University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Legal And Professional Aspects Of The Teacher'S Workload

(USC Thesis Other)

The Legal And Professional Aspects Of The Teacher'S Workload

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE LEGAL AND PR O FE S S IO N A L ASPECTS OF
THE T E A C H E R 'S WORKLOAD
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
by
Walter Albert Condley
January 1972
INFORMATION TO USERS
This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document.
While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the
missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with
adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and
duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black
mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the
copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred
image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the
upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from
left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary,
sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and
continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest
value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be
made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the
dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at
additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog
number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
A Xerox Education Company
i l
il
72-21,659
CONDLEY, Walter Albert, 1917-
THE LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF THE
TEACHER’S WORKLOAD.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1972
Education, administration
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillm ent of the requirements fo r the
degree of Doctor of Education.
GuidancejOommittee
Chairman
PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages may have
indistinct print.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Page
THE PROBLEM................................... 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Importance of the Study
Delimitations
Assumptions
Definition of Terms
Procedure, Sources of Data, and
Organization
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............... 13
Introduction
Books
Unpublished Materials
Legal Materials and Publications
- Chapter Summary
LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE TEACHER WORKLOAD .... 29
Introduction
Organization of the Chapter
Legal Authority for Teacher Duty Assignment
Limitations Placed on Teacher Duty
The Teacher's Classroom Duties
Extra Class Duties for Teachers
Chapter Summary
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TEACHER WORKLOAD 84
Introduction
Review of Related Literature
Extent of Teacher Duty
Equal Staff Duty
Chapter Summary
ii
Chapter Page
V. JURY TEST OF PRINCIPLES 110
Introduction
Jury Response of Questionnaire
Teacher Workload Activities
Appropriate Duties for the Teacher
Work Appropriately Excluded from the
Regular Annual Teaching Load
Teacher Work Time
Equalizing Teacher Workload
Chapter Summary
VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 150
Summary
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
APPENDICES 180
A. Survey Questionnaire 181
B. Letter to Panel of Jurors 188
C. Panel of Jurors 190
BIBLIOGRAPHY 192
iii
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
The teacher in the American system of education is
an instrumental factor in achieving the desired goals of
free public education. Upon his ability to perform the
diverse school functions created by a complex society, the
quality and depth of the educational experiences for each
pupil in school will be formed. Consequently, the nature,
and extent of the teacher's duties and responsibilities
need to be carefully weighed to assist him to obtain maxi
mum teaching effectiveness, both inside and outside of the
classroom.
Alexander and Saylor, in Modern Secondary Education,
focus attention upon the relationship between the workload
and effective teaching when they note:
A principal must give consideration to the total
workload imposed on a teacher and endeavor to keep it
within reasonable expectations, so that the teacher not
only will have time to devote to planning and carrying
on his classroom work in a creative manner, but will
have the energy and enthusiasm to do so. (1:733)
However, due to the interrelationship between teacher
responsibilities and creative teaching, the keeping of the
workload within "reasonable expectations" involves all
facets of the educational enterprise. As a result, the
total teacher workload becomes a concern to all who share
the responsibilities of recommending or formulating school
policy.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to identify the legal
principles and professional concepts of the teacher's
regular, annual workload. In order to achieve this objec
tive, answers to the following specific questions were
sought:
1. What does the literature reveal about the teacher's
workload?
2. What duties, functions and activities of the
teacher's workload are required by law?
3. What functions and activities of the teacher's
workload are a professional responsibility?
4. What functions and activities included in school
programs are not legally or professionally a part
of the teacher's regular annual workload?
5. What school activities are not appropriate assign
ments for a professional, trained teacher?
6. What school activities are appropriate for a
professional teacher but are beyond the regular,
annual duties of the teacher?
7. What are the opinions of professional experts con
cerning the teacher's workload?
Importance of the Study
Traditionally, in and out of the classroom, the
teacher's workload has encompassed many duties. The idea
of a teacher's responsibility for all activities related to
the school has its basis in the earliest foundation of our
society. This concept has been re-enforced through the
years as our nation has changed from an agrarian to a
highly technical economy and from a rural to a complex
urban society. The complexity in our society is not static
but as rapid scientific and industrial advances are made,
it continues to increase. The result is a changing
national culture and value system with accompanying diverse
and numerous social problems.
One facet of this continuing social change is the
development of the comprehensive school with additional
students, functions and problems. Concomitant with the
growth and changing functions of the school, there have
been numerous advances in educational techniques to
utilize scientific advancement and an expanding knowledge
of learning. All of these factors have enlarged the
teacher's workload through extended school activities, and
disclosed a need for more skillful teaching methods as well
as teacher involvement in educational planning. These
demands upon the teacher have created conflict between the
concept of teacher responsibility for all school activities
and for quality teaching. Recognizing this basic conflict,
teachers and teaching groups, laymen and administrators are
advancing plans to reduce the teacher's tasks that are not
essential to effective teaching, so that an enriched,
innovative curriculum may be offered to all students.
Therefore, to establish guidelines for planning the
teacher's assignment, there is a need to investigate the
legal and professional responsibilities of the teacher's
workload.
5
Delimitations
The legal and professional aspects of the teacher
workload is such a broad area of investigation that it was
necessary to delimit the study. Consequently, the investi
gation was limited to the following respects.
1. The study was limited to the legal and professional
responsibilities of the teacher's workload and will
not attempt to evaluate existing teacher assignment
programs.
2. The study was limited to the public elementary and
high schools of California.
Assumptions
As this study involved an analysis of legal docu
ments in conjunction with a survey questionnaire, certain
basic assumptions underlie the investigation.
1. There are legal and professional responsibilities
that determine the teacher's workload.
2. The legal and professional responsibilities of the
teacher's workload can be determined through a
review of the literature, legal statutes and court
cases.
3. There will be reasonable agreement in the opinions
of experts concerning the teacher’s workload.
Definition of Terms
In order to provide a common understanding of
significant educational and legal terms needed for this
study, the following definitions are provided.
Action. The legal and formal demand to obtain one's
rights from another person or party made and insisted on in
a court of justice.
Annual workload. The total of the teaching load
plus the load incident to all the other duties of the
teacher in or away from the school during the school year.
Appellant. The party who takes an appeal from one
court or jurisdiction to another.
Citation. A reference to legal authority standing
for some particular proposition of law.
Enjoin. To require; command; positively direct.
To require a person, by writ of injuction from a court of
equity, to perform— or to abstain or desist from— some act.
Extra-classroom activities. All school activities
outside of the classroom which may be a part of the
teacher's regular annual workload.
Injunction. A decree of a court of equity ordering
a person to do or refrain from doing a particular act.
Legal right. Rights existing as result of contract,
and rights created or recognized by law.
Mandamus. A procedure pursuant to which a public
official is compelled by a court order to perform a minis
terial or non-discretionary act.
Plaintiff. The party who brings a civil action.
Regulations. The rules or controls adopted by an
administrative agency in pursuance of the general statutory
grant to do so, delegated by the legislature.
Respondent. The appellee or the party who defends
on an appeal to a higher court.
Statute. A law enacted by the legislature or by
the direct vote of the people utilizing the initiative.
Procedure/ Sources of Data, and
Org ani z ation
Procedure
Due to the nature of this study, two research tech
niques were utilized to compile the data for the investiga
tion; the legal method and the survey questionnaire.
Legal method. The first step was to investigate
the related literature in the field that pertained to this
study. An examination was made of books, periodicals,
pamphlets, dissertations, encyclopedias, and other studies
to obtain an overview of the problem and to acquire the
research techniques needed for a legal investigation.
Next, a reading was made of California legislative
enactments and the rules and regulations of the California
State Board of Education to find appropriate statute law.
Those sections pertinent to teacher duty were copied,
analyzed, classified and filed.
At the same time, a search was conducted into
secondary legal sources to obtain California case decisions
that affected the statutory provisions. In addition,
appellate court decisions of other states and federal
courts which concerned the teacher workload were selected.
From this research, a bibliography of court cases was com
piled. Then, each case was rioted on an individual card,
classified by topic, and filed in the study outline.
Following the compilation of a bibliography, a
reading of each case was done by utilizing primary sources.
To facilitate the reading, each case was Xeroxed, then it
was studied and analyzed in detail to determine issues
involved, decisions made, opinions of the court and legal
principles set forth.
If the case was meaningful to the study, it was
checked in Shepard's Citation to Cases, and detailed notes
with apt quotations were made and classified. From these
data, findings were compiled, conclusions drawn, and
recommendations were made.
Survey questionnaire. The procedure used to obtain
the information needed for the professional aspects of the
teacher workload was through the use of an open-ended sur
vey questionnaire. A review of secondary sources was made
to select the survey items included in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire was then submitted to a panel of educa
tional experts for their response. This procedure will be
explained in greater detail in Chapter V.
10
Sources of Data
Legal sources. The sources used to acquire a back
ground for the legal investigation were: school law text,
unpublished research studies, periodical articles, pam
phlets, publications of professional organizations, and
yearbooks.
To acquire the legal research techniques needed for
this study, the text A Schoolman in the Law Library (19)
and the procedure defined in the book School Law (18) were
used as primary aids. Additional reference works consulted
were Black's Law Dictionary (2) and Borg's Educational
Research (4).
The Constitution of the United States (87) and the
Constitution of the State of California (87) were utilized
to find the constitutional provisions relating to the
problem.
Legislative statutes applicable to the investiga
tion were obtained from the California Education Code (90)
and Amendments to the California Education Code (94).
The California Administrative Code, Title 5,
Education (52) furnished the existing rules and regulations
of the California State Board of Education.
11
A bibliography of court cases was compiled from the
following sources: The Yearbook of School Law (11), West1s
California Digest (99), West's Annotated California Code
(91), Peering's Annotated California Codes (89), Roach's
School Law Review (78), Hamilton's School Law Service (74)
and The American Digest System (82).
Legal opinions of the California Attorney's General
needed for the study were read in the Law Library of the
University of Southern California.
Court opinions of selected cases were read in The
National Reporter System (98) , Federal Supplement (93),
Federal Reporter (92), California Reports (86), and Cali
fornia Appellate Reports (85).
Court cases used in this investigation were checked
in Shepard's Citations to Cases (97) to determine if a
later case disapproved, modified, or reversed the decisions
made in each cited case.
Survey questionnaire. The sources consulted to
construct the questionnaire were from published and unpub
lished materials. An extensive search of related reading
which consisted of books, periodicals, pamphlets, disserta
tions and other studies was made to determine the
12
questionnaire items.
Reference works consulted were: Encyclopedia of
Educational Research (67) , Borg's Educational Research (4),
and Oppenheim's Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measure
ment (16) .
Organization by Chapters
Chapter I has been devoted to the statement and
importance of the study, assumptions, delimitations,
definitions, procedure, sources of data, and organization.
Chapter II gives a review of the related literature
which concerns the legal aspects of the teacher's workload.
Chapter III presents an analysis of the legal data;
and at the end of the chapter, findings are reported.
Chapter IV covers a review of the literature per
taining to the professional aspects of the problem.
Chapter V explains the construction of the ques
tionnaire, selection of the jury, and the results of the
questionnaire completed by the jury of educational experts.
Chapter VI includes the summary of the dissertation
findings, conclusions drawn from the findings, and
recommendations.
The bibliography consists of a complete citing of
all materials utilized in this study.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
In past years, the legal aspects of the total work
load of the teacher has not been considered a major research
problem in school law as a very extensive survey of the
literature failed to find a major work on this topic. But,
helpfully, the readings did reveal that facets of the
problem are touched upon in other topic areas of school
law. Even though the subject has been relegated to a minor
area of investigation in prior studies, its subject impor
tance cannot be minimized. This is illustrated in School
Law Comments and Interpretations, when the author comments
upon recent litigation involving teacher duty:
Only within recent years has the extent of a
teacher's duty under his contract been questioned in
the appellate courts. However, those cases that have
been litigated involve questions of very great impor
tance to school administrators. If school authorities
are limited rather strictly by law in their assignments
of teachers, difficult problems in curriculum, schedul
ing, transportation, finance and, indeed, in the entire
13
14
program of extra curricular activities, are certain
to arise.
Although the subject has acquired additional atten
tion in recent years, the literature in the older texts on
school law and research studies did contain substantive
information relating to this area of investigation. Much
of the legal findings presented in this review were found
in secondary sources under the following subject headings:
teacher tenure, contracts, extra-curricular activities,
school personnel, school boards, administration, and
related school topics.
Books
Edwards, The Courts and
the Public Schools
Edwards treatise on the legal principles that
govern public education in the United States is a general
text which is designed especially for those who formulate
educational policy. Toward this end, a comprehensive
coverage of the practical problems of education is done by
citing court decisions of state and federal courts. The
fundamental principles of law resulting from these deci
sions aptly define the legal theory for the operation of
the public schools. Even though teacher duties were not
15
mentioned in the text, it became a valuable general refer
ence and the following legal points were helpful.
1. It is well settled that, in order to enter into
a valid contract with teachers, a board of education
must act in its corporate capacity. (8:449)
2. Tenure statutes do not prevent boards of educa
tion from making any reasonable changes in teacher
salaries. There must be no discrimination as between
individual teachers; but a board can change its salary
schedules as policy may from time to time dictate.
(8:470)
3. School districts are quasi-corporations,
created for purposes of state administration. But with
respect to any particular municipality, school officers
are not municipal officers. They are state officers.
(8:113)
Hamilton and Mort,
The Law and Public Education
This treatise on school law by Hamilton and Mort is
an outstanding general reference book on legal principles
relating to public education. Utilizing the case method
approach to emphasize these legal concepts, the authors,
through citations of selected cases and school topics,
afford a general background on school law necessary for an
investigation into a specific area of study. Although the
text did not refer primarily to the duties and responsi
bilities of the teacher, certain stated concepts have
meaning for investigation.
16
1. The public schools exist by operation of law.
They are creatures of the legislature under the
authority of the several state constitutions. (13:14)
2. Education is then, a state function as con
trasted with local function: local districts are
creatures of the state for the carrying out of the
obligation of the state to educate its citizens.
(13:18)
3. It is well settled that a board of education
may make and enforce such reasonable rules and regula
tions as may be necessary for the efficient conduct of
the school. (13:88)
4. Failure or refusal to obey reasonable rules and
orders of the board is one form of insubordination; and
a teacher may be dismissed therefore under the common
law and under the statutes of several states. (13:359)
Nolte and Linn,
School Law for Teachers
Nolte and Linn's textbook on school law is specif
ically written to aid teachers to obtain a general under
standing of the many legal facets which affect their
profession. Of special importance to this investigation
were the following legal points which related to the provi
sion of the teacher's contract.
1. Until recently, school boards attempted to
include in the written contract document all of the
duties which the teacher was expected to perform. The
practice of including a comprehensive listing of
duties inevitably resulted in a most lengthy document.
Even then, it was virtually impossible to cover every
exigency which might arise. (15:95)
17
2. This newer, more abbreviated form of contract
is based on the understanding that all school board
rules and regulations, as well as state statutes bear
ing on teacher's contracts, and all other extraneous
limitation, are included by implication in the document
in the interest of brevity. There is no attempt to
include all the duties which the teacher will be called
upon to perform. These are "read into" the short form
and become implicit in it. (15:95)
3. It is essential that a teacher's contract of
employment comply with all mandatory requisites pre
scribed by the statutes. (15:97)
4. Even when the contract of employment is silent
concerning existing constitutional and statutory pro
visions, such provisions are considered a part of the
contract. (15:97)
5. Whether the rules and regulations of a state
board or department are a part of the teacher's con
tract of employment may only be determined after
careful consideration of a particular factual situation
and the power of the board to make such a rule or
regulation as evidenced by the language of the particu
lar state statute. (15:100)
6. All rules and regulations in force at the time
of the signing of the teacher's contract of employment
become an integral part of the contractual agreement
by implication. (15:100)
7. It is important for the teacher to note that
board rules, statutes, or rulings of the state board of
education passed subsequent to the signing of the
contract of employment become effective immediately
upon adoption by the respective body. (15:101)
Madeline K. Remmlein, School Law
Remmlein's text on school law is designed to pro
vide the teacher with a background in legal educational
18
principles. She has selected two areas of school law to
explore: problems of teacher personnel, and problems of
student personnel. The text is especially valuable as an
introduction to school law because of its format. The
legal principles involved in each subject are discussed
briefly and illustrated by quotations from selected
statutes and court decisions. Also, the editorial comments
on school law and the chapter concerning legal research
tools were helpful in the conduct of this study. Although
the duties of the teacher were not specifically included,
the following points were helpful for this investigation.
1. In any phase of school management wherein the
state board of education has been given powers of
operation, the rules and regulations of the state board
have the force and effect of law. (18:xx)
2. Local school boards are subordinate agencies of
the state. The legislature may delegate some of its
authority in public-school matters to local school
boards, or the state board may do so. (18:xxi)
3. Within the scope of its power, the rules and
regulations of a local school board are legislation
having force equal to state board regulations or state
statutes. (18:xxi)
4. So far as public-school teachers are concerned,
absence of the authority to exercise sovereign power
has been one of the chief distinguishing marks of the
position. The courts have been almost unanimous in
classifying teachers as employees rather than as
officers. (18:xxx)
19
Seitz, Law and the
School Principal
This text, sponsored by the National Organization
on Legal Problems of Education and edited by Reynolds C.
Seitz, is a compilation by various contributors on general
aspects of school law which pertain to the high school
principal. One chapter, titled "Legality of Extra Assign
ments for Teachers" by E. C. Bolmeir, contains legal points
that are important to this study.
1. Usually the statutory provisions pertaining to
the duties of teachers are stated in broad terms with
express or implied delegation of authority to boards
of education to determine the assignment of duties for
teachers. (20:193)
2. The school principal is not legally authorized
to make demands upon the services of teachers that are
in conflict with school board rules and regulations.
(20:194)
3. The courts have been quite consistent in hold
ing that teachers are bound by express provisions in
the contract. Even where the contractual obligations
are only implied, the courts have been reluctant to
interfere with the school officers exercise of discre
tion. (20:195)
4. The legality or illegality of extra-classroom
assignments is equally applicable to tenure and non
tenure teachers. (20:195)
5. Not only is a board of education empowered to
determine the duties of teachers; it is frequently
authorized to redelegate such functions to the proper
school administrators. Ultimately, then, it is the
superintendent of schools or the school principal who
determines, within legal limits, the specific schedules
20
for teachers which may include both "regular" and
"extra" assignments. (20:194)
Unpublished Materials
Dissertation by Ahee
The 1959 dissertation by Carl Ahee concerning the
legal status of the attendance of the public school pupil
and his parent in California has one chapter devoted to the
interaction of organic law which is relevant to this study.
The findings in Ahee's study that are specifically perti
nent are:
1. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, since education is not mentioned
therein as one of the functions of the federal govern
ment, education is one of the powers reserved, for the
most part, to the states.
2. The California Constitution is merely a guide
which imposes limitations upon the power of the legis
lature. Unless restrained by constitutional provision,
the legislature is vested with the whole of the law
making power of the state.
3. Generally, the lawmaking power of the legisla
ture may not be delegated. However, the legislature
may delegate to an administrative board or officer dis
cretionary power to carry out legislative policy when
a sufficiently clear test or operational guide line has
been established.
4. Delegation of discretionary power does not
divest the legislature of ultimate control over dele
gated functions.
21
5. The constitutionality of a legislative enact
ment, rather than the wisdom of the legislative policy
behind it is the concern of the courts.
6. It is the duty of the judiciary to determine
the meaning of the law, and not to change the meaning
as intended by the legislature.
7. A statute should be construed, if possible, to
give meaning and effect, not only to the section as a
whole, but to every section of it.
8. In California, the common-law prevails as
authority for judicial decision only in the absence of
inconsistent statutory law.
9. The courts in California have treated the
opinions of the California Attorneys General with great
respect, these opinions often being cited in opinions
of the courts as persuasive authority. (61:105-109)
Dissertation by Miyasato
In the 1967 dissertation by Albert Miyasato on
legal aspects in school personnel administration contains
research pertaining to extra-class assignments for teachers.
Many of the findings in this study concerning extra-class
assignments are relevant to the teacher's workload. These
findings are:
1. The teacher's personal beliefs may not be
grounds for refusal to accept certain extra-class
assignments. If his personal beliefs conflict with
the reasonable policies, rules, or regulations of the
schools, he cannot continue to insist upon employment
on his own terms.
2. The word "teach" in a contract includes extra
class assignments within the fields of certification
22
and qualifications. A teacher may not be assigned duty
totally unrelated to his training and qualifications.
3. Failure to carry out a verbal agreement to
assume an extra-class assignment can be substantial
grounds for dismissal of a teacher.
4. The local school board, not the state board,
has the power to make rules regarding extra-class
assignments not inconsistent with the laws of the state,
unless the legislature expressly provides for the
state board to hold this authority.
5. Delegation of authority to the principal to
assign extra-class duties of teachers is legal so long
as there is no palpable discrimination, arbitrary or
unreasonable action, or inequity in the principal's
determination of responsibilities.
6. A bonus over the contract amount may be paid
teachers by the school board for extra-curricular
assignments. (65:224-25)
Dissertation by Piety
In his 1956 dissertation on legal aspects of
recruitment, selection, and assignment of certificated
personnel in public schools as shown by court decisions,
Donald Piety made a number of findings which are pertinent
to this study.
1. Generally, legal authority to recruit, select,
or assign certificated personnel is vested in governing
boards of school districts, subject to limitations and
restrictions as imposed by the legislature and con
stitution. In no case, however, may rules and regula
tions of governing boards— in the legal exercise of
authority to recruit, select, or assign certificated
23
personnel-abrogate, conflict with, or contravene
statutory or constitutional limitations. (66:153)
2. Neither possession of a credential, nor perma
nent status, as in tenure, entitles the teacher
assignment in a particular position, school, classroom,
duties, or hours of service. (66:165)
3. Governing boards have power generally to
assign, re-assign, transfer, and prescribe duties as
long as the position is one for which the teacher is
qualified, and is not a demotion in violation of
statute or contract. (66:165)
4. Hours of employment need not coincide with
hours of classroom instruction, nor be the same for all
teachers, but may include evenings or Saturdays, and
legal holidays, if the activity is in line with his
teaching position. (66:166)
5. The refusal of a teacher to accept an assign
ment which the school authorities have power to make
may be classed as persistent and willful violation of
his contract. Such refusal also amounts to persistent
negligence. (66:167)
Legal Materials and Publications
Benedetti, School Law Materials
This syllabus in school law was written by Eugen
Benedetti to specifically meet the needs of teachers in
understanding the general legal principles governing educa
tion throughout the United States. Also, it provides a
greater emphasis on conditions within the State of Cali
fornia. The syllabus presents legal cases and problems
relating to many areas of education. This volume was
24
significant to the present study as a general secondary
source (68).
California Teachers Association,
Mandated Responsibilities and
Rights of Certificated Personnel
This publication in booklet form was written pri
marily for the public school teacher in California. It is
an effort of the California State Teachers Association to
provide its members with a digest of the California Educa
tion Code Sections that prescribe teacher responsibilities
and rights. For the present study of the teacher workload,
it became a valuable secondary source of information for
pertinent Education Code sections (75).
C. C. Carpenter and D. Lloyd Nelson,
Legal Aspects of Public
School Administration
The syllabus, developed by Carpenter and Nelson, is
designed as a course reference text to meet the needs of
graduate students of education in school law. The material
contains many points for group discussion, sample test
questions, hypothetical cases for analysis by using legal
principles, and numerous court cases which illustrate legal
principles in selected topic areas (71).
Roach, School Law Review
This school law review publication is published
monthly in ten issues during the school year. In each
issue the author develops one or more legal problems which
are pertinent to education. Each court decision is analyzed
and summarized in language meaningful to school educators.
Each issue is published in four-page manuscript form,
which facilitates its binding into book form. Citations of
court cases pertaining to teacher duty made this publica
tion a valuable source for the present investigation (78).
Chapter Summary
An extensive review of related literature was made
to determine the legal status of teacher workload activi
ties. As a review of the literature revealed no major
investigations concerning the legal status of teacher duty,
the materials selected and reported for this study were
found under many topics in school law. Fragments of the
problem were obtained from various legal tests, unpublished
material, and related legal sources. The failure of the
literature to reveal a substantive legal study in this area
indicates a need for this investigation.
26
The related literature did reveal a number of
general legal principles which are applicable as background
material for this study. The following selected legal
findings pertained to the investigation of the teacher
workload.
1. By virtue of the Tenth Amendment of* the United
States Constitution, education is one of the powers
reserved, for the most part, to the states.
2. Education is a state as contrasted with a local
function.
3. School districts are quasi-corporations,
created for purposes of state administration.
4. The public schools exist by operation of law.
They are creatures of the legislature under the authority
of the several state constitutions.
5. Delegation of discretionary power does not
divest the legislature of ultimate control over delegated
function.
6. It is well settled that a board of education
may make and enforce such reasonable rules and regulations
as may be necessary for the efficient conduct of the
schools.
27
7. Within the scope of its power, the rules and
regulations of a local school board are legislation having
legal force equal to state board regulations or state
statutes.
8. It is well settled that, in order to enter into
a valid contract with teachers, a board of education must
act in its corporate capacity.
9. Until recently, school boards attempted to
include in the written contract document all of the duties
which the teacher was expected to perform.
10. It is essential that a teacher's contract of
employment comply with all mandatory requisites prescribed
by the state statutes.
11. Even when the contract of employment is silent
concerning existing constitutional and statutory provisions,
such provisions are considered a part of the contract.
12. The courts have been quite consistent in hold
ing that teachers are bound by express provisions in the
contract.
13. The courts have been almost unanimous in
classifying teachers as employees rather than as officers.
14. The school principal is not legally authorized
to make demands upon the services of teachers that are in
28
conflict with school board rules and regulations.
15. In California, the common-law prevails as
authority for judicial decision only in the absence of
inconsistent statutory law.
16. The courts in California have treated the
opinions of the California Attorneys General with great
respect, these opinions often being cited in opinions of
the courts as persuasive authority.
CHAPTER III
LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE TEACHER WORKLOAD
Introduction
The public school teacher in the performance of his
teaching duty is called upon to accomplish varied functions.
The extent and nature of these teacher tasks are developed
from existing educational and legal concepts. But, unlike
the professional ideas of teacher duty which can be changed
and modified within the educational framework, the legal
concepts are established mainly by forces outside the
teaching profession (40:296).
In the 1968 Yearbook of School Law, Garber notes,
with this comment, that these sources of legal power
emanate from the great body of society in general:
Society, not only becomes the source of power, but
speaking through the various departments of government,
expressly and impliedly, assigns to the public schools
a particular role. These expressions of public policy
are to be found primarily in enactments of the legisla
tive department of government and the pronouncements of
the judicial department. (10:1)
29
30
The variety of these legal sources of public expression is
specifically enumerated by the California Teachers Associa
tion as being:
. . . the Constitution of the United States; the Con
stitution of the State of California; the California
Education Code and other California codes. The
California Administrative Code, Title 5, Education, con
tains the rules and regulations of the State Department
of Education. Other agencies that formulate or affect
these rights and responsibilities are County Boards of
Education, County Superintendents of School, local
school boards and the courts and legal interpretations
of the Attorney General and the various county counsels
and district attorneys. (75:1)
Moreover, society not only assigns the legal
responsibilities of the teacher, but also establishes
rights which limit the extent of his duty. These safe
guards protect the teacher from an excessive workload, so
that his primary role of providing learning experiences for
our youth will be realized. Therefore, teachers and admin
istrators must understand these legal rules provided by
society if conflict is to be avoided and the educational
process is to be successful.
Organization of the Chapter
The purpose of this chapter is to present the legal
aspects of teacher duty activities which are a part of the
total workload. The chapter will be devoted to an analysis
31
of selected court cases, statute law, legal opinions and
rules of the State Board of Education which are pertinent
to the problem. To facilitate the report, the chapter is
developed under four major headings: (1) legal authority
for teacher duty assignment, (2) limitations placed on
teacher duty, (3) the teacher's classroom duties, and
(4) extra class duties for teachers.
Legal Authority for Teacher Duty Assignment
The teacher in his relationship with the governing
board is an employee of the school district. This classi
fication has been established by legal decisions in numer
ous court cases. Clarifying the legal position of the
teacher, a California court ruled that "the position of a
teacher in the public schools of California is not an
office. It is an employment by contract made between the
teacher and the district" (120:916).
As a result of this contractual relationship with
the local school district as a public employee, the teacher
is legally regulated in the performance of his duty by
existing statute law, board rules and court decisions.
32
The School District
as a State Agency
The authority for the formation of school districts
is vested in the legislature by the Constitution of the
State of California. This authority is stated in Article
IX, Section 14.
The legislature shall have power by general law,
to provide for the incorporation and organization of
school districts, high school districts, and junior
college districts, of every kind and class, and may
classify such districts. (87)
The comprehensive power of the state legislature
over local school districts has been reaffirmed by court
ruling. In a recent case the court explains the relation
ship between the legislature and local school district with
this comment:
. . . the public schools are a matter of statewide
rather than local concern and the legislature is given
comprehensive powers in this area. School districts
are state agencies for the local operation of the
school system. (113:332)
Board Control over
the School District
The authority for the control of school districts
by local boards of education is derived from the legisla
ture. This statute grant of power is concisely specified
in the California Education Code, Section 921.
33
Every school district shall be under the control
of a board of school trustees or a board of education.
(90)
However, the board of school trustees is not
unlimited in its exercise of power. As a public agency of
the state, the board may perform only those functions and
those powers specifically authorized by the legislature
(114:406). In addition to the expressed powers, the boards
of education also have those powers which arise by neces
sary implication from the expressed powers (140:7).
Board Rules and Regulations
Concomitant with the expressed power granted by the
state to the local boards for the control of school dis
tricts, boards of education have been vested with statutory
authority to formulate rules and regulations to carry out
this function. Section 925, California Education Code,
mandates the rule-making authority of the school trustee:
The governing board of each school district shall
prescribe and enforce rules not inconsistent with
law or with the rules prescribed by the state Board
of Education for its own government. (90)
Besides the statute limitations placed upon the
governing board to formulate rules not "inconsistent with
law or with the rules prescribed by the State Board of
Education," the courts have amplified and clarified this
34
rule-making power through case principles. The governing
board of a school district does not have the authority to
enact a rule or regulation which will alter or enlarge the
terms of a legislative enactment (145:114). But, the
courts have recognized the need for an implementation of
statutory provisions and the board "may supplement the
statute law with rules that tend to make the statute
workable" (154:882).
In addition, it is not necessary for all rules
which govern the management of the school to be written
regulations of the board of education. A California court
held:
There is no necessity that all the rules, orders
and regulations for the discipline, government and
management of the schools shall be made a matter of
record by the school board, or that every act, order or
direction affecting the conduct of such schools shall
be authorized or confirmed by a general vote. (138:373)
Board Power to Prescribe
Teacher Duties
This discretionary power of boards of education in
California to assign teacher duties is based upon a
specific legislative enactment. Section 931, California
Education Code, makes it a mandatory function of the
governing board. This mandate placed upon the board is
35
enumerated in the following terms:
The governing board of each school district shall
fix and prescribe the duties to be performed by all
persons in the public school service in the school
district. (90)
This broad grant of authority to the district
governing boards to "fix and prescribe the duties" of all
persons in the school district is an exclusive right. The
board possesses the jurisdiction of assigning teachers to
their specific work and is limited only by "limitations
prescribed by law and reason" (117:739).
Teacher Compliance with Board Rules
The teacher, through a lawful contract relation
with the governing board of a district, becomes subject to
the rules of the board. A California court case in 1957,
Board of Education v. Mathews, observed this principle
when the court said:
The rules and regulations of the district which are
in effect at the date of making or renewal of a
teacher's contract are of course, a part of the employ
ment contract of every teacher. . . . In Rible v.
Hughes it is said that the contract of employment of a
permanent teacher "is automatically renewed from year
to year upon the same terms unless, prior to renewal,
the school board acts to change such terms." (107:269)
The necessity of teacher compliance with reasonable
rules and regulations of the district governing board was
36
stressed in the court case, Board of Education v. Swan.
This case concerned a teacher-principal with a permanent
teaching status who was discharged for a willful refusal to
obey school rules. A lower court entered judgment in favor
of the district and the case was appealed to a higher
court. The appellate court, in affirming the judgment of
the lower court, underscored the abidance by the teacher to
legal board rules in the following words:
Plaintiff had the right to require obedience to the
rules reasonably promulgated by it as a condition to
holding the office of teacher. There are few employ
ments of hire, either public or private, in which the
employee does not agree to abide by the rules pre
scribed by the employer, provided such rules are
lawful. (108:268)
In further explanation, the court emphasized the
mandatory duty placed upon the governing board to exercise
such control over a public employee by stating:
Because of this dominant public interest, the
exercise of such control over the public employee is
not only a right but is a duty, and in the discharge
thereof a wide discretion is allowed, which will not
be disturbed until the point of illegality is reached.
(108:268)
In order to carry out this mandate from the state
to "enforce rules not inconsistent with law," the Legisla
ture in California has authorized the dismissal of
permanent employees who refuse to obey reasonable board
rules, regulations of the State Board of Education, or
37
state law. Education Code, Section 13403, enumerates this
grant of power as it partially reads:
No permanent employee shall be dismissed except for
one or more of the following causes. . . . Persistent
violation of the state or reasonable regulations
prescribed for the government of the public schools by
the State Board of Education or by the governing board
of the school district employing him . . . (90)
However, it must be observed that even though the
teacher is legally bound to abide by existing law and
regulations, it necessitates a "persistent" violation or
refusal to obey "reasonable" rules which would warrant his
dismissal. A California court summarized this principle
in the following statement:
It would seem that if the same regulation is
violated by two teachers, one of whom does it inno
cently and the other knowingly, the results are quite
likely to be the same as far as school administration
is concerned. It is this persistent disregard of the
rules that this subsection appears to make sufficient
basis for dismissal. (107:272)
Propriety of Delegated Authority
The assignment of teachers to their duties is an
exclusive power of the governing board, and it is the
general rule of law that a discretionary power of the board
cannot be delegated. As a result, a few court cases ques
tioned the authority of the school administrator in making
duty assignment of teachers.
38
In upholding the propriety of delegated power of
teacher duty assignment, a California court (138) cited
the following legislative enactments and State Board of
Education regulations which afford the legal power for the
school board to delegate the responsibility to make certain
teacher duty assignments.
Education Code, section 1001, explains the execu
tion power of the school board, and the mandate placed upon
the board to discharge lawful duty. This section reads:
The governing board of any school district may
execute any powers delegated by law to it or to the
district of which it is the governing board, and shall
discharge any duty imposed by law upon it or upon the
district of which it is the governing board. (90)
Education Code, section 7, specifically grants to
a public officer the permission to delegate certain powers
and duties to an authorized person or deputy. The section
states:
Whenever a power is granted to, or a duty imposed
upon, a public officer, the power may be exercised or
the duty may be performed by a deputy of the officer
or by a person authorized, pursuant to the law, by the
officer, unless this code expressly provides otherwise.
(90)
Administrative Code, section 5551, gives the
authority to administer and supervise the school to the
school principal in these words:
39
The principal is responsible for the supervision
and administration of his school. (84)
Briefly, the case involved the assignment of extra
curricular duties to teachers and touched upon the legality
of delegated authority of teacher assignment. The court
made some pointed comments concerning the administration of
school board regulations. Specifically, they noted that
the "local governing board has power delegated to it to
make the necessary rules and regulations which its district
requires"; and the school principal "has the necessary
power which is inherent in his office to properly adminis
ter and supervise his school" (138:372).
In the same opinion, the court continued by declar
ing that the administration of supervisory duty placed upon
the board can be properly delegated to its agents when it
said:
. . . Section 18 clearly places upon the authori
ties of the district the duty to supervise these
activities. This section does not expressly place this
particular duty in controversy upon the teacher, but
such duty is placed upon the district authorities who
in turn have properly delegated it to their representa
tives and agents. One of the published rules by
respondent board in regard to matters of supervision
requires teachers to cooperate with their superiors.
This is absolutely necessary to carry out the proper
administration of the district. (138:373)
40
In addition, it was observed that athletic super
visory duties do not need to be expressly set forth in the
printed board rules and regulations with these remarks:
. . . these duties are supervisory in nature and a
minute detailing of them is quite unnecessary, not
withstanding appellant's contention that they should
be specifically set forth. These duties are so inter
related with the other duties of the teacher and his
position that it is not necessary that each one of them
be specifically stated. (138:373)
A parallel case in New York unheld the legality of
administrative assignment of teacher activity duty. In
this case, some teachers were seeking to set aside a board
ruling which stated that:
2. There is an area of teacher service which is
important to the well rounded educational program of
the students, but in which teachers participate in
varied ways according to their interests, capabilities
and school programs. The principal has the responsi
bility and duty to see to it that these activities are
carried on. The principal may assign a teacher to
reasonable amounts of such service beyond the specified
hours of classroom instruction, and the teacher is
required to render such service. . . . (139:583)
The teachers contended that this unlawfully
delegated to the principals the power to fix the duties and
hours of the teachers without providing for adequate pro
tection of the teachers. The court in upholding the
regulations as being valid also said:
41
. . . The regulations direct the principals to
assign a teacher to only a reasonable amount of service
outside of regular classroom instruction and also to
see that such assignments, as far as practicable, are
equitably distributed. The principal is also obliged
to keep records of such service, and if a teacher
feels that he is being treated unfairly he may appeal
to the assistant superintendent to correct the
situation. (139:584)
Role of the Courts
In general, the courts have declared a reluctance
to interfere with the discretionary power of the governing
board to assign teacher duty. The position taken by the
courts is illustrated in a recent California case, Adelt
v. Richmond School District. The court used the following
language to observe the concept of noninterference:
The welfare of school districts demand that they
have broad discretion to assign their teachers in the
best interests of the school system. Consequently,
the courts should not lightly undertake to interfere
with the exercise of this discretion, where it is not
in conflict with statutory law. (102:153)
Other courts throughout the nation have maintained
this position. Consequently, as long as there is no con
flict with statutory law and the boards proceed within
their jurisdiction in matters involving the exercise of
discretion or judgment, the courts will not interfere
(139:585). The exception would be where, held a New York
42
court, "there is palpable discrimination or arbitrary
action detrimental to the individual or class" (105:487).
Limitations Placed on Teacher Duty
Although the governing board has been given wide
latitude by the legislature in assigning teacher duty and
making rules and regulations that set terms of employment,
legislative enactments and court principles have been
established which clarify and limit the exercise of this
grant of power. The following section deals with selected
statutes, court decisions in California and elsewhere,
which have placed legal limits on the assignment of
teachers to their duty.
The Assignment Must be Reasonable
The courts have declared that assignment of teachers
to their duty by the board must stand the test of reason
ableness. Two California court cases are illustrative of
the court's position on this principle.
A 1967 case not only stated the principle of
reasonable assignment, but reaffirmed the comprehensive
power of the board to assign teacher duty. The case
involved a tenure teacher who had taken a sabbatical leave.
43
Upon return to duty, she had been reassigned to a different
school and grade level from the one she had held prior to
the sabbatical leave. The teacher brought suit to compel
the school district to reinstate her as a fourth grade
teacher at her former school. In upholding the lower court
judgment in denying her a petition for writ of mandate,
the appellate court said:
Subject only to the requirement of reasonableness,
a school district is entitled to assign teachers any
where within their certificate, according to the needs
of the district. Tenure does not bestow on the school
teacher a vested right to a specific school or to a
specific class level of students within any school.
(102:152)
In the other case, the court in ruling that six
athletic assignments in an entire school year were not
unreasonable, declared that all of a teacher's duties are
subject to the test of reasonableness. The court con
tinued by observing that "what is reasonable must
necessarily depend upon the facts of the situation ..."
(138:377).
Duty Free Lunch
In California, an additional limitation has been
placed on teacher duty by legislative enactment. The
Legislature has mandated a duty free lunch period for all
44
certificated personnel. A partial reading of section 5600,
Administrative Code, explains the essentials of duty free
lunch:
The duty-free lunch period for teachers and other
certificated employees required by Education Code
Section 13561 shall be not less than 30 minutes. It
shall be allowed as near noon as reasonably possible
. . . (84)
Teacher Must be Qualified
for Assignment
The courts have ruled that a teacher's duty assign
ment must be one for which the teacher is qualified. A
1935 California case is representative of this legal
principle. The case concerned a teacher who was discharged
from his position as a commercial subjects teacher. A
lower court ruled that he had been dismissed illegally in
an attempt to evade the tenure provisions of the statutes.
The court ordered the district to reinstate and restore the
employment of the teacher to his position as a permanent
teacher of commercial subjects. The appellate court in
affirming this decision modified the lower court's order
by striking therefrom the words "of commercial subjects."
The courts reasoned in these words:
. . . While a board would have no right to evade
the plain meaning of the tenure act by assigning a
teacher to a class of work for which he was not
45
qualified, for the purpose of compelling his resigna
tion, it has the power to reasonably change assignments
with respect to a permanent teacher so long as the
work assigned is of a rank and grade equivalent to that
by which the permanent status was acquired and so long
as the assignment is one for which the teacher in
question is qualified. (136:69)
The board's power to fix duties of teachers is not
restricted to classroom instruction. It has been held that
any teaching duty may be properly imposed, but the duty
must be within the scope of the license held by the teacher
(139:584).
A similar decision by the court was that a profes
sional employee is hired to "teach." Thereafter, "he may
be assigned such teaching duties as he is qualified to
teach" (104:744). This was the ruling of the court when it
declared that coaching duty was a proper assignment for a
teacher of physical education.
Teacher Assignment in Good Faith
The school board must act in "good faith in classi
fying and assigning a teacher to a specific work, and it
must be in accordance with the law" (117:739).
This limitation placed upon the board is exempli
fied and emphasized in an Arizona court case, Board of
Education v. Williams. The case involved the school board
46
relieving a teacher-counselor from his duties as a coun
selor, transferring him to another school, and warning him
that his dismissal might be recommended. The trial court
set aside the decision of the board and the case was
appealed to the higher court. The appellate court, in
affirming the assignment power of the board, found that a
teacher was not a lower rank or grade than a counselor.
Using the terms "subterfuge," "burdensome" and "inappro
priate," the court added the following words of caution
regarding teacher duty assignments:
The fact that the petitioner's name is as "John
Wesley Williams, Teacher-counselor" in the contract
does not, in the view of this clear language, prohibit
the respondent School Board from assigning to the
petitioner such duties as the Board may determine so
long as the Board does not use such power as a subter
fuge to attempt to avoid the Act, such as making
assignments which might be so burdensome or inappro
priate as to force a resignation. (109:329)
Related to School Program
The activities assigned a teacher must be related
to the school program rules the court in a 1963 Pennsylvania
case, Pease v. Millcreek Township School District. In this
case, the teacher was notified at the opening of the school
year that, in addition to his classroom duties, he had been
assigned to act as a sponsor of a boys' bowling club for
47
the school year. The bowling sessions occurred one day
each week and each session lasted approximately two and
one-half hours. The school did not bear any costs and
there were no intramural nor interscholastic bowling teams
or competition. The teacher refused the assignment, and
the board dismissed him for his refusal. In a reversal of
the lower court's decision, the appellate court reinstated
the teacher to his position and expressed the following
opinion:
School teachers must realize that they are subject
to assignment by the school board to any activity
directly related to the school program; classroom
duties in the school hours do not constitute all their
duties. On the other hand, school boards must realize
that their power of assignment of school teachers to
extracurricular duties is not without limitation and
restriction; . . . the activity to which a school
teacher is assigned must be related to the school pro
gram and the assignment must be fairly and reasonably
made. (142:108)
Arbitrary, Unreasonable,
Menial Duty
The school board cannot use arbitrary authority to
assign teacher duty that is not within the scope of teach
ing duties, or other menial chores. Three separate court
cases illustrate examples of unreasonable duty.
A 1929 California case, Dutart v. Woodward,
explains the use of arbitrary authority by a school board.
48
In this case, the school board requested a tenure teacher
to resign her position in the district because she had
married. She refused to comply with the request. As a
result, her teaching assignment was changed from a regular
district school to a special elementary class maintained by
the district in a tubercular sanitorium. She brought
action in court and obtained a writ of mandate requiring
the school board to assign her to the regular elementary
schools of the district. The appellate court affirmed the
judgment of the lower court. In addition to prohibiting
the use of arbitrary authority by the board, the court
described other limitations on teacher duty assignments
through the terms "idle and useless" and "unreasonable and
dangerous." The court said:
There is no doubt that within the limits prescribed
by law and reason the school board possesses exclusive
province of assigning teachers to their specific work.
But the board has no arbitrary authority to assign a
teacher to a school where the sanitary conditions would
endanger her health or life, nor to a school wherein
the pupils are afflicted with a contagious disease,
nor to the idle and useless task of continuously
sitting around a waiting-room: . . . For the refusal on
the part of the teacher to comply with such unreason
able or dangerous assignments, the board would have no
legal authority to prefer charges against the teacher
and deprive her of her lawful status as a permanent
teacher. (117:739)
49
A very early 1925 decision by the courts forbids
the assignment of a teacher to "menial" tasks. Briefly,
the case concerned a school district which discharged a
teacher for "failing" and "refusing" to make fires and do
other janitorial work. The higher court, in affirming the
judgment of the trial court against the district, made
these remarks:
. . . The defendent had no more right to require
the plaintiff to make the fires and the other menial
chores, by providing for the same in its rules and
regulations, aside from the contract of employment,
than it had to require the plaintiff to scrub the walls
or paint the building. The defendent employed the
plaintiff to teach the school and this, the jury found
by its verdict, had been done by the plaintiff in a
proper manner . . . (150:585)
In a New York case, the court specified additional
duties which are unreasonable for teachers to perform. The
court noted that:
The duty assigned must be within the scope of a
teachers' duties. Teachers may not be required, for
instance to perform janitor service, police service,
etc. These are not "teaching duties." The board may
not impose upon a teacher a duty foreign to the field
of instruction for which he is licensed or employed.
A board may not, for instance, require a mathematics
teacher to coach intramural teams. (139:585)
Uniformity of Treatment
Teacher workload limitations are placed upon the
school boards by the equal protection clause contained in
50
the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. This
clause, which reads "... nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (87)
mandates a uniformity without discrimination in the fixing
of duties or salaries. The following code section and
court rulings illustrate this principle.
The California Education Code, section 13501 man
dates the board of trustees to abstain from any discrimina
tion on the basis of sex. This section reads:
Females employed as teachers in the public schools
of the state shall, in all cases, receive the same
compensation as is allowed male teachers for like
services, when holding the same grade certificates.
(90)
A California court case enlarged upon the
uniformity-of-treatment principle for those performing like
services, when they noted in regard to teacher pay that:
It must be conceded that, within the limits fixed
by the School Code, the Board has discretionary control
over the salaries of teachers. . . . However, it must
also be conceded that the legislature has enjoined on
such boards, within reasonable limits, the principle of
uniformity of treatment as to salary for those perform
ing like services with like experience. (123:757)
Furthermore, boards of trustees are enjoined from
practicing teacher assignment based upon racial discrimina
tion. An illustrative case in Clark v. Board of Education,
in which a federal court ruled that the practice of racial
51
discrimination must cease, when they said:
It is also clear that the time for delay is past.
The desegregation of the teaching staff should have
begun many years ago. At this point the Board is going
to have to take accelerated and positive action to end
discriminatory practices in staff assignment and
recruitment. . . . Future employment assignment, trans
fer, and discharge of teachers must be free of racial
consideration. (115:669)
Finally, a California court, speaking of teacher
supervision of social and athletic activities conducted by
the school, emphasized the principle of uniformity in duty
assignment in these words:
. . . Supervising the students and being present to
protect their welfare at school athletic and social
activities, conducted under the name and auspices of
the school, is within the scope of the contract and
such assignments are proper so long as they are dis
tributed impartially, they are reasonable in number and
hours of duty and each teacher has his share of such
duty. (138:377)
The Teacher's Classroom Duties
Although the state legislature is empowered to
prescribe the duties for teachers, it is seldom that the
legislature will spell out in detail what the teacher must
do in the classroom. Often, the statutory provisions are
stated in broad terms with express or implied delegation of
authority to local school boards to make the classroom
assignment of teacher duty.
52
In order to ascertain the teacher's legal classroom
responsibilities, this section will present the statutory
law of California which is applicable to teacher duty.
Also, included are the legal principles from selected court
cases which are relevant to the study.
Teaching Year
During the school year, the teacher has a contract
with the local school board to teach a number of specified
days. The annual teaching year for each teacher in the
public schools is not the same as a school year. Both the
teaching year and the school year are based upon provisions
of legislative statutes. The school year as defined in the
California Education Code, section 5101, is as follows:
The school year begins on the first day of July
and ends on the last day of June. (90)
A 1903 court case, speaking of the provisions of this
statute, ruled in relation to the time span of a teacher's
contract that:
A contract of employment for a school teacher for
a year imports, in the absence of any thing to the
contrary, employment for a school year as defined by
this statute. (156:699)
Although the teacher is contracted for the school
year, the pay of the teacher will be determined in part by
53
the number of days he works during the school term. This
principle is set forth by statutory law. California Educa
tion Code, section 13520, specifies the formula to be
applied to determine the amount due to a credentialed
employee who serves less than a full school year. This
section states:
A person in a position requiring certification
qualifications who serves less than a full school year
shall receive as salary only an amount that bears the
same ratio to the established annual salary for the
position as the number of working days he serves bears
to the total number of working days plus institutes in
the annual school term, and any other day when the
employee, is required by the governing board to be
present at the schools of the district. Notwithstand
ing any provision of this section to the contrary, a
person in a position requiring certification qualifica
tions who serves a complete semester receive not less
than one-half of the established annual salary for the
position. . . . (90)
Consequently, the governing board of the district
has the power to establish the annual "school term" and
designate additional days for teachers to be on duty.
Supporting this statute, the school term has been defined
by the Attorney General of California as:
School Term— Should be construed, for purposes of
prorating salary of teacher who serves less than a full
school year, to include Saturdays, Sundays and desig
nated holidays within the period designated as school
term by district, and to exclude any such days falling
within the period between school terms, i.e., during
summer vacation. (100)
54
Concomitant with the authority to set the school
term, the board of trustees must meet the requirements set
by the Legislature for the school to be in session to
qualify as a regular full-time day school. The regular
full-time day school is defined, by section 2 of the
California Administrative Code, to mean:
. . . "Regular full-time day school" means a school
maintained by a school district during the day, as
distinguished from evening or night, for not less than
175 days during the fiscal year for not less than the
minimum school day established by or pursuant to law.
(84)
Therefore, the annual work year for the regular
full-time teacher will be established by the board of
trustees of each school district acting within provisions
of statute law; but it will exclude such days falling
between school terms, or summer vacation.
The principle of excluding the days between school
terms as not part of the regular teaching year received a
concurring opinion in a New York court case. In this
case, Sherman v. Board of Education, a number of teachers
sought to obtain a judgment directing the school board "to
adopt, establish and promulgate a summer school salary
schedule which complies with the Education Law of the State
of New York, ..." (151:887). The appellate court
55
dismissed the petition and declared:
Boards of Education are not required to provide
siammer school programs, and teachers are not compelled
to serve when the additional schooling is made avail
able. Such service is on a voluntary basis . . .
(151:887)
Duty Hours of the Teacher
The fixing of the hours of work for teachers in
California is vested in the district's governing board of
education. This authority is granted through legislative
enactment as specified in the Education Code, section 10952,
which reads:
The governing board of each school district shall,
. . . fix the length of the school day for the several
grades and classes of the schools maintained by the
district. (90)
In conjunction with this power to regulate the
length of the school day within prescribed legal limits,
the governing board has been empowered with the authority
to control the teacher1s work hours. The Administrative
Code, section 5570, specifies this authority in the follow
ing words:
Unless otherwise provided by the rule of the
governing board of the school district, teachers are
required to be present in their respective rooms, and
to open them for the admission of the pupils, not less
than 30 minutes before the time for commencing school.
All teachers shall observe punctually the hours fixed
by regulation of the governing board of the school
district for opening and closing school. (84)
56
In addition to the hours fixed by the governing
board for the regular school day, a California court has
ruled that the work hours for a teacher may include duty
assignments conducted after school hours, and on Saturdays
or holidays (138). While upholding the out-of-school duty
hours, the court underlined the professional nature of the
teaching role by commenting:
Teachers are engaged in professional employment.
Their salaries and hours of employment are fixed with
due regard to their professional status and are not
fixed upon the same basis as those of day laborers.
The worth of a teacher is not measured in terms of
specific sum of money per hour. A teacher expects to
and does perform a service. If that service from
time to time requires additional hours of work, a
teacher expects to and does put in the extra hours
without thought of measuring his or her compensation
in terms of a given sum of money per hour. A teacher's
duties and obligations to students and the community
are not satisfied by closing the classroom door at
the conclusion of a class. (138:376)
Moreover, the assignment of duty hours for teachers
need not be the same for all teachers, nor limited to the
regular hours of the day. A New York court case illus
trated this principle. The court announced:
The hours of service of its teachers may not
necessarily coincide with the hours of classroom
instruction, nor is it legally required that the hours
fixed to be the same for all teachers. The board may
authorize the principal or other official in charge of
the school to excuse teachers at earlier hours than
those contained in the by laws when their services on
a given day are no longer needed. Furthermore, under
57
ordinary circumstances the board, in fixing such laws
is limited to the usual hours of the day. However,
I do not hold that there may not be occasions when
hours in the evening may be specified if the service
can be said to fall fairly within the regular duties of
the teacher. (139:584)
Course of Studies
The California Legislature has stated in broad
terms the requirement placed upon every teacher in the
public schools to enforce the course of studies.
Section 13556, California Education Code concisely sets
forth the encompassing duty contained in this mandate:
Every teacher in the public schools shall enforce
the course of study, the use of legally authorized
textbooks, and the rules and regulations prescribed
for schools. (90)
Morals and Citizenship
In addition to teaching the prescribed course of
study, the scope of teaching duties for each teacher in
the public schools of California has been enlarged through
legislative enactment. Each teacher has been ordered to
impress upon the minds of the pupils principles of
"morality," "patriotism," and "American citizenship." The
legislative regulation is expressed in the California
Education Code, section 13556.5, in the following words:
58
Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the
minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth,
justice, and patriotism, to teach them to avoid idle
ness, profanity and falsehood, to instruct them in the
principles of a free government, and to train them up
to a true comprehension of the rights, duties and
dignity of American citizenship. (90)
School Register
Elementary school teachers have an additional duty
imposed by statute. Each teacher is required to keep a
state school register in which a record of the attendance
and absence of pupils enrolled is maintained. Education
Code, section 1355 8, explains this responsibility as it
reads in part:
A state school register shall be kept by every
teacher in the public elementary schools except a
teacher in:
(1) A school in which the state school register of
each teacher is kept on behalf of the teacher
in a central office by an employee of the
school district.
(2) A school in which a central file of individual
records of pupil enrollment, absence, and
attendance is maintained on forms containing at
least the minimum items of information pre
scribed by State Department of Education, and
whose principal submits periodic reports of
pupil personnel data to the city or district
superintendent of schools, or if no superin
tendent is employed in the district, to the
county superintendent of schools on a form
approved by the State Department of Education.
(90)
59
Lesson Plans
In review of a decision by the Commissioner of
Education upholding a high school teacher's discharge, a
New York appellate court held that the board of education
had power to require teachers to file lesson plans and the
requirement was not unreasonable. Essentially, the case
involved a tenure teacher of English who refused to obey an
administrative directive to file lesson plans in advance
for a two-week period. He refused to obey the directive on
five separate occasions, while all other senior high school
teachers complied with the first directive. The teacher
was suspended pending charges; and after the hearing, the
board dismissed him. The appellate court, in affirming the
decision of the commissioner to carry out established board
policy, commented:
We think the directive for lesson plans lies well
within the frame of the Board's authority and the Board
is in possession of the necessary implementing power of
delegating to its administrative officers the right to
carry out its policies. (156:238)
Teaching Demonstration
The court has ruled in a Louisiana case that a
teaching demonstration in an Industrial Arts program was
a proper duty assignment for a teacher. The case evolved
60
out of the continued refusal by an Industrial Arts teacher
to obey an administrative order directing him to set wooden
forms for a sidewalk as a demonstration. He contended that
it was construction work. In subsequent action, the
teacher was dismissed by the school board. He then brought
suit in court to be reinstated to his teaching position.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the school
board. On appeal to the higher court, the appellate court
declared that the school board was justified in dismissing
plaintiff. In stating this opinion, they pointed out the
educational value of the duty assignment in these words:
. . . Plaintiff was dismissed because of his con
tinued refusal to obey an order initiated by the
Principal of the school where he was teaching. The
Principal had acted in this matter upon the suggestion
of the School Superintendent. Clearly the lesson and
demonstration, which plaintiff refused to teach, had
value under the Industrial Arts program. Additionally,
this project had functional value, in that it enhanced
the ease of reaching the facilities of the school. We
cannot but conclude that plaintiff willfully neglected
his duty by refusing to comply with this order.
(152:731)
Study Hall Assignment
A New York court affirmed that the assignment of a
teacher to teaching duties involving the supervision of
study hall, in place of duties as mathematics teacher, was
a proper assignment. In so holding, the court ruled that
61
the teacher's tenure was that "of a secondary school
teacher and not of secondary school mathematics teacher"
(155:900). Also, the use of a rational procedure in
assigning teacher duty was underscored in the opinion of
the court. The court said:
It is our belief that no legal right of the peti
tioner has been violated by respondent's determination
to assign him to proper teaching duties involving
duties other than those of teaching mathematics. The
record fails to disclose any abuse of the discretion by
the school administration, nor has it been shown that
the determination was arbitrary and capricious. There
is sufficient basis here for the determination and
reassignment which appears to us to have been made upon
sufficient rational basis. (155:900)
The petition by the teacher for an order directing
recision of the administrative determination assigning him
to full-time study hall supervision was denied.
Emergency Drills
The school principal in California is mandated to
conduct fire and civil defense drills. This requirement is
enumerated in the Administrative Code in the following two
sections:
Section 550: A fire drill shall be conducted in
each school at least once each school month. The first
drill shall be conducted in accordance with either (a)
or (b):
(a) The governing board may arrange for a fire
department to conduct fire drills for the
school.
62
(b) The principal of each school shall conduct the
fire drills. In case, all pupils, teachers,
and other employees shall be required to leave
the building.
Section 560: . . . The governing board, by regula
tion, may require civil defense and preparedness drills
on any school day school classes are maintained. The
drills shall be conducted in accordance with the
adopted plans. (84)
The courts have upheld the principle that emergency
drills are a proper duty to be imposed on teachers in two
separate cases. In a California case, the court affirmed
the propriety of civil defense duties when they said:
Petitioner also claims that the act improperly
subjects him to assignment to activities outside and
beyond his regular duties. It is clear, however, that
a teacher may properly be assigned certain duties
relating to civil defense, such as the instruction of
pupils regarding their behavior during atomic explosion,
air raids, or other attacks. Tasks of this type, like
the holding of fire drills, are within the scope of
the duties of a teacher and may be properly required of
him regardless of the fact that they may also consti
tute civil defense activities. . . . (143:680)
A concurring opinion was rendered by a New York
court in a case concerning a substitute teacher's refusal
to participate in a school shelter drill, because they were
incompatible with his conscience. For his refusal to
participate in the drill, he was suspended and his license
cancelled. The court, in holding that his discharge was
legal, stated their view upon this duty.
63
As the papers herein clearly indicate, respondent
Donovan cancelled the license in question solely
because petitioner refused to participate, as he was
required to, in shelter drills ordered by civil defense
and school authorities; and his cancellation thereof
will not be invalidated simply because petitioner found
drill participation to be incompatible with his con
science. The drills were ordered pursuant to the New
York Emergency Act, which is a valid exercise of
legislative power; and under the authority thereof
petitioner could constitutionally be required to
participate in the aforementioned drills, notwithstand
ing his scruples against nuclear warfare, since drills
are purely a defensive measure and not coercive of
preparation for nuclear war against such scruples . . .
(116:206)
Extra Class Duties for Teachers
Normally, teaching duties which are considered to
be extra class activities are not specifically included
in the contract provisions of the teacher. These necessary
school functions are usually left to the discretion of the
school principal for assignment to teachers. As a result
of this delegated power, the principal must make the
assignments of teacher duty that are within statutory
limits and according to legal principles determined by the
courts.
This portion of the study will present existing
California statute law derived from legislative enactment,
rules and regulations of the State Board of Education,
64
opinions of the Attorney General of California and legal
principles that are obtained from court cases which concern
extra class duty.
Coaching Duties
The case, Appeal of Ganaposki, established the
principle that coaching athletics is teaching. This early,
1934, Pennsylvania case concerned a physical education
teacher who, when relieved of his duties as football coach,
refused to continue coaching basketball. Because of this
refusal to coach, he was not re-elected to the teaching
staff. He brought action in court, but the lower court
sustained the decision of the school board. On appeal,
the appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower
court and ruled that coaching duties are a proper assign
ment. They declared:
Appellant was a qualified instructor in physical
education and was assigned to coaching duties. It was
a proper assignment, within the power of the school
authorities. When a professional employee is regularly
employed to "teach," thereafter, he may be assigned
such teaching duties for which he is qualified as the
board may direct, and if he refuses to obey such
instruction he is guilty of "wilful and persistent
negligence" for which he may be dismissed. (104:744)
65
Open House
A 1963 case in Pennsylvania advanced the principle
that the open house is a significant part of the school
program and a part of a teacher's responsibilities. The
case involved a temporary teacher who willfully refused an
administrative order to attend an open house. She was
subsequently dismissed from her position. The case was
brought to court. The court upheld the board's action and
stated:
. . . Good teachers, sometimes accepting the
annoyance of a few unreasonable parents, appreciate
the opportunity which the open house gives them to
explain the school program to the parents and to learn
more about their pupils. The refusal, without cause,
of a new teacher to participate in this program sets a
bad example for the students, is an annoyance to the
faithful teachers who always participate, is embarassing
to the school officials who are called upon to explain
her absence, and disappointing, if not outright dis
gusting, to the parents and relatives who have made
personal sacrifices to be there. Any school teacher
who lacks an understanding of her responsibility to be
present on this occasion and who arrogantly refuses to
obey the direction of her employer to be there and
instead follows her own personal whims and pleasures
can properly be held by the board employing her to be
unfit to continue in the employment of that board. The
plaintiff here has demonstrated a lack of "respect for
the glorious tradition of the teaching profession."
(128:900)
Teacher Institute
Each teacher in California has been ordered to
attend teacher institutes by the state Legislature.
66
California Education Code/ section 1336 8, makes this
responsibility mandatory upon the teacher with the expres
sion "shall attend":
Every teacher employed in the schools of the
county, city and county, or city school district hold
ing an institute shall attend the institute and
participate in its proceedings. (90)
School Workshop
A 1970 Utah case concerned a teacher who refused to
attend a school workshop that was using federal funds. In
subsequent action, the school board transferred him to
another school. He refused to accept the transfer. Then,
the board dismissed him and he brought suit in court. The
lower court ruled in favor of the board and the case was
appealed to the higher court. The appellate court in deny
ing a petition for rehearing upheld his freedom of speech,
but also pointed out his responsibility. They said:
. . . he was undoubtedly entitled to his freedom
of thought and of speech in regard to his declared
aversion to the use of federal funds in the public
schools. However, his opposition and refusal to
cooperate in carrying out the policies determined by
those charged with the duty of administering school
affairs was a factor which those officials could
properly consider in fulfilling their responsibilities
. . . (110:568)
67
Student Activity Supervision
The legal basis for teacher supervision of student
activities as part of their regular workload, stems from
legislative enactment and State Board of Education regula
tions. The California Administrative Code, section 5531,
places this duty upon the certificated employees of the
district in these words:
All athletic and social activities of pupils,
wherever held, if conducted under the name or auspices
of public school or any class or any organization
thereof, shall be under the direct supervision of
certificated employees of the district. (84)
This principle of direct teacher supervision of
athletic and social activities has been held by the courts
as a legal teacher duty. In a 1955 decision, a California
court noted that
This section . . . makes the authorities of the
school district responsible for the direct supervision
of all athletic or social activities conducted in the
name or under the auspices of the school regardless of
where they are held. To carry out this responsibility,
respondent board requires teachers to attend certain
athletic and social activities in a supervisory
capacity. . . . (138:372)
Courts in other states have upheld the legality of
teacher supervision of school activities as a proper duty
assignment. A New York court concurred with the principle
of activity duty for teachers and partially enumerated
68
types of school related activities which could be legally
assigned to teachers. The court's opinion was that:
. . . any teacher may be expected to take over a
study hall; a teacher engaged in instruction in a given
area may be expected to devote part of his day to
student meetings where supervision of such teacher is,
in the opinion of the board, educationally desirable.
Teachers in the fields of English and Social Studies
and undoubtedly in other areas may be expected to
coach plays; physical training teachers may be required
to coach both intramural and inter-school athletic
teams; teachers may be assigned to supervise educa
tional trips which are properly part of the school
curriculum. The band instructor may be required to
accompany the band if it leaves the building. These
are illustrations of some of the duties which boards of
education have clear legal justification to require of
their employees. . . . (139:585)
Playground Supervision
The assignment of teachers to playground supervi
sion, as part of their regular duties, is legally provided
by section 5552, California Administrative Code. This
section briefly explains that:
Where playground supervision is not otherwise pro
vided, the principal of each school shall provide for
this supervision by certificated employees of the con
duct and safety, and for the direction of play, of the
pupils of the school who are on the school grounds
during recess and other intermissions and before and
after school. (84)
Litigation in the courts of California has helped
to clarify the meaning of this code section. Specifically,
the term "intermission" has been construed to refer
69
. . . not to time which is consumed in going from
one classroom to another, as the facts show here, but
to a general cessation of all teaching activity in the
school. The term might be applied to the period allowed
for lunch, . . . and to the twenty minute recesses.
(144:632)
Too, the matter of the section deals with playgrounds and
play, and every statute and code section "should be con
strued with reference to its purpose and the objects
intended to be accomplished by it. Here the purpose was
to supervise play" (144:633).
Further amplication of this code section has been
made in reference to the clause "where playground super
vision is not otherwise provided." The Attorney General
of California has expressed the opinion that this clause
permits the use of noncertificated personnel for playground
supervision. The opinion states:
Regulations of the State Board of Education have
contained the same or similar provisions since at
least 1929. Although the rule permits the use of
teachers for playground supervision, it does not
require the use of teachers where playground super
vision is otherwise provided. In our opinion, the
rule is valid, particularly in view of the fact that
the Legislature has recognized and accepted the exis
tence of noncertificated playground positions.
(101:110)
Harmonizing with the duty of playground supervision
by teachers or noncertificated personnel, statute law gives
the teacher power to carry out the responsibility.
70
California Education Code, section 13557, expresses the
authority in the following manner:
Every teacher in the public schools shall hold
pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way
to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during
recess. (90)
Enlarging upon the meaning of this code section, a
California court ruled that it did not impose a duty on the
teacher or the district to supervise pupils on their way
home. Instead of a duty imposed upon the teacher, this
section placed the duty on the pupil and refers "to the
behavior of school children and not to their safe conduct
to and from school" (131:309). Additional clarification
has been afforded to this section by the Attorney General
of California in an opinion concerning the propriety of
noncertificated personnel supervising playgrounds. In this
opinion, it was stated:
It is contended that this section requires play
ground supervision by a teacher and no one else. If
this be true, then it is equally true that teachers
should exercise the same degree of supervision over
pupils on the way to and from school whether the pupil
travels by foot, horseback, bicycle, school bus,
common carrier, or other mode of transportation. To
hold so would be absurd. . . . (101:110)
71
Supervision of
Instructional Aides
The direction and supervision of instructional
aides has been included within the scope of teacher duty
by legislative enactment. Recognizing the need of class
room teachers for more time to teach, the intent of the
legislature is to provide additional help for the teacher
so that the quality of educational opportunities for pupils
will be enhanced. The California Education Code,
section 134993, defines the title of instructional aide in
these terms:
As used in this article, "instructional aide" means
a person employed to assist classroom teachers and
other certificated personnel in the performance of
their duties and in the supervision of pupils and in
instructional tasks which, in the judgment of the
certificated personnel to whom the instructional aide
is assigned, may be performed by a person not licensed
as a classroom teacher. . . . (90)
While placing the supervision of the instructional
aide under the classroom teacher and other certificated
personnel, California Education Code, section 13599.6,
waives the holding of the supervision credential as a pre
requisite. This section declares that:
Classroom teachers and other certificated personnel
shall not be required to hold a standard supervision
credential or a standard administration credential as
a prerequisite to the supervision and direction of
instructional aides. (90)
72
School Reports
The state Legislature has imposed upon the authori
ties of the school and their employees numerous reports to
be made during the school year. The legal authority for
such reports is expressed in the California Education Code,
section 13001, which reads:
Any principal, teacher, employee, or school officer
of any elementary or secondary school who refuses or
wilfully neglects to make such reports as are required
by law is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by
a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. (90)
In addition to the expressed, punitive action con
tained in this code section, the Legislature has vested
additional power to boards of education to assure the
filing of legally required reports. The legislative enact
ment, section 13529, California Education Code, grants the
power to withhold salary payment for the last month of
service from the employee who does not file the required
reports. This section specifies that:
The salary payment due a certificated employee for
his last month of service in any district during any
fiscal year shall not be approved by the county super
intendent of schools until all reports required from
the employee have been filed with said superintendent.
(90)
73
Chapter Summary
This section has reviewed the legal aspects of the
teacher's workload in California, as determined by legisla
tive enactments, regulations of the State Department of
Education, case law principles established by California
courts and courts in other states, which help clarify the
teacher's legal responsibilities. To facilitate the
research and give coherence to the reporting of the inves
tigation, this section dealt with four main areas:
(1) legal authority for teacher duty assignment, (1) limi
tations placed on teacher duty, (3) the teacher's classroom
duties, and (4) extra class duties for teachers.
The relevant points determined by this study are
summarized below under the four major areas investigated.
Legal Authority for
Teacher Duty Assignment
1. The position of a teacher in the public schools
of California is not an office. It is an employment by
contract made between the teacher and the district.
2. The authority over school districts is vested
in the Legislature by the Constitution of the State of
California.
74
3. School districts are state agencies for the
local operation of the school system.
4. Every school district shall be under the con
trol of a board of school trustees or a board of education.
5. As a public agency of the state, the board may
perform only those functions and powers specifically
authorized by the Legislature.
6. The boards of education have those powers which
arise by necessary implication from the expressed powers.
7. The governing board shall prescribe and enforce
rules for its own government.
8. The governing board cannot enact a rule or
regulation which will alter or enlarge the terms of a
legislative enactment.
9. The board may supplement the statute law with
rules that tend to make the statute workable.
10. It is not necessary that all rules, orders and
regulations for the discipline, government and mangement of
the school be made a matter of record by the school board.
11. The governing board is mandated to fix and
prescribe the duties to be performed by all persons employed
in the school district.
75
12. The power to fix and prescribe the duties to
all persons employed within the school district is an
exclusive right.
13. The board has the power to assign teachers to
their specific work and is limited only by law and reason.
14. Through a contract relation with the governing
board of a district, a teacher becomes subject to the rules
of the board.
15. The rules and regulations which are in effect
at the date of making or renewal of a teacher's contract
are part of that contract.
16. The board is mandated to require obedience of
the teacher to reasonable board rules and regulations.
17. Persistent refusal by the teacher to obey
reasonable rules and regulations would warrant his
dismissal.
18. The governing board of the district shall dis
charge any duty imposed by law upon it or upon the district.
19. Unless the education code expressly provides
otherwise, a public officer may delegate the duty imposed
on him to a deputy.
20. The school board has the power to delegate to
the school administration the responsibility to make certain
76
teacher duty assignments.
21. The school principal has the necessary power
which is inherent in his office to properly administer and
supervise his school.
22. Supervisory duties by teachers do not need to
be expressly set forth in the printed board rules and
regulations.
23. The courts are reluctant to interfere with the
discretionary power of the governing board to fix and
prescribe teacher duty.
24. The courts will not interfere with the board's
discretion in assigning teacher duty, unless there is
conflict with statutory law.
25. The courts will interfere if there is dis
crimination or arbitrary action detrimental to the
individual or class.
Limitations Placed
on Teacher Duty
1. The courts have declared that assignment of
teachers to their duties by the board must stand the test
of reasonableness.
2. The courts have ruled that all of a teacher's
duties are subject to the test of reasonableness.
3. The courts have said that what is reasonable
must necessarily depend upon the facts of the situation.
4. Each teacher must have a duty free lunch period
that is as near noon as reasonably possible and of not less
than thirty minutes in length.
5. The board must assign a teacher to the type of
duty for which the teacher is qualified.
6. The board may not assign a teacher to duty for
the purpose of compelling his resignation.
7. The board may change a permanent teacher's
assignment as long as work assigned is of a rank and grade
equivalent to that by which the permanent status was
acquired.
8. The teacher duty assigned must be within the
scope of the license held by the teacher.
9. The board must act in good faith in classify
ing and assigning a teacher to a specific work, and it must
be in accordance with the law.
10. The duty activities assigned a teacher must be
related to the school program, and the assignment must be
fairly and reasonably made.
11. The school board cannot use arbitrary author
ity to assign teacher duty that is not within the scope of
78
teaching duties.
12. The school board cannot assign a teacher to an
unreasonable or dangerous assignment.
13. The school board may not assign a teacher to
idle and useless tasks.
14. A teacher may not be assigned police duty, or
menial tasks such as building fires and janitor service.
15. The board may not impose upon a teacher a duty
foreign to the field of instruction for which he is
licensed or employed.
16. There may be no discrimination of teacher
compensation based upon sex.
17. The board must exercise the principle of
uniformity of treatment for those performing like services
with like experience.
18. Boards of trustees are enjoined from racial
discrimination in teacher duty assignments.
19. Teacher supervision of social and athletic
activities must be uniform in assignment, and each teacher
must have his share of such duty.
The Teacher's Classroom Duties
1. The school year begins on the first day of
July and ends on the last day of June.
79
2. A contract of employment for a year is employ
ment for a school year.
3. The teacher must be on duty during the school
term, at institutes, and on other days required by the
school board.
4. A school term may not have less than 175 days
during the fiscal year.
5. The annual work year for the regular full-time
teacher will be established by the board of trustees.
6. The work year for the regular full-time teacher
will exclude the days between school terms, or summer
vacation.
7. Teachers are not compelled to serve in summer
school programs.
8. The governing board of each school district
shall fix the length of the school day.
9. Teachers are required to be in their rooms not
less than thirty minutes before the time for commencing
school, unless otherwise provided by board rule.
10. All teachers shall observe the hours fixed by
regulation of the district board for opening and closing
school.
80
11. The work hours for a teacher may include duty
assignments conducted after school hours.
12. The work hours for a teacher may include
assignments on Saturdays and holidays.
13. It is not legally required that the work hours
fixed be the same for all teachers.
14. The duty hours of the teacher are not limited
to the regular hours of the day.
15. Every teacher in the school shall enforce the
course of study, the use of legally authorized textbooks,
and the rules and regulations prescribed for schools.
16. Each teacher shall impress upon the minds of
the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, and
patriotism.
17. Each teacher shall teach the pupils to avoid
idleness, profanity and falsehood.
18. Each teacher shall instruct the pupils in the
principles of a free government.
19. Each teacher shall train the pupil in a true
comprehension of the rights, duties and dignity of American
citizenship.
20. Unless it is compiled by a central office,
each elementary school teacher is required to keep a state
81
school record of attendance and absence of enrolled pupils.
21. A teacher can be legally required to file
lesson plans in advance.
22. The courts have ruled that a teaching demon
stration is a proper duty assignment.
23. The supervision of a study hall has been
declared by the courts to be a proper teacher duty.
24. Emergency drill activities are within the
scope of the duties of a teacher, and a teacher may be
assigned such duties.
Extra Class Duties for Teachers
1. Coaching athletics is a proper teacher assign
ment for a qualified instructor of physical education.
2. The assignment of a teacher to attend the
school's open house is a part of the teacher's responsi
bilities .
3. Failure of a teacher to attend open house is a
proper cause for dismissal.
4. Each teacher in California has been mandated by
legislative enactment to attend teacher institutes.
5. The court has declared that attendance at a
school workshop is a legal teacher duty even though the
82
teacher opposed the use of federal funds in the public
schools.
6. Legislative statute requires that all athletic
and social activities of pupils conducted by the school
will be under direct supervision of certificated employees
of the district.
7. The governing board can require teachers to
supervise certain athletic and social activities.
8. The court has ruled that boards of education
have clear legal justification to require teachers to per
form duties which are part of the schools' curricula.
9. If not otherwise provided, California teachers
are required by statute law to supervise pupils at play on
the school grounds during recess, during other inter
missions, and before and after school.
10. Playground supervision may be assigned to
noncertificated personnel in lieu of teacher supervision.
11. Every teacher has the power to hold pupils to
a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from
school, on the playgrounds, and during recess.
12. The teacher and school shall hold pupils to
account for their behavior to and from school, but the
teacher or the school is not responsible for their safe
conduct.
13. The supervision of instructional aides is a
proper teacher duty.
14. The State of California does not require an
administration or supervision credential as a prerequisite
to the supervision and direction of instructional aides.
15. California statute law requires the teacher to
make reports required by law. If the teacher refuses or
willfully neglects to make such reports, he is guilty of a
misdemeanor and may be fined not more than one hundred
dollars.
16. Legislative enactment provides for withholding
the salary payment for the last month of service of an
employee until all reports required have been filed with
the superintendent.
CHAPTER IV
PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TEACHER WORKLOAD
Introduction
The teacher in the American system of public
education wants to teach under conditions which give him
the best possible chance of reaching the educational
objectives for which he has been employed. These teaching
conditions will influence directly the kind of educational
opportunities offered to students in the classroom (70:6).
Furthermore, and contrary to the opinion of some laymen
that the teaching role is confined only to teaching subject
matter during the day, the public school teacher is called
upon to perform many other functions.
Various studies have been made to classify these
duties, and almost all descriptions of teacher responsibil
ities divide the load carried into three areas: classroom
instructional load, extra-classroom load, and professional
activities (76:77). Due to the nature of these different
areas of responsibilities, the teachers' work hours are not
84
85
limited to the regular school day. Instead, the load will
include activities that come outside the normal school
hours. One survey has found that teachers spend only
50 per cent of their total work time in face-to-face teach
ing, while the remaining time is occupied in related
instructional duties, administrative and supportive cleri
cal tasks (33:210).
In addition, it has been noted that the profes
sional ideas of teacher duty are similar to the legal
concepts and, if anything, slightly broader (76:18). Con
sequently, working within the legal guidelines established
by society, the education profession has the power to
introduce ideas and formulate changes which can alter the
scope and number of activities included in the teacher
workload.
Concomitant with the power to introduce change in
teacher workload activities, the total teaching profession
must be cognizant of the professional concepts related to
teacher duty. As teacher duty has implications for the
educational, fiscal, and management concerns of the school,
this knowledge will assist in the construction of a teacher
workload policy which is based on sound principles.
86
Review of Related Literature
Although the total workload consists of other
elements in addition to duties assigned to the teacher
(69:6), the purpose of this chapter is to investigate only
the professional aspects of the teacher's total responsi
bilities. For this end, an extensive review was made of
the literature which pertained to the problem. The material
presented was obtained from a variety of source headings,
namely, teacher load, teacher duty, instructional tasks,
noninstructional tasks, extra class activities, extra pay,
teacher aides, teacher welfare, teacher assignment and
other related topics.
To afford a greater understanding of the material,
the remainder of this chapter deals with two major areas:
(1) extent of teacher duty, and (2) equal staff duty. Also
included is a summary of the findings which were obtained
from the literature.
Extent of Teacher Duty
Workload Activities
The number of activities in the professional
teachers' load is very large, and it includes duties at
87
school and in the community. The California Teachers
Association (CTA) in defining these teaching responsibili
ties used as a basis the criteria of whether the activity
generally occurs within the established, daily, or instruc
tional schedule or whether it takes place outside of that
period. These duties have been classified by the CTA as
(1) classroom load, (2) extra-classroom load, and (3) pro
fessional activities.
Classroom load. The classroom load comprises, for
example, classroom instruction of students, preparation
of lessons for this instruction (whether done in school
or away from school), grading of pupil work or other
wise evaluating pupil progress resulting from the
instruction (including parent conferences, where these
are local policy), and supervision and counseling of
pupils within the classroom schedule. Among the
instructional duties frequently carried on in the
course of the regular school year, away from the class
room itself, are attendance at instruction improvement
workshops, school curriculum sessions, and certain
general faculty meetings. Service to students and
parents on registration day are related to classroom
load. (69:5)
Extra-classroom. Extra-classroom load includes
numerous activities which are maintained to provide
students with further opportunities for personal growth
under school auspices. While these are ordinarily out
side the established, daily instructional schedule,
they offer desirable learning experiences which
contribute positively to the objectives of the school.
Athletic and social activities of many kinds are
primary examples. Participation in student government,
public performance in fine arts, scientific or practical
arts demonstrations, membership in school organizations
devoted to youth interests— all are calculated to
broaden student educational achievement. Such endeavors
88
must be supervised or directed and this makes further
demands on the teaching staff, usually at the end of
the classroom instructional schedule. (69:5)
Professional Activity. In addition to the two
broad categories of duties noted above, teachers con
sistently engage in activities which are in the nature
of professional obligations, both to themselves as
individuals and to the school community. Personal
improvement through continuing postgraduate study is
a commonly followed practice. Further, the teacher
seeks to be active in the efforts of professional
associations to improve not only the schools but the
structure and effectiveness of the organized profession
itself. These interests absorb many weekend and summer
vacation hours, as well as evening hours when schools
are in session.
Today's teacher accepts a larger burden of respon
sibility for school-community relations than ever
before. Much of which is planned and conducted at
times beyond the usual school schedule. He may devote
effort toward such matters as school tax and bond
elections, community fund drives, community betterment
projects, or cultural enrichment activities. The
teacher will engage in these affairs to the limit of
his capability, for he is aware of the traditional and
actual dependence of education on popular good will and
support. (69:3)
In conjunction with citing the above categories of
the teacher's workload, the CTA added a word of caution
when they observed that "the public has the responsibility
of seeing the local expectations do not impose a condition
of undue hardship or unwarranted personal sacrifice"
(69:6). Also, the conditions which reduce the effective
ness of the teacher and the school were emphasized with
these remarks:
89
. . . if classes are too large and too often
interrupted, if clerical tasks are excessive, if there
is no preparation period during the day, if the program
of student activities is extremely elaborate, if out-
of-class supervision of students infringes unreasonably
on evening and weekend hours of the teacher— then too
much of the teacher's work will have to be done outside
the daily class schedule. (69:6)
A concluding statement was made by applying the
term "overload" to these negative workload conditions. The
following quotation adequately explains their point of
view:
The primary key to the problem of work load is
sufficiency of staff. If too few people are employed
to get the work done within a reasonable schedule, or
if the essential skills of special staff members are
denied to the school, the resulting condition is
recognizable as overload regardless of whether the
duties may be carefully sorted into classroom or non
classroom categories. Appropriate consideration must
be given to the fact that a substantial portion of a
teacher's time and effort is spent outside the class
room and beyond the time of the school day and school
year. Failure to employ a staff large enough to
accomplish all the educational objectives of the
schools will result in overload. (69:7)
Work Excluded from
Regular Teaching
Although the teacher's annual workload includes
many duties, there are a number of special school-related
activities which are considered not to be a part of a
teacher's regular assignment. Melbo's survey of the
Fullerton High School District provides an enumeration of
90
the most common teaching responsibilities which are
excluded (76). In addition to summer school teaching which
is legally not a part of the annual teacher's load, the
following activities are listed:
1. Special assignments during the summer (other
than summer school teaching) which require a longer
year of service from teachers. These include but are
not limited to curriculum production activities, super
vision of community recreation programs, provision of
library services, and work associated with special
federal or state projects. . . .
2. Driver training instruction when not done dur
ing the regular school day. Many districts find that
a more effective total educational program can be pro
vided when pupils are not taken from regular classes to
provide driver training. Rather, the instruction is
given during out-of-school hours on school days and
on non-school days. . . .
3. Teaching classes in the adult education program.
Most adult schools utilize the pool of talent on the
regular day school teaching staff. . . .
4. Supervising community recreation programs dur
ing the regular school year. Occasionally, teachers
are selected as playground directors or for other types
of community recreation work after the close of school
or on Saturdays or other non-school days. Employment
in such capacity may be by the school district or other
public agencies. . . .
5. Home instruction, if performed during out-of
school hours by regular day school teachers. . . .
(76:79-80)
However, Melbo added a word of caution concerning
the cited activities. He specifically noted that:
91
. . . Care should be taken to insure that such
employment does not interfere with the total profes
sional teaching responsibilities as previously
described. If this caution is observed, the above
listed assignments are generally accepted by the
profession as outside a teacher's normal work load.
(76:80)
Nonprofessional Activities
Certain teacher responsibilities that are normally
a part of the teacher's regular assignment have been ques
tioned as to being appropriate for a professional teacher.
The California Teachers Association in a pamphlet, Teacher
Load, expresses the opinion that the teacher should be
relieved as much as possible from routine clerical tasks
(70) .
Observing that there are two kinds of clerical work
done by teachers today, the CTA maintains that the one
closely related to instruction must be the teacher's
responsibility while the other is not (70:16). This posi
tion is expressed with an enumeration of clerical tasks in
these words:
Many other clerical tasks are required primarily
for administrative purposes and, at best, contribute
little to instruction. These include keeping attendance
records, verifying illness reports, entering health
data, adding notations on cumulative record forms.
This is the type of clerical task, varying among
schools and grade levels, from which the classroom
teacher should be relieved. Schools should employ
92
clerical workers for this purpose. With the time thus
freed, the teacher would be able to use his profes
sional training and experience in better lesson
planning and more individual student instruction.
(70:16)
In addition to the clerical tasks, the CTA contends
that semi-custodial duties now performed by teachers should
be assigned to noncertificated personnel. The activities
listed are yard duty, lunchroom duty, hall duty and
athletic field supervision (70:16).
Concurring with this position taken by the CTA,
Chamberlain and Kindred (6) expressed their opinion in
these terms:
In every school system certain routine duties must
be performed in addition to classroom teaching. Among
them are supervision of playgrounds, cafeteria, study
halls, corridors, bus loading and unloading; prepara
tion of attendance records, pupil records, and
requisitions; and the securing of instructional materi
als. Though all have their place in a school system,
some are more clerical in nature than others and could
be performed just as effectively by non-instructional
personnel. . . . (6:185)
The Teacher's Work Time
Supplementing the number of activities included in
the teacher's annual workload, the amount of time needed to
perform the assignment becomes an integral part of the load.
The concern for the amount of time teachers devote to their
duty is illustrated in the following statement:
93
. . . indeed, in many instances, salary raises have
been accompanied by demands for greater expenditure of
time and energy. At a time when society at large is
working less and enjoying life more, there is in the
field of education too much discussion of lengthening
school days and years. Instead of concentrating all
of their negotiating skill on salary matters, it is
time for teachers to direct some energy toward better
ing their working conditions. . . . (34:8)
These conditions will include the number of working
hours, the length of the school day, and the number of days
in the school year which are needed for the regular teacher
to accomplish his assignment.
Duty hours. The importance of the number of hours
applied by the teacher to his work is explained by the
National Education Assocation (NEA). While presenting the
results of a national teacher survey, this organization
made these relevant remarks concerning teacher time:
. . . there are some persons who will question the
importance of the kind of bookkeeping of minutes and
hours basic to the reporting of such figures as are
dealt with in this section. On the other hand, there
are others who recognize that in work so demanding as
teaching, the figures should be examined. For teachers,
as for others, a time limit must be recognized if the
central core of class instruction itself is not to
suffer.
Disregarding comparisons, the evidence seems clear
that the typical working day for teachers is more than
nine hours, a schedule to tax the endurance of the most
vigorous physique. (50:59)
94
As reported in this survey, there are specific
facts which are pertinent to the professional aspects of
the teacher's workload. The selected findings are listed
below:
1. The mean numbers of hours of class instruction
per week for the four different groups of secondary-
school teachers shown were almost identical. Teachers
in junior high schools and in senior high schools, and
teachers of book-centered subjects and of skill-
centered subjects were closely similar in amount of
time spent in class instruction. (50:53)
2. There were wide differences among individual
teachers in the total hours they reported as being
given to various duties. About 11 per cent reported a
total time of less than 35 hours; and about 7 per cent
reported 65 hours or more for an average week. Almost
20 per cent reported weekly working schedules of 55
hours or more. (50:59)
3. In spite of the evidence that teachers in dis
tricts having 2,500 teachers or more teach larger
number of pupils, the evidence seems equally clear that
fewer hours per week are given to their teaching
duties. The number of hours per week devoted to all
teaching duties— classroom instruction, out-of-class
instructional duties, and miscellaneous assignments—
ranged by a constant progression from a mean of 43.5
hours a week in the largest districts to 50.2 hours in
the smaller districts. (50:59)
4. An examination of the figures shows that the
smallest systems reported the largest average number of
hours, and that teachers in the largest system reported
the smallest number of hours. (50:59)
5. In districts of all sizes there is a wide range
among the working schedules reported from fewer than
25 to more than 70 hours per week. (50:59)
95
6. For all teachers reporting, the mean time per
week required to be on duty at school was 36.8 hours.
Duties beyond the school day, however, raised the total
actual working week to an average of 47.3 hours.
(50:59)
7. Elementary-school teachers reported enrollments
that averaged 29.1 pupils. In addition to spending
29.5 hours in class instruction, elementary-school
teachers on the average devoted 11.9 hours a week to
correcting papers, preparing materials, lesson plan
ning, giving individual help to pupils outside class,
and conferring with parents. Miscellaneous assignments,
including monitorial duties, records and report cards,
official meetings, and collecting money, involved an
average of 7.1 additional hours. The average total
was 48.5 hours per week. (50:59)
8. Secondary-school teachers, on the average,
taught 26 periods per week, periods averaging 55
minutes in length. The average number of pupils per
class was 27, and the average number of different
pupils taught was 156. More than half the secondary-
school teachers had at least one conference or prepara
tion period each day, but 21.4 per cent had definite
assignments every period every day in the week.
(50:59)
9. The average actual working week of the
secondary-school teacher was 45 hours and 54 minutes.
In addition to 23.6 hours of class instruction,
secondary-school teachers worked an average of 13.3
hours on correcting papers, preparing materials, giving
individual help to pupils, and conferring with parents.
Secondary-school teachers were assigned additional
miscellaneous duties, which (counting all teachers)
required 9 hours per week for such assignments as study
halls (39.5 per cent of the teachers had study-hall
duty), monitorial duties, records and report cards,
coaching athletics, sponsoring clubs, official meetings,
and administrative assignments. (50:60)
10. Counting elementary-school and secondary
school teachers together, all teachers reporting on the
average devoted 56.9 per cent of their working time to
96
class instruction; 26.4 per cent to out-of-class
instructional duties; and 16.7 per cent to miscella
neous assignments. (50:60)
Length of school day and year. Besides the duty
hours of the teacher, the length of the school day and the
teaching year figure in the total workload of the teacher.
The Research Division of the National Education Association
reporting upon a national teacher survey of 355 school
systems presented facts which are relevant to this
investigation. The findings are:
1. The median number of school days for pupils is
180. The median working year for the teacher is
175 days.
2. The differences in length between pupils'
school year and teachers' school year vary widely,
ranging from no difference in some systems to 25 more
days for teachers in others.
3. The longest school year for teachers was 204
days, reported by one school system. The least number
of days was 175, reported by three school systems.
4. The largest school systems, with 100,000 or
more enrolled, tend to have longer school years, with
the median number of days for pupils being 182 and for
teachers 190.
5. The length of the school day was from the
actual time at which teachers must report to the school
in the morning to the time when they were permitted to
leave school in the evening.
6. The median amount of time required for teachers
at each school level is:
97
Elementary— 7 hours, 24 minutes
Junior High— 7 hours, 32 minutes
Senior High— 7 hours, 34 minutes
7. These hours include the time allotted for
lunch, but do not include the time required after
school hours for faculty meetings, parent conferences,
sponsorship of extra-curricular activities, and in-
service training.
8. For pupils, as for teachers, the school day is
somewhat shorter in school systems with 100,000 or
more enrolled. (38:103-104)
Equal Staff Duty
The Equity Principle
The equity of duty assignments to teachers is a
problem with which every administrator must deal. The
nature of this problem is emphasized by the California
Teachers Association in the following quotation:
Even if his actual load were relatively light, it
would be a normal human reaction for the teacher to
wonder whether he were overburdened when he observes
others with even lighter responsibilities.
Because the nature of teaching assignments varies,
the measurable load factors never can be perfectly
equalized. A feeling of concern over load equity some
times exists between teachers of different subjects or
of different grade levels, those who are granted a
preparation period and those who are not, those with
activity supervision and those without it, and those
who have normal or superior students and those who have
handicapped students.
The profession is generally agreed that these
differences should not be a matter of great concern
unless they cause gross variations in work load.
Ideally, each teacher is doing the work he has chosen
98
and prefers, and the working day is not greatly differ
ent for different positions if care in scheduling has
been exercised. If each educator does justice to his
responsibilities, a full day's work is required.
(70:20)
Melbo (76) declares that the equalization of
teacher load must be done on an individual district basis;
extra pay must be provided when the load cannot be balanced;
and there will always be some degree of inequity. These
points are expressed in the following words:
The Equity Goal. Although professional concepts
of the teacher's work load agree closely with the legal
concepts, neither can be relied upon to indicate
precisely how much work is appropriate for assignment
as the normal workload of any one teacher in any
particular district. This can be done only on an
individual district basis by careful analysis.
The problem is one of reasonably balancing loads of
the teachers in any one district or of providing for
extra pay in those instances where loads are not
balanced. Action is appropriate through the adoption
of board policy upon recommendation by the district
superintendent. Except for districts in unique situa
tions or with unique problems, it is probably unwise
to adopt a policy which varies widely from neighboring
districts.
Finally, it must be recognized that absolute fair
ness and equity can never fully be achieved. There
will always be some degree of inequity. Even when
categories are set up for extra pay, not all assignments
placed in any one category will be fully equal. Some
assignments classified as "normal" will be very close in
volume of work and responsibility to those in the
lowest category for which extra pay is allowed. A
teacher who falls within one of the categories for
which extra pay is allowed may not be available for
other extra assignments which, therefore, must be
carried by teachers in the "normal" load classification.
(76:81)
99
Extra Pay for Extra Duties
The principle of extra pay for extra duties is
supported by the teaching profession of California as one
method of equalizing teacher load. In 1967 the California
Teachers Association Salary Schedule and Trends Committee
stated that:
. . . If there are circumstances in which a teacher
must carry a greater load than other teachers, he
should have released time from some duties to compen
sate him for this load. In unusual cases where
released time is impossible to achieve, the teacher
should be compensated for his additional duties at a
rate which is in direct proportion to his yearly
contractural salary. (79:18, 19)
The widespread commitment of California schools to
the extra pay principle is illustrated by a survey conducted
by the Research Department of the California Teachers
Association. Nine hundred and twenty-nine districts
responded to the survey. The survey revealed that addi
tional teacher pay was provided for forty-eight separate
extra service assignments. These extra service responsi
bilities included twenty-two athletic coaching activities,
twenty-one pupil-participating nonathletic activities, and
five curriculum assignments (23).
Nation-wide acceptance of the additional pay prin
ciple is illustrated by the NEA which notes that,
100
The practice of adding supplements to teachers1
salaries for guidance of pupil-participating extra
curricular activities is widespread, and consequently,
there is considerable interest in information on extra
pay for extra duties. (40:42)
In addition, the NEA notes that certain extra pay activi
ties are paid on an hourly rate.
For example, extra pay for such things as selling
or collecting tickets at school functions, loading or
manning buses for school events, and the like, are not
shown. Such activities are usually compensated by
hourly rates or flat amounts for an event and cannot
be tabulated on an annual basis. (40:45)
However, Hickey states that the following points
should be observed in providing extra pay:
1. The conclusion arrived at from this study
indicates that many principals and superintendents
throughout the country favor paying the teachers for
extracurricular activities. They stressed, however,
that the system of pay must be fair and equitable, not
just a sum given in a haphazard manner. (63:82)
2. When any teacher on the faculty receives pay
for any extra duty, then all teachers believe that if
they work on extracurricular activities they deserve it
also. (63:83)
3. It may be concluded that a regular workday must
be established by the school district (that is, it must
be from eight o'clock to three o'clock or three-thirty)
with no extra pay given for any extracurricular activ
ity during their established, regular hours. If other
compensation (low class-size or time off) is given,
then no extra pay should be provided. (63:83)
Additional factors which should be included in
developing an extra pay schedule is noted by Winston.
101
He states that these elements are: (1) time required to
conduct the activity, (2) level of responsibility and
importance of activity, (3) proficiency needed to conduct
the activity, (4) amount of exposure activity receives, and
(5) the use of base salary (60:84).
Within the same text, it is recommended that an
objective district supplementary pay schedule be developed
for the following reasons:
1. Each teacher on the staff will know how much is
paid out for extra assignments and for what reason.
It should quiet rumors of favoritism.
2. The energetic, skilled, and enthusiastic
teacher with special abilities will know what position
to strive for if he wishes to increase his salary
through a school connected activity.
3. Assignments are made with greater ease as
extra pay assures better response and cooperation on
the part of teachers.
4. Teachers with special talents can be induced
with monetary remuneration, to stay on a special
assignment.
5. Administrator and teacher conflict over extra
pay is eased once the objective schedule is created.
(60:84)
Adjustment in Teacher Work Time
In addition to the balancing of the teacher work
load and extra pay for additional duty, an alteration in
the teacher's work time is recommended to equalize teacher
102
duties. The literature reveals that this can be accomp
lished through the use of noncertificated personnel to
perform some of the present teacher duties and also, to
reschedule teacher time for some present teacher responsi
bilities .
Use of noncertificated personnel. Van Zwoll states
that there is a need for limitations to be placed on the
nonprofessional duty requirements to be met by the teacher.
He contends that there should be nonprofessional help to
perform extra duty tasks in the school. He said:
. . . It is neither logically nor economically
defensible to utilize the teacher's work time for
"duties" that make no demand on his professional
preparation and competency. Tasks that do not require
professional competency may better be performed by
nonprofessionals employed for the purpose. (21:295)
A confirmation by the profession of the need for
paraprofessional help in the school is pointed out in the
results of a survey conducted by Lawson. The purpose of
this survey was to determine the existing assignment of
nonteaching tasks to certificated and to noncertificated
personnel in junior high schools. The findings of the
study which are relevant to the investigation are:
1. Teachers were generally expected to perform
additional duty tasks.
103
2. Principals believed two-thirds of the 91
separate tasks listed in the study should be performed
by noncertificated persons.
3. Los Angeles principals used noncertificated
persons to perform more tasks than did other principals.
4. Noncertificated persons would be used to a
greater degree if they were available.
5. Those tasks involving direct contact and work
with students should be the responsibility of certifi
cated persons. (33:211)
An explanation of the types of school activities
which can be performed by the paraprofessional is made by
Wright. She enumerates the following noninstructional
related activities which are appropriate for a teacher aide
to do:
1. Clerical support in schools. Aides will pre
pare classroom materials on duplicating machines. This
will involve preparation of dittoed sheets, mimeo
graphed materials, etc. They will also take and file
nonconfidential school records and help in collecting
monies. Aides will assist regular school staff in
keeping inventories, ordering stock, and supplying
teachers with books and supplies.
2. Secretarial support. Aides will type, answer
the phone and file in a school's office or for individ
ual teachers.
3. Supply, operate and maintain program equipment.
During the orientation period and throughout the
in-service training program aides will learn how to
operate and maintain audiovisual equipment, record
players and other machines used in school activities.
104
4. Supervisory responsibilities. In order to
provide teachers with more time for instructional
duties, aides will help to supervise the school cafe
teria, physical education activities, assemblies, study
periods and after-school activities.
5. Other activities. In order to provide aides
with a wide range of work experience, they will also
assist school staff in arranging exhibits, work with
individual teachers or teacher groups in special proj
ects, and aid library staff members in their duties.
(22:28)
In addition, it is maintained that the aide can
assist the regular classroom teacher with instructional
related activities. The duties in this area would include:
1. Tutoring. Aides will be available to teachers
for tutoring pupils. Aides will also read to youngster
and listen to pupils read.
2. Grading. Aides will grade objective tests,
spelling tests, and certain types of social studies
examinations.
3. Activities. Instructional staff will be
assisted by teacher aides in special activities such as
field trips, plays, assembly programs, crafts and
science projects. In addition, aides will lead
community-based activities with special student inter
est groups, accompanying students to after-school and
evening activities and organizing weekend study trips
and picnics.
4. Teacher support. Aides will provide support to
the regular classroom teacher in caring for pupils
whom the teacher asks to leave the classroom for brief
periods. This will not only give the pupil an oppor
tunity to "cool off" but also will provide the aide with
an opportunity to help the youngster return to the
class in a better frame of mind.
105
5. Parent contact. Aides will be involved in some
parent contact, acting as a liaison between children's
parents and the school staff members, and attending
parent conferences and parent meetings. (22:28-29)
Moreover, the freeing of the overburdened teacher
from routine, time-consuming, nonteaching tasks is the
purpose of the teacher aide (57:42). The paraprofessional
will increase the valuable time of the teacher and the
primary result "which should accrue from the use of teacher
aides is the improvement of classroom instruction" (57:43).
Rescheduling teacher time. One procedure which is
used to equalize the duty loads of the certificated staff
in the school is to reschedule teacher time. Melbo states
that this is a standard solution recommended by the pro
fession. He expresses this principle in the following
manner:
. . . Most proposals for balancing loads suggest
that, for example, if one teacher is assigned to coach
a team after school, the teacher would be assigned
fewer periods of teaching during the schoolday.
If this is done, and if sufficient staff members
are employed so that the average load carried by each
is reasonable, obviously the problem of extra assign
ments will not occur. This solution is ideal. The
survey staff concurs with it fully and has consistently
recommended that the problem be solved in this manner
to the fullest extent possible. (76:78)
Besides fewer teaching assignments during the day
to equalize teacher work time, the literature recommends a
106
greater amount of released time for teachers to perform
certain workload activities. It has been noted that school
systems are providing more released time during the regular
school session for in-service activities (39:25). Too,
school systems are allowing teachers to take time off from
school for different professional activities without loss
of teacher pay as well as having the substitute or relief
teacher be paid (52:6).
Also recommended is the practice of decreasing the
teachers1 total work time within the school year by
utilizing preschool workshops for teachers with pay, and
providing special curriculum development programs to be
done in the summer session (9:86). This procedure is
advanced by the California Teachers Association, which
points out that:
A number of school districts are now scheduling
curriculum production activities during summer vaca
tion weeks rather than during the regular school year.
These special tasks do not ordinarily involve the total
staff and usually include a separate pay policy.
(69:5)
Chapter Summary
This chapter considered the writings in the area
of the professional aspects of teacher workload activities.
107
Inasmuch as a review of the literature failed to reveal a
major substantive investigation of the problem, the materi
als were derived from many sources. However, the writings
selected and given in this chapter were judged to be most
pertinent to this study. Furthermore, to facilitate the
reporting and to aid understanding of the problem, the
relevant literature was presented in two major areas:
(1) extent of teacher duty, and (2) equal staff duty.
The literature has revealed that the concept of
the range of activities included in the regular profes
sional teacher's load is very broad. A classification of
these workload activities has been agreed upon within the
profession and is usually divided into three main areas:
(1) classroom load, (2) extra class load, and (3) profes
sional activities.
However, a caution was added that there should not
be too many duty expectations demanded of teacher time and
energy. Appropriate considerations must be given to the
teacher's total workload or negative conditions will result
in teacher overload.
There are a number of teacher duties which are
considered not to be a part of a teacher's regular assign
ment. These special teaching assignments cover, but are
108
not limited to: (1) summer school teaching, (2) special
assignments during the summer, (3) driver training instruc
tion, (4) teaching classes in the adult education program,
(5) supervising community recreation programs during the
school year, and (6) home instruction.
Certain school-related activities now included as
part of the teacher workload have been questioned as being
inappropriate for a professional teacher to perform. These
duties are noninstructional in nature and include super
visory duties, monitorial activities, semi-custodial
responsibilities, and some clerical tasks.
In addition, the extent of time devoted by a
teacher to the diverse activities in the workload was a
matter of professional concern. The factors which deter
mined the total working time of the teacher were: (1) the
length of the school day, (2) the number of duty hours
during the day and week, and (3) the length of the school
year.
Concomitant with the nature and number of teacher
workload activities, the related literature expressed a
need for equalizing the load factors of the school's
certificated staff. A special observation was made that
because the nature of teaching assignments vary, the
109
measurable load factors can never be perfectly equalized.
But the education profession does advocate means to meet
the problem of equity in teacher duty and work time. The
methods advanced are: load balancing, extra pay for extra
duty, paraprofessional help and adjustments in teacher
duty time.
In conclusion, although there was a minimum of
major source material revealed by the reading, a careful
selection of pertinent literature did sketch the scope and
problem of teacher workload with its implications for the
total educational enterprise.
CHAPTER V
JURY TEST OF PRINCIPLES
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the
professional aspects of the teacher's regular, annual work
load. More specifically, this chapter is devoted to the
results of the research which was done to answer the
following questions:
1. What school activities are not appropriate assign
ments for a professional, trained teacher?
2. What school activities are appropriate for a pro
fessional teacher but are beyond the regular,
annual duties of the teacher?
3. What are the opinions of professional experts
concerning the teacher's workload?
In order to obtain the information needed to answer
the stated questions, the procedure used was to develop a
survey questionnaire and submit it to a panel of educa
tional specialists for their response.
110
Ill
The information needed to construct the question
naire was secured from an extensive reading of the
literature. From this reading, teacher workload principles
were selected by the researcher to be included in the
survey. Next, these workload principles were restated and
used as items in the questionnaire.
The form of the questionnaire was a combination of
the closed and open-ended research survey. In this survey,
the wording of each item permitted the respondents to
either agree or disagree with the statement of principle
relating to teacher duty. In addition, a comment section
was included so that the respondent could elaborate on each
or all of the items. The questionnaire contained forty
statements pertaining to the teacher workload and was
divided into five major parts: (1) teacher workload
activities, (2) appropriate duties for the teacher,
(3) work appropriately excluded from the regular annual
teaching load, (4) teacher work time, and (5) equalizing
teacher workload. A copy of the survey questionnaire is
included in Appendix A.
After the questionnaire was constructed, it was
submitted to two educational experts to test each item
for appropriateness of selection, clarity of statement, and
112
to make suggestions for improvement. Next, a final item
revision was made and the questionnaire was submitted to
the writer's committee chairman for final approval before
distribution to the panel of jurors.
Furthermore, due to the judgmental nature of the
study, only a limited number of qualified people were asked
to participate. For this reason, a total of sixteen
selected specialists in the state of California were
requested to serve as a panel of jurors. (See Appendix B
for copy of letter sent to panel members.) This jury would
evaluate the teacher workload principles based upon their
qualified experience and training in the field of teacher
personnel. In addition, it was decided that the jury
should be formed of members who are currently active in
education from various areas of California. Too, the jury
would be composed of representatives from different levels
of education, district sizes and urban and rural areas.
The final composition of the jury was: (1) four
unified school superintendents, (2) four high school super
intendents, (3) four elementary school superintendents,
and (4) four teacher leaders who included one teacher
elected officer from an American Federation of Teachers
chapter, one teacher elected officer from a California
113
Teachers Association group, and two full-time consultants
from the California Teachers Association. The panel of
educational specialists who agreed to participate in this
study are included in Appendix C.
Jury Response to Questionnaire
The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to
the jury's response to the selected items of the question
naire. In addition, the results of the questionnaire will
not be identified with any one individual of the jury.
Also, in order to report the results with clarity and
understanding, the material is presented under the five
major divisions of the questionnaire with appropriate
statements made by members of the jury about each item in
each division.
Teacher Workload Activities
This part of the questionnaire concerned general
principles relating to the activities, functions, and
duties of the teacher. The jury was requested to agree or
disagree with each of the five stated principles pertaining
to the teacher's regular, annual workload and comment on
any or all of the items.
114
Item 1. The total teacher workload should be
limited to the regular classroom assignment.
Jury response: Agree 2 Disagree 14
A substantial majority of the jury rejected the
principle of limiting the total teacher workload only to
classroom activities. Although two panel members agreed
with the stated concept, only one made a brief comment:
I believe that teachers should teach and their
workload should be limited to same.
From the majority of the jury who viewed the
teacher's workload as being greater than only the classroom
assignment, the following remark was made.
I feel a part of the teacher's normal workload
should include activities of developing curriculum,
instructional activities, review-revising, etc. to
meet the needs of the students in the district. This
should be above and beyond the regular classroom
assignment. However, I would be quick to say that the
teachers salary should be high enough to reward the
teachers for this extra work. They should be paid
equal to other jobs of equal training experience.
Item 2. The total teacher workload should include
the sponsorship of after-school student clubs and extra
curricular activities as part of the regular annual teach
ing assignment.
Jury response: Agree 11 Disagree 5
The majority of the jury members agreed with the
principle of teacher sponsorship of student clubs and
115
extracurricular activities as part of the regular teaching
assignment. The comments pertaining to this item were:
These activities should be assigned on a limited
basis.
I believe a teacher's primary responsibility
resides with his class; however, there are a few
activities for which the school is responsible that
should be supervised by a certificated staff member.
Item 3. The activities of a professional organiza
tion (CTA, AFT) should substitute as an extracurricular
assignment for a teacher.
Jury response: Agree 4 Disagree 12
A significant majority of the jury rejected the
concept of substituting the activities of a professional
organization for an extracurricular assignment of a teacher.
Those members who agreed with this item did not comment;
however, three statements were made by panel members who
disagreed. They said:
I don't believe in the malarkey of extra assign
ments for teachers; so I couldn't sanction a
substitute.
It could be a local district option and at the
discretion of the administration.
There should be a district separation of a teach
er's professional organizational activities and school
activities; therefore, the one should not be a sub
stitute for the other.
116
I believe teacher organization activities should be
totally free of any commitment by the school district
to insure freedom from possibility of manipulation by
district.
Item 4. Teacher attendance at school functions
such as open house should be included as part of a teach
er's annual workload.
Jury response: Agree 14 Disagree 2
A significant number of the panel members agreed
with the principle that teacher attendance at school func
tions is a part of the teacher's annual workload. In so
doing, these remarks were made:
The teacher is an integral part of the school, and
I believe that school functions are an extension of
his classroom activities.
It is a professional obligation of the teacher to
participate in all functions of the school. It is
definitely included in his total workload.
Item 5. The duties, functions and activities of a
teacher's regular, annual workload should be included in
the terms of the teaching contract.
Jury response: Agree 10 Disagree 6
There was general agreement by a majority of the
panel members that the duties, functions and activities of
the teacher's workload should be included in the terms of
the contract. The significant comments made by those
117
members of the jury who agreed with this item were:
At least implied. It would be difficult to list
all extra activities.
They are already included. The teacher's contract
implies these duties.
Each individual duty should not be stated, but the
contract should state that the teacher will perform all
duties contained in the Board's rules and regulations.
The jury members who rejected the principle as
stated in this item made the following remarks:
The teaching contract should be short and general.
The specifics should be made by Board Policy or by
Administrative rules and regulations. If contracts are
to be specific, teachers should be paid on an hourly
basis.
To specifically define in the teaching contract the
duties, activities, and functions outside of the class
room load would completely remove teaching from a
professional act and make it an act of labor. It would
limit teachers' activities to only those specified,
rather than performing those things needed for students.
The duties should be included in Board Policies
and, or regulations. The contract should state that
the teacher will meet the policies and regulations.
Each district should have district policies that
make these duties, functions, and activities very clear
before any contract is signed.
Appropriate Duties for the Teacher
The major purpose of this part of the questionnaire
was to ascertain if certain duties, now included in the
teacher's workload, were appropriate for a professional
118
teacher to perform. The jury was requested to check either
yes or no and comment on each or all of the seven items.
Item 1. Supervision of loading and unloading of
school buses.
Jury response: Yes 6 No 10
The majority of the jury was in agreement that the
supervision of loading and unloading of school buses was
not an appropriate duty for a professional teacher.
Comments made in reference to this item were:
Teacher aides or "special" employees are preferred.
Classified personnel.
Should take children to bus loading area in the
primary grades. At least during the first few days of
the term.
Item 2. The supervision of study halls.
Jury response: Yes 9 No 7
Although a small majority of the jury were in
agreement that the supervision of study halls were appro
priate for the professional teacher, there were no specific
remarks made by the panel members concerning this item.
119
Item 3. The supervision of after-school athletic
events.
Jury response: Yes 9 No 7
There was a majority agreement that the supervision
of after-school athletic events was an appropriate duty for
a teacher. Those members who voted yes and commented on
this item made the following remarks:
I would say yes only with the provision that the
teacher receive extra compensation for these activities.
The supervision of after-school athletic events
should be on a paid basis.
If time is such that this duty demands more time
than other non-teaching duties, extra pay should be
provided.
Two members of the jury who stated that this duty
was not appropriate for a professional teacher made these
significant remarks:
At athletic events teachers are in fact substitut
ing for police. Teachers do not have police training,
authority, or back up needed for such duty. They are
placed in a position of physical jeopardy, demeaning
circumstances and exposure to liability charges.
This duty should be performed by paraprofessionals
who are under the supervision of a certificated person.
Item 4. The supervision of playgrounds.
Jury response: Yes 10 No 6
120
The majority of the jury declared that this was an
appropriate duty for the teacher to perform. Remarks made
by some panel members who voted with the majority were:
This duty provides opportunities for teacher-
student relationship on an informal non-instructional
basis that could benefit the classroom relationships.
Although this duty is not inappropriate for the
teacher, the duty could be assigned to noncertificated
personnel.
The supervision of playgrounds should be assigned
the teacher on a limited basis with the assistance of
aides.
The supervision of playgrounds by teachers should
only be done on the elementary level.
One comment was made by a jury member who did not
believe that the supervision of playgrounds was an appro
priate duty for a teacher. He said:
The supervision of playgrounds is a time-consuming
and enervating duty. It is not a duty that demands
professional training. The duty should be performed
by nonprofessionals.
Item 5. The supervision of lunchrooms.
Jury response: Yes 6 No 10
A significant majority of the panel agreed that the
supervision of lunchrooms was not an appropriate teacher
duty. Specific comments made by members of the majority
were:
121
The teacher is entitled to a duty free lunch hour.
Teacher aides and classified personnel can be hired
to perform this duty.
This type of duty does not require professional
competence.
Item 6. The supervision of after school social
activities.
Jury response: Yes 9 No 7
A small majority of the jury approved the supervi
sion of after-school social activities as being appropriate
teacher duty. In approving this as an appropriate teacher
duty, the following statements were made:
This duty should be on a limited basis with the
assistance of aides.
Yes, it is an appropriate duty, but extra pay
should be made available.
Paid basis.
If the activity is related to that teacher's class
room or is a special interest or club activity
regularly assigned, the teacher should supervise it.
Provided the teacher receives extra compensation.
Item 7. The control of students in the halls or
on the campus.
Jury response: Yes 11 No__5
122
A significant number of the jury were in agreement
that the control of students in the halls or on the campus
is an appropriate duty for the teacher. Specific comments
were as follows:
All teachers have an obligation to assist and par
ticipate in student control during working hours if
needed for other than normal situations.
Although this duty may be performed by teacher
aides or nonprofessionals, it is still a primary duty
of the teacher to control students' conduct on the
school grounds during the school day.
This is not an inappropriate teacher duty.
General comments. Some members of the jury did not
make specific remarks concerning individual items in this
part. However, general comments were made relating to the
total section, and are noted below:
All of these duties are appropriate for the teacher
to perform, but if possible, teacher aides or para-
professionals should be assigned these duties.
No, these duties should be performed by classified
employees.
Until there is a better way, they will have to
step into the breach.
While these duties are not "inappropriate" for a
teacher most, if not all of them, can be done by para-
professionals. If funds and the law permits, such
duties should be shifted to nonprofessionals.
123
Work Appropriately Excluded from
the Regular Annual Teaching Load
The intent of this part of the questionnaire is
to determine if certain activities should be excluded from
the teacher's regular annual workload. The jury was asked
to either agree or disagree that the following school
activities should be excluded from the teacher's workload.
In addition, the jury was requested to comment on each or
all items.
Item 1. Driver training when it is conducted
during out-of-school hours on school days, and during non
school days.
Jury response: Agree 16 Disagree 0
All members of the jury were in agreement that
driver training when conducted during out-of-school time
should be excluded from the teacher's regular workload.
The comments concerning this item were as follows:
Driver training can be handled by a credentialed
teacher on an hourly basis. It is not an appropriate
regular duty for the teacher.
Driver training should be on a voluntary extra pay
basis.
If the work is after the regular school day, it
should be reimbursed.
124
Driver training and home teaching which I marked
that I agree should be excluded, unless these activi
ties were in lieu of workload during the normal day.
Item 2. Classroom budget preparation
Jury response: Agree 2 Disagree 14
There is general agreement by the jury that class
room budget preparation is part of the teacher's workload
and should not be excluded from his duties. There was one
comment pertaining to this item which is stated in the
following manner:
Classroom budget preparation is a direct outgrowth
of the teacher's classroom activities. It is a neces
sary teacher duty as it relates to the needs of the
students in the class and the educational experiences
provided in the classroom.
Item 3. Preparation of behavioral goals and
objectives.
Jury response: Agree 2 Disagree 14
The jury agreed that it is the teacher's responsi
bility to prepare behavioral goals and objectives, and it
is an appropriate duty to be included in the total workload.
The brief remarks made by the panel are:
An essential teacher duty.
Who else?
125
Directly related to the work of the teacher.
Appropriate on an occasional basis.
Cannot be excluded.
Time should be provided, although school time will
also be used.
Item 4. Curriculum workshop activities which are
held during out-of-school hours on school days or on non
school days.
Jury response: Agree 5 Disagree 11
The jury agreed that curriculum workshop activities
held out-of-school hours on school days or on non-school
days are appropriate teacher duties and should not be
excluded from the teacher's regular, annual workload. The
following remarks were made by members of the panel who
were with the majority.
In-service education and curriculum work aimed at
improving the teaching function and the education pro
gram for students should be part of the normal annual
workload.
This duty is appropriate on an occasional basis.
Cannot be excluded because they are directly
related to the work of the teacher.
Time for this activity should be shared between
school and teacher time.
126
Item 5. Work associated with special federal or
state projects.
Jury response: Agree 5 Disagree 11
A majority of the jury noted that work associated
with special federal or state projects was an appropriate
teacher duty and should not be excluded from the workload.
The following brief comments were made:
Appropriate on an occasional basis.
Directly related to the work of the teacher.
Item 6. Teaching classes in the adult program
after the regular daily assignment has been completed.
Jury response: Agree 13 Disagree 3
The jury agreed that teaching classes in the adult
program after completing the regular daily assignment
should be excluded from the teacher's regular, annual work
load. Concerning this item, the comments were:
Should be on a voluntary extra pay basis.
Generally, work over and beyond the regular school
day should be reimbursed.
It is additional to the regular assignment, and it
is not an appropriate regular duty.
127
Item 7. Special assignments which are held during
summer vacation months.
Jury response: Agree 15 Disagree 1
There was almost unanimous agreement by the jury
that special assignments held during the summer vacation
months should be excluded from the teacher's regular,
annual workload. The comments are:
Generally, work over and beyond the regular school
day and year should be reimbursed.
On a voluntary extra pay basis.
Item 8. In-service education programs held during
the school year, but outside of the regular school hours
or on non-school days.
Jury response: Agree 9 Disagree 7
A small majority of the panel agreed that in-
service education programs held outside of school hours
or on non-school days should be excluded from the annual
workload. The remarks made regarding this item were:
This duty is appropriate on an occasional basis.
In-service education programs should be conducted
on school time.
Time for this activity should be shared between
school and teacher time.
128
Item 9. In-service education meetings conducted
prior to the opening of the school term.
Jury response: Agree 1 Disagree 15
The jury definitely decided that in-service meet
ings conducted prior to the opening of the school term was
a part of the teacher's regular, annual workload. The
following statements express this point of view:
Preschool in-service meetings are essential for new
teachers.
In-service education and curriculum work aimed at
improving the teaching function and the educational
program for students should be part of the normal
annual workload.
Orientation meeting prior to the opening of the
school is a professional obligation of the teacher.
Item 10. Home teaching when performed after the
teacher's regular workday.
Jury response: Agree 16 Disagree 0
A unanimous agreement by the jury that home teach
ing when performed after the teacher's regular workday
should be excluded from the regular, annual workload. The
following comments were made:
Not an appropriate regular duty for a teacher. Can
be handled on an hourly basis.
Should be voluntary.
129
The teacher should be reimbursed for extra work.
Only on a voluntary, extra pay basis.
Teacher Work Time
This portion of the questionnaire was included to
test certain principles revealed by the literature relating
to the work time of teachers. In this section, the jury
was requested to either agree or disagree with the state- •
ments and to express their opinions on each or all
statements.
Item 1. A teacher's total annual workload should
be considered in terms of: (a) the length of the school
day, (b) the number of duty hours per week, (c) the number
of work days in the school year.
Jury response:
Item Agree Disagree
The length of the school day 8 7
The number of duty hours per week 7 8
The number of work days in the
school year 13 3
A majority of one of the jury agreed that the
length of the school day should be considered as a factor
in the teacher's total, annual workload. There were no
comments on this specific item.
A majority of one of the jury concurred that the
number of duty hours per week should not be a factor in
130
the teacher's total, annual workload. There were no
comments on this specific item.
A substantial number of the jury agreed that the
number of work days in the school year is a factor in the
teacher's total, annual workload. Comments relating to
this item were:
For contract purposes only, the teacher should be
employed for the particular job.
Item 2. The school board should establish a
regular workday time schedule for teachers.
Jury response: Agree 11 Disagree 5
A significant majority of jury members concurred
with the statement that the school board should establish
a regular workday time schedule for teachers. Comments on
this item were:
In these times of teacher militancy it might be
necessary to establish a minimum day.
Laborers work by the time clock, professional by
the job to be done. There are teachers who are not
professionals, but many of them are. Those teachers
who have to have time schedules established should be
eliminated because they do a poor job for students in
their classrooms. Probably a time should be set for
reporting in the A.M.
Definitely yes! The board should establish a
regular workday time schedule as it is needed for extra
pay, and to clarify the normal workday. It does not
131
affect other professional obligations such as teacher's
meetings, etc. which can be imposed on the teacher
through Board Rules and Regulations.
Item 3. The teacher should be required to spend
8 hours on duty each day that school is in session.
Jury response: Agree 2 Disagree 14
The jury rejected the eight-hour day duty concept
for teachers by a large majority. There was one very brief
remark to this item:
At least eight hours.
Item 4. The regular workday of the teacher should
commence 15 minutes before the first class period and end
15 minutes after the last class period of the school day.
Jury response: Agree 2 Disagree 14
A substantial majority of panel members rejected
the concept of the teacher's workday commencing fifteen
minutes before the first period and ending fifteen minutes
after the last class period. Comments on this item were as
follows:
Should be up to the teacher, but he should be
available and shouldn't "beat the kids out the door."
30 minutes before and after.
It should be left to the local board, administra
tion, and teachers to determine the daily time
schedule.
132
Item 5. The total teacher duty hours should be
limited to 40 hours each week.
Jury response: Agree 6 Disagree 10
A majority of the jury disagreed with the principle
of limiting the total teacher duty hours during the week to
forty hours. There were two comments concerning this item:
Most teachers spend more time than this on their
duties.
A professional teacher will do his job no matter
how many hours it will take.
Item 6. Teachers should remain on campus for
parent conferences after the regular workday.
Jury response: Agree 14 Disagree 2
A large number of the jury were in agreement that
teachers should remain on campus for parent conferences
after the regular workday. Significant statements made
were:
A professional obligation of the teacher.
At times, but it should be scheduled during the
working day.
The teacher should be required to remain only if
parent has made a prior appointment.
Some on district time "regular"day; some on
teacher time.
133
Only in a case of emergency, it normally should be
during the teacher's regular hours.
There should be enough time during the school day
to include conferences.
Item 7. After regular work hours, teacher attend
ance should be required for faculty meetings, in-service
education, and curriculum meetings.
Jury response: Agree 12 Disagree 4
A majority of the jury concurred that teacher
attendance should be required for faculty meetings,
in-service education and curriculum meetings held after
school. Comments made by the panel members are stated in
the following words:
Only on an occasional basis.
Should be controlled. Weekly or bi-monthly, yes;
daily, no.
I would agree only if the teachers have been
involved in the planning of such meetings.
Yes, it is their duty.
These activities should be on a shared time basis—
district time and teacher time.
I disagree— these activities should be included in
the scheduled work week.
134
Item 8. During the school day, each teacher should
be allowed a period of time to prepare materials for class
instruction.
Jury response: Agree 16 Disagree__0
All members of the jury agreed on this concept
without additional comment.
Item 9. The yearly employment of the teacher
should be for: (a) 12 months, (b) 11 months, (c) 10 months,
(d) the actual number of days school is held, (e) the
actual number of days school is held plus about 5 days
orientation.
Jury response:
Item Agree Disagree
240 days (12 months 1
220 days (11 months) 2
200 days (10 months) 3
The actual number of days school
is held 1
The actual number of days school
is held plus about 5 days
orientation 11
9
8
10
10
Only ten of the sixteen jury members responded to
this item, and the idea of 12 months teacher employment
was rejected by a substantial majority. However, a number
of significant remarks were made relating to this item:
While I support "the actual number of days school
is held plus about 5 days orientation" at the present
time, I believe we should move toward the "year around"
school which would permit fuller educational experiences
for children and greater employment opportunities for
staff.
135
Unless the 45/15 concept is implemented, a teacher
would tend to diminish in efficiency and enthusiasm
teaching 12 months. If the question is not one of
actual teaching period but one of contract concept, I
believe the concept of teacher employment should be a
12 month rather than a 10 month.
I have no real strong feeling one way or the other
on this item. I would feel however, the number of days
a teacher would need to work would depend a great deal
on the type of program in each district. I would tend
to lean more however, to increasing the number of days
a teacher works and increasing his pay in line with
other full time employees with equal training and
experience.
Ideally, I would like to see the teacher work
12 months per year. Every four years they would per
form the following tasks during the summer vacation
period: (1) travel, (2) study-college, university,
(3) teach summer school, (4) district curriculum work.
A 30 day vacation would be provided each year.
With ten of the sixteen panel members answering
this item, the concept of 11 months employment was rejected
by a majority of the jury. Of the two panel members who
supported this principle, one made a comment:
Teachers should work 11 months and be paid accord
ingly. There should be a one month vacation period.
This would eliminate much of the criticism of the
teaching profession, i.e., "teachers only work 9 months
of the year and get paid for 12 months." Also, many
functions done during the school year could become
"special projects" for teachers during the summer
vacation.
There were thirteen of the sixteen jury members who
responded to this item of the 10 month employment for the
teacher. As there was a majority who disagreed, the idea
was rejected. There were no comments.
The jury rejected the "actual number of days
school is held" concept without comment.
A substantial majority of the jury agreed upon the
concept of teacher employment for the actual number of days
school is held plus about 5 days orientation. There were
no comments relating to this item.
Equalizing Teacher Workload
To test concepts found in the related literature
pertaining to ways of equalizing the teacher workload, this
part of the questionnaire was submitted to the panel of
educational specialists for their judgmental response. The
jury was requested to either agree or disagree with the
i
posed statements and make remarks on each or all items.
Item 1. The teacher who has extracurricular
activity load should be assigned fewer periods of teaching
during the school day: (a) always, (b) only when the
assignment is exceptionally heavy.
Jury response:
Item Agree Disagree
Always
Only when the assignment is
exceptionally heavy
3 13
13 3
137
The concept of always assigning fewer periods of
teaching during the day to the teacher when he has an
extracurricular activity load was rejected by a substantial
majority of the jury. There were no comments.
The jury agreed that when the extracurricular
activity load is exceptionally heavy, the teacher should
be assigned fewer periods of teaching during the school day.
The one comment made on this item was expressed in the
following words:
In my opinion, there is no way to equalize teacher
loads, i.e., number of students per day, preparation
time, etc. Efforts should be extended, however, to
make teacher loads less unequal.
Item 2. To decrease the teacher's work time during
the school year, activities such as curriculum development,
workshops, special projects and in-service training should
be done during the summer vacation.
Jury response: Agree 9 Disagree 7
A small majority of the jury agreed with the con
cept of conducting activities such as curriculum develop
ment, workshops, special project, and in-service training
during the summer vacation to decrease the teacher's work
time during the school year. Comments were as follows:
I agree but there are some necessary exceptions.
138
Providing monies are available to compensate the
participants for the additional duty.
This can be done on a limited basis.
The duty assigned should be put on a voluntary
position.
Many of the activities must be conducted during the
school year.
Some extracurricular activity, in-service education
and curricular work should be carried throughout the
school year by all teachers.
Item 3. Any school activity that is not appro
priate for a professional teacher to perform should be done
by classified personnel.
Jury response: Agree 15 Disagree 1
The jury with one exception agreed with the prin
ciple of utilizing classified personnel perform those
duties that are not appropriate for a professional teacher.
There were no comments on this item.
Item 4. To help equalize teacher workload, che use
of classroom teacher aides is justified.
Jury response: Agree 14 Disagree 2
A substantial majority of the jury concurred with
the principle of using classroom aides to help equalize
teacher workload. There were no comments pertaining to
this item.
139
Item 5. When teaching loads cannot be equalized
the principle of extra pay for extracurricular duty assign
ments is justified: (a) always, (b) only when the assign
ment is exceptionally heavy.
Jury response:
Item Agree Disagree
Always 2 14
Only when the assignment is
exceptionally heavy 13 2
The jury rejected the principle of always using
extra pay to equalize extracurricular duty assignments. No
remarks were made on this item.
A significant number of the jury agreed on the
principle of extra pay for extracurricular activities to
equalize teacher workload when the assignment is exception
ally heavy. No remarks were made on this item.
Item 6. A teacher should have extra pay for those
activities which are in addition to his regular annual
workload.
Jury response: Agree 15 Disagree 1
With one exception and with one comment the jury
concurred with the principle of extra pay for those activi
ties which are in addition to the teacher1s regular annual
workload. The comment stated:
140
Special projects requiring considerable extra
effort and time should carry some compensation for
those involved.
Item 7. All extra pay should start after the hours
of the teacher's regular workday.
Jury response: Agree 11 Disagree 5
A majority of the jury agreed with the principle of
starting all extra pay after the hours of the teacher's
regular workday. Comments relating to this item were
expressed in the following words:
There are some extra assignments which might be
during the regular workday in which extra pay could
be given. Some examples of this could be Yearbook
Sponsor, Student Newspaper, Club Sponsorship, etc.
Some of their work would undoubtedly be done during
regular working hours, however, much would be done
after hours.
It depends on the assignment. If the teacher has
an assignment such as home teaching, then I'd agree.
Item 8. A teacher should have released time with
pay to attend professional (CTA, AFT) meetings held during
the regular school day.
Jury response: Agree 3 Disagree 13
A significant majority of the jury rejected the
concept of releasing a teacher with pay to attend profes
sional organization, i.e., CTA, AFT, during the school day.
The remarks made about this item were:
141
Definitely no!
The activities of a professional organization
should not supersede the primary role of the teacher.
The teacher is employed to teach.
It would be a gift of public funds.
Item 9. A teacher should have released time with
pay to attend in-service activities.
Jury response: Agree 16 Disagree 0
A unanimous agreement by the jury on this item.
Also, there were no comments.
Chapter Summary
This chapter has been devoted to a jury test of
the professional principles of the teacher's workload as
revealed by a survey of the literature. To test these
principles, a combination closed and open-ended question
naire was constructed that permitted the respondent to
either agree or disagree with the stated principle and to
express his opinion on each or all items. Next, the ques
tionnaire was tested for appropriate item selection and
clarity of form by two educational specialists. Then it
was revised and submitted to a jury of educational special
ists in the field of teacher personnel for their judgment
response.
142
The membership of the jury was limited to sixteen
qualified persons in California who volunteered to partici
pate in the investigation. This jury was composed of:
(1) four unified school superintendents, (2) four high
school superintendents, (3) four elementary school super
intendents, and (4) four leaders of teacher groups.
The relevant points revealed by the jury's response
to the items of the questionnaire that related to the
principles of the professional aspects of the teacher's
workload are summarized and presented under the five major
parts of the questionnaire.
Teacher Workload Activities
1. A substantial majority of the jury agreed that
the teacher's total regular, annual workload should not be
limited to the regular classroom assignment.
2. A majority of the jury decided that the total
teacher workload should include the sponsorship of after
school student clubs and extracurricular activities as part
of the regular, annual teaching assignment.
3. A significant majority of the jury concurred
that the activities of a professional organization, i.e.,
CTA, AFT, should not substitute as an extracurricular
143
assignment for a teacher.
4. The jury agreed that the teacher attendance at
school functions such as open house should be included as
part of a teacher's annual workload.
5. There was general agreement by the jury that
the duties, functions and activities of a teacher's
regular, annual workload should be included, or implied in
the terms of the teaching contract.
Appropriate Duties for the Teacher
1. A jury majority found that the supervision of
loading and unloading of school buses is not an appropriate
duty for a professional teacher.
2. A small majority of the jury was in agreement
that the supervision of study halls is an appropriate duty
for a professional teacher.
3. The jury found by a small majority that the
supervision of after-school athletic events is an appropri
ate duty for a professional teacher to perform.
4. A majority of the jury declared that the super
vision of playgrounds is an appropriate duty for a profes
sional teacher.
144
5. A significant number of the jury members agreed
that the supervision of lunchroom is not an appropriate
duty for the professional teacher to perform.
6. A small majority of the jury concurred that the
supervision of after-school social activities is an appro
priate duty for the teacher to perform.
7. A large jury majority found that the control of
students in the halls or on the campus is appropriate
teacher duty.
Work Appropriately Excluded from
the Regular Annual Teaching Load
1. There was a unanimous agreement by the jury
that driver training when it is conducted during out-of
school hours on school days, and during non-school days
should be excluded from the teacher's regular, annual
workload.
2. The majority of the jury found that classroom
budget preparation is part of the teacher's regular, annual
workload and should not be excluded from his duties.
3. A large jury majority declared that the prepa
ration of behavioral goals and objectives is an appropriate
teacher duty and should not be excluded from his regular
annual workload.
145
4. A general jury agreement was that curriculum
workshop activities which are held during out-of-school
hours on school days or on non-school days are appropriate
duties to be included in the teacher's regular, annual
workload.
5. A significant majority of the jury decided that
work associated with special federal or state projects is
an appropriate teacher duty to be included in the workload.
6. A majority of the jury agreed that teaching
classes in the adult program after the regular daily
assignment has been completed should be excluded from the
teacher's regular, annual workload.
7. There was almost a unanimous agreement by the
jury that special assignments held during the summer vaca
tion months should be excluded from the teachers annual
workload.
8. A small jury majority agreed that in-service
education programs held during the school year, but outside
of the regular school hours or on non-school days should be
excluded from the teacher's regular, annual workload.
9. A large majority of the jury voted that in-
service education meetings conducted prior to the opening
of the school term is a part of the teacher's annual
workload.
10. A unanimous jury agreement found that home
teaching when performed after the teacher's regular workday
should be excluded from the regular annual, workload of the
teacher.
Teacher Work Time
1. A jury majority of one decided that the length
of the school day should be a factor in the teacher's total
annual workload.
2. A jury majority of one concurred that the num
ber of duty hours per week should not be a factor in the
teacher's annual workload.
3. A significant number of jury members agreed
that the number of workdays in the school year is a factor
in the teacher's annual workload.
4. A large jury majority stated that the school
board should establish a regular workday time schedule for
teachers.
5. The jury was in general agreement that the
teacher should not be required to spend eight hours on duty
each day that school is in session.
147
6. The jury voted by a substantial majority that
the regular workday of the teacher should not commence
fifteen minutes before the dirst class period and end
fifteen minutes after the last class period of the school
day.
7. A jury majority decided that the total teacher
duty hours should not be limited to forty hours each week.
8. A large number of the jury was in agreement
that teachers should remain on campus for parent conferences
after the regular workday.
9. A substantial jury majority found that after
regular work hours, teacher attendance should be required
for faculty meetings, in-service education, and curriculum
meetings.
10. There was a unanimous agreement by the jury
that during the school day, each teacher should be allowed
a period of time to prepare materials for class instruction.
11. There was a general jury agreement that the
yearly employment of the teacher for twelve months, eleven
months, and only the actual number of days school is in
session be rejected.
12. A substantial majority of the jury concurred
that the yearly employment of the teacher should be for the
148
actual number of days school is held plus about five days
orientation.
Equalizing Teacher Workload
1. A significant majority of the jury rejected the
concept of always assigning the teacher fewer periods of
teaching during the school day to compensate for an extra
curricular activity load.
2. A substantial majority of the jury voted that
only when the assignment is exceptionally heavy should the
teacher who has an extracurricular activity load be assigned
fewer periods of teaching during the school day.
3. A jury majority of two decided that to decrease
the teacher's work time during the school year, activities
such as curriculum development, workshops, special projects
and in-service training should be done during the summer
vacation.
4. With one exception, the jury agreed that any
school activity that is not appropriate for a professional
teacher to perform should be done by classified personnel.
5. A substantial majority of the jury voted that to
help equalize teacher workload, the use of classroom
teacher aides is justified.
149
6. Only with two exceptions, the jury rejected
always paying extra pay for extracurricular duty assign
ments .
7. A significant majority of the jury agreed that
only when the assignment is exceptionally heavy, the
principle of extra pay for extracurricular duty assignment
is justified to equalize teaching loads.
8. With one exception, the jury decided that a
teacher should have extra pay for those activities which
are in additon to his regular, annual workload.
9. A large majority of the jury agreed that all
extra pay should start after the hours of the teacher's
regular workday.
10. A significant number of jury members decided
that a teacher should not have release time with, pay to
attend professional meetings, i.e., CTA, AFT, held during
the regular school day.
11. With unanimous agreement, the jury stated that
a teacher should have release time with pay to attend
in-service activities.
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The total teacher workload is a concern for all who
share in the responsibility of recommending or formulating
school policy. The desired goals of a free public educa
tion will be achieved through the teacher's ability to
perform the diverse school functions created by a complex
society. Consequently, to assure quality educational
experiences for each child in school, the nature and extent
of the teacher's duties and responsibilities must be care
fully weighed to assist him to obtain maximum teaching
effectiveness.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study was to identify the legal
principles and professional concepts of the teacher's
regular, annual workload. Through this identification of
150
151
legal principles and professional concepts, specific
answers to questions concerning the duties, functions, and
activities of the professional teacher were sought. The
questions to be answered were:
1. What does the literature reveal about the teacher's
workload?
2. What duties, functions and activities of the
teacher's workload are required by law?
3. What functions and activities of the teacher's
workload are a professional responsibility?
4. What functions and activities included in school
programs are not legally or professionally a part
of the teacher's regular annual workload?
5. What school activities are not appropriate assign
ments for a professional, trained teacher?
6. What school activities are appropriate for a pro
fessional teacher but are beyond the regular,
annual duties of the teacher?
7. What are the opinions of professional experts con
cerning the teacher's workload?
It was expected that through the accomplishment of
the purpose of the study, a foundation of legal and profes
sional guidelines would be established upon which sound
152
recommendations could be made relating to teacher workload
assignment.
Procedure
Due to the nature of the study, two research tech
niques were utilized to compile the data for the investiga
tion: the legal method and the survey questionnaire.
To complete the legal investigation, an examination
was made of the available related literature. Next, a
careful reading was made of California legislative enact
ments and the rules and regulations of California State
Board of Education to find appropriate statute law. At the
same time, California case decisions, appellate court
decisions of other states and federal courts which concerned
teacher workload were selected and compiled in a bibliog
raphy .
From the statute law and relevant court cases, a
reading was done by using primary sources. If the case was
meaningful to the study, it was checked in Shepard1s
Citation to Cases, studied and analyzed in detail for
pertinent points of law. From these data, findings were
compiled, conclusions drawn, and recommendations were made.
153
The procedure used to determine the professional
aspects of the teacher workload was through the use of an
open-end survey questionnaire. A review of secondary
sources was made to select the survey items included in
the questionnaire. The questionnaire was then submitted
to a panel of educational experts as outlined in Chapter V.
From the findings of the questionnaire, conclusions
were drawn and recommendations were made.
Findings
This study has dealt with the legal and profes
sional aspects of the teacher's workload. At the end of
Chapters III and V, the results of each area of the inves
tigation was summarized and reported. These findings have
been further refined and restated below under the two areas
of investigation: legal aspects and professional aspects.
Legal Aspects
Legal Authority for
Teacher Duty Assignment
1. The position of a teacher in the public schools
of California is not an office. It is an employment by
contract made between the teacher and the district.
154
2. The authority over school districts is vested
in the Legislature by the Constitution of the State of
California. Therefore, school districts are state agencies
for the local operation of the school system. Also, every
school district shall be under the control of a board of
school trustees or a board of education.
3. As a public agency of the state, the board may
perform only those functions and powers specifically author
ized by the Legislature, and those powers which arise by
necessary implication from the expressed powers.
4. The governing board shall prescribe and enforce
rules for its own government, but it cannot enact a rule or
regulation which will alter or enlarge the terms of a
legislative enactment. However, the board may supplement
the statute law with rules that tend to make the statute
workable. In addition, it is not necessary for all rules
and regulations for the management of the school be made a
matter of record by the school board.
5. The governing board is mandated to fix and
prescribe the duties to be performed by all persons in the
school district. This power is an exclusive right of the
board. Consequently, the board has the power to assign
155
teachers to their specific work and is limited only by law
and reason.
6. Through a contract relation with the governing
board of a district, a teacher becomes subject to the rules
of the board and to all rules and regulations which are in
effect at the date of making or renewal of the contract.
7. The board is mandated to require obedience of
the teacher to reasonable board rules and regulations.
Persistent refusal by the teacher to obey reasonable rules
and regulations would warrant his dismissal.
8. The governing board of the district shall dis
charge any duty imposed by law upon it or the district.
Also, unless the education code provides otherwise, a pub
lic officer may delegate the duty imposed on him to a
deputy.
9. The school board has the power to delegate to
the school administration the responsibility to make cer
tain teacher duty assignments. Moreover, the school
principal has the necessary power to properly administer
and supervise his school. In addition, supervisory duties
by teachers do not need to be expressly set forth in the
printed board rules and regulations.
' 156
10. The courts are reluctant to interfere with
the discretionary power of the board to fix and prescribe
teacher duty. Unless there is conflict with statutory law,
or discrimination, or arbitrary action detrimental to the
individual or class, the courts will not interfere with the
assigning of teacher duty.
Limitations Placed on Teacher Duty
1. The courts have declared that assignment of
teachers to their duties by the board must stand the test
of reasonableness. All of the teacher's duties are subject
to the test of reasonableness. However, the courts have
ruled that what is reasonable must necessarily depend upon
the facts of the situation.
2. Each teacher must have a duty free lunch period
that is as near noon as reasonably possible and of not less
than thirty minutes in length.
3. The board must assign a teacher to the type of
duty for which the teacher is qualified, and it must be
within the scope of the license held by the teacher.
4. The board may change a permanent teacher's
assignment as long as the work assigned is of a rank and
grade equivalent to that by which the permanent status was
acquired.
157
5. The board must act in good faith in classifying
and assigning a teacher to a specific work, and it must be
in accordance with the law. Also, the board may not assign
a teacher to duty for the purpose of compelling his resig
nation.
6. The duty activities assigned a teacher must be
related to the school program, and the assignment must be
fairly and reasonably made.
7. The school board cannot use arbitrary authority
to assign teacher duty that is not within the scope of
teaching duties. In addition, the board cannot assign a
teacher to unreasonable or dangerous assignments, idle and
useless tasks, police duty, or menial tasks such as build
ing fires and janitor service.
8. The board may not impose upon a teacher a duty
foreign to the field of instruction for which he is
licensed or employed.
9. Boards of trustees are enjoined from racial
discrimination of teacher duty assignments, and discrimina
tion of teacher compensation based upon sex.
10. The board must exercise the principle of
uniformity of treatment for those performing like services
with like experience. Also, teacher supervision of social
158
and athletic activities must be uniform in assignment, and
each teacher must have his share of such duty.
The Teacher's Classroom Duties
1. The school year begins on the first day of July
and ends on the last day of June, and a contract of employ
ment for a year is employment for a school year.
2. The annual work year for the regular full-time
teacher will be established by the board of trustees. Con
sequently, the teacher must be on duty during the school
term, at institutes, and on other days required by the
school board.
3. The school term must not have less than 175
days during the school year, and the work year for the
regular full-time teacher will exclude the days between
school terms, or summer vacation. Furthermore, teachers
are not compelled to serve in summer school programs.
4. The governing board of each school district
shall fix the length of the school day, and all teachers
shall observe the hours fixed by the district board for the
opening and closing of school. Unless otherwise provided
by board rule, teachers are required to be in their rooms
not less than thirty minutes before the time for commencing
of school.
159
5. The duty hours of the teacher are not limited
to the regular hours of the day, or is it legally required
that the work hours fixed be the same for all teachers. In
addition, the work hours for a teacher may include duty
assignments conducted after school hours and on Saturdays
and holidays.
6. Every teacher in the school shall enforce the
course of study, the use of legally authorized textbooks,
and rules and regulation prescribed for schools *
7. Each teacher shall impress upon the minds of
the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice and
patriotism, and shall teach the pupils to avoid idleness,
profanity and falsehood.
8. Each teacher shall instruct the pupils in the
principles of a free government, and shall train the pupil
in a true comprehension of the rights, duties and dignity
of American citizenship.
9. Unless it is compiled by a central office, each
elementary school teacher is required to keep a state
school record of attendance and absence of enrolled pupils.
10. The courts have ruled that supervision of a
study hall, teaching demonstrations, and the filing of
lesson plans in advance are proper duty assignments.
160
11. Emergency drill activities are within the
scope of the duties of a teacher, and a teacher may be
assigned such duties.
Extra Class Duties for Teachers
1. Coaching athletics is a proper teacher assign
ment for a qualified instructor of physical education.
2. The assignment of a teacher to attend the
school's open house is a part of the teacher's responsibil
ities, and failure of a teacher to attend open house is a
proper cause for dismissal.
3. Each teacher in California has been mandated
by legislative enactment to attend teacher institutes.
4. The court has declared that attendance at a
school workshop is a legal teacher duty even though the
teacher opposed the use of federal funds in the public
schools.
5. Legislative statute requires that all athletic
and social activities of pupils conducted by the school
will be under direct supervision of certificated employees
of the district. It is legal for the governing board to
require teachers to supervise certain athletic and social
activities.
161
6. The court has ruled that boards of education
have clear legal justification to require teachers to per
form duties which are part of the schools' curricula.
7. If not otherwise provided, California teachers
are required by statute law to supervise pupils at play on
the school grounds during recess, during other inter
missions, and before and after school. However, playground
supervision may be assigned to noncertificated personnel in
lieu of teacher supervision.
8. Every teacher has the power to hold pupils to a
strict account for their conduct on the way to and from
school, on the playgrounds, and during recess. However,
the teacher and the school shall hold pupils to account for
their behavior to and from school, but the teacher or the
school is not responsible for their safe conduct.
9. The supervision of instructional aides is a
proper teacher duty, and the State of California does not
require an administration or supervision credential as a
prerequisite to the supervision and direction of instruc
tional aides.
10. California statute law requires the teacher to
make reports required by law. If the teacher refuses or
willfully neglects to make such reports, he is guilty of a
162
misdemeanor and may be fined not more than one hundred
dollars.
11. Legislative enactments provides for withhold
ing the salary payment for the last month of service of an
employee until all reports required have been filed with
the superintendent.
Professional Aspects
Teacher Workload Activities
1. A substantial majority of the jury agreed that
the teacher's total regular, annual workload should not be
limited to the regular classroom assignment.
2. A majority of the jury decided that the total
teacher workload should include the sponsorship of after
school student clubs and extracurricular activities as part
of the regular annual teaching assignment.
3. A significant majority of the jury concurred
that the activities of a professional organization, i.e.,
CTA, AFT, should not substitute as an extracurricular
assignment for a teacher.
4. The jury agreed that the teacher attendance at
school functions such as open house should be included as
part of a teacher's annual workload.
163
5. There was general agreement by the jury that
the duties, functions and activities of a teacher's regular,
annual workload should be included, or implied in the
terms of the teaching contract.
Appropriate Duties for the Teacher
1. A jury majority found that the supervision of
loading and unloading of school buses is not an appropriate
duty for a professional teacher.
2. A small majority of the jury was in agreement
that the supervision of study halls is an appropriate duty
for a professional teacher to perform.
3. The jury found by a small majority that the
supervision of after-school athletic events is an appro
priate duty for a professional teacher to perform.
4. A majority of the jury declared that the super
vision of playgrounds is an appropriate duty for a
professional teacher.
5. A significant number of the jury members agreed
that the supervision of lunchrooms is not an appropriate
duty for the professional teacher to perform.
6. A small majority of the jury concurred that the
supervision of after-school social activities is an appro
priate duty for the teacher to perform.
164
7. A large jury majority found that the control of
students in the halls or on the campus is appropriate
teacher duty.
Work Appropriately Excluded from
the Regular Annual Teaching Load
1. There was a unanimous agreement by the jury
that driver training when it is conducted during out-of-
school hours on school days, and during non-school days
should be excluded from the teacher's regular annual
workload.
2. The majority of the jury found that classroom
budget preparation is part of the teacher's regular annual
workload and should not be excluded from his duties.
3. A large jury majority declared that the prepa
ration of behavioral goals and objectives is an appropriate
teacher duty and should not be excluded from his regular
annual workload.
4. A general jury agreement was that curriculum
workshop activities which are held during out-of-school
hours on school days or on non-school days are appropriate
duties to be included in the teacher's regular annual
workload.
165
5. A significant majority of the jury decided that
work associated with special federal or state projects is
an appropriate teacher duty to be included in the workload.
6. A majority of the jury agreed that teaching
classes in the adult program after the regular daily assign
ment has been completed should be excluded from the
teacher's regular, annual workload.
7. There was almost a unanimous agreement by the
jury that special assignments held during the summer vaca
tion months should be excluded from the teacher annual
workload.
8. A small jury majority agreed that in-service
education programs held during the school year, but outside
of the regular school hours or on non-school days, should
be excluded from the teacher's regular annual workload.
9. A large majority of the jury voted that in-
service education meetings conducted prior to the opening
of the school term is a part of the teacher's annual
workload.
10. A unanimous jury agreement found that home
teaching when performed after the teacher's regular workday
should be excluded from the regular, annual workload of
the teacher.
Teacher Work Time
1. A jury majority of one felt that the length of
the school day should be a factor in the teacher's total
annual workload.
2. A jury majority of one concurred that the num
ber of duty hours per week should not be a factor in the
teacher's annual workload.
3. A significant number of jury members agreed
that the number of work days in the school year is a factor
in the teacher's annual workload.
4. A large jury majority stated that the school
board should establish a regular workday time schedule for
teachers.
5. The jury was in general agreement that the
teacher should not be required to spend eight hours on duty
each day that school is in session.
6. The jury voted by a substantial majority that
the regular workday of the teacher should not commence
fifteen minutes before the first class period and end
fifteen minutes after the last class period of the school
day.
7. A jury majority felt that the total teacher
duty hours should not be limited to forty hours each week.
167
8. A large number of the jury was in agreement
that teachers should remain on campus for parent confer
ences after the regular workday.
9. A substantial jury majority found that after
regular work hours, teacher attendance should be required
for faculty meetings, in-service education, and curriculum
meetings.
10. There was a unanimous agreement by the jury
that during the school day, each teacher should be allowed
a period of time to prepare materials for class instruction.
11. There was a general jury agreement that the
yearly employment of the teacher for twelve months, eleven
months, and only the actual number of days school is in
session be rejected.
12. A substantial majority of the jury concurred
that the yearly employment of the teacher should be for the
actual number of days school is held plus about five days
orientation.
Equalizing Teacher Workload
1. A significant majority of the jury rejected the
concept of always assigning the teacher fewer periods of
teaching during the school day to compensate for an extra
curricular activity load.
168
2. A substantial majority of the jury voted that
only when the assignment is exceptionally heavy should the
teacher who has an extracurricular activity load be assigned
fewer periods of teaching during the school day.
3. A jury majority of two decided that to decrease
the teacher's work time during the school year, activities
such as curriculum development, workshops, special projects
and in-service training should be done during the summer
vacation.
4. With one exception, the jury agreed that any
school activity that is not appropriate for a professional
teacher to perform should be done by classified personnel.
5. A substantial majority of the jury voted that
to help equalize teacher workload, the use of classroom
teacher aides is justified.
6. Only with two exceptions, the jury rejected
always paying extra pay for extracurricular duty assign
ments .
7. A significant majority of the jury agreed that
only when the assignment is exceptionally heavy, the
principle of extra pay for extracurricular duty assignment
is justified to equalize teaching loads.
169
8. With one exception, the jury decided that a
teacher should have extra pay for those activities which
are in addition to his regular annual workload.
9. A large majority of the jury agreed that all
extra pay should start after the hours of the teacher's
regular workday.
10. A significant number of jury members decided
that a teacher should not have release time with pay to
attend professional meetings, i.e., CTA, AFT, held during
the regular school day.
11. With unanimous agreement, the jury stated that
a teacher should have released time with pay to attend
in-service activities.
Conclusions
The legal study through an analysis of statute law,
rules and regulations of the California Department of
Education, and relevant case law, and the survey question
naire of the professional principles relating to the
teacher's workload have produced numerous specific findings
as stated above. From the collected data and the listed
findings of the study, the following conclusions have been
reached.
170
1. The board of trustees of the district, as a
public agency of the state, is vested by the Legislature to
control and operate the local school district. In this
capacity as a state agency, the board may only use the
expressed powers granted by the Legislature and those
implied powers arising from the expressed powers.
From the Legislature, the board has received the
expressed power to prescribe and enforce rules and regula
tions for its own government. A teacher, by contract made
between him and the district, is an employee and not an
officer of the district. Through this contractual rela
tionship, the teacher becomes subject to the rules and
regulations of the local board of trustees.
Furthermore, the board has the exclusive power to
fix and prescribe the duties of all persons employed in
the school district. Concomitant with this power to assign
teachers to their specific work, the board may delegate
to the school administration the responsibility to make
certain teacher duty assignments.
2. Although the courts are reluctant to interfere
with the discretionary power of the governing board to fix
and prescribe teacher duty, they have placed limitations
upon this power. To protect the teacher from unreasonable
171
duty, the school board is limited basically by law and
reason. As long as there is no conflict with statutory
law, discrimination or arbitrary action detrimental to the
individual or class, the courts will not interfere.
3. The school board of the district has the legal
authority to establish the annual work year of the teacher,
the length of the school day and the duty hours of the
teacher. But it should be observed, the annual work year
of the teacher will not be less than 175 school days and
will exclude days between school terms, or summer vacation.
4. Every teacher in the school is mandated by law
to enforce the course of study and perform those functions
which are part of the school's curricula. In addition, it
is legally encumbent upon the teacher to enforce the rules
and regulations prescribed by the Legislature, State Board
of Education and the local governing board. Besides these
duties, the teacher may be required to perform extra class
assignments as a condition of his employment with the
school. Moreover, as long as the board of education act
within their scope of powers and follows the guidelines
established by the courts concerning teacher assignment,
the courts will not interfere.
172
5. The professional aspects of the teacher's work
load are slightly broader than the legal aspects. Conse
quently, working within the legal framework, the education
profession has the power to modify and alter the total
teacher's workload.
Recommendations
The major purpose of this study was to establish a
foundation of legal and professional guidelines upon which
recommendations could be made to school administrators and
teachers relating to the teacher's workload. On the basis
of the results of the study, it is recommended that:
1. Board policy should state that the teacher is
subject to the rules and regulations of the governing
board, the California Department of Education, and all
legislative enactments pertaining to schools.
2. Board policy should state that the building
principal has the power to assign teacher duty that is
necessary to properly administer and supervise the school.
3. Board policies, board and administrative rules
and regulations should be made available to all teachers,
staff and public.
4. Each district should have the duties, functions
and activities required of teachers clearly stated in the
Board's policies, rules and regulations.
5. The teacher's contract should state that he
will perform all duties contained in the Board's rules and
regulations.
6. The local board, administration and teachers
should share in the development of an extra pay schedule.
7. Teachers should share in the planning of teacher
meetings, in-service education, workshops, school functions
and special summer projects.
8. The local board, administration and teachers
should share in planning the regular workday time schedule
for teachers.
9. The local school board should establish a
regular workday time schedule for teachers.
10. The length of the school day and the number of
work days during the school year are factors which should
be considered in planning the teacher's total, annual
workload.
11. Teacher employment for the year should be the
actual number of days school is held plus about five days
orientation.
174
12. The board should act in good faith in classi
fying and assigning a teacher to a specific work, and it
should be in accordance with the law.
13. All teacher duty assignments should be within
the scope of teaching duties and related to the school
program.
14. All teacher duty assignments should be reason
able and within the scope of the license held by the
teacher.
15. All teacher duty assignments and pay should be
free of any discrimination based on race or sex.
16. The teacher should not be assigned police
duty, dangerous tasks, idle and useless tasks, or menial
duty such as janitor service.
17. Special assignments which are held during the
summer vacation months should be excluded from the teach
er's regular, annual assignment and placed on a voluntary
extra pay basis.
18. On a limited basis, activities such as curric
ulum development, workshops, special projects and in-service
training should be done during the summer as an additional
duty assignment with additional teacher pay.
175
19. The assignments of driver training, home
teaching and teaching adult education classes when per
formed after the regular teacher's work schedule should be
considered additional to the regular assignment and placed
on an extra pay basis.
20. There should be a definite separation between
the activities of a teacher's professional organization,
i.e., CTA, AFT, and school activities.
21. The activities of the teacher's professional
organization, i.e., CTA, AFT, should not be substituted for
a teacher's extracurricular assignment.
22. The teacher should not have released time with
pay to attend professional meetings, i.e., CTA, AFT, held
during the school day.
23. The total teacher workload should not be
limited to the regular classroom assignment.
24. Extracurricular activities and sponsorship of
after-school student clubs should be equally shared by all
teachers.
25. All extra class activities should be uniform
in assignment, and each teacher should have his share of
such duty.
176
26. Extra pay for extracurricular duty assignments
should be provided when the assignment is exceptionally
heavy.
27. All extra pay for extracurricular activities
should start after the hours of the teacher's regular
scheduled workday.
28. The teacher should have extra pay for those
duties that are additional to his regular, annual workload.
29. The teacher should be assigned fewer periods
of teaching during the school day, only when the extra
curricular load is exceptionally heavy.
30. Teachers who have an excessive workload should
be assigned teacher aides to help equalize the workload.
31. The teacher should have released time with
pay to attend in-service activities.
32. Clerical assistance should be provided all
teachers during the school day.
33. Each teacher should be allocated planning and
preparation time during the school day.
34. The supervision of lunchrooms should be
assigned entirely to paraprofessional personnel.
35. The supervision of students during lunch hour
should be performed by paraprofessional personnel under the
177
supervision of a certificated person.
36. The supervision of the loading and unloading
of school buses should be assigned entirely to paraprofes-
sional personnel after the first few days of the school
term.
37. The supervision of playgrounds should be
assigned a teacher on a limited basis with the assistance
of paraprofessional personnel.
38. The teacher should be assigned the supervision
of after-school social activities with the assistance of
paraprofessional personnel.
39. The supervision of after-school athletic
activities should be performed by paraprofessional person
nel who are under the supervision of a certificated person.
40. If needed, law enforcement officers should be
hired to assist the supervision of extracurricular athletic
and social events.
41. Teacher attendance should be required for
faculty meetings, in-service education and curriculum
meetings when held after the regular work hours.
42. Faculty meetings, in-service education and
curriculum meetings should be on a shared time basis—
district time and teacher time.
178
43. Teacher attendance at open house should be
required of teachers.
44. Teachers should remain on campus for parent
conferences after the regular workday, only if the parent
has made a prior appointment.
45. Normally, parent-teacher conferences should be
held during the teacher's regular workday.
46. In-service education, curriculum workshops,
and work associated with special federal and state projects
are appropriate teacher assignments to be included in the
total annual workload.
47. The supervision of a study hall is an appro
priate duty assignment for the teacher.
48. The rules and regulations of the Board should
clearly state that each teacher has the primary duty and
the responsibility to control students' conduct in the halls
or on the school grounds during the school day.
49. The teacher should be assigned the duty of his
classroom budget preparation as part of his regular
assignment.
50. In-service education meetings conducted prior
to the opening of the school term are a part of the
teacher's regular, annual workload and attendance should
179
be required of each teacher.
51. The preparation of behavioral goals and objec
tives should be assigned the teacher to perform as part of
his regular workload.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
181
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Professional Aspects of the Teacher Workload
Part I. Teacher Workload Activities
Would you agree or disagree with the follow
ing statements concerning teacher duty?
Please indicate your opinion by checking
the appropriate space.
1. The total teacher workload should be
limited to the regular classroom
assignment.
2. The total teacher workload should
include the sponsorship of after school
student clubs and extracurricular
activities as part of the regular,
annual teaching assignment.
3. The activities of a professional organ
ization (CTA, AFT) should substitute as
an extracurricular assignment for a
teacher.
4. Teacher attendance at school functions
such as open house should be included
as part of a teacher's annual workload.
5. The duties, functions and activities of
a teacher's regular, annual workload
should be included in the terms of the
teaching contract.
Comment. Add any clarification statement
you wish to make on any or all of
the above statements.
Agree/Disagree
/
/
/
/
182
183
Part II. Appropriate Duties for the Teacher Yes/No
Are the following duties appropriate for a pro
fessional teacher to perform?
1. Supervision of loading and unloading of school
buses. /_
2. The supervision of study halls. /_
3. The supervision of after-school athletic
events.
4. The supervision of playgrounds.
5. The supervision of lunchrooms. /_
6. The supervision of after-school social
activities. /_
7. The control of students in the halls or on
the campus. /_
Comment:
Part, III. Work Appropriately Excluded from
the Regular Annual Teaching Load Agree/Disagree
Would you agree or disagree that the follow
ing school activities should be excluded
from the teacher's regular annual workload?
1. Driver training when it is conducted
during out-of-school hours on school
days, and during non-school days. /________
2. Classroom budget preparation. /________
3. Preparation of behavioral goals and
objectives. /
184
Agree/Disagree
4. Curriculum workshop activities which
are held during out-of-school hours on
school days or on non-school days. /
5. Work associated with special federal or
state projects. /
6. Teaching classes in the adult education
program after the regular daily assign
ment has been completed. /
7. Special assignments which are held
during the summer vacation months. /
8. In-service education programs held
during the school year, but outside of
the regular school hours or on non
school days. /
9. In-service education meetings conducted
prior to the opening of the school term. /
10. Home teaching when performed after the
teacher's regular workday. /
Comment:
Part IV. Teacher Work Time Agree/Disagree
Do you agree or disagree with the following
statements concerning teacher working time?
1. A teacher's total annual workload
should be considered in terms of:
a. the length of the day.
b. the number of duty hours per week.
c. the number of work days in the
school year.
/
2. The school board should establish a
regular workday time schedule for
teachers.
3. The teacher should be required to
spend 8 hours on duty each day that
school is in session.
4. The regular workday of the teacher
should commence 15 minutes before the
first class period and end 15 minutes
after the last class period of the
school day.
5. The total teacher duty hours should be
limited to 40 hours each week.
6. Teachers should be required to remain
on campus for parent conferences after
the regular workday.
7. After regular work hours, teacher
attendance should be required for
faculty meetings, in-service education,
and curriculum meetings.
8. During the school day, each teacher
should be allowed a period of time to
prepare materials for class instruction.
9. The yearly employment of the teacher
should be for:
a. 240 days (12 months)
b. 220 days (11 months)
c. 200 days (10 months)
d. The actual number of days school is
held.
e. The actual number of days school is
held plus about 5 days orientation.
Comment:
186
Part V. Equalizing Teacher Workload
Would you agree or disagree with the follow
ing statements concerning the equalizing
of staff duty assignments?
1. The teacher who has an extracurricular
activity load should be assigned fewer
periods of teaching during the school
day.
a. Always
b. Only when the assignment is
exceptionally heavy.
2. To decrease the teacher's work time
during the school year, activities
such as curriculum development, work
shops, special projects and in-service
training should be done during the
summer vacation.
3. Any school activity that is not appro
priate for a professional teacher to
perform should be done by classified
personnel.
4. To help equalize teacher workload, the
use of classroom teacher aides is
justified.
5. When teaching loads cannot be equalized
the principle of extra pay for extra
curricular duty assignments is
justified.
a. Always.
b. Only when the assignment is
exceptionally heavy.
6. A teacher should have extra pay for the
performance of those activities which
are in addition to his regular, annual
workload.
Agree/Disagree
/
/
/
/
/
187
Agree/Disagree
7. All extra pay should start after the
hours of the teacher's regular workday. ____ /
8. A teacher should have release time
with pay to attend professional (CTA,
AFT) meetings held during the regular
school day. /
9. A teacher should have release time
with pay to attend in-service
activities. /
Comment:
APPENDIX B
LETTER TO PANEL OF JURORS
188
LETTER TO PANEL OF JURORS
Dear
You have been recommended as a specialist in the
field of teacher personnel and are being requested to
participate in a study of teacher workload principles.
The purpose is to evaluate principles which have been
suggested by a preliminary investigation.
The planned procedure is to submit the question
naire to a panel or jury of sixteen selected specialists in
the state of California who are school superintendents and
leaders of teacher organizations. The results of this
questionnaire will not be identified with any one individ
ual. Due to the judgmental nature of the study, only a
limited number of qualified people are being asked to
participate. We appreciate your assistance in checking
the following brief statements.
Sincerely yours,
Walter A. Condley
Vice Principal
Moorpark, California 93021
189
APPENDIX C
PANEL OF JURORS
190
PANEL OF JURORS
Mr. Robert Bergmark, Teacher Leader, AFT
Mr. Grady Box, Teacher Leader, CTA
Dr. Everett E. Braun, High School Superintendent
Dr. C. C. Carpenter, Jr., Elementary School Superintendent
Dr. Ian J. Crow, Elementary School Superintendent
Dr. Joseph W. Crosby, High School Superintendent
Dr. Harold Evans, Elementary School Superintendent
Mr. Dean 0. Green, Elementary School Superintendent
Mr. John Orcutt, Teacher Leader, CTA
Dr. Patrick 0. Rooney, Unified School Superintendent
Dr. Myrl C. Rupel, High School Superintendent
Dr. Norman Scharer, Unified School Superintendent
Mr. George B. Smith, High School Superintendent
Mr. Bill Schneider, Teacher Leader, CTA
Dr. Norman Wampler, Unified School Superintendent
Dr. Walter Ziegler, Unified School Superintendent
191
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Alexander, Wm. M., and Saylor, J. Galen. Modern
Secondary Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1960.
Black, Henry C. Black's Law Dictionary. 4th Rev.
ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1967.
Bolmeier, Edward C. The School in the Legal Struc
ture. Cincinnati: The W. H. Anderson Co.,
1968.
Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduc
tion. New York: David McKay Co., Inc., 1965.
Castetter, William B. Administering the School
Personnel Program. New York: The Macmillan
Co., 1962.
Chamberlain, L. M., and Kindred, L. W. The Teacher
and School Organization. Englewood Cliffs,
N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.
Drury, Robert, and Ray, Kenneth. Principles of
School Law with Cases. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 1965.
Edwards, Newton. The Courts and the Public Schools.
Rev. ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1955.
Frazier, Alexander. The New Elementary School.
Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, NEA Department of
Elementary School Principals, 1968.
194
10. Garber, Lee 0. Handbook of School Law. New London,
Conn.: Arthur C. Croft Publications, 1954.
11. _________. The Yearbook of School Law. Danville,
111.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.,
1950 to present.
12. Gauerke, Warren E. Legal and Ethical Responsibilities
of School Personnel. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959.
13. Hamilton, Robert R., and Mort, Paul R. The Law and
Public Education. Brooklyn: The Foundation
Press, Inc., 1959.
14. Nolte, M. Chester. Guide to School Law. West Nyack,
N. Y.: Parker Publishing Co., Inc., 1969.
15. Nolte, M. Chester, and Linn, John Phillip. School
Law for Teachers. The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc., 1963.
16. Oppenheim, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude
Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1966.
17. Remmlein, Madeline Kinter. The Law of Public School
Administration. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1953.
18. _________. School Law. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1950.
19. Rezny, Arthur A., and Remmlein, M. K. A Schoolman in
the Law Library. Danville, 111.: The Inter
state Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1962.
20. Seitz, Reynolds C., ed. Law and the School Principal.
Vol. Ill: Legal Problems in Education Series,
sponsored by the NOLPE. Cincinnati: The W. H.
Anderson Co., 1961.
21. Van Zwoll, James A. School Personnel Administration.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964.
195
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Wright, Betty Atwell. Teacher Aides to the Rescue.
New York: The John Day Co., 1969.
Articles and Periodicals
"The American Public School Teacher, 1960-61." NEA
Research Monograph. Washington, D. C.:
Research Division, National Education Associa
tion, April, 1963.
"Class Size in Secondary Schools." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLIII, No. 1 (February, 1965).
"Extra Pay for Extra Service Assignments in Cali
fornia School Districts 1969-1970." CTA
Research Bulletin. Burlingame: California
Teachers Association, April, 1970.
Guggenheim, Fred. "Nonteaching Activities of
Teachers in a Staff Utilization Study."
Journal of Educational Research, LIV, No. 9
(May, 1961).
Hart, Kathleen. "Can We Afford Study Halls?"
Educational Forum, XXXIII (November, 196 8).
"How Long Is a School Day." NEA Research Bulletin,
XXXIX, No. 1 (February, 1961).
Hunt, Douglas. "Preparation for Reality-Induction of
Beginning Teachers." National Association of
Secondary School Principals, LI (May, 1967).
"Is This a Fair and Wise Practice?" Instructor,
LXXVIII (November, 1968).
Kaplan, Milton A. "Teachers Belong in the Class
room." Educational Forum, XXXIII (November,
1968).
Lawson, Thomas 0. "The Assignment of Non-Teaching
Tasks to Certificated and to Non-Certificated
Personnel in Junior High Schools." Journal of
Secondary Education, XLII, No. 5 (May, 1967).
196
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
"Length of School Year and School Day." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLIII, No. 4 (December, 1965).
Littlefield, Evan. "Let's Work on Working Condi
tions." New York State Education, LII (June,
1965).
McCurdy, Donald W. "Wanted: More Time for Teachers."
School and Community, LIII (May, 1967).
McQueen, Mildred. "Are Teachers' Roles Changing."
The Education Digest, October, 1968.
Nolte, M. Chester. "Extra-class Assignments for
Teachers Must Bear Reasonable Relationship to
the School Program." American School Board
Journal, CXLIX (October, 1964).
________ . "Powers of Boards Are Executive, Legisla
tive, and Quasi-Judicial in Character." The
American School Board Journal, CXLIX (December,
1964).
________ . "The Law: An Anchor or a Sail." American
School Board Journal, CLIII (November, 1966) .
Peterson, LeRoy. "Legal Status of Teacher Personnel."
Review of Educational Research, XXXVII (June,
1967).
"Professional Growth of Teachers in Service."
NEA Research Bulletin, XLV, No. 1 (March, 1967).
"Professional Growth Requirements, 1965-66." NEA
Research Report. Washington, D. C.: Research
Division, National Education Association, July,
1966.
"Release of Classroom Teacher for In-Service Train
ing." ERS Information Aid. Washington, D. C.:
American Association of School Administrators
and the Research Division of the National
Education Association, December, 1969.
197
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
"The Rescheduled School Year." NEA Research Bulletin,
XLVI, No. 3 (October, 1968).
Rivers, W. C. "Teacher Aides May Set You Free."
Texas Outlook, L (October, 1966).
"Salary Supplements for Extra Duties." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLVIII, No. 2 (May, 1970)
"Should a School Have Fewer Specialists in Order to
Reduce Class Size?" Instructor, LXXVIII (March,
1969).
"Should Teachers Have to Remain at School after All
Pupils Have Left?" Instructor, LXXVIII (March,
1969).
Solley, Paul M. "Extra Pay for Extra Duty." Today1s
Education, LVIII, No. 5 (May, 1969).
"Status of Public School Teachers, 1965." NEA
Research Bulletin, XLIII, No. 3 (October, 1965).
Stillwell, Leonard L. "Individualized In-Service
Education." Today's Education, LVIII, No. 9
(December, 1969).
"Teacher Aides in Public Schools." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLV, No. 2 (May, 1967).
"Teacher Aides in Public Schools." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLVIII, No. 1 (March, 1970).
"Teacher's Problems." NEA Research Bulletin, XLVI,
No. 4 (December, 1968).
"Teacher Supervision of Lunch Periods." NEA Research
Bulletin, XLV, No. 3 (October, 1967).
"Time Devoted to School Duties." NEA Research
Bulletin, XL, No. 3 (October, 1962).
"Use of Teacher Aides." NEA Research Bulletin,
XLVII, No. 2 (May, 1969).
198
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
"Why Few School Systems Use Merit Ratings." NEA
Research Bulletin, XXXIX, No. 2 (May, 1961).
"Why Have Merit Plans for Teachers' Salaries Been
Abandoned?" NEA Research Report. Washington,
D. C.: Research Division, National Education
Association, March, 1961.
Winston, Sheldon. "Extra Pay for Extra Duties."
Journal of Secondary Education, XLIV, No. 2
(February, 1969).
Unpublished Materials
Ahee, Carl. "The Legal Status of the California
Public School Pupil and His Parent." Unpub
lished Doctor's dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1959.
Brekke, Mildred Artiche. "An Analysis of Teacher
Time Devoted to School Duties." Unpublished
Master's project, University of Southern
California, 1965.
Hickey, Curtis O. "The Legal and Financial Status
of Teachers at Out-of-School Activities."
Unpublished Master's thesis, University of
Southern California, 1961.
McCary, Nathan S. "Analysis of the Legal Aspects
Involved in the Dismissal of Public School
Certificated Personnel." Unpublished Doctor's
dissertation, University of Southern California,
1960.
Miyasato, Albert Hajime. "Legal Aspects of Selected
Problems in School Personnel Administration."
Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1967.
199
66. Piety, Donald B. "Legal Aspects of Recruitment,
Selection and Assignment of Certificated Per
sonnel in Public Schools as Shown by Court
Decisions." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1956.
Documents, Pamphlets and Reports
67. American Educational Research Association. Encyclo
pedia of Educational Research. 4th ed. New
York: Macmillan Co., 1969.
68. Benedetti, Eugene. School Law Materials, Cases and
Problems. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Co.,
1964.
69. California Teachers Association. Teacher Load,
Commission on Educational Policy. Burlingame:
California Teachers Association, 1961.
70. . Teacher Load, Commission on Educational
Policy. San Francisco: California Teachers
Association, 1958.
71. Carpenter, C. C., and Nelson, D. Lloyd. Legal
Aspects of Public School Administration. Los
Angeles: School of Education, Department of
Administration and Supervision, University of
Southern California, 17th ed., 1970-71.
72. Dissertation Abstracts. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Uni
versity Microfilms, Inc., 1959-60 to 1968-69.
73. Hamilton, Robert R. "School Law Comments and Inter
pretations ." The Hamilton School Law Service,
III, No. 5 (May, 1964).
74. . The Hamilton School Law Service. Rev. ed.
New London, Conn.: Croft Educational Services,
1965.
200
75. Howiett, Erwin. State Mandated Responsibilities and
Rights of Certificated Personnel. Burlingame:
California Teachers Association, 1965.
76. Melbo, Irving, et al. Administrative Organization
and Certificated Salary Schedules. Fullerton
Union High School District, 1968.
77. ________ . Certificated Personnel Extra Pay Assign
ments . El Segundo Unified School District,
1967.
78. Roach, Stephen F. School Law Review (Western Edition)
I, No. 1 to X, No. 98.
79. Salary Schedule and Trends Committee. The Conclu
sions of the California Teaching Profession.
Burlingame: California Teachers Association,
1967.
80. Teachers Legal Guide. Los Angeles: California
Teachers Association, Southern Section, 1971.
81. Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term
Papers, Theses, and Dissertations. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Legal Publications
82. American Digest System. St. Paul: West Publishing
Co.
83. American Law Reports. San Francisco: Bancroft-
Whitney Co.
84. California Administrative Code, Title 5, Education.
Sacramento: Documents Section, State of
California, 1969.
85. California Appellate Reports. San Francisco:
Bancroft-Whitney Publishing Co.
86. California Reports. San Francisco: Bancroft-
Whitney Co.
201
87. Constitution of the United States and of the State of
California. Sacramento: California Office
of State Printing, February, 1967.
88. Cumulative Supplement to Education Code. Sacramento:
Documents Section, State of California, 1968.
89. Education Code, Peering*s California Codes. San
Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney Co., 1969.
90. Education Code, State of California. Sacramento:
State Printing Division, Document Section, 1967.
91. Education Code, West's Annotated California Code.
Vol. XXVI. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.,
1963.
92. Federal Reporter. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
93. Federal Supplement. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.
94. Selected Amendments to the Education Code. Sacra
mento: California State Department of Educa
tion, 1969.
95. Shepard's California Citations. New York: The Frank
Shepard Co.
96. Shepard's Federal Citations. Colorado Springs:
Shepards Citations, Inc.
97. Shepard's Citations to Cases. Colorado Springs:
Shepards Citations, Inc.
98. The National Reporter System. St. Paul: West Pub
lishing Co.
99. West's California Digest. "Schools." St. Paul:
West Publishing Co., 1966.
202
Legal Opinions
100. 27 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. pp. 36-38, January, 1956.
101. 35 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. pp. 109-112, April, 1960.
Court Cases
102. Adelt v. Richmond School District, 250 C.A.2d 149
(1967).
103. American Federation of Teachers v. Oakland Unified
School District, 251 C.A.2d 91 (1967).
104. Appeal of Ganaposki, 2 A.2d 742 (1938).
105. Beer v. Board of Education of City of New York,
83 N.Y.S.2d 485 (1948)
106. Board of Education of City of Eureka v. Jewett,
68 P.2d 404 (1937).
107. Board of Education v. Mathews, 149 C.A.2d 265 (1957)
108. Board of Education v. Swan, 261 P.2d 261 (1953).
109. Board of Education v. Williams, 403 P.2d 324 (1965).
110. Brough v.. Board of Education, 463 P.2d 567 (1970).
111. Brown v. Handford Elementary School Board, 69 Cali-
fornia Reporter 154 (1968).
112. Calandri v. lone Unified School District, 219 C.A.2d
542 (1963).
113. Casmalia School District v. Board of Supervisors,
180 C.A.2d 332 (1960).
114. City of Oakland v. Oakland Unified School District,
138 C.A.2d 406 (1956).
115. Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock School
District, 369 F.2d 661 (1966).
203
116. Council v. Donovan, 244 N.Y.S.2d 199 (1963).
117* Dutart v. Woodward, P.493 (1929).
118. Eastman v. Williams, A.2d 146 (1965).
119. Elder v. Anderson, 205 C.A.2d 326 (1962).
120. Fidler v. Board of Trustees, 112. C.A.296 (1931).
121. Finot v. Pasadena City Board of Education, 250 C.A.2d
189 (1967).
122. Forgnone v. Salvador Union Elementary School District,
41 C.A.2d 423 (1940).
123. Fry v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.2d 753 (1941).
124. Grigsby v. King, 202 Cal. 1299 (1927).
125. Heckley v. Board of Education Oakland Unified School
District, 347 P.2d 4 (1959).
126. Heinlein v. Anaheim Union High School District,
96 C.A.2d 19 (1950).
127. Hughes v. Ewing, 93 Cal. 414 (1892).
128. Johnson v. United Joint School Board, 191 a.2d 897
(1963).
129. Jones v. Board of Trustees of Culver City, 47 P.2d
804 (1935).
130. Kacsur v. Board of Trustees, 18 Cal.2d 586 (1941).
131. Kerwin v. San Mateo County, 176 C.A.2d 304 (1959).
132. Knickerbocker v. Redlands High School District,
49 C.A.2d 722 (1942).
133. Luna v. Needles Elementary School District, 154
C.A.2d 803 (1957).
204
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
Main v. Claremont Unified School District, 161 C.A.2d
189 (1958).
Mathews v. Board of Education, 198 C.A.3d 748 (1962).
Mitchel v. Board of Trustees, 5 C.A.2d 64 (1935).
McDowell v. Board of Education of City of New York,
172 N.Y.S. 590 (1918).
McGrath v. Burkhard, 131 C.A.2d 367 (1955).
Parrish v. Moss, 106 N.Y.S. 2d 577 (1951).
Pasadena School District v. Pasadena, 166 Cal. 7
(1913).
Paterson v. Board of Trustees of Montecito Union
School District, 157 C.A.2d 811 (1958).
Pease v. Millcreek Township School District, 195 A.2d
104 (1963).
Pockman v. Leonard, 39 C.A.2d 676 (1952).
Reithardt v. Board of Education, 43 C.A.2d 629 (1941).
Renken v. Compton City School District, 207 C.A.2d
106 (1962) .
Rible v. Hughes, 150 P.2d 455 (1944).
Richardson v. Board of Education of Los Angeles City
School District, 58 P.2d 1285 (1936).
Rodrigues v. San Jose Unified School District, 157
C.A.2d 842 (1958).
San Diego Federation of Teachers v. Board of Educa
tion, 216 C.A.2d 758 (1963).
School District No. 25 of Blame County v. Bear,
233 P. 427 (1925).
Sherman v. Board of Education, 289 N.Y.S. 2d 886
(1967).
205
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
State v. Avoyelles Parish School Board, 147 So.2d
729 (1962).
Tietz v. L. A. Unified School District, 238 C.A.2d
905 (1965).
Tucker v. San Francisco Unified School District,
111 C.A.2d 875 (1952).
Van Heusen v. Board of Education, 271 N.Y.S.2d
898 (1966).
Williams v. Bagnelle, 72 P. 408 (1903).
Worley v. Allen, 212 N.Y.S.2d 236 (1961).
Yarbrough v. Hulbert-West Memphis School District,
380 F.2d 962 (1967).
Yuen v. Board of Education, 222 N.E.2d 570 (1966).

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The High School Principalship In Its Relation To Curriculum Development: A Comparison Of Studies Made In 1947 And 1967

PDF

Identification Of Processes Of Innovation In Selected Schools In Santa Barbara County

PDF

Legal Aspects Of Selected Problems In School Personnel Administration

PDF

Planning And Constructing Business Education Facilities In New High Schools In California

PDF

The Orientation Of High School Teachers

PDF

Factors In The Scheduling Of Students And Assignment Of Personnel Which Cause Varying Staffing Ratios Among Selected High Schools Of Southern California

PDF

Evaluation Of A Modified Daily Schedule At Glendale High School

PDF

Board-Administrator Delegation Of Authority In Purchasing And Personnel

PDF

Written Policies And Rules Governing Junior College Student Conduct And Discipline

PDF

Informal Communication Between School Superintendents And Governing Boards

PDF

An Evaluation Of Selected Graduates Of A Secondary Teacher Education Program

PDF

Programs And Staffing Of Opportunity Classes In California School Districts

PDF

California Classified Employees Involved In Instruction Or Supervision Ofpupils

PDF

Organization And Administration Of Foreign Language Programs

PDF

Reading Disability And Antisocial Behavior In Early Adolescents

PDF

Junior High School Size

PDF

Graphic Arts Programs For Colleges Preparing Industrial Arts Teachers

PDF

Written Discipline Policies In California High Schools

PDF

An Historical Analysis Of The Origin And Development Of The College Of Medical Evangelists

PDF

Administrative Policies And Procedures In High School Pupil Discipline

Asset Metadata

Creator Condley, Walter Albert (author)

Core Title The Legal And Professional Aspects Of The Teacher'S Workload

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor LaFranchi, Edward H. (committee chair), Georgiades, William (committee member), Olson, Myron S. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-483945

Unique identifier UC11362878

Identifier 7221659.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-483945 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7221659

Dmrecord 483945

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Condley, Walter Albert

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