled in elementary schools alone increased by 32 percent during that same period (Norris, 1985a). Currently there are approximately 2.4 million teachers teaching in the nation's schools, both private and public. The demand for new teachers to replace those who leave teaching and to fill new positions will increase by almost 4 percent in each of the next five years. A shortage will first occur at the elementary level. In 1986, 109,000 new elementary teachers were needed nation wide. By 1991, the figure will increase to 138,000. By 1991, 2 04,000 teachers will be needed in the nation's elementary and secondary schools (Carnegie Foundation, 1986). The teacher shortage has been a reality for the past several years in the school district in which this study was conducted. As the student population of that district continues to increase and the number of teachers needed to teach these students continues to grow, it is important that the district administrators know what factors con tribute to the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of class room teachers in order to develop and implement a plan to retain qualified teachers and to attract new teachers to the district. As the impending teacher shortage develops throughout the nation, school districts are responding by filling teaching vacancies with uncertified applicants. At the same time, teachers who are qualified and experi enced are leaving the profession in greater numbers than ever before. The need to retain these experienced teach ers must be addressed. Goodlad (1984) wrote that considerable research has been done to examine the conditions of the workplace and the frustrations of unskilled, skilled, and professional workers. The conclusions of these studies have been utilized to make improvements in the workplace. Lester (1987) stated that although much research has been con ducted in both educational and industrial settings during the past 50 years, there is no conclusive work regarding the nature of the educational work setting and the charac teristics of teachers themselves. Efforts must be made to study teacher job satisfaction and remedy the conditions that are likely to force teachers to leave the profession (Goodlad, 1984; Lester, 1987). Definitions of Terms Lester (1982) defined job satisfaction as "the extent to which the teacher perceives and values various factors (job characteristics) of the work situation" (p. 1). Nine factors were identified and defined: 1. Supervision - The task-oriented behavior and person-oriented behavior of the immediate supervisor. 13 2. Colleagues - The work group and social inter action among fellow teachers. 3. Working Conditions - The working environment and aspects of the physical environment. 4. Pav - Annual income. 5. Responsibilitv - The opportunity to be accountable for one's own work and the opportunity to take part in policy or decision-making activities. 6. Work itself - The job of teaching or the tasks related to the job. The freedom to institute innovative materials and to uti lize one's skills and abilities in designing one's work. The freedom to experi ment and to influence or control what goes on in the job. 7. Advancement - The opportunity for promotion. 8. Securitv - The school's policies regarding tenure, seniority, layoffs, pension, retire ment, and dismissal. 9. Recognition - Some act of notice, blame, praise, or criticism. (Lester, 1982, p. ii) A tenth factor of job satisfaction. Parents, was ' added by the investigator. This factor is defined as follows: Parents - The support and participation of the adults (parents, guardians) who have primary care responsibility for the students. Job dissatisfaction is defined as the extent to I which the teacher perceives and does not value, i.e., is : discontented, with the various factors of the work situa- 1 tion. Delimitations The study was delimited to a sample of elementary classroom teachers who were employed by one large urban school district during the 1987-88 school year. The study inquired about areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction that were work-related only. Limitations The rate of response to the survey questionnaire was 52.17 percent, an "adequate" rate for analysis and reporting (Babbie, 1983). However, because no information was received from nonrespondents, it is possible that the responding random sample was not representative of the population. Unknown extraneous conditions may have influenced the responses of survey participants. Methodology Design This study utilized a survey research design. The survey questionnaire included the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) (Lester, 1982) and nine additional statements developed by the investigator, plus a personal data form. This was sent to a random sample of classroom teachers selected from grades kindergarten through grade three and grades four through six who were teaching in selected schools in one large urban school district. Variables The dependent variable in this study was job satisfaction which was divided into 10 sub-areas: Super vision, colleagues, working conditions, pay, responsibil ity, work itself, advancement, security, recognition, and parents. The variables were operationalized by self- reported satisfaction on the TJSQ which was imbedded in the survey instrument. The first group of independent variables in the study was the school site factors (size of the school, geographic location of the school, grade taught, class size, year-round calendar). The data source for these variables was from extant information, including the district's Ethnic Survey Report, Transiency and Stability Report, Guide to Schools and Offices, and the schools' personnel rosters. The second group of independent variables was the factors related to students (socioeconomic level, racial- ethnic background, transiency rate). The data source for these variables also was extant information, including the district's Ethnic Survey Report, Transiency and Stability Report, and Compensatory Education School Ranking. The third group of independent variables was the teachers' personal characteristics. The data source for i these variables was teachers' self-reports on the survey instrument. Instrumentation The TJSQ was developed to measure teacher job I satisfaction; it contains 66 statements about the teaching I situation related to supervision, colleagues, working conditions, responsibility, the work itself, advancement, security, and recognition. Eight additional statements, constructed by the investigator, were used to solicit ' teachers' opinions about parent participation at the school site, teachers' opportunity to participate in decision making, and opportunities for professional growth and leadership at the school site. A ninth statement inquiring . about teachers' future plans for teaching was also included. ’ Population of Interest The results of the study can be generalized to the population of elementary classroom teachers (kindergarten through sixth grade) in large multi-ethnic urban school districts. Sample The population from which the sample was drawn were the teachers of one large urban school district. A : selection of 100 schools representing the district's eight I geographic regions was utilized. A stratified random ' sample of six classroom teachers from each school was selected to participate in the study. The sample from each school included three teachers from grades kindergarten through three and three teachers from grades four through six. The sample consisted of a total of 600 randomly selected urban classroom teachers who were working in the specifically selected schools. All participants were regular classroom teachers. Analysis of Data Univariate analyses, utilizing grouped data, were i performed for each independent and dependent variable. Bivariate cross-tabulations were computed between each independent variable and each dependent variable to ‘ determine the contributions of the independent variables i , to job satisfaction. This process was repeated for all elements of job satisfaction. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the relative salience of school, student, and personal factors to various aspects of job satisfaction. Outline of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the literature relating to teachers' satisfactions and dissatisfactions with the profession. The review includes several theories ; of motivation and behavior, a discussion of job satisfac- 1 tion in the workplace including research on worker satis- ! faction and productivity from fields outside of education. I a general profile of teachers in the United States, and I discussions on teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction and : the importance of teachers. ; Chapter III describes the research methods and 1 procedures that were utilized to collect basic information I related to this study. Chapter IV analyzes the responses obtained from the instruments used in this study in terms of the 10 sub-areas of job satisfaction and the questions to be answered. Chapter V contains a summary of the findings. Conclusions and recommendations based on the findings are presented. A reference list and appendixes follow. 19 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction This chapter contains information from research in selected areas relevant to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of classroom teachers. The review of literature is divided into seven sections: theories of motivation and behavior, job satisfaction in the workplace including research on work satisfaction and productivity from fields outside of education, demographic information about teachers, a general profile of teachers, teacher satisfac tion and dissatisfaction, importance of teachers, and summary of the literature review. Theories of Motivation and Behavior Before the 193 0s, there was a paucity of research on human behavior and motivation toward goal achievement. In the late 193 0s, Lewin (cited in Foyer, 1964) proposed that the "level of aspiration" in humans was the determiner of whether or not they felt satisfied or dissatisfied with themselves. Lewin suggested that success or failure strongly influenced individuals' levels of aspiration. He wrote that human behavior was a function of the person and the environment and that motivated behavior differed because it was goal-oriented. Since that time other studies have shown that the level of aspiration is raised or lowered accordingly with the attained or unattained level of aspiration (Foyer, 1964). McTeer's (1972) model for motivated behavior included internal physiological factors, external factors, and mental factors such as feeling and memory. McTeer contended that social motivation is dependent on the various factors that influence and direct human activity. Human beings adapt through learned physical and psycholog ical response patterns that are both habit and anticipated by recurring needs. Maslow's (1954) framework takes basic needs (e.g., air, water, food, protection, love, etc.) and incorporates them into a five-level taxonomy arranged in hierarchical order of prepotency. This prepotency feature of the model is of critical importance; it specifies that the most basic needs must be reasonably satisfied before an individual is interested in needs at the next level. The five levels according to the Maslow model are physiological, security, social, esteem, and self-actual ization. Maslow was concerned about complete satisfaction of a need before another becomes potent. According to Maslow, when a need is satisfied, it is no longer a motivator of behavior. It is the most urgent unsatisfied need that dominates a person’s behavior. He stated that: Most members of our society who are normal are partially satisfied in all their basic needs and partially unsatisfied in all their basic needs at the same time. A more realistic description of the hierarchy would be in terms of decreasing percent ages of satisfaction as we go up the hierarchy of prepotency. (Maslow, 1954, pp. 388-389) The Motivation-Hygiene theory of Frederick Herzberg (1959) suggests that factors that are involved in producing job satisfaction and the factors that contribute to job dissatisfaction form two separate sets. Factors that result in job satisfaction (motivators) are achievement, recognition, intrinsic interest, responsibility, and advancement. Job dissatisfaction (hygienes) comes as a result of company policy, administrative practice, super vision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and salary. Herzberg classified hygienes as the factors that meet a person’s needs to avoid unpleasantness; motivators are the factors that make people content with their jobs because they serve the basic and human needs for psychological growth. Herzberg’s theory suggests that job attitudes must be viewed from two sides— what makes employees happy (motivators) and what they wish to avoid (hygienes) (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Myers' (1964) model is a variation of the Herzberg model. His model shows maintenance factors as peripheral and supportive of more important motivational factors. - “ " 22 Recognition serves both motivation and maintenance needs. Positive recognition is an indication of approval related to successful achievement and individual worth. Negative recognition or failure to receive expected recognition leads to dissatisfaction associated with unfairness, failure, and hostility. As an example, granting a raise in pay can be an important part of employee recognition. The way in which a company awards merit increases has a direct effect on behavior in an organization. To recipi ents, a raise is an indication of how well they are progressing; the behavior that led to the raise will continue. Other employees will examine a recipient's behavior and pattern their own accordingly. When manage ment matches merit increases with known contributions towards the fulfillment of organizational objectives, their actions reinforce the organizational structure (Waters, 1978) . McClelland (1964) sought to measure and increase motivation in individuals. He reasoned that a motivated individual is an asset to an organization. He listed characteristics of high achievers as: (1) liking situa tions in which they take personal responsibility for finding solutions ; (2) setting moderate achievement goals and taking calculated risks ; and (3) wanting concrete feedback. Through McClelland's work new methods were developed to increase individuals' motivation and, as a I i consequence, they better serve the organization (Waters, I 1978). McGregor's (1960) Theory X-Theory Y is based upon i assumptions about human nature and motivation. Theory X assumes that most people prefer to be directed, have no I interest in assuming responsibility, and want safety above all; people are motivated by money, fringe benefits, and the threat of punishment. Managers who adhere to Theory X assumptions attempt to structure, control, and closely supervise their employees. These managers believe that external control is appropriate for employees who are not responsible or reliable. I McGregor developed Theory Y, an alternate theory of human behavior, based on more positive beliefs about human nature and motivation. Theory Y assumes that people can be self-directed and creative at work when they are properly motivated. It is the task of management to develop this potential in employees. Properly motivated people can attain their own goals best by directing their own efforts toward the accomplishment of the goals of the organization (McGregor, 1960). McGregor's Theory X and Theory Y are attitudes or predispositions toward people. Although it may seem better for a manager to manage utilizing a Theory Y philosophy, it may not always be appropriate to behave consistently with those assumptions. At times it may be necessary to behave in a directive, controlling manner utilizing Theory X assumptions with some employees in an effort to help them mature in the developmental sense, until they are truly Theory Y people (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) . Waters (1978) stated that employees* relationships to educational institutions are psychological contracts that involve the exchange of loyalty and commitment for an offer from the organization to provide for their needs. He also said that when individuals find the things they want from life are found in their jobs, they will develop positive attitudes which will coincide with the goals of the organization. When the organizational system is operating effec tively, both the individual * s needs and the organization's needs are served. Davis's (19 67) supportive theory recognizes that people are the primary source of improve ment in organizations. His point was that through the growth of its people, an organization improves performance, and through the improvement of its organizations, a society improves. The emphasis is on the general betterment through growth in human capacity and performance, rather than just improvement of the organization. Davis's supportive theory has implications for school organizations. It has been stated that the Ameri can system of schools itself is the cause of many of the problems faced by classroom teachers and is a definite I I contributing factor to their dissatisfaction. The "bus iness-military oriented" type of organization that gives the classroom teacher the burden of responsibility for the "product," but withholds autonomy or opportunity to participate in decision making, denies the idea that the decision-maker must bear the responsibility. Without authority themselves, teachers very often cannot induce the students to assume responsibility for their own education (Waters, 1978). Job Satisfaction in the Workplace Faxen and Hansson (1975) wrote that job satisfaction expresses the relationship between employees' experiences and emotions and the work and the work environment. The concept of job satisfaction has developed gradually. During the 194 0s and 1950s, the primary concern of job satisfaction research was employee well-being as it related to the physical work environment. Research efforts were i oriented toward physiological and medical factors of industrial safety. Various norms were established to characterize an acceptable or good work environment. Research continued and intensified in response to wide spread concern with the environment; however, it was , primarily concerned with color schemes, background music, ; etc. During the 1950s and 1960s, sociological research broadened to include job satisfaction from the perspective of employees* attitudes and experiences. Sociological research on job satisfaction in terms of attitude toward environment is concerned with employees * attitudes toward various aspects of work and work environ ment (external physical environment, work tasks, fellow workers, work supervision, time studies, staff policy, wages, etc.). Workers are asked, usually in question naires, whether they find work conditions and work environ ment satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Customarily, job satisfaction is measured in percentage numbers of the group of workers that described their work and work environment ; in terms of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction or as averages on an attitude scale. Surveys of this type endeavor to classify jobs and work environments as more or less satisfactory. This kind of research has led to the development of both theories and methods of job satisfac tion. One result is that job satisfaction is regarded as the expression of a relationship between individuals* needs and personal expectations of their work on one side and I their experiences of how the work and work environment fulfill these expectations on the other. If the expecta- ’ tions are too high or too low in relation to what work and work environment can offer, a feeling of dissatisfaction I ' results. If the expectations agree reasonably with what I work and environment can fulfill, a feeling of satisfaction --------------- - " 27 results. Job satisfaction becomes an expression of individuals' subjective expressions of themselves and the job situation. The degree of job satisfaction is described as the difference between expectations and experiences (Faxen & Hansson, 1975). This subjective interpretation of job satisfaction has led to an increased interest in how individuals * feelings of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction change over time. Lack of agreement between expectations and their fulfillment in work and work environment leads to dissatisfaction— a conflict, or a tension which they try to resolve. Dissatisfaction then becomes the cause of the subsequent phase in the "adjustment process" between individuals and their work in the work environment. This phase then leads to an effect— a feeling of dissatisfaction or satisfaction— which then becomes the cause in a sub sequent phase, and so on. In this view, job satisfaction is not a permanent state, but an on-going adaptation process between individuals, the work, and the work environment. Job satisfaction becomes a goal, a state to be reached from the individual's point of view and a force that leads to different courses of action in the adaptation process (Faxen & Hansson, 1975). In discussing Herzberg's theory. Waters (1978) wrote that the satisfaction of hygienes exclusively, including salary, does not motivate and bring complete psychological fulfillment. It has been found that management must create situations in which individuals are able to satisfy higher- level needs. Motivated individuals are happy individuals; the organization must therefore serve to foster appropriate human relationships. Herzberg's theory was effectively employed in Texas Industries. Their plan included management at all levels and was based on the belief that company goals were best served by providing opportunities for employees to achieve their personal goals (Herzberg, 1968). When an employee is motivated toward a goal, an affiliation between an organizational need and personal need is established. Management's task is to promote progressive human relationships between the organization and the individual. When individuals view their needs as a part of the total organizational goal, the chances of conflict are decreased. Through the process of value internalization, employees develop loyalty to the organi zation, thereby guaranteeing that individual decisions are consistent with the organizational objectives. Loyalty to the organization develops as individuals begin to evaluate their own needs in terms of their consequences for the organization (Simon, 1957). Organizations are increasingly accepting a role of social responsibility. Stimbert (1970) observed that bad ' . 29 human relationships in an organization indicate a failure in an important responsibility of the organization— the way it should serve the society as a whole. There is an increasing expectation for employers to include social analyses in decision making and to think in terms of behavioral and social values. Businesses and other organizations are placing consideration of the worker in a more central position. Rather than planning entirely for the convenience of the ' organization, with emphasis on the efficiency and economy of operation, many organizations are taking more positive steps to include good human relationships as a legitimate goal (Waters, 1978). In a study of clerical employees, Morse (1953) found that when employees are satisfied with work content, pay, job status, and with the company organization as a place to work, they are also more satisfied with their super- ! visors and company policies, and are less likely to consider leaving the organization. The amount of satisfac tion that is derived from the job depends primarily upon the skill of the job. Satisfaction gained from pay and job status depends on the extent to which they meet the individual's aspirations at a particular stage of his life cycle. Satisfaction with the organization as a place to , work was a function of satisfaction with job content, pay, I I and job status. Other factors were influential, however. _ -- . ------- - , 2 Q including favorable attitudes of family and friends toward the company environment. It was also suggested that certain institutional environments are most satisfactory for certain personality types, who would be more likely to choose the organization as a place to work. Level of satisfaction is a function of both level of aspiration and amount of return from the environment (Morse, 1953). Alpander (1985) developed a diagnostic instrument to identify the most salient elements of employee motiva tion and used it in a study in middle-sized hospitals across the United States. He found that recognition was the primary motivating factor in a high majority of cases. Security was second; fairness was third. He reported that recognition as a motivational factor correlated positively and strongly with the perceived importance of the job, opportunities for advancement, personal growth, the expectation that successful accomplishment of a task would be rewarded, and that effort would lead to task completion. Alpander identified the key element in the motivating environment for hospital employees in the United States as the degree to which a feeling of recognition was experienced and recommended that organizational efforts to improve the work environment for hospital employees center around intervention to enhance the feeling of recognition. He recommended the use of management techniques designed 31 to increase the perceived importance of jobs to improve employee morale. Demographic Information on Teachers The National Center of Education (Feistritzer, 1986) surveyed 1,592 teachers (1,144 public school teachers) in grades kindergarten through twelve in all 50 states and reported the following demographic data: Women still occupy the majority of teaching posi tions in the United States— 60 percent in public schools. The proportion of female teachers is highest among young teachers— 75 percent in the 25-34 age group. Sixty-nine percent of public school teachers are in the 35-44 age group. Sixty-three percent are in the 45 to 54 age group. Sixty-six percent are in the 55 years and over age group. The average age of a public school teacher is 42 years. The average age of male teachers is 43; the average age of females is 42. One-third of female teachers are over 4 4 years of age; 4 0 percent of male teachers are over 44. All teachers started teaching when they were approxi mately 2 4 years old. Whites make up 91 percent of the teaching force in public schools ; 6 percent are black, and 2 percent are Hispanic. (Whites represent 83 percent of the total adult population in the United States; blacks make up approxi mately 12 percent.) Seventy-five percent of public school teachers are married. (Only 60 percent of the adult, working population in the United States are married.) Ten percent are divorced; 2 percent are widowed, and 13 percent are single. Eighty-four percent of male teachers are married and 72 percent of female teachers are married. The spouses of 91 percent of married female teach ers are employed full-time; the spouses of 4 percent of married female teachers are employed part-time and 5 percent are unemployed. The spouses of 54 percent of married male teachers are employed full-time; the spouses of 2 6 percent of married male teachers are employed part-time ; 2 0 percent are unemployed. The majority of public school teachers are exper ienced teachers— 2 4 percent have been teaching from 10 to 14 years, 22 percent from 15 to 19 years, and 15 percent from 2 0 to 2 4 years. Eight percent have been teaching for four years or less ; 16 percent from five to nine years. Teachers tend not to move around much. Two-thirds of public school teachers are teaching within 150 miles of where they were born and/or where they received their college education. A quarter of public school teachers have taught in only one school and an additional 25 percent ' ~ 3 3 have taught in just two schools. Only 10 percent of public , school teachers have taught in five or more schools. Eighty-one percent of public school teachers have completed five or more years of college and graduate I studies. For 20 percent a bachelor's degree is the highest level of education; for 74 percent, this degree is in education. Forty-four percent have a master's degree in education while 12 percent hold a master's degree in a field outside of education. Married teachers are more highly educated than their spouses. Approximately 27 percent have completed seven years or more of college and graduate studies as compared ; to 15 percent of their spouses (Feistritzer, 1986). General Profile of Teachers [ Recent reports emphasize a growing need to recruit teachers who are intellectually gifted and well-educated (Dariing-Hammond, 1984; Feistritzer, 1983 ; Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, 1986; U.S. Department of Educa- ; tion, 1983). It appears that teachers do not usually make the decision to enter teaching because of their attraction to the intellectual content of the work. Students who plan to become teachers have been described as average or below in academic performance. Elementary teaching is among the ! occupations that attract graduates of only moderate I ability. The primary intrinsic appeal of teaching (and 1 -' — — — — " 34 other service occupations) is to the heart, not the mind. Teaching attracts individuals who want to work with people and to be of service (Davis, 1985; Feistritzer, 1986; Rosenberg, 1957; Wolfle, 1954). Today's teachers are older and more experienced than j those of 20 years ago. They also have more formal educa tion (Kottkamp, Provenzo, & Cohn, 1986). Davis (1985) found that students enrolled in student teaching at the secondary level were motivated to enter teaching by their love of young people and a desire to work with them. However, he also found that they had been in the top 2 0 percent of their high school graduating class and the mean of their overall undergraduate grade point average was 3.4. Feistritzer (1983) wrote that there are fewer people choosing teaching as a career, and the academic caliber of those who do enter teaching has declined. Low pay, poor working conditions, little opportunity for upward mobility within the profession, and lack of status within the ' society are given as reasons for the decline of quantity and quality of students of education. In an effort to clarify the plethora of contra- ' dictory reports about today's teachers, the National Center for Education authorized a survey to develop a profile of American school teachers (Feistritzer, 1986). The survey ^ found that teachers were generally satisfied with the i quality of their lives, both in their jobs and personally. 35 They reported greater overall satisfaction with their lives in general, excepting their standard of living and house hold income, than did college graduates or people in general. Almost one-third of public school teachers stated they were "extremely satisfied" with their personal lives. When the salaries of teachers are compared to those of employees in other fields with comparable education, teachers* salaries are somewhat lower. On a 12-month basis, a teacher in the 24-to-35-year-old range is making 8 percent less than a person with comparable education in the work force; the difference is 22 percent for the 55- to-64-year-old group. The survey showed that most teachers believe that they are not getting paid enough. When asked if they would leave for a job outside of education that paid $2,000 more, the majority said they would not. Less than half said they would stay if they had an opportunity to earn $5,000 in another field. When teachers were asked to choose between an increased salary and greater autonomy in the classroom, the majority selected the salary increase. Teachers are happy working for 9 or 10 months and do not want a 12-month contract. They overwhelmingly favor pay based on job performance, in addition to level of education and seniority. They favor an entry-level proficiency examination similar to the Bar Examination of lawyers. ------ - --- - 36 Teachers were asked to rate the education courses they had taken. More than 50 percent stated that the academic courses had not prepared them adequately to begin teaching. The majority of public school teachers also indicated that recent education courses they had taken were of minimal benefit. "Status of teachers in this community" was second to salary as a source of dissatisfaction for teachers. Over one-half of public school teachers stated that they were displeased with their status in the community; only 38 percent of private school teachers reported the same dissatisfaction. Twenty percent of public school teachers reported they were "very dissatisfied" in this area. A large majority of public school teachers belong to unions— 70 percent to the National Education Association (NEA) and 10 percent to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). One-third of the teachers who are union members reported dissatisfaction with the union. Only 11 percent of private school teachers are unionized. (Only 2 0 percent of American workers overall belong to unions today.) Teachers' political party preferences are the same as those of the general public, although they consider themselves moderates. They vote in higher proportions than does the general public and express liberal views on controversial social issues. Teachers are a religious group. Ninety percent are members of a church or synagogue; 60 percent attend weekly or "almost every week." Ninety-four percent answered "yes" to the question, "Do you ever pray to God?" (p. 58). Teachers spend their leisure time watching televi sion and reading newspapers. The magazines they read most often are Reader's Digest. National Geocrraphic, Good Housekeeping, Familv Circle. Newsweek. Time, and U.S. News & World Report. The professional journals cited most often were Instructor and Learning. Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction of Teachers Waters (1978) wrote that the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers has long been an area of interest for researchers of educational management. Goodlad (1984), however, lamented that so much research has been conducted on the satisfactions and dissatisfac tions of unskilled, skilled, and professional workers and the results utilized to make improvements in the workplace, but relatively few studies have been completed in educa tional settings. Sergiovanni (19 69) applied Herzberg's Motivation- Hygiene Theory in his study of public school teachers and found that the factors that are most important in the attainment of teacher satisfaction are achievement, recognition, and responsibility. He reported that satis- ! faction factors are inclined to center on the work itself, while dissatisfaction factors tend to center on the I I conditions of the work. There is considerable research that supports Sergiovanni*s findings and emphasizes the 1 importance of structuring the school organization to allow I for more opportunities for teachers to realize satisfaction from their work. Recognition and social prestige have been found to be connected to sources of satisfaction among teachers (Eiber, 1987; Haskvitz, 1987; Schackmuth, 1979 ; Shreeve et I al. , 1986). Chapman (1983) found that career satisfaction i related significantly to the recognition and approval teachers received from administrators, supervisors, friends, and family. A Harris poll conducted in 1986 showed that 39 percent of teachers with less than five years experience said they anticipated leaving teaching; ; in 1987, 20 percent stated that they expected to leave. The drop was attributed to higher salaries and the atten tion given to education during that year (Eiber, 1987). A 1988 Harris poll reported that 50 percent of the 1,208 I teachers surveyed said they were "very satisfied" with I teaching as a career; this figure represented a 10 percent increase from the 1987 survey. The increase is attributed to increased pay, improved working conditions, and , increased autonomy (Jennings, 1988). Dade County teachers j listed "respect from others" as the extrinsic reward they - - - — ' —--- - - - - - " - ■ " - ' ' 39 found to be the most satisfying in 1964 (Lortie, 1975) and again in 1984 (Kottkamp, Provenzo, & Cohn, 1986) . Schack muth 's (1979) findings give strong support to the hypothe sis that when teachers* professional self-image improves, their level of work satisfaction increases. Chapman (1983) found that less satisfied teachers gave more importance to peer recognition than did more satisfied teachers. Feistritzer (1986) found that the greatest source of satisfaction for teachers was their relationships with other teachers. Psychic or intrinsic rewards are most often given as the reasons for teacher satisfaction. The "joys of teaching," the "opportunity to 'reach* students," the "opportunity to promote students' growth and development," and "watching students learn" are what teachers say sustains them (Ferkich & Grassi, 1987; Jackson, 1968; Kottkamp et al., 1986; Lortie, 1975 ; McLaughlin, Pfeifer, Swanson-Owens, & Yee, 1986 ; Shreeve et al. , 1986). Lortie (1975) wrote that teachers' core rewards are connected with the exchanges they have with students and to the belief that they have "reached" their students and that their students have learned. In other words, their greatest satisfaction comes from carrying on with their daily work - the instruction of students. Heyns (1988) wrote that the teachers in the National Longitudinal Study, 1972 (NLS-72), who reported the most job satisfaction were those who had entered the profession late or had taken breaks during their tenure. She sug gested that policymakers address the importance of teachers' revitalizing themselves outside the classroom by providing sources for renewal, such as paid sabbaticals. Two recent polls of teachers ("Here's What," 198 6; Moss, 198 6) indicate that teachers are concerned about empowerment. A majority of respondents indicated a desire to make instructional decisions and to participate in decisions made about curriculum. Teachers want to play a larger part in training and hiring new teachers. They want the responsibility for establishing and enforcing effective teaching standards. A California poll ("Teachers Left Out," 1988) reported that approximately three-fourths of the teachers in the state did play a part in the selection of instruc tional materials, but only 3 5 percent were involved in decisions regarding school budget. Boyer concluded that nationwide teachers are not sufficiently involved in decision making ("Teachers Left Out," 1988). A desire to observe other teachers teach was reported by more than 60 percent of the participants ("Here's What," 1986). Teachers want the time and freedom given to other professionals so they can learn and grow in their careers. When asked what they believed would improve the status and quality of teaching, 2 7 percent said to i raise salaries and 25 percent said to increase public , awareness of what teachers do. They believe that the 1 public needs a more contemporary view of what happens in schools. Measures other than just test scores are needed to help the public gauge how well schools are doing. Teachers want adequate time, training, and funding when they are required to implement reforms and innovations (Moss, 1986). Other suggested school environment changes were sabbatical leaves, master teacher programs, and recognition of accomplishments. ^ Lack of recognition has been cited as a major source of teacher dissatisfaction (Feistritzer, 1986; Ferkich & Grassi, 1987; Haskvitz, 1987 ; McLaughlin et al., 1986 ; Witte & Backus, 1985). Teachers feel they do not receive [ the respect and recognition that they deserve from super visors, students, and community. McLaughlin et al. (198 6) wrote that being valued by society was one of the reasons that teachers came into the profession initially. Not I ' receiving recognition for their work efforts causes ! teachers to conclude that they are not appreciated. ! Excessive paperwork and too many non-teaching duties are often given as problems that keep teachers from teaching children. Teachers resent the time spent complet ing paperwork they believe is not associated with instruc tion. They believe this time should be spent on class I preparation or communicating with parents or students (Ferkich & Grassi, 1987; Haskvitz, 1987; Witte & Backus, 1985). Schon (1983) wrote of the importance of reflection and its effect on professional growth. Teachers lament the lack of opportunity for reflection and collegial communication. McLaughlin et al. (1986) listed isolation among the factors that deny teachers job satisfaction. If teachers do not have common preparation periods or oppor tunities for professional conversations with peers, they do not have opportunities to receive feedback or collegial support. Haskvitz (1987) reported that teachers said it was difficult for them to find time to congratulate each other. Dissatisfaction with administration is expressed in varying ways in the research. McLaughlin et al. (1986) reported that teachers complain about lack of clear and consistent policies on discipline and attendance. They also found that new teachers are often given difficult assignments and asked to teach courses for which they have little background or training. Teachers have expressed the need for more administrative support in the classroom (Ferkich & Grassi, 1987 ; Haskvitz, 1987). Lack of support from the school board has also been given as a reason for low teacher morale (Witte & Backus, 1985). Unclear communications and exclusion from the decision-making process lead to job dissatisfaction. Shreeve et al. (1986) reported that 65 percent of the teachers in their study disagreed with the statement, "My supervisor does a good job of communicating decisions to everyone" and 75 percent disagreed with, "Before a decision is made, I get a clear idea of how the final decision is made." Chase (1985) also found that teachers want to be more involved in policy formulation and decision making, particularly with regard to their own inservice training. Many of the 2,000 teachers in his study complained that committee meetings and staff meetings were not as productive as they could be. The National Center for Education Information survey (Feistritzer, 1986) shows that 84 percent of public school teachers indicate "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" under "overall job satisfaction." Only 27 percent reported dissatisfaction with "general working conditions." A 1988 study reported that urban teachers face working conditions that would "not be tolerated in other professions." The report stated that poor working conditions in urban schools have dramatic negative effects on teachers' morale, job satisfaction, and rate of absenteeism; "intolerable" conditions create tension and conflict. The study stated that schools in which working conditions were considered good had teachers who reported high morale and a sense of accomplishment (Olson, 1988). Dariing-Hammond (1984) reported that the best qualified teachers are among the most dissatisfied. The ! teachers who come into teaching with academic majors and specialized course work are the teachers who find working : conditions so difficult that they leave. These are the ; kind of teachers that the profession needs; these are the j teachers that should be recruited and retained in the profession. Dariing-Hammond stated that recent policies have done little to encourage these teachers to remain in teaching, primarily because they are based on a factory model of schooling and do not allow teachers to make professional judgments. Heyns (1988) wrote that most of what has been written recently about teacher attrition is based on "ad hoc myths" about former teachers. She uses data from the fifth wave of the NLS-72 to broaden and to contradict recent commentary on the shortage of teachers. The NLS-72 is a longitudinal study of more than 20,000 students from the high school class of 1972. In a 1986 follow-up survey, more than 1,000 individuals who had trained to be teachers or had identified themselves as teachers responded to a supplementary teaching question naire, providing the first national survey of teachers that included data that encompassed 14 years of school and work experience. It is from these data that Heyns (1988) made "three controversial claims." , Heyns stated that teaching has always been charac- , terized by high turnover rates, considerable attrition. 45 and late entrants. She proposed that teacher attrition has generally declined. It is teacher turnover that has not been examined and is higher than previously believed. Teachers enter, leave, and re-enter the profession more frequently than had been realized before NLS-72. Heyns (1988) also said that former teachers gener ally came from better than average work settings. The majority of former teachers do not want to return to teaching, but they are not totally discontented with the profession. She questioned whether the reputedly "best" teachers (who were judged by their academic qualifications) are such, stating that they have had "somewhat erratic" careers. She said that high mobility rates and attrition do not seem to be incompatible with academic excellence nor job satisfaction. The former teachers in the NLS-72 sample overall were slightly stronger academically than current teachers, but current teachers were shown to have received higher grades in high school and college and were sig nificantly more likely to have had graduate training and graduate degrees, somewhat dispelling the "talent loss theory." Heyns (1988) suggested that the NLS-72 findings have policy implications. Teachers' careers are more fluid than has been realized. The ease of transfer and re-entry, geographic mobility, and the potential for extended leaves are benefits that are unique to education and may be more meaningful to teachers than career ladders, peer evalua tion, or increased salaries. Policymakers should consider these enhancements in their effort to recruit and retain teachers. "Attrition and turnover are related to profes sionalism in complex ways; the implications for educational policy often run counter to the received wisdom linking school reform to teacher retention" (p. 25). Importance of Teachers Teachers are the most important link in the educa tional system. They are directly connected with the pupils in the system. Their qualities and qualifications must be of prime consideration. Their functions in relationship to the educational system are: (1) supervising their students ; (2) maintaining an awareness of current instruc tional methods ; (3) attending faculty meetings and inser vice classes; (4) working with the principal and other staff members to initiate and implement programs ; (5) planning and executing teaching methods to provide quality education for students; (6) working with pupils both in and out of the classroom; (7) maintaining accurate records; (8) executing board policies and regulations issued by the superintendent and principals ; and (9) adhering to the professional standards and codes of the educational system (Waters, 1978). The function of the teacher in the school organ ization is crucial. The focus of schooling must be learning. This focus makes the role of the teacher most important (Task Force, 1986). Coleman et al. (1966) called attention to the importance of teachers when they wrote : Just as a loaf of bread means more to a starving man than to a sated one, so one very fine textbook or, better, one very able teacher, may mean far more to a deprived child than to one who already has several of both. (p. 8) Good teachers matter for all children, but Coleman's research shows that they matter more for minority students who come from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. The influence of good teachers is greatest upon these children who come to school least prepared because they are children of under-educated parents. Highly qualified teachers have the most effect on the academic achievement of these underprivileged children (Coleman et al., 1966). Coleman (1966) found that certain teacher charac teristics showed high relationships to the academic achievement of pupils. Teachers' scores on tests of verbal skills and their educational background— both their own level of education and that of their parents— affected student achievement scores. The effects of teacher variables upon student achievement showed several other important results : Teacher differences revealed a cumula tive effect over the number of years in school. Teacher differences showed more relation to differences in achieve ment of educationally disadvantaged minority students to achievement of white majority children. Additionally, teacher differences were more than twice as strongly related to achievement of southern blacks as to achievement of northern blacks. Teachers' verbal skills had an effect on student achievement, first showing strongly at sixth grade for all minority groups. The educational background of teachers and their families showed a strong effect on student achievement, first appearing at the ninth grade level for all minority groups (Coleman et al., 1966). The Carnegie Report (Task Force, 1986) reiterated Coleman's emphasis on the importance of well-qualified teachers for the country's diverse youth population. Teachers must be able to act and think independently. They must understand the importance of working collaboratively with other teachers and rendering critical judgment. Teachers must possess wide-ranging knowledge. Teachers should have a good grasp of the ways in which all kinds of physical and social systems work; a feeling for what data are and the uses to which they can be put, an ability to help students see patterns of meaning where others see only confusion; an ability to foster genuine creativity in students; and the ability to work with other people in work groups that decide for themselves how to get the job done. They must be able to learn all the time, as the knowledge required to do their work twists and turns with new challenges and the progress of science and technology. Teachers will not come to the school knowing all they have to know, but knowing how to figure out what they need to know, where to get it, and how to help others make meaning out of it. (p. 25) ----- 49 The nation’s teachers must possess well-developed communication skills in order to stimulate students to strive toward high levels of accomplishment. Teachers must create learning environments in which students are able to develop a taste for learning and build a base upon which they will continue to learn. Teachers must be able to teach their students skills to prepare them for an unex pected, non-routine world that will be theirs in the future. An even higher order of skills is required to teach the increasing number of students who come to school from a deprived environment that does not prepare them to succeed intellectually (Task Force, 1986). We cannot hope to bring the mass of our citizens up to the standards we have proposed unless such people are available in large numbers to teach our chil dren. Textbooks cannot do it. Principals cannot do it. Directives from state authorities cannot do it. Only the people with whom the students come in contact every day can do it. Though many people have vital roles to play, only the teachers can finally accomplish the agenda we have just laid out. (p. 26) Summary of Literature Considerable research on the job satisfaction of teachers has been conducted over the years. Much of the recent research supports the motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg— factors that contribute to job satisfaction and those that contribute to job dissatisfaction form two separate sets. Satisfiers are related to the intrinsic matters of the work itself. Dissatisfiers are related to extrinsic matters of the conditions of the work. Achievement, recognition, responsibility, and social prestige repeatedly appear as satisfiers to teachers. Teachers list "joys of teaching," "opportunity to promote students' intellectual growth and development," "oppor tunity to 'reach' students," and "watching students learn" as the reasons they chose to enter teaching and as their primary rewards in teaching. Their greatest satisfactions came from the opportunities they have to interact with their students and with their colleagues. Data gathered in a recent longitudinal study suggest that the opportunity to revitalize oneself by taking a break from teaching, such as a sabbatical leave, is a source of job satisfaction. The opportunity to leave and re-enter the profession, to transfer, and to move geograph ically are also satisfiers particular to teaching. The bureaucratic organization is seen as a cause of much of teachers' dissatisfactions. Teachers are concerned with empowerment. They want opportunities to participate in decision making at all levels. They believe that as professionals they are entitled to make decisions about curriculum, instruction, teacher training, and hiring. They want the time and money to implement reforms and innovations and opportunities for collegial communication and reflection. - - - - 51 Teachers complain about the lack of clearly com municated policies from administrators. They want more ; administrative support in the classroom. Teachers believe that the public does not have an accurate perception of the 1 job they perform and, as a consequence, does not value the service they provide. This lack of recognition is a major cause of teacher dissatisfaction. Excessive paperwork and clerical responsibilities are also given as dissatisfiers. Teachers believe that they are professionals and should not be kept from teach ing by these non-teaching duties. Despite the fact that many teachers are leaving the profession before they reach retirement age, a high percentage of teachers in a recent survey conducted by the ; National Center for Education Information indicated that , they are satisfied with their jobs. A developing problem is the lower number of intel lectually gifted people that are choosing to enter teach ing. Recent reports on the state of education are calling for teachers with wide-ranging knowledge. The need for 1 intellectually gifted teachers is increasing rapidly. The , majority of the brightest college graduates are selecting to enter fields other than education. A teacher shortage is currently developing, but an even greater problem ; beginning to loom is the lack of teachers with the intel- i ! lectual abilities to prepare students for the future. How to attract these people to teaching is a problem that needs to be addressed. 53 CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction The purpose of this study was to determine the factors that contribute to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of urban elementary classroom teachers with their jobs. Ten sub-areas of job satisfaction were identified: Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Respon sibility, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, Recognition, and Parents. The following questions were investigated: 1. How do the following factors at the school site contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers? a. Size of the school b. Geographic location of school c. Grade taught d. Class size e. Year-round calendar 2. How do the following factors related to students contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers? a. Socioeconomic level of students b. Racial-ethnic background c. Student transiency rate 3. How, if at all, do the following teachers' personal characteristics affect the relationships between school site factors and student factors on the one hand and various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfac tion on the other? a. Gender b. Age c. Marital status d. Number and ages of children e. Years of teaching experience This chapter contains a discussion of the research procedures used to collect and analyze the data. The following areas are included; 1. Overview of methodology 2. Research design 3. Selection of the subjects 4. Instrumentation 5. Field procedures 6. Data collection 7. Analysis of data 8. Summary of chapter Overview of Methodology A stratified random sample of 600 urban classroom teachers in grades kindergarten through three and grades four through six was used in this study to determine the factors that contribute to teachers* satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their jobs. The teachers were teaching in 100 schools that were selected to represent the district's eight geographic regions. A survey questionnaire that included the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) (Lester, 1982) into which nine additional statements developed by the inves tigator were incorporated and a personal data form were sent to each participant. Respondents marked agreement or disagreement with each statement on a five-point Likert- type scale. Responses were scored and ranked according to frequencies of responses. Data were summarized by items and by subscales. Univariate analyses were computed for each independent and dependent variable. Bivariate cross tabulations were computed between each independent and dependent variable. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine the relative salience of school, student, and personal factors to various aspects of job satisfaction. Research Design This study utilized a survey research design. The survey questionnaire included the TJSQ in which were incorporated nine additional statements developed by the investigator and a personal data form. The dependent variable in the study was job satis faction which was divided into 10 sub-areas: Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibility, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, Recognition, and Parents. The variables were operationalized by self-reported satisfaction on the TJSQ which was imbedded in the survey instrument. The first group of independent variables in the study was the school site factors (size of the school, geographic location of the school, grade taught, class - size, year-round calendar). The data source for these variables was from extant information, including the district's Ethnic Survey Report, Transiency and Stability Report, Guide to Schools and Offices, and the schools' personnel rosters. The second group of independent variables was the factors related to students (socioeconomic level, racial- ! ethnic background, transiency rate). The data source for these variables also was extant information, including the I district's Ethnic Survey Report, Transiency and Stability ! Report, and Compensatory Education School Ranking. ---------------- ' ............. ■ ■ ' 57 The third group of independent variables was the teachers' personal characteristics. The data source for these variables was the teachers' self-reports on the survey instrument. Figure 1 shows the dependent and independent variables, the sources of the data, and how the variables are operationalized. Dependent Variables Source How Operationalized Satisfaction with: Supervision Colleagues Working Conditions Pay Responsibility Work Itself Advancement Security Recognition Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Teacher Job Satis faction Question naire (TJSQ) (Lester, 1982) TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ (cont.) 58 Independent Variables School Site Factors Size Geographic Location Grade Taught Class Size Year-round Student Factors SES Racial-ethnic Background Student Transiency Rate Teachers * Personal Characteristics Gender Age Marital Status Number and Ages of Children Years of Teaching Experience Extant Extant Survey Survey Extant Extant Extant Extant Survey Survey Survey Survey Survey Ethnic Survey Report, Fall, 1987 (LAUSD) Guide to Schools and Offices (LAUSD) TJSQ TJSQ Guide to Schools and Offices (LAUSD) Compensatory Education School Ranking (Hopper, 1988) Ethnic Survey Report, Fall 1987 Transiency and Stability Report, 1987-88 TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ TJSQ Figure 1 — Variables i Selection of the Subjects ; The population from which the sample was drawn for this study included the classroom teachers in grades [ : kindergarten through six in one large urban school dis- i trict. One hundred schools, representing the district's eight geographic regions, were selected for the study by the district's Policy Evaluation and Implementation Unit. Table 1 shows the number of schools selected from each geographic region. Table 1 Number of Schools in Geographic Regions Geographic Region Number of Schools Region 1 10 Region 2 15 Region 3 15 Region 4 10 Region 5 10 Region 6 10 Region 7 15 Region 8 15 Total 100 ! staff rosters were obtained from the district's ! Personnel Division. From the roster of each of the I selected schools, a stratified random sample of six . classroom teachers in grades kindergarten through six was I selected to participate in the study. The stratified sample included three teachers in grades kindergarten through three and three teachers in grades four through six. Only full-time classroom teachers were selected. Out-of-classroom, part-time, resource, itinerant, special education, and any other teachers who were not working ] full-time in a regular classroom were not included in the population. Instrumentation Lester (1982) defined job satisfaction as "the extent to which the teacher perceives and values various factors (job characteristics) of the work situation" (p. 1). Nine factors were identified and defined; i ' 1. Supervision - The task-oriented behavior and person-oriented behavior of the immediate ' supervisor. I 2. Colleagues - The work group and social inter- j action among fellow teachers. 3. Working Conditions - The working environment and aspects of the physical environment. 4. Pav - Annual income. 5. Responsibilitv - The opportunity to be accountable for one's own work and the oppor- j tunity to take part in policy or decision- , making activities. 6. Work itself - The job of teaching or the tasks related to the job. The freedom to ' institute innovative materials and to utilize - " 61 one's skills and abilities in designing one's work. The freedom to experiment and to influ ence or control what goes on in the job. 7. Advancement - The opportunity for promotion. 8. Securitv - The school's policies regarding tenure, seniority, layoffs, pension, retire ment, and dismissal. 9. Recognition - Some act of notice, blame, praise, or criticism. (Lester, 1982, p. 11) The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire was developed by Lester (1982) specifically to be used in educational settings. It is comprised of 66 items that relate to the aforementioned factors (14 on supervision, 10 on colleagues, 7 on working conditions, 7 on pay, 8 on responsibility, 9 on the work itself, 5 on advancement, 3 on security, 3 on recognition) and is written in language familiar to and appropriate for teachers. Each statement is written in a brief, concise manner and asks for only one piece of information. Approximately half of the statements are worded in a positive form and half are worded in a negative form to avoid response set bias. Respondents indicated agreement or disagreement with a statement on a five-point Likert-type scale. (See Appen dix A. ) In addition to the statements on the TJSQ, an additional nine statements developed by the investigator were included. (See Appendix A.) These statements were added to elicit teacher attitudes on opportunities for participation in decision making, opportunities for professional growth, and opportunities for leadership. These statements related to the Advancement and Recognition factors. A tenth factor, Parents, was added by the investigator. This factor is defined below: 10. Parents - The support and participation of the adults (parents, guardians) who have primary care responsibility for the students. Again, the respondent was asked to indicate agreement or disagreement on a five-point scale. A personal data form, included with the question naires, completed the survey instrument. (See Appendix A.) Field Procedures A letter of endorsement from the district's Research and Evaluation Branch was sent to the principals of the selected schools requesting their cooperation in the study. A packet, containing a cover letter of explanation from the investigator, an Informed Consent Declaration statement, the survey instrument, and two return envelopes was sent to the selected participants through the dis trict's Mail Unit. The survey instrument was coded by geographic region and by school. The cover letter was written on the letterhead of the investigator and mentioned the participation of the Policy Evaluation and Implementation Unit. This was done in an effort to obtain a high percentage of responses. It was thought that teachers would be more inclined to respond j to the survey if they knew of the district's involvement. I A copy of the letter is included in Appendix B. I The inclusion of the Informed Consent Declaration statement was a requirement of the district. A copy of ‘ the statement is included in Appendix B. I Two return envelopes were included so that par ticipants would be able to return the Informed Consent ! Declaration statement in one and the survey in the other. In this way, anonymity of the respondent was assured. Both ^ return envelopes were preaddressed to the investigator and ' were to be returned through the district's Mail Unit. A blank address label was also included in the packet for participants to complete and return with the ■ Informed Consent Declaration statement if they wished to receive a copy of the results of the study. ■ Two weeks after the survey had been mailed, a follow-up letter was sent to all participants. (See Appendix B.) In the follow-up letter, the teachers who I had returned the questionnaires were thanked and responses were requested from those who had not yet answered. Data Collection Of the 600 questionnaires and personal data forms that were distributed to the classroom teachers in the selected urban schools, 340 returns were received, pro viding 313 usable returns. The completed usable returns f I represented a response rate of 52.17 percent. Table 2 ! shows the number of questionnaires sent, the number of I * usable returns received, and the percentage of usable j returns. I ; Table 2 Questionnaires Sent to Urban Classroom Teachers Number Sent Number of Percentage of to Teachers Usable Returns Usable Returns 600 313 52 .17 Table 3 shows the percentage of usable returns by geographic location. Table 3 Questionnaires Sent to Urban Classroom Teachers bv Geoaraohic Location Geographic Number Sent Number of Percentage Region to Teachers Usable Returns Usable Return Region 1 60 29 48.33 ! Region 2 75 43 57. 33 , Region 3 75 44 58.67 Region 4 60 35 58.33 Region 5 60 34 56.67 Region 6 60 34 56.67 Region 7 75 46 61. 33 1 Region 8 1 75 48 64.00 i Total 600 313 52.17 i ------------------ - ' ' 65 Analysis of Data The data from the TJSQ and the personal data form were analyzed by computer using programs from the Statis tical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). The methods used in analyzing the data from the TJSQ and the personal data form were descriptive in nature. The frequency distributions and percentages of every variable were calculated. The 10 subscales of the TJSQ were scored using the SPSS factor score program associated with factor analysis. All of the reversed items were first recoded as directed in the TJSQ manual (Lester, 1982) . A mean and standard deviation were calculated for each subscale. Univariate analyses, utilizing grouped data, were performed for each independent and dependent variable. A mean and standard deviation were calculated in each analysis. Bivariate cross-tabulation analyses, utilizing grouped data, were performed for each independent and dependent variable. Chi-square was used in the statisti cal treatment. The level of significance was set at p < . 05. Multiple regression analyses were performed on each dependent variable to investigate whether it was affected simultaneously by several independent variables. At the conclusion of the questionnaire was a statement inviting participants* comments. The comments were organized into three areas : (1) comments about the survey, (2) negative comments pertaining to the 10 sub- areas of job satisfaction, and (3) positive comments pertaining to the 10 sub-areas of job satisfaction. These are summarized in Appendix C. Summary of Chapter This chapter described the research methods and procedures. An overview of the methodology was presented. Descriptions of the research design, selection of the subjects, instrumentation, field procedures, data collec tion, and data analysis were also included; 67 CHAPTER IV FINDINGS Introduction The purposes of this study were to determine the factors that contribute to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of urban elementary classroom teachers with their jobs and to propose changes at the school site and in district policy that would contribute to the retention of teachers in the teaching profession. A survey questionnaire that included the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) and nine additional statements and a personal data form were sent to a strat ified random sample of 600 classroom teachers who were teaching in 100 elementary schools in one large urban school district. The schools represented the eight geographic regions of the school district. Completed questionnaires were received from 340 respondents; 313 of those questionnaires were usable, providing a 52.17 percent usable return rate. The percentage of usable returned questionnaires ranged from 48.3 to 64.0 from the eight geographic regions. Appendix A presents the percentages of responses to all statements in the survey. This chapter contains the findings of the study. Characteristics of the sample, characteristics of the schools, means and standard deviations of the 10 subscales, and findings related to the research questions are presented. A discussion of the findings is also included. i Characteristics of the Sample The majority of the respondents were females. Women represented 81.2 percent of the participants; men repre sented 18.2 percent. In the age category, 28.7 percent of the respondents were in the 23 to 37 age bracket, 28.4 percent in the 38 to 45 age bracket, 22.1 percent in the 46 to 52 age bracket, and 2 0.8 percent were over 53 years of age. The youngest respondent was 23; the oldest respondent was 70. The mean age was 43.3. An examination of the ethnic breakdown of the respondents showed that 64.2 percent were White ; 15.3 percent were Black; 7.7 percent were Asian; 6.4 percent were Hispanic/Latino. Native Americans made up 0.6 percent of the sample. One percent of the sample reported "other." No response was given by 4.8 percent of the participants. The majority of the respondents were married (53.7 percent). Of the remaining participants, 2 3.0 percent reported single status ; 2 3.0 percent reported they had been married (separated, divorced, or widowed). Of the teachers in the sample, 37.4 percent had no children; 16.0 percent had one child; 24.9 reported two children; 16.9 reported three children; 4.8 percent reported four or more children. The mean number of children was 1.39. The largest group of respondents with children reported they were grown (30.4 percent). Of teachers who reported having children of younger ages, 8.9 percent were of pre-school age, 10.8 percent were of elementary school age, and 12.5 percent were of junior high or high school age. Only 18.5 percent of respondents with children reported having to arrange for child care. In the category of educational preparation, 51.2 percent of the teachers reported their highest academic degree as BA/BS plus 3 0 units. The percentage of respon dents who reported earning a BA/BS only was 10.5; the remainder of the sample reported a MA/MS or higher. Most teachers reported that their educational preparation for teaching had been effective; 58.1 percent reported their undergraduate education prepared them effectively; 70.1 percent stated their graduate education was effective. An examination of the respondents * teaching exper ience showed that 23.7 percent had taught from 1 to 7 years, 24.4 percent had taught from 8 to 15 years, 27.6 percent had taught from 16 to 22 years, and 24.4 percent had taught for more than 23 years. Eight first-year ' teachers participated in the study. The most experienced participant reported 38 years of experience. The mean number of years teaching was 15.9. The mean number of years with the school district was 13.2. The mean number of years in the current school was 8.2. The majority of the teachers surveyed (62 percent) reported they planned to continue teaching until retire ment; 2 3 percent were uncertain; 14.7 percent stated they did not expect to teach until they retire. Teachers of kindergarten through third grade represented 48.9 percent of the respondents ; teachers of fourth through sixth grade represented 51.1 percent. The majority (81.1 percent) reported that their requests had , been considered when the grade level assignment was made. The average class size of participating teachers was 26.9 students. Approximately half (55 percent) of the teachers > participating in the study taught in bilingual classrooms. Union membership was reported by 69.4 percent of the participants. Personal and professional characteristics of the 313 respondents, as determined from the data drawn from the personal data form, are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Characteristics of the Sample 71 Characteristic Frequency N=313 Percentage Gender Female Male 254 59 81.2 18.2 Age 23 to 37 83 38 to 45 82 46 to 52 64 53+ 60 Ethnicity White 201 Black 48 Asian 24 Hispanic/Latino 2 0 Native American 2 Other 3 Missing 15 Marital Status Married 168 Single (never married) 72 Single (have been married 72 Missing 1 Number of Children None 117 1 50 2 78 3 53 4+ 15 Acres of Children None 117 Preschool 28 Elementary school 3 3 Jr. High/Sr. high 39 Grown 9 5 28.7 28.4 22.1 20.8 64 15 7 6 0 1 4 2 3 7 4 6 0 8 53.7 23.0 23.0 0.3 37 16 24 16 4 37.4 8.9 10.8 12.5 30.4 Table 4— continued Characteristic Frequency N=313 Percentage Education BA/BS 33 10.5 BA/BS + 3 0 units 160 51.2 MA/MS 119 38.0 Missing 1 0.3 Teachincr Experience 1 - 7 years 74 23.7 8-15 years 76 24.4 16 - 22 years 86 27.6 23 + 76 24.4 Current Grade Level K - 3 153 48.9 4 — 6 160 51.1 Characteristics of the Schools The 100 schools in the study represented the eight geographic regions of one large urban school district. The smallest school in the study had a population of 271 students; the largest school had a population of 2,182 students. The mean school size was 8 62.9 students. The transiency rate of the schools in the study ranged from 11 percent to 72 percent. The average tran siency rate was 3 2.9 percent. The student populations of the participating schools were comprised of an average of 4.8 Asian students, 14.9 Black students, 63.3 Hispanic/Latino students, and 14.1 White students. The socioeconomic status (SES) of the students at each school was determined by the school * s compensatory education ranking within the school district. A rank-order listing of all district schools is established yearly to determine a school's eligibility for participation in compensatory education programs. The rank-order is based on economic need, including free-lunch eligibility of students and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (Hopper, 1988). Schools with high ranks had student populations of students at lowest SES. Schools in the present study had compensatory education ranks from three to 43 0 (from a total of 431 in the district) . The mean rank was 188.1. Table 5 shows the characteristics of the schools in the study and the frequency and percentage of responses in each category. Sub-Areas of Job Satisfaction The Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TJSQ) identifies nine areas of teacher satisfaction: Super vision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibil ity, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, and Recognition. A tenth factor. Parents, was added to the present study. Table 5 Characteristics of the Schools Characteristic Frequency N=313 Percentage Size 271 - 515 79 25.2 520 - 757 80 25.6 780 - 1131 81 25.9 1141 + 73 23.3 Transiencv Rate 11% - 23% 77 24.6 24% - 33% 83 26.5 34% - 42% 85 27.2 43% + 68 21.7 Ethnicitv of Students Percentage Asian 0% 97 31.0 1% - 6% 108 34.5 7% + 108 34.5 Percentage 0% - 2% Black 115 36.7 3% - 10% 105 33.5 11% - + 93 29.7 Percentage 0% - 1% Hispanic 122 39.0 2% - 11% 86 27.5 12% + 105 33.5 Percentage 0% - 1% White 122 39.0 2% - 11% 86 27.5 12% + 105 33.5 Compensatorv Education Rank 3 - 100 71 22.7 101 - 186 82 26.2 186 - 259 79 25.2 260 - 431 81 25.2 ---------------------— — 75 Scoring of the questionnaires resulted in 10 independent uncorrelated subscales, each of which measured a specific sub-area of job satisfaction. A low score I represented low job satisfaction and a high score ' represented high job satisfaction. I The subscale Supervision had 14 items. The lowest possible score was 14; the highest possible score as 70. The neutral point was 42. The obtained mean was 46.58. The standard deviation was 11.90. I The subscale Colleagues had 10 items. The lowest possible score was 10; the highest possible score was 50. The neutral point was 30. The obtained mean was 38.12. The standard deviation was 5.28. The subscale Working Conditions had seven items. The lowest possible score was seven; the highest possible score was 35. The neutral point was 21. The obtained mean was 20.93. The standard deviation was 5.64. The subscale Pay had seven items. The lowest possible score was seven; the highest possible score was i 35. The neutral point was 21. The obtained mean was j 15.80. The standard deviation was 4.63. I The subscale Responsibility had 11 items. The lowest possible score was 11; the highest possible score I ' was 45. The neutral point was 28. The obtained mean was i 38.07. The standard deviation was 3.50. The subscale Work Itself had nine items. The lowest possible score was nine; the highest possible score was 45. The neutral point was 27. The obtained mean was 33.06. The standard deviation was 5.77. The subscale Advancement had eight items. The lowest possible score was eight; the highest possible score was 40. The neutral point was 24. The obtained mean was 23.50. The standard deviation was 6.03. The subscale Security had three items. The lowest possible score was three; the highest possible score was 15. The neutral point was 9. The obtained mean was 11.52. The standard deviation was 2.15. The subscale Recognition had four items. The lowest possible score was four; the highest possible score was 20. The neutral point was 12. The obtained mean was 11.45. The standard deviation was 3.39. The subscale Parents had three items. The lowest possible score was three ; the highest possible score was 15. The neutral point was 9. The obtained mean was 10.29. The standard deviation was 2.39. Table 6 shows the 10 subscales, the score range for each subscale, and the obtained mean and standard deviation of each subscale. Table 6 Sub-Areas of Teacher Job Satisfaction Factor Scale Range Sample X SD Supervision 14-70 46.58 11.90 Colleagues 10-50 38.12 5.28 Working Conditions 7-35 20.93 5. 64 Pay 7-35 15.80 4. 63 Responsibility 11-45 38.07 3.50 Work Itself 9-45 33.06 5.77 Advancement 8-40 23.50 6.03 Security 3-15 11.52 2. 15 Recognition 4-20 11.45 3.39 Parents 3-15 10.29 2.39 The obtained means in sub-areas Supervision, Colleagues, Responsibility, Work Itself, Security, and Parents were higher than the subscale neutral points, indicating that teachers were more satisfied than dis satisfied in these areas. The obtained means in sub-areas Working Conditions, Pay, Advancement, and Recognition were lower than the subscale neutral points, indicating that teachers were more dissatisfied than satisfied in these areas. Table 7 shows a comparison of subscale neutral ' points and obtained means of the present study. Table 7 Comparison of Subscale Neutral Points and Obtained Means Subscale Scores Obtained Factor Range Neutral Point (A) Means (B) Difference (B-A) Supervision 14-70 42. 46.58 + 4.58 Colleagues 10-50 30. 38.12 + 8.12 Working Conditions 7-35 21. 20.93 _ 0.07 Pay 7-35 21. 15. 80 - 5.20 Responsibility 11-45 28. 38. 07 +10.07 Work Itself 9—45 27. 33.06 + 6.06 Advancement 8-40 24. 23.50 — 0.50 Security 3-15 9. 11.52 + 2.52 Recognition 4-20 12. 11.45 - 0.55 Parents 3—15 9. 10. 29 + 1.29 Findings Related to the Questions The questions stated in Chapter I are restated and related findings are presented here. The "elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction" stated in each question are the 10 sub-areas of job satisfaction which were identified as Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibility, Work Itself, Advancement, Security, Recognition, and Parents. The findings are results of — — — ---------------------- ' ' " 79 ' cross-tabulation analyses with the independent variables. The acceptable level of significance was .05. Question 1 How do the following factors at the school site contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers? a. Size of the school. There was no significant relationship between the size of a school and any of the sub-areas of job satisfaction. b. Geographic location of the school. There was no significant relationship between the location of a school and any of the sub-areas of job satisfaction. c. Grade taught. The sub-area Satisfaction with ■ Parents was significantly related to the grade taught at the .0001 level. Teachers in kindergarten through third grade indicated greater satisfaction than did teachers in fourth through sixth grades. Table 8 presents the cross tabulation between the grade taught and sub-area Satis faction with Parents. The sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision was related to the grade taught. A total of 54.9 percent of teachers in kindergarten through third grade indicated greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction than did teach ers in fourth through sixth grades; 51.3 percent of teachers in fourth through sixth grades reported greater 80 Table 8 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Grade Taucrht Satisfaction with Parents No. Grade ' K-3 % Taucrht 4 No. -6 % Total Number Low 1 20 13.1 47 29.4 67 2 36 23.5 51 31.9 87 3 62 40.5 44 27.5 106 High 4 35 22.9 18 11. 3 53 Totals 153 100. 0 160 100.0 313 Note; = 21.83; p < .0001 C = .255 dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area. Table 9 presents the cross-tabulation between the grade taught and sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision. The sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues was related to the grade taught. A total of 53 percent of teachers in kindergarten through third grade indicated greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction with their colleagues ; 53.2 percent of teachers in fourth through sixth grades indicated greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction with their colleagues. Table 10 presents the cross-tabulation between the grade taught and sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues. 81 Table 9 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Grade Taucrht Grade Taucrht Satisfaction with Supervision No. K-3 % 4 No. -6 % Total Number Low 1 41 26.8 37 23 . 1 78 2 43 28.1 41 25.6 84 3 33 21.6 50 31.3 83 High 4 36 23.5 32 20.0 68 Total 153 100. 0 160 100. 0 313 Note : X = 3.81; ns d. Class size. The sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues was significantly related to class size at the .029 level. Teachers with classes of from 30 to 35 students indicated greatest dissatisfaction. Table 11 presents the cross-tabulation between class size and sub- area Satisfaction with Colleagues. 82 Table 10 Grade Taucrht Grade ' Tauaht Satisfaction with Colleagues K- No. 3 % 4- No. -6 % Total Number Low 1 36 23.5 47 29.4 83 2 36 23.5 38 23.8 74 3 42 27.5 49 30.6 91 High 4 39 25.5 26 16.3 65 Total 153 100.0 160 100.0 313 Note: X^ = 4.50; C = .119 < .213 Table 11 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleacrues and Class Size Satisfaction with Colleagues No. To 25 % Class 26 No. Size -29 % 30-35 No. % Total Number Low 1 12 16.2 53 27.0 18 41.9 83 2 24 32.4 41 20.9 9 20.9 74 3 18 24.3 63 32 .1 10 23.3 91 High 4 20 27.0 39 19.9 6 14.0 65 Total 74 100.0 196 100. 0 43 100.0 313 I Note. = 14.10; p < .029 C = .208 83 The sub-area Satisfaction with Pay was significantly related to class size at the .005 level. Teachers with classes of from 2 6 to 29 students indicated greater satisfaction than did teachers with less than 2 6 students or more than 29 students. Teachers with classes of from 3 0 to 35 students indicated greatest dissatisfaction. Table 12 presents the cross-tabulation between class size and sub-area Satisfaction with Pay. Table 12 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pav and Class Size Class Size Satisfaction with Pay To No. 25 % 26-29 No. % 30-35 No. % Total Number Low 1 22 29.7 34 17.3 18 41.9 74 2 22 29 .7 51 26.0 6 14.0 79 3 16 21.6 63 32 .1 14 32.6 93 High 4 14 18.9 48 24.5 5 11. 6 67 Total 74 100.0 196 100.0 43 100. 0 313 Note: = 18.43; p < .005 C = .236 e. Year-round calendar. The sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions was significantly related to year- round calendar at the .004 level. Teachers from year-round schools indicated greater satisfaction than did teachers from schools operating on a traditional calendar. Table 13 presents the cross-tabulation between year-round calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions. Table 13 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Year-Round Calendar Year Round Satisfaction with Working Conditions No Yes % No. No % Total Number Low 1 18 22.2 61 26.3 79 2 11 13.6 72 31.0 83 3 25 30.9 52 22.4 77 High 4 27 33 . 3 47 20.3 74 Total 81 100. 0 232 100.0 313 Note: = 13.38; P < .004 C = .202 The sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision was related to year-round calendar. Fifty-eight percent of teachers from year-round schools reported greater satis- faction than dissatisfaction with supervision; 55.1 percent j of teachers from traditional schools reported greater j dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area. Table 14 I presents the cross-tabulation between year-round calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision. Table 14 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with Supervision No. Year- Yes % •Round No. No % Total Number Low 1 12 14.8 66 28.4 78 2 22 27.2 62 26.7 84 3 27 33.3 56 24.1 83 High 4 20 24.7 48 20.7 68 Total 81 100. 0 232 100.0 313 Note: X = 6.64; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues was related to year-round calendar. A total of 56.8 percent of teachers in year-round schools reported greater satis faction than dissatisfaction with their colleagues ; 52.6 percent of teachers in traditional schools reported greater dissatisfaction in this area. Table 15 presents the cross tabulation between year-round calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues. Table 15 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with Colleagues No. Year- Yes % -Round No. No % Total Number Low 1 20 24.7 63 27.2 83 2 15 18.5 59 25.4 74 3 25 30.9 66 28.4 91 High 4 21 25.9 44 19.0 65 Total 81 100. 0 232 100.0 313 Note: =2.87; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with the Work Itself was related to year-round calendar. A total of 50.6 percent of teachers from year-round schools, reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction with the work itself; 59.4 percent of teachers from traditional schools reported greater dissatisfaction in this area. Table 16 presents the cross-tabulation between year-round calendar and sub- area Satisfaction with the Work Itself. Table 16 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with the Work Itself and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with the Work Itself No. Year- Yes % •Round No. No % Total Number Low 1 21 25.9 56 24.1 77 2 19 23.5 82 35.3 101 3 18 22.2 49 21.1 67 High 4 23 28.4 45 19.4 68 Total 81 100. 0 232 100.0 313 Note; X' = 4.98; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Advancement was related to year-round calendar. A total of 50.6 percent of teachers from year-round schools reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction with the opportunity for Advancement; 59.5 percent of teachers from traditional ‘ schools reported greater dissatisfaction in this area. I Table 17 presents the cross-tabulation between year-round 1 calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Advancement. 88 I Table 17 ! Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Advancement I and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with Advancement No. Year- Yes % -Round No. No % Total Number Low 1 18 22.2 61 26.3 79 2 22 27.2 77 33.2 99 3 13 16. 0 48 20.7 61 High 4 28 34.6 46 19.8 74 Total 81 100.0 232 100.0 313 ■ Note; =7.27; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition was related to year-round calendar. A total of 54.4 percent of teachers from year-round schools reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in this area; 51.7 percent of teachers from traditional schools reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction. Table 18 presents the cross-tabulation between year-round calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition. 89 Table 18 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recocrnition and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with Recognition No. Year- Yes % -Round No No. % Total Number Low 1 11 13.6 56 24.1 67 2 26 32.1 64 27.6 90 3 25 30.9 61 26.3 86 High 4 19 23.5 51 22.0 70 Total 81 100. 0 232 100.0 313 Note; X = 4.07; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Parents was related to year-round calendar. A total of 54.4 percent of teachers from year-round schools reported greater satis faction than dissatisfaction in this area; 50.5 percent of teachers in traditional schools reported greater dissatis faction than satisfaction. Table 19 presents the cross tabulation between year-round calendar and sub-area Satisfaction with Parents. 90 Table 19 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Year-Round Calendar Satisfaction with Parents No. Year- Yes % -Round No. No. % Total Number Low 1 17 21.0 50 21.6 67 2 20 24.7 67 28.9 87 3 28 34.6 78 33.6 106 High 4 16 19.8 37 15.9 53 Total 81 100.0 232 100.0 313 Note : X' = .92; ns Question 2 How do the following factors related to students ; contribute, if at all, to the various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary ■ classroom teachers? a. Socioeconomic level. The sub-area Satisfaction , with Recognition was significantly related to the school's ^ compensatory education ranking, which was used to indicate I the socioeconomic level of students in the present study, i at the .018 level. (Schools with the higher ranks had a « T,. - " - - greater number of students eligible for compensatory education program participation; e.g., the school with rank number one had the greatest number of students participat ing in compensatory education programs in the district.) Teachers in the highest ranking schools (ranks three through 100) indicated greatest dissatisfaction. Table 2 0 presents the cross-tabulation between socioeconomic level and sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition. b. Racial-ethnic background. There was no sig nificant relationship between the racial-ethnic background of students and any of the sub-areas of job satisfaction. Table 20 Students Rank Satisfaction w/Recognition 3-100 No. % 101-185 No. % 186-259 No. % 260+ Total No. % No. Low 1 16 22.5 16 19.5 10 12.7 25 30.9 67 2 25 35.2 25 30.5 21 26.6 19 23.5 90 3 10 14.1 21 25.6 30 38.0 25 30.9 86 High 4 20 28.2 20 24.4 18 22.8 12 14.8 70 Total 71 100 82 100 79 100 81 100 313 Note. = 19.96; p < .018 C = .245 c. Transiency rate. The sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions was significantly related to a school's transiency rate at the .047 level. Teachers in schools with the highest student transiency rate indicated greatest dissatisfaction. Table 21 presents the cross-tabulation between transiency rate and sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions. Table 21 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Transiency Rate Transiency Rate Satisfaction with Working Conditions 11- No. 25% % 26- No. 50% % 51- No. 75% % Total Number Low 1 21 21.2 52 28 . 0 6 21.4 79 2 34 34.3 37 19.9 12 42.9 83 3 20 20.2 53 28.5 4 14.3 77 High 4 24 24.2 44 23.7 6 21.4 74 Total 99 100.0 186 100.0 28 100.0 313 Note; = 12.73; p < .047 C = .198 Question 3 How, if at all, do the following teachers* personal characteristics affect the relationships between school site factors and student factors on the one hand and various elements of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction on the other? a. Gender. The sub-area Satisfaction with Col leagues was significantly related to teachers* gender at the .034 level. Male teachers indicated greatest dis satisfaction. Table 22 presents the cross-tabulation between gender and sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues. Table 22 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleagues and Gender Gender Satisfaction with Colleagues No. Male % No Female % Total Number Low 1 24 40.7 59 23.2 83 2 10 16.9 64 25.2 74 3 17 28.8 74 29.1 91 High 4 8 13.6 57 22.4 65 Total 59 100.0 254 100. 0 313 Note; X = 8.70; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Pay was related to teachers* gender. A total of 52.5 percent of male teach ers indicated greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area; 51.9 percent of female teachers indicated greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Table 23 presents the cross-tabulation between gender and sub-area Satisfaction with Pay. Table 23 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pav and Gender Gender Satisfaction with Pay No. Male % Female No. % Total Number Low 1 15 25.4 59 23.2 74 2 16 27.1 63 24.8 79 3 18 30.5 75 29.5 93 High 4 10 16.9 57 22.4 67 Total 59 100.0 254 100.0 313 Note; = .89; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition was related to teachers' gender. A total of 59.3 percent of male teachers indicated greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area; 52 percent of female teachers indicated greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Table 24 presents the cross-tabulation between gender and sub- area Satisfaction with Recognition. Table 24 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Gender Gender Satisfaction with Recognition No. Male % Female No. % Total Number Low 1 14 23.7 53 20.9 67 2 21 35. 6 69 27.2 90 3 15 25.4 71 28.0 86 High 4 9 15. 3 61 24.0 70 Total 59 100. 0 254 100. 0 313 Note: - 3.12; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Parents was related to teachers' gender A total of 57.6 percent of male ^ teachers reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction I in this area; 52.8 percent of female teachers reported I greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Table 25 presents the cross-tabulation between gender and sub-area j i Satisfaction with Parents. Table 25 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Gender Gender Satisfaction with Parents No. Male % Female No. % Total Number Low 1 17 28.8 50 19.7 67 2 17 28.8 70 27.6 87 3 19 32.2 87 34. 3 106 High 4 6 10.2 47 18.5 53 Total 59 100. 0 254 100.0 313 Note: X = 3.91; ns b. Age. There was no significant relationship between the age of teachers and any of the sub-areas of job satisfaction. c. Marital status. The sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision was significantly related to the marital status of teachers at the .002 level. Single teachers who had never been married reported greatest satisfaction; single teachers who had been married reported greatest dissatis faction. Table 2 6 presents the cross-tabulation between marital status and sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision. Table 2 6 t Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Marital Status Marital Status Satisfaction with Single Married Sep. Div. Widowed Total Supervision No. % No. % No. % Number Low 1 18 25.0 30 17.9 29 40.3 77 2 14 19.4 57 33.9 13 18.1 84 3 18 25.0 46 27.4 19 26.4 83 High 4 22 30.6 35 20.8 11 15.3 68 Total 72 100.0 168 100.0 72 100.0 312 Note ; = 21.05; p < .002 C = .251 The sub-area Satisfaction with Responsibility was significantly related to the marital status of teachers at the .042 level. Single teachers who had never been married reported greatest dissatisfaction. Table 27 presents the cross-tabulation between marital status and sub-area Satisfaction with Responsibility. Table 27 I I Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Responsibility and Marital Status Marital Status Satisfaction with Single Married Sep. Div. Widowed Total Responsibility No. % No. % No. % Number Low 1 25 34.7 31 18.5 18 25. 0 74 2 22 30.6 58 34.5 15 20.8 95 3 8 11.1 34 20.2 18 25.0 60 High 4 17 23.6 45 26.8 21 29.2 83 Total 72 100. 0 168 100.0 72 100. 0 312 Note; X' c 13.02; p < .042 200 ' “ ‘ — —— ---- ' - ----- 99 d. Number and acres of children. There was no significant relationship between the number and ages of teachers' children and any of the sub-areas of job satis faction. e. Years of teachincr experience. The sub-area Satisfaction with the Work Itself was significantly related to the number of years of experience teachers had at the .03 level. Teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greatest satisfaction. Table 28 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with the Work Itself. Table 28 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with the Work Itself and Years of Teaching Experience Years of Teachincr Satisfaction w/ Work Itself 1- No. -7 % 8- No 15 % 16- No. -22 % 23+ No. % Total Number low 1 11 14.9 17 22.4 25 29.1 24 31.6 77 2 20 27.0 29 38.2 28 32.6 23 30.3 100 3 17 23.0 17 22.4 13 15.1 20 26.3 67 High 4 26 35.1 13 17.1 20 23.3 9 11.8 68 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 = 19.64; p < .020 C = .24 - — - ' - ■ ■ ■ ^ 100 The sub-area Satisfaction with Advancement was significantly related to the number of years of experience teachers had at the .02 level. Teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greater satisfac tion than dissatisfaction. Teachers with eight or more years of experience reported greater dissatisfaction in this area. Table 2 9 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with Advancement. Table 2 9 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Advancement and Years of Teaching Experience Years of Teaching Satisfaction w/ 1-7 8-15 16-22 23+ Total Advancement No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Low 1 15 20.3 18 23.7 26 30.2 20 26.3 79 2 16 21.6 22 28.9 30 34.9 31 40.8 99 3 15 20.3 19 25.0 17 19.8 9 11.8 60 High 4 28 37 . 8 17 22.4 13 15.1 16 21.1 74 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 I = 19.20; p < .024 : C = .241 - *101 i The sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision was related i to the number of years of experience in teaching. Teachers I I with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greatest satisfaction. As teachers gained experience, i reported satisfaction decreased. Teachers with the most experience (23 years and more) reported greatest dissatis faction in this area. Table 30 presents the cross-tabula tion between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision. Table 30 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Years of Teaching Experience Years of Teachincr Satisfaction w/ Supervision No. 1-7 % No. 8-15 % No. 16-22 % No. 23+ % Total No. Low 1 12 16.2 16 21.1 24 27.9 25 32.9 77 2 24 32.4 22 28.9 22 25.6 16 21.1 84 3 19 25.7 27 35.5 21 24.4 16 21.1 83 High 4 19 25.7 11 14.5 19 22.1 19 25.0 68 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 = 13.050; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues was related I I to the number of years of experience teachers had. A total j of 52.7 percent of teachers with the least experience (one ! to seven years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in this area; 51.3 percent of teachers with i 8 to 15 year experience also reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Teachers with more than 16 years of experience reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area. Table 31 presents the cross tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub- area Satisfaction with Colleagues. I Table 31 ; Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleacfues ’ and Years of Teaching Experience Satisfaction Colleagues Years of Teachina Total No. w/ 1 No. -7 % No 8-15 % No 16-22 % No. 23+ Low 1 22 29.7 17 22.4 22 25.6 22 28.9 83 2 13 17.6 20 26.3 23 26.7 17 22 .4 73 3 26 35.1 21 27.6 25 29.1 19 25. 0 91 High 4 13 17.6 18 23.7 16 18.6 18 23 .7 65 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 I = 5.37; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions was related to the number of years of experience teachers ■ had. A total of 55.7 percent of teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greater satis faction than dissatisfaction in this area. Teachers with 8 to 15 years of experience reported greatest dissatis faction. Table 3 2 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions. Table 32 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Years of Teaching Experience Years of Teachincr Satisfaction Conditions w/ 1 No. -7 % No 8-15 % No 16-22 % No. 23 + % Total No. Low 1 16 21.6 18 23.7 25 29.1 20 26.3 79 2 16 21.6 28 36.8 20 23.3 18 23.7 82 3 20 27.0 16 21.1 25 29.1 16 21.1 77 High 4 22 29.7 14 18.4 16 18.6 22 28.9 74 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 = 10.82; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Pay was related to the number of years of experience teachers had. Teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in this area. Teachers with from 8 to 15 years of experience reported the greatest dissatisfaction. Table 33 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with Pay. Table 33 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Pav and Years of Teachina Experience Satisfaction Pay Years of Teachincr Total No. w/ 1 No. -7 % No 8-15 % No 16-22 % No. 23 + % Low 1 16 21.6 19 25.0 20 23 .3 19 25.0 74 2 20 27.0 23 30.3 26 30.2 10 13.2 79 3 20 27.0 20 26.3 26 30.2 26 34.2 92 High 4 18 24. 3 14 18.4 14 16. 3 21 27.6 67 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 = 10.36; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition was related to the number of years of experience teachers had. A total of 56.7 percent of teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greater satisfaction than dis satisfaction in this area. Teachers with eight years or more experience reported greater dissatisfaction. Table 34 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition. Table 34 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Years of Teachincr Experience Years of Teachincr Satisfaction Recognition w/ 1 No. -7 % No 8-15 % No 16-22 No. 23 + Total No Low 1 12 16.2 17 22.4 16 18. 6 21 27.6 66 2 20 17.0 22 28.9 28 32.6 20 26.3 90 3 26 35.1 20 26.3 23 26.7 17 22.4 86 High 4 16 21.6 17 22.4 19 22 .1 18 23.7 70 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 = 5.77; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Parents was related to the number of years of experience in teaching. A total of 62.1 percent of teachers with the least experience (one to seven years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatis faction in this area; 61.3 percent of teachers with the most experience (23 years or more) reported greater dissatisfaction. Table 35 presents the cross-tabulation between years of teaching experience and sub-area Satisfac tion with Parents. Table 35 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Years of Teaching Experience Satisfaction Parent Years of Teachincr Total No. w/ 1 No. -7 % No 8-15 % No 16-22 % No. 23 + % Low 1 11 14.9 13 17.1 23 26.7 19 25.0 66 2 17 23.0 32 42.1 18 20.9 20 26.3 87 3 30 40.5 21 27. 6 31 36.0 24 31.6 106 High 4 16 21.6 10 13.2 14 16.3 13 17.1 53 Total 74 100 76 100 86 100 76 100 312 : = 15.18; ns — — — -- — — f. Number of years in current school. The sub- area Satisfaction with Supervision was related to the number of years teachers had taiight in their current school. A total of 54.7 percent of teachers with the least number of years at a school (one or two years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in this area. Teachers with from three to five years at a school reported greatest dissatisfaction. Table 36 presents the cross tabulation between number of years at the current school and sub-area Satisfaction with Supervision. Table 3 6 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Supervision and Years at Current School Years at Current School Satisfaction Supervision w/ 1 No. -2 % No 3-5 No 6-10 % No. 11+ % Total No. Low 1 11 15.3 22 26.2 19 25.0 26 32.5 78 2 22 30.6 24 28 . 6 21 27.6 17 21.3 84 3 21 29.2 19 22 . 6 24 31.6 19 23 .8 83 High 4 18 25.0 19 22 . 6 12 15.8 18 22.5 67 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 9.26; ns — - 108 The sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues was related to the number of years teachers had taught at their current school. A total of 57.6 percent of teachers who had taught for 11 years or more at their current school reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in this area. Table 37 presents the cross-tabulation between number of years at the current school and the sub-area Satisfaction with Colleagues. Table 3 7 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Colleacrues and Years at Current School Years at Current School Satisfaction Colleagues w/ 1 No. -2 % 3 No. -5 % No. 6-10 % No. 11+ % Total No. Low 1 19 26.4 25 29.8 25 32.9 14 17.5 83 2 17 23.6 20 23.8 16 21.1 20 25.0 73 3 25 34.7 25 29.8 20 26.3 21 26.3 91 High 4 11 15.3 14 16.7 15 19.7 25 31.3 65 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 11.41; ns The sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions was related to the number of years teachers had taught at their current school. A total of 59.8 percent of teachers with the least experience at the current school (one or two years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction; all other teachers (with three or more years experience) reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area. Table 38 presents the cross-tabulation between the number of years at the current school and sub-area Satis faction with Working Conditions. Table 38 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Working Conditions and Years at CurrentSchool Years at Current School Satisfaction Working Cond. w/ 1 No. -2 % No 3-5 % No 6-10 % No. 11+ % Total No. Low 1 8 11.1 27 32. 1 19 25.0 25 31.3 79 2 21 29.2 20 23.8 25 32.9 17 21.3 83 3 22 30.6 19 22.6 18 23.7 18 22.5 77 High 4 21 29.2 18 21.4 14 18.4 20 25.0 73 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 14.21; ns — —— - — — —— — - — — ---i —-— — ' The sub-area Satisfaction with Responsibility was related to the number of years teachers had taught at their current school. A total of 52.5 percent of teachers with the greatest number of years at their current school (11 or more years) indicated greater satisfaction than dis satisfaction; all other teachers reported greater dissatis faction than satisfaction in this area. Table 39 presents the cross-tabulation between sub-area Satisfaction with Responsibility and the number of years at the current school. Table 39 Cross-Tabulation Between Current Satisfaction with Responsibility and Years at Current School Satisfaction Respon. Years at Current School Total No. w/ 1 No. -2 % 3 No. -5 % No 6-10 No. 11+ Low 1 18 25.0 19 22 . 6 20 26.3 17 21.3 74 2 25 34.7 29 34.5 20 26.3 21 26.3 95 3 12 16.7 15 17.9 17 22.4 16 20.0 60 High 4 17 23.6 21 25.0 19 25.0 26 32.5 83 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 4.48; ns I The sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition was related • to the number of years teachers had taught at their current school. A total of 44.5 percent of teachers with least ■ experience at the current school (one or two years) I ^ reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction; ( teachers with from three to five years at a school site were equally divided; teachers with six or more years at a school site reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction. Table 40 presents the cross-tabulation between the sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition and the number of years at the current school. Table 40 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Recognition and Years at Current School Years at Current School Satisfaction Recognition w/ 1 No. -2 % No 3-5 % No 6-10 % No. 11+ % Total No. Low 1 12 16.7 17 20.2 19 25. 0 19 23.8 67 2 20 27.8 25 29.8 22 28 . 9 23 28 . 8 90 3 22 30.6 28 33.3 20 26.3 16 20.0 86 High 4 18 25.0 14 16.7 15 19.7 22 27.5 69 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 7.11; ns ■ 112 The sub-area Satisfaction with Parents was related to the number of years teachers had taught at their current school. A total of 61.1 percent of teachers with least experience at the current school (one or two years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction; 60 percent of teachers with most experience at the current school (11 or more years) reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in this area. Table 41 presents the cross-tabulation between the number of years at the current school and sub-area Parents. Table 41 Cross-Tabulation Between Satisfaction with Parents and Years at Current School Satisfaction Parent Years at Current School Total No. w/ 1- No. 2 % 3 No. -5 No 6-10 % No. 11+ % Low 1 12 16.7 16 19. 0 17 22.4 22 27.5 67 2 16 22 . 2 22 26. 2 22 28.9 26 32.5 86 3 35 48.6 27 32.1 21 27.6 23 28.8 106 High 4 9 12.5 19 22 . 6 16 21.1 9 11. 3 53 Total 72 100 84 100 76 100 80 100 312 = 14.83; ns ■ ” — r — — - — - - , - -■ ” ■ - . . . - I Multiple Regression Analysis I To determine the combined influence of the independent I variables on satisfaction, multiple regression analyses ’ I were performed for each of the sub-areas of job satisfac tion. For each dependent variable, all of the independent variables were entered into the multiple regression to determine how to best predict satisfaction in that sub- area. The cut-off point was decided after approximately 3 0 percent of the variance was accounted for and the subsequent variable increased the R by less than 2 percent. Satisfaction with Supervision was most related to: number of years teaching experience, socioeconomic level of students, race/ethnicity of teacher, consideration of grade level request (R = .355). These are displayed in Table 42. Satisfaction with Colleagues was most related to: number of years teaching in current school, consideration i of grade level request, grade level taught, total number of years teaching, effectiveness of graduate education, size of school, percentage of White students in school (R i I = .308). These are displayed in Table 43. Satisfaction with Working Conditions was most related ; to: total number of years teaching, socioeconomic level of students, marital status, consideration of grade level I I request, race/ethnicity of teacher (R = .400). These are 1 displayed in Table 44. Satisfaction with Pay was most related to: grade level taught, bilingual classroom, size of school, need to arrange child care, effectiveness of graduate education (R = .322) . These are displayed in Table 45. Satisfaction with Responsibility was most related to: percentage of Black students in school, race/ethnicity of teacher, grade taught, socioeconomic level of students (R = .353). These are displayed in Table 46. Satisfaction with the Work Itself was most related to: number of years in school district, socioeconomic level of students, effectiveness of graduate education, marital status, grade taught, total number of years of teaching experience (R = .408). These are displayed in Table 47. Satisfaction with Advancement was most related to: number of years in school district, race/ethnicity of teacher, total number of years of teaching experience, grade taught (R — .350). These are displayed in Table 48. Satisfaction with Security was most related to: consideration of grade level request, size of school, percentage of Hispanic/Latino students, highest academic degree obtained, union membership (R = .300). These are displayed in Table 49. Satisfaction with Recognition was most related to: total number of years teaching, race/ethnicity of teacher, consideration of grade level request, effectiveness of CM 0 ) rH A ( 0 E - I - ■ - ■ VO rH VO cn 0 0 CM o o 0) " 5 1 * iH iH If) 1—1 CM 1—1 iH iH B* • ■ • ■ 8 O o o o •H 1 1 CO 0) " 5 1 * " 5 1 * c 0 0 o 0 0 ro < C J iH rH CM O f: VO CM CM CM CJ o O o o O f o O o o CO c P4 o -H -H E l 0) 0) 1 —1 0 0 CM q « J 0 0 ov iH 2 . rH CM If) VO CO u* VO 0 0 o CM CO o O iH iH f : ■ • • . « o o o O -H c o -H 4 -> 0) Ü nH If) S t* (0 f t cn CM iH <w -H 0 0 r - If) If) CO - P " 5 1 * CO CM If) -H rH CM CM n ro - P 3 • • ( C J S O o o O CO 44 O CO •H CO > p 1—1 c u ( C J Xi C o < 0 3 0 ) c u c nH -p 4 - > o A CO -H O S U» 44 C U CO •H c o CO -H CO & 0 ) Xi ■ P >1 C U p > Ü C -p p t r t c J C U 0 ) -p C U TS Ü nH A C - P C U 1 3 •H c u tj C U Ü X> C > c u c u T3 44 C CO X c u P rH C O C U 4 - > 1 —1 c u o ( U -H 44 C U tj •H ft CO U O \ c u -H + J C U U C U C U TJ CO rH TJ f C J ft CO u f c J C 5 C C U X H t c J P o S H >4 c u CO « V) Ü 115 CO s j * 0 ) I —I A f d E h 1 0 0 ) ë ( Ü 0 ) o ÇJ X -p •H I S c o -H - P Ü e C 44 C O •H - P f C J C O 44 O C O -H C O > I —I ( d < c o -H C O C O 0 ) p tJ s 0 ) I —I a -H +J g C M in CO C M O V O « C O CO in in CO C O C M r- 00 o 00 iH CO o M in 00 C M V O V O V O r 4 rH iH o o o O O ft • • • • • g O O o o o O o -H 1 1 1 1 1 C O C D S' CO CO H* S t * C M V O V O CO CO C M o in rH (d o\ S t * O r- V O in rH X C M C M rH o o o rH u O O O o o o O Of O O O o o o O C O c t î C D P CO V O O S t * V O CO (d 00 iH H* S t * o\ r - 00 à o\ H* s j * iH CO S t * Œ C M in V O r- r- 00 c y i C O O o o o o o o PK O o o o o o o PK C D 1 — 1 C M C M 00 C M V O S t * ft r - r - C M C M CO o -H C M C M CO r- < J \ < J \ 00 -p r- CO in V O 00 o rH rH C M C M C M C M C M CO 2 s O O o O o o o C D iH +J X +J C O +J c fd fd C D X tn o -H 0 t r > 44 -H C D P C O a* 0 -H O -P -p ( 0 P iH C D fd X fd rH -H > fd O p +J o C O Ü o X C D O fd C O :3 o 15 -P >1^ iH t —1 C D C D 73 X C Ü C D * C 3 Q ) +J Q) C C D o 44 C D 44 C O > C D > Ü C D C O O TS o C D P C D 44 C > C D C O C -p iH C D X O C D •H -p 44 -p -p C D P c -H -P fd O c p : ft C D C D C D -H C D C O P o 0 C D C D C D X P 73 C O 73 P C D C D 73 C D Ü 73 'S H P fd C fd fd f t 44 fd N P 0 P: P O p C D X 44 p •H C D 4-> M i s ; Ü O Ü ID >H C D M fJ> C O Pli C O 116 sf sf 0 ) I —I EH 1 0 § •H +J -H 73 C O o t J c -H •g s g -H I S c o -H +J Ü fO m (0 •H ■ P f d C O 44 o 1 0 -H 10 > iH fd S c o -H C O C O Q > U tr Q ) « Q > rH Q I CO CM CM r4 o Od CM CO 1 — 1 C\ r- in CO CO r- iH cu CJ) CO CO VO O 1-4 rH iH 1 —1 rH iH ft • • • • • e o O o O O •H 1 1 CO CU S ’ CM O CO CO h ' C rH r4 o CO in fd CO VO VO r4 CO X CO sf CO CM 1 —1 o O O o O o O f O O o O o CO PCÎ c u u CM CM in 00 in fd rH CM CM in 1 —1 à CO Sj* o 1 — 1 o CO CO CM St* VO CO O O 1 — 1 1 —1 1 — 1 O o o O o c u 1 —1 CO o 00 a \ ft CM CM r- CM rH •H in O VO VO O +J a\ a \ St* O rH rH CM CO CO St* 5 s o O o o O p c u X Ü fd c u c u 1 —1 ■p -P X C O fd 44 c u 44 -H C O O p -H C O & fp -P C O c u >1 > Ü C 0 p -P fd CU -P •H -p c u 73 fd 1-4 Ü c -P c u 1 3 -P c u 73 •H c u Ü X C O > c u C 73 44 c CO c u P X c o c u rH iH CU X P c u -H 44 fd 73 c u c u ft C O P O -P C U -H c u P c u •H 73 CO c u Ü 73 fd f t CO P fd C Ü fd c c u X w fd P O fd c u M >4 c u CO S C D Ü « X 117 ----- --— ---- - - — - CO O 00 cn ft S j * o C T » r- CO in o c r v VO o (D VO in C O CO CO r4 rH rH o rH rH ft • • • • . o O o O o -H 1 I 1 1 C O ( 1 ) S' o\ o\ S j * CM sf d CO rH O c y i o rd O o cn VO -d CM CM CM 1 —1 1 —1 u O O O o o Of O O O o o C O ft 0) p c y i C O CM in cn > . rd CO in VO in in (d 0 CO ft & CM VO 00 o C O o o o o 1 —1 X • . . • • X ft o o o o o -H I S d o ft -H X Q ) o 1 —1 a\ CO in 00 in rd ft si* rH o 00 00 4-1 -H in 00 o in rH C O - P VO rH VO CM -H iH rH CM CM CM CO X 2 • . . rd d O O o o O C O 44 O C O -H C O (D , > . P 1 —1 rd rd f ~ * Ü 5 73 0) rH > d 1 —1 n -H o X - P o X d ; -H rd X o Ü o C O -rH I t» p 44 -H C O P 0 C O Q ) O -P 0) rd C O rH I t» fd P > - P rd o d C O Ü & 1 —1 O rd C O 0 0) -P ( —1 Ü X P 0) 73 f t d Q > o P d (D 0) > 1 —1 C O fd Q ) in 0) 73 Q > rd > Q > si* i“ H d 1 —1 0 44 o -H 4 - > d < D C r > o ■ P X fd 0) -H f t Q ) d Ü 0 1 —1 X Q ) 7 3 -*H (U 7 3 0 ) 7 3 X i“H •d rd 1 —1 N Q ) 44 fd 0 2 d P -H -H Q ) 44 p \ ^ Id M C D f t C O ft f t to 118 VO s J * 0 ) I—I E H a •H 1 - 4 -H X -H C O § d C O ft 5 -H I S d o -H 4 - > Ü fd 44 C O -H 4 -> fd CO 44 O C O -H C O > I —I fd S d o -H C O C O C D u s ft C D rH d -H 4 -> rH a rH CT» in CM ft CO VO c\ CO CM CM r- C D (T> in 00 00 iH rH rH rH rH f t • • • • O O o O *H 1 1 CO C D S' 00 00 CM 00 d a\ 00 rH CO fd VO in G \ CM CO CM rH ÇJ o o O O C D i o o O O CO ft C D P 00 VO < y > fd < y > CO < y > CO d VO CM rH Sj* CT CO 00 rH CM CO o o rH rH f t o o O O f t C D iH rH VO Sj* VO ft CO 00 VO VO -H CM r- sf CM 4 - > < y \ 00 CO in rH rH CM CO CO d • • s O o o o C O p X C D d X C D o 73 fd C D 0 C D iH X X 43 C O X fd 44 X -H X o tn P o 0 C O fd fd fd 4 - > > rH X X d f t -H C D X Ü H 73 d 44 -H C D 0 C D O d > X 73 X C D CO d X X rH C D d C D 44 ft C D \ C D O C D Ü C D 73 73 p Ü fd ft d C D fd P M M ft ft O f t V 119 r- s f 0 ) I —I 54 iH 0 ) m -P H B. < D 5 S § •H X 0 f d 44 0 1 •rH 4J fd ft 4H 0 m •H 0 1 > iH fd C d o •rH w w 0 ) ë ft 0 ) iH d •H -P iH s f t ro si* f t 00 f t ft Sj* 00 C O sj* CM 00 CM 00 f t f t 0) f t 1 —1 si* i —i V O r - rH CM rH 1 —1 i —i p o f t • • . • . • O O O o o o •rH I 1 1 1 ft Q> S ' o f t si* V O f t d o 1 — 1 M 00 sj* p fd S j* ft O P r - r - X V O C M (M C M p p u o O O O o o O f o O O O o o f t f t 0) p o O sj* P p fd o C M ft 00 C M sj* à s f f t f t p f t V O V O 00 O C O sj* V O f t o O P p p p f t o O O o o o f t 0) r — 1 f t V O V O V O f t C O f t f t V O f t o C O f t •rH C M 00 1 — 1 C O V O r - -P f t f t C O V O 00 o Ip C M C M C O C O C O sj* 2 • • • « • s O o o o o o 0) iH •d d d -p fd •H o X tr» •H 44 -rH t r > d P W -P ( 0 O X 0 •rH P Ü -p fd fd > fd -rH d w o d -P Ü 0) P Q) W 0 X fd X > 1 -p zf 0) *d fd p (U d (0 0 d 0) -p c u -P ( Ü 0) 44 -H X 0) (0 > Ü TJ O T5 (0 > 0) Q ) 44 d d •H +J 1 — 1 P o C Ü 0) P iH 44 -P fd fd •H f t 0) O O Ü 0 X Q ) W P 0) • 9 2 0) *d •H 73 P C D TJ C O 44 fd p fd fd a d 2 ^ M 44 p fd P C D X M f t M C O H tn f t U >4 C D 120 C O sf Q ) I—I X f d C Q ) § Ü C f d s X - P •H d o •H 4J Ü f d 4 4 U 1 • • 4 X f d us 4 4 O to -H to > P f d < d o -H to to Q ) P t r Q ) a Q ) r - H o •H ft P f 5 n C O C M C O P o r o 0 ) o C M V O p r - H S j * O p C M ÇU C M C M p P n • • • ■ • H O O o o W 1 1 1 0 ) V O P S j* in d V O V O C M V O f d V O o ft I T ) p P p u O o O o O f O o O o us « 0 ) p V O ft P ro f d V O C M in p à Sj* p C M Œ in ft p C M U] o O p P P f 5 o O o O « 0 ) p p t > - V O in A p O ft in • H o p f t ft S j* o p sj* P C M p p p d • • ft O o o o 0 ) p f t d ft f d •p 4 - 4 tp ft • • 4 O d t r » p t o ft p d d P u > 1 ft f d > f d P ft Ü ft 0 ) P P f d ft >ift Ü Q ) r - H d t o P ft Q ) < D ( D 4 4 P d Ü > 7 3 O 7 3 ft ft d ( U d ft p O ( Ü r - H 0 ) P P 0 ) Q ) p a 0 ) o \ f t t o P < D 0 ) f t o 0 ) Ü P 0 ) 73 73 8 ft Ü f d f d A f d d d Ü f d Q ) < D X P H ft to ft ft > 4 0 ) O 121 ft s j * < D I—I X f d B4 -H M s 0 ) CO g d o -H ft Ü fd ft 1 0 •H ft fd us ft o to •H to > P fd S § to to 0 ) U tJ ft 0 ) p p -H ft rH s ft s J * p 1 —1 St cn 00 in 1 —1 a\ in Q ) 00 St 00 p P VO 00 p cn P4 P o o P o n • • • • • •H o o o o o cn 1 I 0 ) tn p CM p p p d t f > VO in CM 00 f d 00 VO o st c r » f t CM P CM p o u O o o o o Of O o o o o us ft < D P P CM m CO P f d m 1 —1 VO 00 C ' â 00 in m < T V en Œ CM St VO r- 00 U] o O o o o ft o o o o o f t ( D H St p CM St CM a, 00 St CM VO in -H 00 CM VO CM cn ft VO P m 00 cn iH 1 —1 CM CM CM CM d o O o O o < D P f t Ü ft to f d < D d -H d f d Ü f t p & A to -H 73 -H d < 0 1 —1 v s ft d C D f t > p o *H d Q ) d to o ft < u 73 *H P f t p f t 73 f d f d ( U d < D 73 Ü f t d Ü f t ( Ü > < D to O f t f d f t 73 < D P to o Q ) d P Q ) f t f t f t d o 73 o d o to 0) a, Q ) *H Q ) d ( U 0 ) d < D 73 to Q ) Ü -H ft p o 73 f d d t g p ft f3> t7* -H d P o -H < D f d -H 0 ) d M o o CO f t X ft 73 ft 122 o i n 0 ) r-4 E H g -H ft - f H ë o ü ft g •fH 1 5 d o •fH ft Ü ( d 4H 1 0 •fH ft fd co 4H O 1 0 •H 1 0 fd < d o •H 1 0 ( 0 0 ) P tr ft Q ) p p. •p ft iH s f t O i n s t i n V O e n 0 0 o e n C M p 0 0 ( D p p o s t e n P e n e n 0 0 C M C M 0 0 ft < — 1 p P P O o m • • • • • • •H o o o O O o US 1 1 1 1 Q ) S' fd 6 O» ft Q ) ë & w ft ft Q ) rH ft •H iH s 123 v o C M s t C M s t VD i n v o o V O C M s t t " o C M P P s t p s t C M P P P o O O O O O o O O O o O v o 0 0 p s t 0 0 s t i n p C M 0 0 o i n t " 0 0 O P i n e n p r- O P C M p o o P P p P o o O O o o o o r" o i n 0 0 v o i n s t v o i n p e n v o r- p p e n P p i n c - P e M p p p p o o o o o o f t d ü o •H •H ÎH Q ) f t f t P f t fd (0 f t to ü -H fd trt 4 H Q ) d 73 •H u d •p o g . M H 73 o (!) 1 — 1 d f t >1 d) P O > ü f t ÎH 1 0 0) O o fd •H tO f t O f t -P Q ) ü iH (!) fd f t ü d f t < Ü •fH < D 73 d d ü to 0) ü d > < Ü (!) 73 to "d m h d f t 0) > H > fd d d o < D f t U P ( U •fH ÎH 4 H •H e u •H e u e u 73 f t tn O f t to p \ f t < D •H ü u to e u u 0) e u ü 73 1 0 < D (!) O ) u 73 fd f t ü fd fd d 4h 73 N fd d 0) X fd Q ) u o 4h d •H d) M î> 4 0) f t f t o ü M d en >4 IT) 0 ) I —1 ft (d E H ( 0 0) U & ft ft •P IS d o -p ft Ü fd 4H i n -P ft fd cn 4H o i n -P i n > I —I fd < d o -p C O C O 0) u tr ft < D p D -p ft p St St cn m r- If) C O < D r- 00 r- p 1 —1 VO VO C M C M A p P p 1 —1 e • • • • -p o o o o cn I I 0) tn r- St VO p d o C M o CO fd IT) VO p C M ft p C M p p tj p O o o O f o O o o cn ft 0) Î H I ' ' C M 00 p fd o P p C M d If) P C M If) p VO r- 00 cn p 1 —I p P ft o o o o ft 0) rH p St 00 VO A If) VO p p -P r- p If) o ft VO o p p rH p St St st d • • • • S o o o o i n ft d < D 73 0) d p ft ft ft i n fd ft ft *P tn < D o d ft fd fd tn •p >1 > ft d ft ft •p IS •H ft p ft Ü d 0) Ü 0) ft -p 0) > fd Ü o d V, < D < D d ft d P ft < D ft ft Î H < D -p d 0) < D P4 0) C O Î H < D \ft 0) 73 U ( U Ü C D Ü 73 fd fd ÇU u Ü fd d u < D X Q ) fd C D H Ü >f C D Pi « ft 124 I I graduate education, size of school, number of years in school district (R = .374). These are displayed in Table 1 i 50. Satisfaction with Parents was most related to: grade I level taught, number of years in current school, percentage I of White students, race/ethnicity of teacher (R = .43 0). ' These are displayed in Table 51. 1 Summary of Findings The subjects of the present study were a stratified random sample of 600 classroom teachers who were teaching in 100 elementary schools in one large urban school district. Responses to the survey questionnaire that was ' sent through the school district’s Mail Unit were received from 340 teachers. A total of 313 usable responses were received, providing a usable response rate of 52.17. The majority of respondents were women. Respondents varied in age from 23 years to 70 years; the average age was 4 3.3 years. The majority of respondents were White and married. Approximately 37 percent had children. The total number of years teaching experience ranged from one year to 3 8 years; the average number of years was 15.9. Approximately half of the respondents taught in grades kindergarten through third and approximately half taught in grades fourth through sixth. Almost 70 percent reported union membership. ' — - — ~ — - — - — — — m r - - — The survey questionnaire included statements regarding job satisfaction in 10 sub-areas. Respondents indicated that they were more satisfied than dissatisfied in the sub- areas of Supervision, Colleagues, Responsibility, Work Itself, Security, and Parents. Respondents indicated that they were more dissatisfied than satisfied in the sub-areas of Working Conditions, Pay, Advancement, and Recognition. The following was found with respect to the research questions : 1. Three school site factors (grade taught, class size, and year-round calendar) contributed significantly to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Grade level was related to Satisfaction with Parents. Teachers of grades kindergarten through third indicated greater satisfaction than did teachers of grades fourth through sixth. Grade level was also related to Satisfaction with Supervision and Satisfaction with Colleagues. A majority of teachers in kindergarten through third grade reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in these two sub- areas of job satisfaction. Class size was related to Satisfaction with Col leagues. Teachers with the largest classes (30 to 35 students) reported least satisfaction. Class size was also found to be related to Satisfaction with Pay. Teachers with classes of 2 6 to 29 students reported greatest satisfaction and teachers with classes of 30 to 35 reported greatest dissatisfaction. Year-round calendar was related to Satisfaction with Working Conditions. Teachers in year-round schools reported greater satisfaction than did teachers in tradi tional schools. Year-round calendar was also related to Satisfaction with Supervision, Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfac tion with the Work Itself, Satisfaction with Advancement, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. In each of these sub-areas of job satisfaction, a majority of teachers in year-round schools reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. Neither the size of the school nor the geographic location of the school was related to the job satisfaction of teachers. 2. Two student factors (socioeconomic level and transiency rate) were shown to be related significantly to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The socioeconomic level of students was related to Satisfaction with Recognition. Teachers with students of lowest SES reported greatest dissatisfaction. The transiency rate of students was related to Satisfaction with Working Conditions. Teachers in schools with the highest student transiency rates reported greatest dissatisfaction. ' ■ - ' 128 The racial-ethnic background of students was not related to job satisfaction. 3. Three factors related to teachers * personal characteristics (gender, marital status, years of teaching experience) were related significantly to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The gender of teachers was found to be related to Satisfaction with Colleagues. Male teachers reported greatest dissatisfaction. The gender of teachers was also found to be related to Satisfaction with Pay, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. In each of these sub-areas of job satisfaction, a majority of male teachers reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction. The marital status of teachers was related to Satis faction with Supervision. Single teachers who had never been married indicated greatest satisfaction. Single teachers who had been married indicated greatest dissatis faction. The marital status of teachers was related to Satisfaction with Responsibility. The number of years of teaching experience was shown to affect Satisfaction with the Work Itself. Teachers who had the least experience (from one to seven years) reported greatest satisfaction. The number of years of teaching experience was found to be related to Satisfaction with Advancement. Teachers ...... ■ ' 129 who had the least number of years of teaching experience reported greatest satisfaction. The number of years of teaching experience was also related to Satisfaction with Supervision, Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfaction with Working Conditions, Satisfac tion with Pay, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfac tion with Parents. In each of these sub-areas of job satisfaction, a majority of teachers with the least number of years of teaching experience (one to seven years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction. The number of years teachers had taught in their current school was related to Satisfaction with Super vision, Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfaction with Working Conditions, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. A majority of teachers with the least number of years in their current school (one or two years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatis faction. Teachers with the most number of years in their current school (11 or more years) indicated greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in sub-area Satisfaction with Responsibility; all other teachers reported greater dissatisfaction. The majority of teachers with three or more years at their current school site reported greater dissatisfaction than satisfaction in sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions. The majority of teachers with six or more years at their current site reported greater dissatis faction than satisfaction in sub-area Satisfaction with Parents. Neither age nor number of children was shown to affect job satisfaction. Discussion of Findings Teachers who participated in the present study were similar in personal characteristics to teachers described in the study conducted by the National Center of Education in 19 86 (Feistritzer). The average American teacher was reported to be a White married female of 42 years. The average teacher in the present study is a White married female of 43.3 years. Eighty-one percent of Feistritzer*s sample had completed five or more years of college; 91.5 percent of the present sample reported earning a BA/BS plus 3 0 units or higher. Feistritzer reported that 70 percent of all American teachers were union members ; approximately 70 percent of the respondents in the current study indi cated union membership. Results of the 198 6 study showed teachers to be generally satisfied with their jobs (Feistritzer). In the current study teachers reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in six of the ten sub-areas of job satis faction; Supervision, Colleagues, Responsibility, the Work I Itself, Security, and Parents. Respondents commented, "I ' have never had a job that I have enjoyed more. . . . It I is a tremendously rewarding experience." "Teaching is very I i rewarding. Empty cups are filled and in some instances i running over." "The mere joy of seeing a child learn . . i . is beyond all the treasures that the world can offer." "The students really are the ones who ’reward’ the ! teacher." These findings (Satisfaction with the Work Itself, Satisfaction with Colleagues) were consistent with other research which has shown that the psychic or intrinsic rewards (e.g., "joys of teaching," "opportunity to ’reach* students," "watching students learn," etc.) and relation- ' ships with other teachers are the greatest sources of satisfaction for teachers (Feistritzer, 1986; Jackson, I 1968 ; Lortie, 1975; Kottkamp et al., 1986 ; Ferkich & Grassi, 1987). Nationally, teachers indicated they were not paid enough. They also complained of a lack of proper status in the community (Feistritzer, 1986). Teachers in the present study reported dissatisfaction in sub-areas Satisfaction with Pay and Satisfaction with Recognition. "Teachers spend too many years in school preparing for a life-long future in education to realize that several blue I I collar positions pay more money." "Respect is sorely needed from the board and community." "Teachers are --------- ■ " 132 overworked, underpaid, powerless and not respected by the school district, parents, and the general public." The findings in this study show that there were several factors related to school site, students, and teachers* personal characteristics that relate to job satisfaction. The school site factor that most influenced job satisfaction was year-round calendar. Teachers in year-round schools reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in seven sub-areas: Working Conditions, Supervision, Colleagues, Work Itself, Advancement, Recog nition, and Parents. Year-round calendar was implemented in the school district in which this study was conducted as a means to alleviate over-crowding. All of the year-round schools in the study were over-crowded and operate on a multiple-track schedule. Most operated on a four-track 45/15 schedule; i.e., each track was in session for 45 days and then on vacation for 15 days. Everyone had a two-week winter vacation. Because of the over-crowded conditions, the schools could be characterized as having the poorest working conditions, as compared to less-crowded traditional schools. There was a lack of classroom space. All classrooms were continually in use. When one track left for vacation, another track returned. When teachers went on vacation, they packed their belongings as though leaving 13 3 for the summer; their classroom would be used by a "rover" while they were gone. "Rovers" and their students moved every three weeks. The over-crowded condition permeated the school. There were two or three recesses and lunch periods because the playground would not accommodate the large student population. The lack of space caused coordinators, resource teachers, psychologists, and itinerant teaching personnel to work in closets, restrooms, and other improvised "offices." The health office had usually been reduced in size to accommodate other personnel. The staff lunchroom was too small. The staff lounge (if it existed) was too small. The number of staff workrooms and bookrooms was insufficient. Continual use prevented year-round schools from being properly maintained and cleaned. The two-week winter break was the only time during the entire year that the school was without students. It is not possible to clean, repair, and service a large plant in that short time. Conse quently, year-round schools were rarely thoroughly cleaned and serviced. Maintenance and repairs took place while students were present. The seemingly worst part of a year-round school is the fact that the whole staff is never on site at any one time. One quarter of the staff is always on vacation. There is never an opportunity for the entire staff to be ' together for faculty meetings, staff development, inservice I training, or planning. All meetings had to be held twice i to accommodate staff members who were off-track. ^ Despite these apparent negative working conditions, I teachers in year-round schools reported significantly greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in sub-area Satisfaction with Working Conditions. This differs from Sergiovanni's findings that teacher dissatisfaction tends to center on working conditions. These findings also conflict with the 1988 study that reported that poor working conditions in urban schools had dramatic negative effects on teacher job satisfaction (Olson). Teachers in year-round schools also indicated greater satisfaction in six other sub-areas. Recent polls and research reported that teachers were concerned about empowerment; they were eager to participate in decision making ("Here's What," 1986; Moss, 1986; "Teachers Left Out," 1988). A major factor distinguished • teachers at year-round schools from teachers at traditional schools--they were there by choice. When a school was ; converted from traditional to year-round calendar, teachers were given the opportunity to transfer to a traditional : school. Transfers were difficult to obtain in this large school district. Howevery when a teacher wished to move ! from a traditional school, a transfer to a year-round school was the easiest to obtain. A great majority of teachers, if not all teachers, in year-round schools were there because they asked to be assigned there and their request was granted. Another major factor distinguished year-round schools from traditional schools. Vacations were always in sight for at least half the staff members. Every three weeks one quarter of the staff was leaving for vacation and one quarter of the staff was returning from vacation. This ■ helped to create a festive, positive climate. Vacations have always been important to teachers. They offer an opportunity for rest and reflection. They offer an opportunity for teachers to take classes to improve their professional skills. Schon (1983) wrote of ' the importance of reflection and its effect on professional growth. Both Heyns (1988) and Feistritzer (1986) mentioned that teachers consider their vacations an advantage that the profession gives them. Year-round teachers received this advantage every 45 days. The frequent vacation allows teachers to rethink what they presently are doing with their current class. They : do not have to wait until June to take a college class and ; then try to apply it to their new class in September. A 1986 poll ("Here's What") reported that more than 60 , percent of teachers expressed a desire to observe their I colleagues and to have time to learn and grow in their : careers. Year-round calendar allows teachers to observe i : other teachers and talk with other practitioners about their current class. They then can return to that class j ‘ and practice what they have just learned. Teachers in year-round schools also have opportunities to increase their earnings if they wish. They may teach intersession classes. These are classes that were offered to students while they are off-track. Students come to school for two hours each day for two weeks during their vacation. Classes can be remedial or enrichment, depending on the school. Off-track teachers can also work as ; substitute teachers at their own school or in other schools. This not only gives them an opportunity for extra earnings, but an opportunity to see other classrooms and to work with teachers in other schools. The positive climate created at the year-round schools permeated the school environment. Teachers reported greater satisfaction with supervision, although there were no apparent differences from supervision in traditional schools. However, all year-round schools had more than one administrator on site because of the large student popula tion. Teachers in year-round schools reported greater satisfaction with their colleagues. They shared something extra with their colleagues that was not shared by teachers in traditional schools— they all were there because they ‘ wanted to be. Also, at any one time one third of the teachers present had just returned from vacation and one third was about to leave. This "vacation spirit" caused teachers to feel positive and less stressful and helped to develop a feeling of camaraderie. Teachers in year-round schools reported greater satisfaction with the work itself. They had an opportunity every 45 days to reflect on the work they had just com pleted and to evaluate their progress. They could consult with and observe colleagues, take classes, and read professional journals before they planned for the next 45 days. They did not have to feel the weight of "getting through the year" when working with a difficult class. They always knew they soon would have three weeks in which to plan and "regroup." Teachers in year-round schools reported greater I satisfaction with advancement and with recognition. The fact that teachers asked for their current assignment and their requests were granted may explain this. They may conclude that if a teacher's request in a very large district is acknowledged, the opportunity for advancement exists also. The personal characteristic of teachers that was found to influence job satisfaction most was years of teaching experience. Teachers with the least number of years of experience (from one to seven years) reported greater Ï satisfaction than dissatisfaction in eight sub-areas : the - 138 Work Itself, Advancement, Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Recognition, and Parents. The number of years teachers had taught at their current school also was found to be a positive influence on job satisfaction. Again, the teachers with the least number of years at their current school (one or two years) reported greater satisfaction than dissatisfaction in five sub-areas : Supervision, Colleagues,. Working Conditions, Recognition, and Parents. Several factors help to explain the apparent greater job satisfaction of newer teachers. They are usually working in the school and for the administrator of their choice. When they came to the district, they interviewed with different administrators at several schools and selected where they wanted to work. Teachers who had worked at a school site for a long period of time have seen administrations change and usually are not working for the administrator they selected. McLaughlin et al. (1986), reported that new teachers were often given difficult assignments and were asked to teach courses for which they had little training. The findings in the present study indicate that new teachers were getting the support they needed. This also differs from the findings of Ferkich and Grassi (1987) and Haskvitz (1987). New teachers receive recognition and have inter action with their colleagues through the help and support ----- -- - - 139 of mentor teachers, "buddy" teachers, school resource personnel, district resource personnel, and administrators. They are praised for their successes and coached to improve their weaknesses. Newer teachers usually are enrolled in university courses to upgrade their skills. They are stimulated by current research and are able to put what they learn into practice in their classrooms. Teachers who were new reported greater satisfaction with pay. As new teachers, they were previously students and were employed part-time or not at all. Newer teachers were still getting raises. Not only did they receive an annual^raise, it was in their power to increase that raise by taking university classes. These raises were not available to experienced teachers who had reached the top of the salary schedule and took a maximum of university courses early in their careers. Teachers with the greatest number of years of exper ience reported greatest dissatisfaction. This dissatisfac tion may be the result of cynicism. They entered the profession with high ideals and plans to change or improve society. They found their efforts thwarted over time; blocked goals may have caused them to become cynical. Male teachers were the most dissatisfied. They reported significantly greater dissatisfaction in the sub- area Satisfaction with Colleagues. Men represented only 18 percent of the teachers in the present study. They were - ' — — - - ' - — — ” ^ working in schools where there were very few men on staff and consequently did not have many other males with whom to talk. Male teachers also reported greater dissatisfac tion in sub-areas Pay, Recognition, and Parents, A possible explanation for dissatisfaction with pay and recognition could be tied to the reasons male teachers entered the teaching profession. If they came into teaching with the goal of becoming an administrator and thereby gaining more recognition and remuneration and have not achieved that goal, they would be dissatisfied teachers. More needs to be known about male teachers * motives for entering the teaching profession before reasons for their dissatisfaction can be discussed. The implications of these findings are discussed in the following chapter. 141 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter includes a brief summary of study, selected findings, conclusions based on the findings, and recommendations. Summary The purposes of this study were to determine the I factors that contribute to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of urban classroom teachers with their jobs and to propose policy changes at the school site and in district policy that would contribute to the retention of teachers in the teaching profession. Ten sub-areas of job satisfac tion were identified; Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay, Responsibility, Work Itself, Advancement, ' Security, Recognition, and Parents. The problem that gave impetus to the study was identified in Chapter I. There has been a significant decline nationwide in the number of people choosing to : enter the teaching profession. Opportunities in other ' professions are keeping many bright women and minorities L --------- 142 from entering teaching. Moreover, national studies indicate that many of the brightest teachers leave the i profession after teaching only a few years. Teacher shortages are already being experienced by large urban school districts. The biggest problem in education today is how to attract, train, and retain qualified teachers for tomorrow*s classrooms. A review of the literature was presented in Chapter II. The review contained information from research in selected areas relevant to the satisfaction and dissatis faction of classroom teachers. The chapter was organized to present theories of motivation and behavior, an overview of job satisfaction in the workplace, demographic informa- . tion about teachers, a general profile of teachers, a . discussion of teacher satisfaction and dissatisfaction, a discussion on the importance of teachers, and a summary of the literature review. Much of the recent research ! supports the motivation-hygiene theory of Herzberg which identifies factors that contribute to job satisfaction and those that contribute to job dissatisfaction as two ; separate sets. According to the literature review, achievement, recognition, responsibility, and social prestige repeatedly ; appear as satisfiers to teachers. Their greatest satisfac- ; tions come from the opportunities they have to interact I with their students and with their colleagues. The ^ 143 bureaucratic organization, lack of empowerment, unclear policies, lack of recognition, and excessive paperwork are viewed as major causes of teachers* dissatisfaction. Research methods and procedures for this study were described in Chapter III. Included were the research design, the selection of the subjects, the survey instru ment, field procedures, data collection, and a description of the data analysis. The data were collected through a survey that was sent to a stratified random sample of 600 classroom teachers in 100 elementary schools in one large urban school district. Responses were received from 34 0 participants, providing 313 usable returns. The methods used in analyzing data were descriptive in nature and utilized computer programs from SPSS. Chapter IV contained the data provided by the sample, the analysis of the data, and a summary of the findings. Sections on the characteristics of the sample and characteristics of the schools were also included. Selected Findings The following selected findings relate to the research questions; The size of a school and the geographic location of a school did not have a significant effect on teachers* satisfaction with their jobs. — — ' 144 Teachers of kindergarten through third grades were more satisfied than teachers of fourth through sixth grades in sub-areas Satisfaction with Parents, Satisfaction with Supervision, and Satisfaction with Colleagues. Teachers from year-round schools were more satisfied than teachers from traditional schools in sub-areas Satisfaction with Working Conditions, Satisfaction with Supervision, Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfaction with the Work Itself, Satisfaction with Advancement, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. Teachers of students of the lowest socioeconomic levels were more dissatisfied in the sub-area Satisfaction with Recognition than were teachers of students of the highest socioeconomic levels. Male teachers were more dissatisfied than female teachers in the sub-areas Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfaction with Pay, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. Teachers with the least number of years of exper ience (one to seven years) were the most satisfied in the sub-areas Satisfaction with the Work Itself, Satisfaction with Colleagues, Satisfaction with Working Conditions, Satisfaction with Pay, Satisfaction with Responsibility, Satisfaction with the Work Itself, Satisfaction with Recognition, and Satisfaction with Parents. 145 Conclusions \ The following conclusions were supported by the : findings obtained in this study: I Year-round calendar is the school-related factor I that has the most effect on the job satisfaction of teachers. Despite working in over-crowded schools that often are poorly maintained, teachers in year-round schools are more satisfied with their jobs than teachers in traditional schools. This finding differs from a 1988 study that reports the deleterious effects of poor working conditions on teacher satisfaction. The fact that teachers in year-round schools are there by their own choice gives them a sense of empowerment and control, factors that are important to them (Chase, 1985; "Here's What," 1986; Moss, 198 6) . Frequent vacations contribute to the job satisfac- , tion of year-round teachers by giving them time to rejuven ate and reflect and allowing time for professional growth. Schon (1983), Heyns (1988) , and Feistritzer (1986) dis cussed the positive effects of time off for vacations and ! reflection. Low socioeconomic status and high transiency rate are the student-related factors that have the most negative effect on the job satisfaction of teachers. Teachers of I j students with the lowest SES are more dissatisfied than I teachers of students with higher SES. Teachers in schools ----------------- - . - - . 146 I I with high transiency rates are more dissatisfied than their colleagues in schools with low student transiency rates. I Years of experience is the personal characteristic that has the most effect on teacher satisfaction. Teach- 1 ers with the least number of years of teaching experience ■ and teachers with the least number of years at their current school are the most satisfied. Newer teachers are ; working for the administrator and at the school of their own choice. This gives them a sense of control over their own fate, a factor that contributes to teacher satisfaction (Chase, 1985; "Here's What," 1986; Moss, 1986). Teachers became dissatisfied after teaching seven years. This dissatisfaction may be what causes them to leave the profession. Male teachers are more dissatisfied than female teachers. The fact that they teach in schools with few or no other male teachers gives them no male colleagues with , whom to converse and creates a feeling of isolation. Recommendations Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are made: School district administrators and school site administrators should be made aware of this study to I increase their knowledge of teacher job satisfaction and I dissatisfaction so that they can use this knowledge as they r * 147 develop new policies to make the school a workplace that promotes satisfaction and effectiveness. School district administrators should identify conditions at year-round schools that promote the greater satisfaction of teachers and explore ways to create the same or similar conditions for teachers in all schools. Teachers working in year-round schools reported Satisfac tion with Working Conditions, Supervision, Colleagues, and Advancement, These are all hygiene factors according to Herzberg, These same teachers also reported Satisfaction with Recognition and the Work Itself, which are motivating I factors, according to Herzberg, Hygiene factors, when satisfied, serve to prevent job dissatisfaction and motivators serve to motivate people to superior performance (Herzberg, 1959), School district administrators and school site administrators should identify reasons why teachers with fewer years of service are more satisfied than teachers I with the most experience. The least experienced teachers were the most satisfied with Supervision, Colleagues, Working Conditions, Pay (hygiene factors) and with the Work Itself (motivator), Satisfaction of both the hygiene and motivating factors enhances both the ability and the productivity of individuals (Herzberg, 1959), : School site administrators should give more recog- I nition to experienced teachers. These teachers can be a 148 great resource at the school site. School administrators ; need to discover the strengths and talents of experienced ' teachers and then utilize them to present staff development and parent education classes, to work with new teachers, and in other leadership roles. School district administrators need to give more support to teachers in schools with students of low SES and high transiency rates. These teachers, working with at-risk students in the most difficult conditions, have low levels of satisfaction with working conditions. They ; must have clean, well-maintained schools. They must have materials and supplies. Support services must be available to these teachers so they can devote their time to teach ing. School district administrators should develop policies that provide teachers with more opportunities to transfer so that they can work in schools of their selec tion with administrators of their choice. School site administrators must increase their effectiveness in giving recognition to teachers by acknowledging their good work, by utilizing them in leadership roles, by including them in dec is ion-making, and by encouraging their professional growth. They should use informal techniques on a regular basis to learn about teachers* concerns, satisfactions, and dissatisfactions. School site administrators should investigate ways i I to make teaching more satisfying for men. The majority of 1 urban students come from single parent homes and need ' positive male role models. ' Follow-up studies should be conducted in year-round ; schools, including single-track year-round schools, to learn more about the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Follow-up studies should be conducted in ! other school districts with different student populations to learn more about the job satisfaction and dissatisfac- ' tion of teachers. Does job satisfaction really count? Future research should include a study that investigates whether teachers who are satisfied with their jobs are more effective than , teachers who are not. The effectiveness of dissatisfied teachers should be examined. It is important to know what effect these teachers have on students and if, perhaps, they should be encouraged to leave. The policy implica- - tions of encouraging dissatisfied teachers to abandon the : profession should also be probed. I A study of teachers who left teaching should be conducted to learn more about why they left the profession. 1___ 150 REFERENCE LIST 151 REFERENCE LIST Alpander, G. G. (1985). Factors influencing hospital employee motivation: A diagnostic instrument. Hospital & Health Services Administration, 302, 67-83. Babbie, E. (1983). The practice of social research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1986, September/October). Future teachers : Will there be enough good ones? Change, pp. 27-3 0. Chapman, D. W. (1983). Career satisfaction of teach ers. Educational Research Ouarterlv, 7(3) , 40-50. Chapman, D. W., & Lowther, M. A. (1982). Teachers* satisfaction with teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 241-247. Chase, C. I. (1985). Two thousand teachers view their profession. Journal of Educational Research, 79.(1) / 12-18. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equalitv of educational opportunity (Catalog number FS 5.238:38001, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Commons, D. (1985, November). Who will teach our children?: A strategy for improving California*s schools. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on the Teaching Profession. Dariing-Hammond, L. (1984, July). Beyond the commission reports: The coming crisis in teaching (R-3177-RC). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Davis, J. (1954). Great aspirations. Chicago: Aldine. Davis, J. B. (1985, December/January) Those who choose to teach: Obtaining a local profile. The High School Journal, pp. 65-69. Davis, K. (1967). Human relations at work: The dynamics of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Declining interest in teaching found. (1983, January 23), Newsdav, p. 14. Eiber, S. (1987, September 4). Teachers affirm it * s always nice to feel needed. Star News. p. A-3. Ethnic survey report (1987, fall) (Publications No. 102). Los Angeles: Information Services Division, Los Angeles Unified School District. Faxen, K. O., & Hansson, R. (1975). Research on self- developing forms of organization. In L. E. Davis, A. B. Cherns & Associates (Eds.), The quality of working life (Vol. 1). New York: The Free Press. Feistritzer, C. E. (1983). The condition of teaching. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Feistritzer, C. E. (1986). Profile of teachers in the U.S. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Information. Ferkich, E., & Grassi, F. (1987). Teacher morale project. Thrust. 17(1), 26-28. Foyer, F. W. (19 64). An evaluation of level of aspira tion as a training procedure. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guide to schools and offices. (1986, February). Los Angeles: Los Angeles Unified School District. Haskvitz, A. (1987). Profile of dropout teachers. Thrust. 17(1), 24. Here's what you care about most 1 (1986, May). Instructor, pp. 30-32. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of organizational behavior (4th ed.). NJ: Prentice- Hall. Herzberg, F. (1968). The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower. In D. R. Hampton (Ed.), Behavioral concepts in management. Belmont, CA: Dickerson Publishing. — 153 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd éd.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Heyns, B. (1988, April). Educational defectors: A first look at teacher attrition in the NLS-72. Educational Researcher, pp. 24-32. Holland, J. I. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theorv of careers. NJ: Prentice Hall. Hopper, P. (1988, May 5). Los Angeles Unified School District inter-office correspondence. Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Jennings, L. (1988). In teacher poll, minorities show signs of distress. Education Week. ^(5), 1,23. Kottkemp, R. B., Provenzo, E. F., Jr., & Cohn, M. M. (1986). Stability and change in a profession: Two decades of teacher attitudes, 1964-1984. Phi Delta Kappan. ^(8), 559-567. Lester, P. E. (1982). Teacher job satisfaction ques tionnaire. Brookville, NY: Long Island University. Lester, P. E. (1987). Development and factor analysis of the teacher job satisfaction questionnaire (TJSQ). Education and Psvchological Measurement, p. 47. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theorv in social science. New York: Harper & Brothers. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row. McClelland, D. W. (1964). Thinking ahead. Harvard Business Review. 42.(6) , 65. McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. McLaughlin, M. W., Pfeifer, R. S., Swanson-Owens, D., & Yee, S. (1986). Why teachers won't teach. Phi Delta Kappan. ^(6) , 420-426. I I 154 McTeer, W. (1972). The scope of motivation. Belmont, CA: Brooks Publishing. Morse, N. C. (1953). Satisfactions in the white collar job. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Moss, J. K. (1986, October). Teaching in America. Learning, pp. 66-68. Myers, S. M. (19 64). Who are your motivated workers? Harvard Business Review. 42.(1) , 85. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983, April). A nation at risk; The imperative for educa tional reform (Report number 065-000-00177-2). Wash ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. NEA Research. (1982). Status of the American public school teacher 1980-81. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. H. (1975). Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed). New York: McGraw- Hill. Norris, B. (1985a, January 11) Sun seekers add to the shortage problems. Times Educational Supplement. 3576. 14. Norris, B. (1985b, March 15). Trend reverses to open up more jobs. Times Educational Supplement. 3585. 15. Olson, L. (1988). Education Week. 8(4), 1;21 Pike, D. W., & Weisbender, L. (1988, October). Transiency and stabilitv in Los Angeles Unified School District. 1987-88 (Publication No. 526). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District. Plisko, V. W., & Stern, J. D. (Eds.). (1985). The con dition of education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values. New York: The Free Press. Schackmuth, T. G. (1979). Creating job satisfaction in a static teacher market. The Clearing House. 52. 229-232. — ' 155 Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1969). Factors which affect satis faction and dissatisfaction of teachers. In F. D. Carver & T. J. Sergiovanni, Organizations and human behavior: Focus on schools. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shreeve, W., Goetter, W. G., Norby, J. R., Griffith, G. R., Stueckle, A. F., de Michele, B., & Midgley, T. K. (1986). Job satisfaction: The role of staff recog nition. Earlv Child Development and Care. 24. 83-90. Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan. Smith, S. (1983, March). Improving the attractiveness of the K-12 teaching profession. Sacramento, CA: California Roundtable on Educational Opportunity. Stimbert, E. C. (1970). The effect of personnel poli cies on the holding power of teaching. In T. M. Stinnett (Ed.), The teacher dropout. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock. Sweeney, J. (1981). Teacher dissatisfaction on the rise: Higher level needs unfulfilled. Education. 102. 203-207. Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986, May). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st centurv. New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. Teacher positions fill early this year; recruiters reach goal of 1,600 contracts. Spotlight. 8(1). (Los Angeles Unified School District Publication.) Teachers left out of vital decisions, survey finds. (1988). EDCAL. 16(10), 2. Teaching: Making it an effective and attractive pro fession. (1985, February). Sacramento, CA: California Roundtable. U.S. Department of Education. (1983). The condition of education. Washington, DC: Department of Educa tion. Waters, E. K. (1978). Human relations for the educa tional environment. Washington, DC: University Press of America. 156 Watts, G. D. (198 6). And let the air out of the volleyballs. Phi Delta Kappan. ^(10), 723-724. Williams, R. T. (1978). Application of research: Teacher motivation and satisfaction. National Asso ciation of Secondarv School Principals Bulletin. 62, 89-94. Witte, J. F., & Backus, J. M. (1985, October 21). Metropolitan Milwaukee teacher and principal survevs. report one: Metropolitan-wide results (Staff report to the Study Commission on the Quality of Education in the Metropolitan Milwaukee Public Schools). Milwaukee, WI. Milwaukee Public Schools. Wolfle, D. (1954). America's resources of specialized talent. New York: Harper. Woo, E. (1986, July 14). Recruitment center seeks to fill 2,600 teacher jobs. Los Angeles Times. Part II, p. 1. 157 APPENDIXES U - . 158 APPENDIX A LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TEACHER JOB SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Including frequency distribution and statements added by investigator— items 67-75) PERSONAL DATA FORM • 159 T 9 T A l \ m C.W . POST C a m p u s b r o o k v îl l e , n e w y o r k 1154s T School of Education, Department of Educationai Leadership T | ] n I\/p!.Ix T I l y ^ ^ and Administration (516) 2 99-2244 January 26, 1388 Ms. Anne Elder Principal Ann Street School 126 East Bloom Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Dear Ms, Elder: Thank you very much for your interest in the Teacher Job Satisfaction Questionnaire that I developed and validated As per your telephone conversation of January 26, 1988, I am pleased to send you a copy of the manual of the TJSQ. You have my written permission to duplicate the TJSQ for use in your doctoral study. If Î may be of any assistance to you, please feel free to contact me. Best of luck with your study and I would greatly appreciate a copy of your study when it is completed, Sincerely, f o u j J j x j ^ Paula E.' Lester, Ph.D, (W % 3 % M m co 3 co 160 ■ s i S i I . &> g -P p f i i iî lin a l *\-p o g w 4 - > ! Î f l ^ w (W o L I I P 8 as S m I I U ] n l î K CN I II l' m n CN r d m c o m C M t d 0 B § ; l | 1 1 c o vo c o m i r > O C M c y > c o I — 1 o m l O C O C O r H c o C M r H C O C M C M C M C M C M C O C M m '5 f V O r H 1 — 1 r 4 C M C D r H C O -H % I I 3 % 3 % M en en en S en en 3 en 161 n I —I en i f > co in in co C M in in C M I T ) CO L O in vo I — I m a\ m en C M o\ en en r —t CO CO o C M CO CO " v f en co vo en a\ vô en O cô en 5 CO 00 en en O m en I —1 C M CM l f > M CO C M en o\ C M 5 C M en C M C M a\ C M C M C M VO C M C M C M CO C M a\ C M r>- vô CO en H en C M vô ë I t r > a s f 0 1 ü 8 M -P n m § s 8 i (d 4- 1 • i •S M M +J t i II H C VO H t H t s? a\ H t o I —I CO I —I CO a CO CO I —I CO CO I —I CO % o I —I CO 162 CO I —I CO in in in • in in C M in vo in in in C M CO in vo vo ■ s j * CO CO a\ CO C M vo CO in 00 vo CO r — I CO in CO C M C M CO a\ CO C M CO CO C M CO I —I C M CO CO CO o\ CO CO CO C M in C M a\ o C M C M a\ C 3 % C M CO CO C M CO C M a\ C M C M CO a\ CO CO o\ o VO CO CO C M vo B a I I I 0 m a s s I Ot I I % I I H L -sa l l n 5-3 8 . a i g » I s I I C M CO in vo I —I ■ K 3 fO C M CO _ O _ CM _ CO rH % I % r-l % rH CO CO CO CO o I —I CO 163 in vo in in vo C O in in . in CO I —I C O in C O I —I in in CO vo C M in rH - M * O i n cn ' 5 j * rH in ' 5 j * VO CO ' d * CO I —I CO CO o V O CO in vo • CO • < y \ CO s CO C M 3 CO vo CO in C M C M CO CO C M C M C M C M C M a\ C M CO C M in C M C M CO C M VO a in C M vo rH O O O I —I C M VO C M C M 00 I i, •H Q '8 B Î I I .1 Î f d a Î B m 8 ■g I ■ ■ a 1 I I CO c n o C M C M H e C M C M CO S ? r ' a co 3 co rH I—I CO a co 3 co a co a co 164 i r > o i r > C M in C M i r > vo co vo i r > • in o i r > LO co l O vo C M l O en CD C M : : : en rH en en co co i n co co co o i n en l O co co vo en co en a co co 3 vo co • co 00 co en en co en a C M 00 C M C M r - o ô C M co C M C M 00 C M r - oô C M C M en co I— I I— I • rH • I— I • rH 00 in 00 CM 00 CO i n co vo rH I 1 8 y I ï I I ; - a g . I l €-8 CD S? f O CO I —I CO 3 CO 165 in c ^ in in in VO in in o v in m in VO VO CO ( N I —I CO CO CO in C N J CO V O c a CO in V O C N J CO VO CO CO in CO CO VO CO O V in e g 0 3 o 0 3 o v rH CO C N J CO 0 3 CO c n 0 3 a\ CO 0 3 in C N J CO o in CO CD c n CO e g 0 0 VO S B I | î I I I i H . I . g 'd e g CO CO CO CO in CO ■ K - S i •S ti s'l M VO CO I I |l ^0 O - CO ■ K - • g I » s « s H % M % M ro ro n r o H n 166 l O vo vo m v ô i n r o i n CD CM CM i r > r o i n C T » o CM m C M r o r o vo CM O in c o C M L O V O I —I l O CD O VO m CD m c o C M r o vo C M c o CD r o c o CD l Ô c o o G V r o I —I C M C M ro C M vo G V C M G V G V ro C M • C M G V C M ro o C M CD T f ro vo CD vô o H CD ro o GV ro CM I I •§ H CD ro I I a I t ■0ÿ H M ' S i ' » U) g t •S3 a ■S I 2* -H I CO % g CO % M CO s CO a ro 3 CO 3 ro 167 in 0 0 a\ in in C M C M in CO in a\ CO in a\ C M in C M C M in ro O N C M ro in ro vo C M CO C M in C D C M CO O ' ro ro o C 3 V ro ro ro CO r— I C M ro ro o rH ro ro C M o * C M ro 0 0 CO ro C M CO C M C M C M C M V O C 3 V C M a\ C M ro ro C M C M V O ro C M ro vo vo C M ro C D vo CO r ' * CO ' e y a I . a I < 0 o ' ë Q ) I - r 4 I si I Î H I •I H c O S I ■ 8 I i n -SI- vo ? CO ? i n CO rH CO I —I CO 3 H CO I —I CO H CO a CO 168 in m s in vo in C M C M in in in CO C M in V O in C M in C M CO CO V O s o rH ' î J * in CO in C M S CO o \ iH CO C M C M C M CO a\ • CO in rH C M CO CO CO ro C M C M vo rH C M V O a\ C M vo C M in rH C M C M C M in ro C M o o in ro ro C D vo vo o o CO a\ ro CO O I & I U I H 8 ■ K I a s u i n U * 1 -S ■ B S ' I 0 ) 0 ) n o H Î -a 0 ) ■S I in ■ K 0 1 t o 9) f d P s ■ • a I I — I C O C O C O rH C O 3 CO 169 I f ) C O in r " CO , n g in O) 3 in ' = 5 * ' = 5 * in CO O ) in o C M C O vo O V o v CO O o v vo C M CM ' 5 j * C O in a\ C M C O CO C O C M C O C O C O vo C M C O in C O in C M I —I C O C M I —I in C M OV C M C M 3 C M C O C M C M C M C M in C O rH I —I VO vo C M C O C O d ifl I 4H I s I a II I I &» I t I i, M O a I I g % ! ___ r4 VO s s ■ K s 3 e n e n g e n 170 00 i T) • in e n C M c\ e n in in in en m o v e n C M in c\ vo n 0 0 V O d in ov vo o ( O ov e n o n n m C M en r — I in en C M o C M en 00 in C M n o e n C M o v C M C M e n C M C M 00 e n C M c r » e n C M o C M OV d o v m c r » o v 0 0 in o v H* B <ü e n I M S . a' c d Q 0 ) g g P i 8^_aj I lit a ■s I I § ■K V O O 3 CO 3 CO CO I —I CO 3 CO 11 in vo ov in in 00 in I —I CM in CO in CO CO CM N d * CO CO N d * G\ CO N d * vo CO N d * CO a N d * CO CO CO CO CM CO CO CO CM CO rH iH CM CO cn VO CM CO CO CM CM a CM as d rH CM CO rH CM CO in CM CM CO CO CO CO CM CO CM rH • a A Ü I I 8 0 I I M M a % I I I a CM CO ST in 172 I PERSONAL DATA FORM Sex: Male Female Age: I j Marital Status: ' Single____Married____Separated____Divorced Widowed____ ■ Race/Ethnicity (optional): White Black Asian Hispanic/Latino Native American Other (Specify)_____ Children: Number Ages______________________ Do you have to arrange child care:__Yes___No Education: Highest academic degree obtained: BA/BS BA/BS + 3 0____ MA/MS____ MA/MS + 30 MA/MS + 60____ Doctorate____ Other (Specify) Was your undergraduate education effective prepara tion for teaching? Yes No____ Was your graduate education effective preparation for teaching? Yes No____ Teaching Experience: Total number of years teaching____ Number of years teaching in school district Number of years teaching in current school Grade level you are currently teaching_____ Was your request considered when this grade level assignment was made? Yes No____ Number of students in your class____ Do you teach in a bilingual classroom? Yes No Union Affiliation: Member Non-member 173: APPENDIX B COVER LETTER INFORMED CONSENT DECLARATION FOLLOW-UP LETTER 174 ÜJSANGELES UN.FIEDSCHOOLDictiuct Leonard Britton Smptrimnmé^m «/ Ann Street Elementary School 126 E a s t Bl o o m St r e e t . L o : e l e p h o n e:{2 1 3 ) 221-3194 ANNE ELDER 126 E a s t Bl o o m St r e e t . L os A n g e l e s. C a l if o r n ia 9 0 0 12 /w-o»»/ Mav 10, 1988 Dear Teacher, The United States is facing a serious teacher shortage. Fewer people are entering the teaching profession and many teachers who are currently teaching are expressing a desire to leave- The Commons Report states that the biggest issue in education today is how to attract and retain qualified teachers for tomorrow's classrooms. You have been randomly selected to participate in a study of 600 teachers in Los Angeles Unified School District. The study is being conducted in conjunction with Dr. Paul M. Possemato and the District's Policy Implementation Unit. The purpose of the study is to determine the factors that contribute to teachers' satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their jobs in an effort to aid in attracting and retaining teachers. I realize you are extremely busy, but hope that you will take time to complete the enclosed survey. Information gained from this study will be utilized by the District and in my doctoral dissertation. Your anonymity, of course, is absolutely guaranteed. If you wish to receive a copy of the results of the study, complete the enclosed address label and return it with the Informed Consent Declaration form or under separate cover. When you have completed the questionnaire, please seal it in the enclosed envelope and return it to me. Your assistance and cooperation are greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Si ncerely, Anne Elder 175 INFORMED CONSENT DECLARATION The attached packet includes a questionnaire that will assess your attitudes, feelings, and thoughts about your job as a teacher. By participating, you will become a part of a study that, is examining how satisfied teachers are with their jobs in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Some of the items on the questionnaire may make you feel uncomfortable since they deal with feelings and attitudes. If these feelings make it impossible for you to complete the questionnaire, you may withdraw from participation at any time. All information in this questionnaire packet will be kept strictly confidential. Please do not write your name on any page other than this page. This page will be destroyed and replaced by a numbered identification page. Information contained in the Personal Data Form will also be treated confidentially and results will be reported only for groups of teachers, not for indi vi duals. If you have any questions you may contact me, Anne Elder, at (213) 221-3194 during the day or at (818) 791-1472 in the evening. I have read the above and understand it fully. By signing below I agree to participate in this study, although I realize that I may withdraw my participation at any time. Signature Date Dear Teacher: You may return this form to me in the attached envelope. If you wish to receive a copy of the results of the study, you may complete the enclosed address label and send it along with this form. Thank you. 176 Los ANGELES Umifieo SCHOOL District Leonard Britton Ann Street Elementary School a n n e e l d e r 126 E a s t B loom S tr e e t. Los A n g e le s . C a lif o r n ia 90012 SPHONE; (2 1 3 ) 2 21 -3 19 4 May 31, 1988 Dear Colleague, You recently received a questionnaire in the school mail. This questionnaire was designed to gather information concerning teachers' satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their jobs. Your attitudes and your opinions about your job deserve the attention of the District. If you have already returned the questionnaire, many thanks. Your contribution will be of great help in the study of teacher job satisfaction I am conducting in conjunction with the District's Policy Implementation Unit. If you have not responded, may I ask again for your help? Your participation is needed to make this study complete. PI ease take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to respond to the questionnaire and return it to me. This is a confidential study; your anonymity is assured. If you have misplaced your copy, you may call me during the day at <213> 221—3194 or at (818) 791-1472 in the evening to request another copy. The value received from future use of the data you provide will justify the time you spend responding to the survey. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, Anns Elder 177 APPENDIX C COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS 178 RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS Comments regarding the survey: 1. I feel honored to be part of this. 2. Thank you for allowing me to contribute my feelings. 3. It is very refreshing to see that anyone really considers the attitudes of classroom teachers to be of real importance. Often we see and hear the teacher being blamed for all of society's failures I Thanks for caring! 4. I hope my answers will help! Thank you for sending this study. I enjoyed it! 5. Many questions seem to have been reworded but are asking [for] the same information. 6. Many of your questions are repetitious. 7. Why so many repetitive questions? 8. Several questions were repeated. This questionnaire in no way delves into the reason why teachers are dis satisfied. 9. I was very happy to take part in this survey. However, the real question was not asked: Why are teach ers leaving the profession? (Discipline and professional advancement.) 10. Questions needed regarding lack of respect exhibited by some parents toward teachers. 11. In view of results of more comprehensive surveys, yours is not focusing on major issues of job satisfaction, such as: 1) class size (California largest in nation), 2) ' parent disinterest and uninvolvement, 3) student discipline (or lack of it), 4) bilingual programs (how they are not serving the needs of minority students— experience many places shows immersion and other methods work), 5) use of aides as teachers (a disaster), etc., etc., etc., 6) needless paperwork, 7) year-round schools. Your survey ' vaguely covers salary, job security, working conditions, ' colleagues, skills, professional advancement, respect. ’ Asking the same non-important question 5 different ways may lead to your doctorate, but is not hitting the real I discontent rampant throughout the "profession." — --- 1V9 12. I do want to participate in your study; however, your questions are so framed that there is an assumption on your part that the problem with teaching lies with the school site or with salaries. 13. Some of these questions are very similar, why? ! What's the use of these questions? Are they really going to improve the working environment and conditions? 14. I do not appreciate answering the same questions over and over again. 15. This is like the Minnesota Multiphasic (sp?) test - with the same question rephrased - over and over to check our honest (evaluation) feelings 1 16. I do not feel that my highest academic degree obtained is necessarily pertinent to this survey. 17. Your questions do not reflect on the problems of teaching today - excessive paperwork, demands of teaching too many subjects, district and state mandates with no money or supplies to back them. 18. Problems [of teachers in year-round schools] are not reflected in your questions and directly relate to my teaching job. Positive comments: Supervision 1. As a teacher near retirement, I am glad that [the principal] was appointed here before I leave the profes sion! ! She really tries and succeeds at maintaining high morale compared to some other schools that I have taught [in] . 2. Previous years and principals were all beautiful and challenging and rewarding. Previous principals have all been knowledgeable men and women. I enjoyed every minute of them. Working Conditions 1. Conditions are improving. Work Itself 1. I have never had a job that I have enjoyed more. The pay is terrible as sole support of three children, but otherwise it is a tremendously rewarding experience. — - - ' - 180 2. I really enjoy what I do in the classroom. I teach to a theme and incorporate skills into these units. The kids and I have a lot of fun. 3. Teaching is a pleasure for me. I love to teach children, and see the growth in their abilities from year to year. I am a mentor teacher in my school and enjoy helping new teachers. Giving them a friendly teacher to come to when there is a need. 4. On a good day teaching is a great experience. On a very bad day it's murder! 5. I really enjoy my job and students. The pay isn't great but it's ok. I plan to stay in the system. It's been good to me. 6. . . . teaching has enabled me to spend my entire summer with [relatives in Europe} plus I have traveled to over 13 0 countries due to two full sabbaticals and the time I have in summer. . . . I am at the top of the salary scale due to my own effort. If I did not have a teaching job I could not have had the opportunity to do the above. In spite ' of all of the problems or frustrations associated with this or any job, I would choose this form of profession again. 7. I feel fortunate to have taught long enough to now be at a pleasant school, close to my home, with children and ; parents who work with the teacher. I also feel that I did , not become a teacher to make money— I enjoy my summer ; vacations and the opportunity to travel with my family. I look forward to new experiences each day. I 8. Teaching is very rewarding. Empty cups are filled and in some instances running over when a student returns to share the accomplishments made. Whenever I stop enjoying this job as a teacher, I will retire. 9. Even [though] salary and problems with discipline are ; constant thorns, I am still committed to children and to the processes involved in teaching and learning. 10. Teaching is a profession in which many abilities can be incorporated. In spite of the present state of the system, I hold faith that it will progress past mediocrity. : 11. Teaching is fun and provides opportunities for I creativity. The students really are the ones who "reward" I the teacher. We are paid for 6-1/2 hours a day but in ' actuality we work from 7-8 hours a day plus 2-5 hours on a weekend in preparation. ^ , - — . — — - - - - - - - - —- - - 12. Teaching is a very stressful and demanding job. Although there are no monthly rewards in this profession, the mere joy of seeing a child learn a new word, solve a problem, develop a positive image, etc., is beyond all the treasures that the world can offer. 13. I feel fulfilled being a teacher. It's hard work and very challenging. I have been very fortunate to be hired in my school. There's a good and friendly atmosphere within the faculty and with the administrators. I like them and they like me too. The neighborhood could be worse but we have wonderful families and the children are smart and beautiful. 14. I enjoy being a teacher. To me it is a fringe benefit to be paid. Pay could be better because I resent jobs that have no college requirement paying more than teachers get! 15. I have thoroughly enjoyed my teaching career and have high praise for [the school district]. 16. I enjoy teaching very much. I did, however, consider leaving this profession because of the low salary. I changed my mind. I knew I wouldn't enjoy any other job as much as I enjoy teaching. 17. I enjoy teaching. However, I do not need to work financially and when I no longer enjoy what I'm doing I will leave. I have no aspirations to leave the classroom for administrative work. I feel I'm most effective with the students. My satisfaction in "recognition" for my successful teaching comes from the growth emotionally and academically that my students make. Negative comments: Supervision 1. Our particular principal tends not to treat teachers as professionals or to fully involve us in planning for the school. 2. I don't have an immediate supervisor, but a mentor teacher. We need better administrator and office people who can be sensitive to teachers' problems, but they only want us teachers to beg for their help. It's disgusting ! No wonder they're leaving early. It's not just the kids, it's the help we don't get. 3. Our administrator is new to us this year. He con sistently plays favorites, not taking into effect exper tise, seniority, or any other factors. He says he will back us up, but then doesn't. If aides, TAs, or parents complain— we are wrong! He has a large tendency to say he'll do something and when we are out of sight, he "forgets." 4. The Principal sets the tone at each school site. An administrator needs to be sensitive and receptive to the needs of his colleagues. Unfortunately the receptiveness and sensitivity varies from site to site. In some situa tions a strong cohesive staff can offset an incompetent administrator, but this is the exception instead of the rule. Most faculties caught in this situation are floun dering in a mire of frustration and depression. 5. I am involved in a unique situation at my school. We have a new principal this year who is very ineffective as an administrator. She has managed to divide the faculty, promote low morale and cause great anxiety among the staff. I would have filled this out differently last year. 6. I am a teacher in a small elementary school with a pleasant student population and very nice faculty. Our administrator is the only blot on the horizon. She is one of the most tactless people I have ever met. She is interfering, nit-picking and has little or no rapport with children. She has turned our campus into a very hostile place and we all resent her. In my opinion, the factors leading teachers to leave the profession are lack of adequate financial recompense and unsympathetic admin istrators. We have both at my school. 7. Teachers need more support and backing from adminis trators and parents . . . what earthly good is the Stull? Having to comply with non-meaningful [evaluations] like the Stull is frustrating! 8. Our principal schedules too many unnecessary meetings that are too lengthy i I The morale of the teachers has gone down since we lost our last principal two years ago— he would always tell us the teacher' s responsibility is the kids— the principal's responsibility is the teacher ! ! She does not follow this at all. 9. Administrators should not be given "on the job training." There is nothing more demoralizing to a staff than knowing your principal doesn't know what the h--- she's doing. The current system of administrative partial credentials stinks. 183 10. . . . I do feel that you should take a good, hard look at your new administrators— especially Principals who are not knowledgeable in many facts pertaining to their jobs. 11. Have an "inadequate" administrator with mass transfers happening this year. There should be a recfuirement that administrators know how to deal with people as human beings. Learn manners and social graces. Visiting supervisors, as it was sometime ago, to help work with teachers that need help. . . . Principals should be required to work sometime back in the classroom to see how the children have changed from the time they were involved. These people are away from what is happening now. 12. School site management could have improved many problems but is now ignored. 13. Poor administrators can destroy a school. 14. In the last 10 years I have not seen a supervisor or reserve person from the elementary office in my classroom. They have a job and have left teaching and children to write paper and ask for paper in return by the ream. They are out of touch with children. They . . . [have] no help and no praise for the "poor work horses." 15. Administrators need to return to classrooms. 16. Principal cannot do his/her job if the region/central office continually call meetings taking them away from the school site. 17. No person in authority wants to deal with [disci pline] . In fact, psychologists say the first step is to admit there is a problem. That has not even been done! Our morale is really down. We need a realistic approach to this problem. 18. Principals are too wishy-washy and do not make decisions of moral value - they cower before their super iors in fear of being demoted. 19. Put principals back in classrooms without special access to supplies regular teachers have. 20. If [the school district] is so desperate for teachers, how come they go strictly on the immediate principal ' s recommendations/references when reclassifying from tem porary to probationary? Why are we being Stulled? - .......... 184 21. In many ways I like [working in a very large elemen tary school] though. You don't have as many out of the classroom responsibilities and people (administrators) are not looking over your shoulder. One negative is I have received almost no feedback about my teaching. Being a new teacher I feel this would be very helpful. Colleagues 1. Teaching standards appear lower in part because of the influx of unqualified probationary teachers resulting in increasing discipline problems in class. Teachers' constitutional rights are threatened by threats of a (mandatory) agency fee. Our "profession" is taking on a : union mentality— there are many who disagree with the politics, but have joined to avoid ostracism— and due to a lack of experience. ; 2. [Teachers] should have to be an aide first— great experience. 3. The course work for the undergraduate degree should include an overview of school administration and super vision. Perhaps there would be more understanding and less frustration on the part of teachers. 4. Teachers need an ad campaign and lots of PR to convince the people that teachers are teachers and can teach. 5. Colleagues— do not cover curriculum, some do not maintain adequate discipline. Resources not shared. Working Conditions 1. Overcrowded conditions must be alleviated by new construction. 2. Buildings in [the school district] are old and run ' down. (Bad for morale). Also, office personnel [are] "rude to teachers." 3. Antiquated plant will be undergoing renovation. Need a lot more space. Region "suggestions" come down to be implemented yesterday. Doesn't always work, like the screwy CTBS testing in Oct. 4. As an Emergency Credent ialed teacher I find the demands made upon me for in-services, college courses to fulfill requirements to earn a clear credential, and requirements to satisfy my bilingual waiver are exhausting, 1 debilitating and de-humanizing. No one can teach up to ‘ ‘ 185 one's abilities in these circumstances. I am extremely disillusioned. Burnout ! 5. Working conditions are abominable! My room is dirty and overrun with cockroaches. We are in the middle of a repaving project which should have been done in the summer. We are on a rainy-day schedule, the temperature is 9 0 degrees in a room without air conditioning. The academic program has deteriorated and now they are going to inspect for asbestos ! I am at a loss to know when I can pack up my classroom for the summer. 6. Conditions of schools have long been a problem for me. Office workers in business would not have to work in rooms that are not swept each evening— and waxed [only] two times a year! The rooms are never dusted— windows never washed. Restrooms are a disgrace. How many other professions have to work under such conditions ! 7. Lengthened school day and extra paper work prevents preparation of lessons. 8. I love teaching and the children, however "the system" can really get you down (overpaid, over-powered administra tors, too much out of classroom personnel, nepotism, favoritism, affirmative action for the unqualified). Wasteful programs— mentor, coordinators, etc., etc., galore— We lose too many qualified, bright people in the beginning years because of some of these factors. 9. I have not been at this school very long and I keep to myself more or less - so I don't know how others feel. I only know that I am very tired after a day of teaching and I had a gold necklace ripped off my neck while I walked to my car. There was no compensation given for this and my car was almost stolen and damaged twice. 10. Our school and classrooms [are] filthy. It's ter rible. 11. "Overall" working conditions are generally acceptable with the exception of isolated, poorly located bungalows (due to proximity of class to play area, noise level, distance from class to office, restrooms, no air condition ing and no covered walkways for use on rainy days.) If a school has more than six bungalows— a permanent building or "room additions" to existing structures should be built. 12. Our school is in a reconstruction stage. Everything is dirty and difficult - especially restroom facilities. Many teachers are transferring or retiring - Our wonderful faculty is destroyed. Some teachers are having to travel to other schools 1 13. Classrooms without walls should be abolished forever1 14. Improve the plant and working conditions ! Pay 1. We would have plenty of teachers if we were paid decently. 2. Good, really good teachers are not paid what they are worth. We need a salary that will attract the talented as well as the talented missionary that is willing to live on less and at a lower level to teach children and young people. 3. Pay needs to be up-graded to $50,000. Constant dollars. School year needs to be lengthened to 11 months. 4. Pay is not equivalent with the amount of extra hours worked; nor with the extraordinary amount of money teach ers spend, and are not compensated for by the district, for the classrooms. 5. Teaching provides for a secure future (while working but not when it is time to retire). Retirement should be based on years of service rather than age. 6. Have a substantial second income from investments so do not feel the financial insecurity that others may. However, good teachers are not paid enough any place in the U.S. 7. Teaching is a good profession, but pay scales are low. 8. Bilingual teachers should get a stipend without participating in the BCTP. 9. I did not go into teaching because of the money. Yet, it would be nice to be better paid. 10. It really infuriates me that administrators make so much more money than teachers. One day in the classroom is more work than a week of school administration. I speak here from experience and an administrator in industry. If anyone should be at the top salary wise, it should be teachers. This district has its priorities screwed up. The further away from the classroom you are, the more money you make. Principals should make what top teachers make - - — " 187 with extra pay (at that rate) for the extra hours and weeks that they work. It is unconscionable that an elementary principal makes almost $20,000 more than a top teacher. . . . Teachers should start at $35,000 and be able to go to $65,000 in ten years. 11. Ridiculous. When I received my masters and adminis trative credential I only received $15.00 per month salary increase. 12. It would be easier to live at the poverty level if we were paid bimonthly! 13. I enjoy teaching. The biggest drawback is the amount of work versus the salary. I spend many hours out of the classroom researching and developing materials to enhance my instructional program. 14. My school hires incentive substitutes. If they're paid more, why aren't the teachers? Low income and little decision-making are my main complaints about teaching. I am continually taking classes which I'm not reimbursed for and feel obligated to provide supplies for my room, which comes out of my own pocket. I have an Emergency Credential and plan to teach about five years. 15. I am leaving the district this year, and to be totally honest, I do not get paid enough money to go into South Central everyday and teach these children, and deal with the tough lives they are facing and living. I love my job, but you can only take so much. And when the financial benefits do not make up for your mental stress— you leave. 16. I will be leaving teaching after my fourth year. School year 88-89. Will be entering a higher paying profession - law. 17. Teachers spend too many years in school preparing for a life long future in education to realize that several blue collar positions pay more money. This position would be a secure one if teachers were paid for the amount of time and services given. A teacher's pay is an embarrass ment in comparison to other fields where the amount of education is not needed. Good teachers must be dedicated. 18. Although teachers spend 6 hours with their students and are paid a salary based on those 6 hours, I believe the majority of the teachers spend a substantial amount of time in preparation of materials and lesson plans outside the classroom. Most of us spend a lot of our own money to purchase adequate materials. 188 19. My income is a second income. If it were the only income, it would be quite insufficient. 20. Teachers* salaries are ok but not comparable to other professionals who have the same amount of schooling. 21. Poor salaries do not enhance the teaching profession either. 22. Second biggest problem is pay. I can't even afford a house. I barely have enough to go from paycheck to paycheck. And, I have to take classes to keep renewing my credential. 23. Get rid of the union and pay teachers on merit. Responsibility 1. Teachers must have the decision making power at each site along with the principal! 2. We need opportunity for input in discipline policy and its maintenance. 3. We need school-based management. Teachers need more autonomy. 4. Teachers need to control school - not administrators. 5. Teachers need to feel more powerful in decision making to raise their self-esteem and improve their feelings of investment in their school and profession. 6. Teachers should have control of all decisions at local school site. 7. Teachers need more voice in workloads. 8. I believe too much control has been taken away from the teacher and the school - now we all live in fear of "child abuse." Work Itself 1. Class size is unmanageable due to behavior problems and need for individual academic help. 2. Everything should be done to support the Bilingual Program in our district. It does work if the teachers are well-trained and are enthusiastic towards it. I 189 3. There are many inservices but they are a waste of time. 4. In addition to the normal stresses of the job, the requirement that monolingual teachers sign bilingual waivers and teach in bilingual classrooms and meet requirements of the waiver with financial compensation is grossly unjust. It amounts to teaching two classrooms for the price of one. 5. Bilingual supplies in the upper grades need to be provided if they expect teachers to continue with their student's native language or decide total immersion is the answer in earlier grades. I have fifth graders that can't function in either language. Help. 6. I am "retiring." There is too much paper work, questionnaires, meaningless tasks asked of teachers for the little good it does. 7. The strict Eastman Plan is stifling creativity. 8. Many of the answers above hinge on class size. It's difficult to be as creative as you might be when you are fatigued due to stress related to class size. 9. There is too much routine - just checking roll, circling absences, filing excuses can take 15-20 minutes! Out of pocket costs increase every month - xeroxing homework (office machine doesn't work), buying pencils, buying construction paper, buying drawing paper, buying balloons and straws (science) was $32.00 this year. Why doesn't someone require that book inventories match students, i.e., as more bilingual students enroll more Spanish books are needed, not fewer, older ones. 10. We have less and less time to teach, even though the day has been lengthened as has the school year. Teaching thus is very frustrating. Children are coming into upper grades less prepared every year. The bilingual program is actually a monolingual (Spanish) one and children do not transition out in 3rd/4th grade as is planned. 11. I love teaching. I love children, I love learning. I hate all this added paper and pressure. 12. Teachers are overworked with much meaningless paper work. The district seems to forget our first obligation is to teach. 13. There is too much expected of teachers. Paperwork. Too many students. My present ratio [of] 32 students to one teacher should be reduced to 27:1. Elementary teach ers should have a one hour period (free) each day. Should have support staff. PE instruction, science, art, music. Discipline needs to be returned to the classroom. It becomes more stressful each year. 14. A study should be conducted to determine the most effective teacher to student ratio. Bilingual combination graded classes should be outlawed. I enjoy teaching very much, but there is pressure from the administrators and colleagues in regards to testing scores - and especially bilingual waiver requirements. 15. Since I have taught for 29 years, my answers reflect my feeling covering the span of years. Fortunatelv, I had the experiences when I first began. I have seen the "steady decline." The problems in Education reflect the society at large. More money is not the solution - the values and mores of this country need to improve. 16. The lack of discipline is taking away from students' education. The unruly are keeping the serious student from quality learning time. 17. The bilingual program is keeping many of our promis ing citizens [from] entering higher education possibili ties. There has been no information of successes in large amounts beyond high school. Also, for years we have asked for lowering the norm in each classroom. 18. I don't know how we can be expected to maintain discipline and control, when we are not permitted even to "touch" a student! Students don't think they have to do as they are told and they don't! I'm sorry to see good discipline disappear! 19. [Teacher dissatisfaction] has to do with the distances they make teachers drive, lack of parental support, uninterested students, no recourse which truly effects the student when they not only misbehave but when they never do any work and just keep getting passed through the system. Children are smart; they know they can get away with murder. (Younger kids don't care about grades.) 20. I resent having to take on chores such as yard duty - AN INSULT! 21. I've been teaching for many years and find it more difficult and less rewarding each year due to additional demands placed upon teachers and not realistically pro viding the time to adequately accomplish them. 191 22. I have three children who are ready for college. None of them desires to be teachers for they see my daily work load of grading and planning that allows little freedom, even on the week-end. 23. If I didn't have a great personal life - (even though I love my kids in my class) this job would make me CRAZY. 24. Discipline has become the major problem with teaching. In fact, teaching has become a very minor part of the day. 25. One big problem in school is discipline. Many parents come in to say they can't handle the students at home (students tell them what to do). So, they can't help you with problems in school. 26. It appears that the district does not emphasize "learning independence" by our students. As a result, the need to belong and depend on others results in increased deviant behavior (gangs) in groups 1 Teachers should be allowed to teach social skills as well as academics. We are not babysitters ! 27. This has been a difficult year with very difficult students. 28. Too many in-services, too much paperwork. 29. I am highly concerned with the fact that teachers must now be counselors and social workers. Little time is left for teaching. School districts and universities must provide teachers with adequate training in these areas. I love teaching and know I'm an excellent teacher but how can I teach children with so many physical and emotional problems. I want to help but I need guidance. 30. Teachers must be allowed to paddle as we did years ago. When I had 36-38 in class back in the '60s, the students had much better self-discipline. Now the students have no fear of anything. 31. . . . the workload, the paperwork does not allow me a balanced lifestyle. Advancement 1. My school has a friendly, supportive environment, but there is virtually no room for advancement. This makes me want to quit. 2. While promotions or advancements are available to a select few, they are political and available to very few. -- 192 3. While there are advancement opportunities in teaching, I other professions seem to have much more lucrative offers. I 4. At present, there is no means of advancement as ; recommended by the Commons Report. If there were, I would : remain in teaching— because I do love it. ’ Security I [ 1. Indifferent, bad, ineffective teachers are NEVER i fired, they are protected by the union and the board. Recognition 1. School site situations and salaries are manifestations of a greater problem, i. e. , district directed policies mandating teacher's activities are poorly conceived, administered, funded, followed-up, and improperly evalu ated. These policies are fundamentally biased against the ' teachers as a class or workers, not as professional ! educators. 2. This district is not aware of the needs of year-round schools. We start the school year July 1. Many services in the district, including money to run the school, are not ' available until Sept.-Oct. Roving is a deplorable situa tion as well as overcrowded schools. 3. Respect is also sorely needed from the board and community. 4. The [district] is gigantic. How can one really get recognition in view of the size of this district/bureau cracy, etc.? 5. Teachers need higher salaries. better advancement opportunities. and more support and recognition from administrators in the region and district. 6. The teacher is the low man on the totem pole. Few ' are really concerned about his/her feelings or input. 7. I feel teaching is an extremely important profession. Teachers need to be treated more as professionals. Besides higher salaries, providing elementary teachers with a conference period during the day (to do paperwork, meet with other staff members) would be very helpful. 193 8. I feel the system is too impersonal. I have been "bumped" around the city and never know in Sept, where I will be. This is after teaching 28 years. I am just "hanging on" till retirement. 9. In my opinion, teachers are overworked, underpaid, powerless and not respected by the school district, parents and the general public. 10. I feel that policy makers need to reassess educational goals and need direct teacher input as to what these goals should be. Inner-city education institutions are sinking and no one seems to care enough to become active in the solution. 11. I would not encourage anybody to go into teaching. If I could get out now, I would. From the governor on down, nobody really cares about the kids. 12. I have been teaching for 32 years. I am considered a strong and above-average teacher among my colleagues. I am treated on the same level as a first year teacher with no experience by supervisors. Everyone being treated equally on a personal basis is fine, but on a professional basis is an insult and is not equitable. 13. I believe I was an outstanding mentor, but no one at the region level discussed [reapplication] with me; only a clerk called to ask me if I was reapplying. I believe reapplication paperwork should be minimal. Proven expe rience . . . should suffice. 14. Working at a very large elementary school makes for loss of what I would term "the human factor." Teachers and students seem to get shuffled and lost in the opera tion. It reminds me of working for a corporation. Parents 1. Parent volunteers - good idea if helping out in a room other than the one which their child is in. 2. Lack of parent interest and support in the education of their children creates a feeling of incredible frus tration when as a result the children fail to learn. 3. More parental involvement is needed at my school. 4. I teach in an area with almost no parental support or involvement. The result of this is a poorly-behaved student body that no amount of professional preparation could enable any teacher under 200 pounds to handle well.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of traditional birth attendant (TBA) programs in selected third world countries

PDF

Resocialization of older adults to work roles through worklife autobiography

PDF

The 'Widmar' (1981) decision and the status of religious liberty on the public college and university campus: Antecedents, effects, and prospects

PDF

The relationship between cultural-value orientation and achievement in three learning environments: Lecture, small-group, and self-study

PDF

The interaction of learners' spatial ability aptitudes with filmic schematic operations

PDF

A study of Japanese students at the University of Southern California, 1946-1980: vocational impact of American academic experience on Japanese students after returning to Japan

PDF

Women in the skilled crafts: predictors of nontraditional job choice

PDF

Studies on the cytology of bacteria and yeasts by means of ultraviolet photolysis

PDF

Studies on the bacterial oxidation of saturated fatty acids and their derivatives

PDF

The Allied Health Professions Admission Test : its role in selection for physical therapy programs

PDF

The innervation of the teeth and periodontium of the rat

PDF

Studies of frog retinal ganglion cell responses to temporal, spatial and chromatic stimuli

PDF

Out of many...: A social history of the homosexual rights movement as originated and continued in Los Angeles, California

PDF

The role of microbes in the formation of the tubeworm fouling community in Fish Harbor, Los Angeles Harbor, California

PDF

Studies on the aerobic oxidation of fatty acids by bacteria

PDF

An analysis of the need and opportunity for the continuing liberal education of doctors of medicine

PDF

Chemical and immunological studies on a heterophile antigen extracted from bovine erythrocyte stroma

PDF

Cation localization in growth hormone and prolactin cells of the rat pars distalis

PDF

Studies of two naturally occurring compounds which effect release of acetylcholine from synaptosomes

PDF

Endocrine aspects of aggression and dominance in champanzees of the Kibale Forest

Asset Metadata

Creator Elder, Anne Shier (author)

Core Title Self-perceived job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of urban elementary classroom teachers

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05-19

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c30-321572

Unique identifier UC11228220

Identifier DP25268.pdf (filename),usctheses-c30-321572 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP25268.pdf

Dmrecord 321572

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Elder, Anne Shier

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA