University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

(USC Thesis Other)

A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER PRESERVICE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION by Sue Ann Wheeler-Ayres A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION December 2002 Copyright 2002 Sue Ann Wheeler-Ayres Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3093935 Copyright 2002 by Wheeler-Ayres, Sue Ann All rights reserved. ® UMI UMI Microform 3093935 Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U niversity of S ou th ern C alifornia R ossier S ch ool o f E du cation Los A ngeles, C alifornia 90089-0031 T his dissertation w ritten by Sue Ann Wheeler-Avres__________________ under the discretion of hpr Dissertation Committee, and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the Rossier School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of D octor of Education August 7. 2002 Dati Dean Dissertawon Committee Chairperson Q t v J i £ \ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is the product of several years of work supported by numerous individuals who deserve special acknowledgement. First, special thanks to all the staff members of the Los Angeles County Office of Education who have provided continuous support and encouragement since I began the cohort program at USC. Special acknowledgement and thanks to Dr. Stuart Gothold for his guidance and support throughout the cohort program, for his informative classes, and for the added duty of serving as the chair of this dissertation committee. In addition, I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Ferris and Dr. Carl Cohn for the practical wisdom they brought to their classes and support as dissertation committee members. Thanks goes to my Los Angeles Cohort 4 members: Jennifer Kliewer, Margie Leon, Ida Randall, Lorena Sanchez, Richard Sheehan, Lien Truong, and Toni Isa Laherra for their friendship, study groups, advice, and encouragement. Somewhere an unsuspecting district awaits us! A special thanks to Maria G. Gandera, my sister by choice, for her never ending support, ability to keep me focused, and her sense of humor which kept completion of the Ed.D. program in perspective. Heartfelt thanks to my husband Stephen for his numerous hours of typing and proof reading not only this dissertation, but also all of my USC papers. Your tracking down and acquisition of references was just barely more appreciated than your back massages! Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, this dissertation is the result of a drive that was instilled in me by all the women in my family: Lu Veme Davidson who continues to push me to be my best, Helen Hurst who lived the example of breaking new ground for women, Nina Blount who demonstrated that if you believed in yourself, anything was possible, Mary Greear who continues to demonstrate what it means to be self reliant, and Charlotte Wheeler, my mother, who taught me about hard work. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES ABSTRACT CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Introduction Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study Research Questions Importance of the Study Limitations of the Study Delimitations of the Study Assumptions Definition of Terms Outline of the Study CHAPTER H: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Contributing Factors Class Size Reduction Enrollment Growth Declining Supply of Qualified Teachers Teacher Retention Retirement of Veteran Teachers Implemented State and Local Options Substitute Teachers as an Option Legislative Proposals Staff Development Staff Development for Substitute Teachers Adaptability of LACOE Program Adult Learners Student Diversity Summary Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V CHAPTER nr. METHODOLOGY 64 Introduction Research Questions Population Instrumentation Data Collection Questionnaire Focus Groups Data Analysis Questionnaire Focus Groups Introduction Analysis of Findings Perceptions of Substitute Teachers and the Substitute Teacher Program Summary of Selected Questionnaire Findings Key Elements Issues Concerning District Implementation CHAPTER V: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND Summary The Problem Purpose of the Study Population Questions to be Answered Methodology Findings Conclusions Recommendations CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS 75 RECOMMENDATIONS 174 REFERENCES 188 APPENDICES 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 4.1 Administrators’ Rate of Questionnaire Return 76 Table 4.2 Substitute Teachers’ Rate of Questionnaire Return 77 Table 4.3 Teachers’ Rate of Questionnaire Return 78 Table 4.4 Gender Distribution by Job Category 79 Table 4.5 Years in Education 80 Table 4.6 Years in Education Processing Summary 80 Table 4.7 Years in Education Chi-Square Test 81 Table 4.8 Years in Current Position 83 Table 4.9 Years in Current Position Processing Summary 83 Table 4.10 Years in Current Position Ch-Square Test 84 Table 4.11 Years with LACOE 86 Table 4.12 Years with LACOE Processing Summary 86 Table 4.13 Years with LACOE Chi-Square Test 87 Table 4.14 Mean Summary 88 Table 4.15 Group Tabulation Question 1 90 Table 4.16 Chi-Square Test Question 1 91 Table 4.17 Group Tabulation Question 2 93 Table 4.18 Chi-Square Test Question 2 94 Table 4.19 Group Tabulation Question 3 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii Table Page Table 4.20 Chi-Square Test Question 3 97 Table 4.21 Group Tabulation Question 4 99 Table 4.22 Chi-Square Test Question 4 100 Table 4.23 Group Tabulation Question 5 102 Table 4.24 Chi-Square Test Question 5 103 Table 4.25 Group Tabulation Question 6 105 Table 4.26 Chi-Square Test Question 6 106 Table 4.27 Group Tabulation Question 7 108 Table 4.28 Chi-Square Test Question 7 109 Table 4.29 Group Tabulation Question 8 111 Table 4.30 Chi-Square Test Question 8 112 Table 4.31 Group Tabulation Question 9 113 Table 4.32 Chi-Square Test Question 9 114 Table 4.33 Group Tabulation Question 10 116 Table 4.34 Chi-Square Test Question 10 117 Table 4.35 Group Tabulation Question 11 119 Table 4.36 Chi-Square Test Question 11 120 Table 4.37 Group Tabulation Question 12 121 Table 4.38 Chi-Square Test Question 12 122 Table 4.39 Group Tabulation Question 13 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. viii Table Page Table 4.40 Chi-Square Test Question 13 125 Table 4.41 Group Tabulation Question 14 126 Table 4.42 Chi-Square Test Question 14 127 Table 4.43 Group Tabulation Question 15 128 Table 4.44 Chi-Square Test Question 15 129 Table 4.45 Group Tabulation Question 16 130 Table 4.46 Chi-Square Test Question 16 131 Table 4.47 Group Tabulation Question 17 133 Table 4.48 Chi-Square Test Question 17 134 Table 4.49 Group Tabulation Question 18 136 Table 4.50 Chi-Square Test Question 18 137 Table 4.51 Group Tabulation Question 19 138 Table 4.52 Chi-Square Test Question 19 139 Table 4.53 Group Tabulation Question 20 141 Table 4.54 Chi-Square Test Question 20 142 Table 4.55 Group Tabulation Question 21 144 Table 4.56 Chi-Square Test Question 21 145 Table 4.57 Group Tabulation Question 22 146 Table 4.58 Chi-Square Test Question 22 147 Table 4.59 Group Tabulation Question 23 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix Table Page Table 4.60 Chi-Square Test Question 23 149 Table 4.61 Group Tabulation Question 24 150 Table 4.62 Chi-Square Test Question 24 151 Table 4.63 Group Tabulation Question 25 153 Table 4.64 Chi-Square Test Question 25 154 Table 4.65a Chi-Square Summary Analysis (Questions 1-13) 156 Table 4.65b Chi-Square Summary Analysis (Questions 14-25) 157 Table 4.66a Pearson Correlation Matrix (Questions 1-13) 159 Table 4.66b Pearson Correlation Matrix (Questions 14-25) 160 Table 4.67 Analysis of Variance 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 4.1 Question 1 90 4.2 Question 2 93 4.3 Question 3 96 4.4 Question 4 99 4.5 Question 5 102 4.6 Question 6 105 4.7 Question 7 108 4.8 Question 8 111 4.9 Question 9 113 4.10 Question 10 116 4.11 Question 11 119 4.12 Question 12 121 4.13 Question 13 124 4.14 Question 14 126 4.15 Question 15 128 4.16 Question 16 130 4.17 Question 17 133 4.18 Question 18 136 4.19 Question 19 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Figure Page 4.20 Question 20 141 4.21 Question 21 144 4.22 Question 22 146 4.23 Question 23 148 4.24 Question 24 150 4.25 Question 25 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xii ABSTRACT The Problem It is estimated that on any given day, substitutes are teaching 10% of the nation’s classes. Staff development training for substitutes has been shown to increase substitute teacher satisfaction, help districts recruit and retain substitutes, and appears to be a greater predictor of success than formal education. When we take into account the influence substitute teachers have on a student’s educational career and their potential of becoming permanent employees, districts need to re-examine their status as marginal members of the educational community. A preservice staff development program for substitute teachers was recommended as a way of supporting substitute teachers while increasing the level of instruction for students. The Population This case study was limited to the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) due to their commitment to the development of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program and to allow for in depth analysis of the program and implementation process. Research Methodology The data collection instrument used in this study was the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire. LACOE designed an adaptation of Billman’s original Substitute Teacher Survey along with the Hillsborough adaptation of Billman’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xiii original survey. The LACOE questionnaire: (a) Utilized 25 closed form questions, (b) asked all stakeholders to answer all questions, and (c) utilized the standard Likert scale. Findings Results of the study included: (a) Chi-squared analysis of the perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program by the three stakeholder groups,(b) the development and presentation of a research based five day substitute teacher preservice staff development program, and (c) analysis of methods for adapting of the LACOE preservice program by districts. Recommendations Recommendations for additional research include: (a) Review of the effect of the substitute teacher preservice staff development program on student achievement, (b) review of the effect of the substitute teacher preservice staff development program on recruitment and retention of substitutes, (c) review the perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program by LACOE stakeholders (include paraeducators), and (d) review the effect of the LACOE substitute teacher preservice staff development program adapted for use by a district. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER I Overview of the Study Introduction Human resource directors have been closely monitoring the statistics: the number of college students choosing education as their major, the number of recent graduates entering education, the number of teacher retirees, and the number of teachers leaving education. Is it any wonder that, what HRS directors have seen coming, made the October 2, 2000 cover of Newsweek magazine, “Who Will Teach Our Kids?” (Kantrowitz & Wingert, 2000). In the next decade, school enrollment in California is expected to grow almost 14% or nearly a million additional students (EdSource, 1998). Just in Los Angeles County alone, estimates are that school districts, excluding Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), required 5,000 new teachers for the 2001-2002 school year (Los Angeles County Office of Education [LACOE], 2000b). There are currently 9,112 provisionally credentialed teachers working in districts in Los Angeles County (excluding LAUSD). The average percentage of provisionally credentialed teachers as a part of district staff is 21%, with some high socioeconomic districts having fully credentialed staff and some low socioeconomic districts having 50% of their staff provisionally credentialed (Betts, Rueben, & Danenberg, 2000; LACOE, 2000b). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 The demand for teachers in California has many contributing factors: (a) Legislation passed in 1996 to quickly reduce class size, (b) enrollment growth, (c) declining supply of qualified teachers, (d) teacher retention (30% of new teachers leave in their first three years), and (e) veteran teachers are retiring (more than half of California teachers are at least 45 years old) (Gaston, Hunt, Thompson, & Wilkes, 2000). However, districts all over the country feel the shortage of fully certificated teachers. What happens, as in Conyen, Georgia when they were unable to fill five special education teaching positions? They are filled with substitute teachers (Kantrowittz & Wingert, 2000). Using substitutes to fill vacant positions depletes a district’s regular supply of substitute teachers. Staff development days, which take teachers out of the classroom, are another drain on the substitute pool (Griswold & Hughes, 2000). According to Ron Shepherd (1997, p. 117) “Glorified babysitting is the term most often used to describe a typical substitute’s day in the classroom”. Fullan (1998) states that most teachers identify their transition period into teaching as the most difficult aspect of their teaching career. Would it not be logical to assume that the same would be true for most substitute teachers? When California established standards for students, raising the level of what they are expected to know and be able to do, the state also raised the expectations that teachers will succeed in having their students master sophisticated mathematics and science, to write well and to speak persuasively (Gaston et al., 2000). Currently, school districts Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 in California have an average of 21% provisionally credentialed teachers who are responsible for having students meet state standards (LACOE, 2000a). Having fully credentialed teachers has been shown to have a positive impact on student performance. Why? Because fully credentialed teachers have more training and experience. As stated by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, “ . . . the single most important thing a school can provide to ensure success of students is a skilled and knowledgeable teacher” (Gaston et al., 2000, p. 3). A recent study by the Educational Testing Service (Blair, 2000) supports this conclusion. What happens when a teacher is absent? A substitute teacher is required. Statistics document that students are taught by substitutes for over one year of their K-12 education (Longhurst, 2000; Smith, 2002), and in the case of educational agencies that serve at-risk youth, almost two years (Smith, 2000). Research estimates a national teacher absenteeism rate of approximately 10%, which translates to 270,000 classes taught by substitute teachers daily (Smith, 2002). If school districts are being held more accountable for student learning, how can they afford to lose this amount of instructional time? The Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) recognized the need for a substitute teacher staff development program, especially for the students served by its educational programs. LACOE is the largest intermediate educational unit in the United States and is an actual service provider of classroom instruction for specialized student populations (LACOE, 2001). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 According to the Vision Statement of the Los Angeles County Office of Education “LACOE is a premier provider of integrated educational programs and services from birth to adulthood in a richly diverse and multicultural global environment” (LACOE, 2000a). LACOE is the nation’s largest regional educational agency covering over 4,000 square miles and 81 school districts. Information from the 1998-99 school year reports that students in Los Angeles County are (a) 57.7% Hispanic, 19.8% White, 11.7% Black, 8.0% Asian, 1.9% Filipino, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 0.3% Native American, and (b) speak 90 different languages (LACOE, 2000a). The teaching staff in Los Angeles County is (a) 71% female and 29% male, (b) an average age of 45, (c) a 16 year service veteran, and (d) 62.3% White, 18.3% Hispanic, 10.9% Black, 6.5% Asian, 1.2% Filipino, 0.6% Native American, and 0.2% Pacific Islander (LACOE, 2000a). Under the leadership of the County Superintendent of Schools and the County Board of Education, LACOE provides service to students, teachers, families, and school districts while coordinating countywide programs and partnerships. For school districts, LACOE provides a wide range of vital business and educational support services including staff development, technical assistance, payroll processing, and pension administration (LACOE, 2000a). Probably the least known of the services provided by the Los Angeles County Office of Education is its Educational Programs. There are three divisions in this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. section: Alternative Education, Juvenile Court and Community Schools, and Special Education. The Division of Alternative Education (DAE) oversees the Los Angeles County High School for the Arts (provides specialized instruction in the arts for students from high school districts throughout Los Angeles County), International Polytechnic High School (provides a project based approach to learning with emphasis on problem solving and critical thinking skills for students from high school districts throughout Los Angeles County), Pregnant Minor Program, Homeless Student Program, Independent Study Program, Migrant Education, Community Schools, and Schools with a Purpose. This division focuses mainly on serving at-risk students (LACOE, 1999). The term “little red schoolhouse” of the 21st century is a term used to describe the LACOE alternative education classrooms because students range in grade level from the late elementary grades through high school (LACOE, 1999). Since the goal of alternative education is to meet the needs of the students, classes are kept small. There is a maximum of 17 students per class. Due to sporadic school attendance, migrant students require teachers who can quickly identify educational gaps and implement proper instruction. In order to support these students, additional classes are held in the late afternoon and on Saturdays (LACOE, 1999). The Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools (JCCS) provides educational services to more than 55,000 juvenile offenders and wards of the court Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 each year (approximately 6,000 juveniles on any given day). It is the largest court schools system in the nation. Students are served at approximately 40 sites, including juvenile halls, camps, licensed children’s institutions, and community schools (LACOE, 1999). All Juvenile Court and Community Schools are fully accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The average stay for a student in the court school system is three to six months. Due to this short amount of time, students complete a battery of tests that determine their current functioning level in all subjects. This information allows JCCS teachers to design an Individual Learning Plan. Through the use of a networked computer system, this information can be transferred from one JCCS facility to another in seconds. It is not unusual for school records to arrive before the student who is being transferred. Currently, an average of 600 students graduate (receive a high school diploma or GED) each year from JCCS programs. The Division of Special Education (DSE) serves nearly 8,000 special education students from more than 65 school districts. Services range from designated instruction for non-severely handicapped students to comprehensive instruction for severely handicapped pupils. Currently there are 17 Principal’s Administrative Units (PAUs) serving six Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPAs). Each PAU is loosely equivalent to a district school site (LACOE, 1999). Students who are served by the LACOE DSE programs are identified as emotionally disturbed, severely Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 developmentally delayed, autistic, deaf or hard of hearing, or moderately developmentally delayed. Students range in age from birth through 22 years. Students in the Division of Special Education are a part of a special day class that is usually housed on an age appropriate (elementary, middle, or high school) district campus. These students participate in the daily routines of their host site (e.g., recess, assemblies) and students may also be mainstreamed for part of the instructional day. Students with severe medical or behavioral problems may be offered placement at a special center. Special centers offer a full time registered nurse, more staff members, more specialized support (e.g., psychologist, audiologist), and the ability to quickly respond to an emergency situation. As can be seen from the above description of educational programs, LACOE serves a very different student population than most school districts. This population not only requires a dedicated and knowledgeable group of teachers, but a dedicated and knowledgeable group of substitute teachers. Currently LACOE utilizes approximately 125 substitute teachers daily (this number does not include substitutes needed for staff development days) (LACOE, 2000c). Statement o f the Problem It is estimated that on any given day, substitutes are teaching 10% of the nation’s classes (Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2002). It is also estimated that districts have a 30% turnover rate for substitute teachers (Pardini, 2000). Staff development training for substitutes has been shown to increase substitute teacher satisfaction, help Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 districts recruit and retain substitutes, and appears to be a greater predictor of success than formal education (Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2002). When we take into account the influence substitute teachers have on a student’s educational career (one year for all K-12 students or two years for at-risk students), and their potential of becoming permanent employees, districts need to re-examine their status as marginal members of the educational community (Longhurst, 2000; Smith, 2000). Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) suggest that staff development needs to integrate pedagogy with content. Substitute teachers must be taught not only the content they are expected to teach but also different teaching strategies and techniques they can use to teach this content. A preservice staff development program for substitute teachers was recommended as a way of not only supporting substitute teachers, but of increasing the level of instruction for students that takes place in a classroom when a permanent teacher is absent. Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study is to examine the development and implementation of a researched based preservice staff development program for substitute teachers serving the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Through use of a questionnaire, the study will measure the expectations of administrators, teachers and substitute teachers on attitudes towards substitute teachers, current level of support for substitute teachers, and communication between administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers. Additionally, the study will identify key elements of a preservice Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. program for substitute teachers, present a model preservice program, discuss state legislative influences in this area, and discuss how this preservice program may be utilized by other school districts. Research Questions 1. What are the perceptions of staff concerning substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at the Los Angeles County Office of Education? 2. What are the implications from literature, legal mandates, policy requirements, and experience in identifying key elements of a preservice substitute teacher staff development program? 3. What issues need to be addressed for this preservice substitute teacher staff development program to be implemented by districts other than LACOE? Importance o f the Study The study of a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers by the Los Angeles County Office of Education was important for several reasons. For at-risk students (including those in special education), substitute teachers provide an average of two years of their educational program. In this age of accountability, districts must prepare substitute teachers to increase the level of instruction for students in the absence of their permanent teacher. As the demand for teachers in California increases and the supply of fully credentialed teachers decreases, districts are looking to their substitute teachers to fill these permanent teaching vacancies. By Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 doing so, districts must evaluate the training they have provided for their substitute teachers. This study drew upon the literature to create a model preservice staff development program for substitute teachers. Key elements of the program were identified, as was a means for program implementation. This study also addressed how the LACOE preservice model measured up to recent legislation concerning preservice training for substitute teachers. Finally, this study was important because the LACOE preservice program will provide school districts with several options concerning their own preservice staff development programs for substitute teachers. Delimitations o f the Study This study was delimited to the substitute teacher program operated by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. It was also delimited to employees of LACOE, specifically administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers who were identified as the stakeholder groups. The number of questionnaires returned was delimited by a maximum of three requests to each stakeholder. In addition, all data collected reflected only the LACOE substitute teacher program. Limitations o f the Study Due to the nature of educational programs operated by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the results of this study may not be generalizable to other school districts. Although questionnaires were mailed with a cover letter signed by the Acting Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent of Educational Programs, the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 researcher did not control the return of completed questionnaires. Follow-up input from focus groups was subjected to limited field testing. Assumptions For the purposes of this study, the following assumptions were made: a) Administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers who completed the questionnaire gave honest answers. b) The Los Angeles County Office of Education provided accurate information concerning employees, their educational programs, their policies, and the process of implementation for the substitute teachers’ preservice staff development training program. c) The questionnaire utilized in this study yielded valid data. Definition o f Terms In designing, conducting and reporting this study, the following definition of terms were assumed: AB 1431 refers to a California Assembly Bill that was introduced in February 2001 and proposed a mandatory three day preservice training for substitute teachers in three pilot programs. The original bill was returned unsigned (vetoed) by the governor in October of that same year. AB 2269 refers to the California Assembly Bill that was introduced in February 2002. This bill is a modification of AB 1431. It proposes a minimum two day preservice training for substitute teachers, allows more districts to participate, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 and identifies the substitute teacher training curriculum designed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education as the training program to be modified and utilized by participating districts. Administrator refers to individuals responsible for day-to-day operations and leadership of a PAU or program (e.g., adapted physical education), and individuals having responsibility for LACOE educational programs. This would include principals, assistant principals, program administrators, division directors, area administrators, and a SELPA director. Designated Instructional Services Teacher or DIS teacher refers to certificated staff members who provide additional services beyond the specialty of the classroom teacher. This would include adapted physical education teachers, speech/language pathologists, mobility teachers, career education teachers, home and hospital teachers, and teachers of the visually handicapped. Intermediate Educational Agency is a unit that provides services for school districts within a defined geographic region. Services include educational programs, curriculum support, pupil personnel support, business support (e.g., payroll), and acting as the state and federal liaison. The Los Angeles County Office of Education is the largest intermediate educational agency in the United States. PAU refers to principal’s administrative unit and is loosely equivalent to a district school site. The difference is the principal of a PAU may have from one to 14 classes at one location and two to 21 other classes spread throughout an identified Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 geographic area. These classes may be from one to 30 miles away from the principal’s office and the class may be hosted by a district school or be housed in a vacant store in a mall. Preservice Staff Development refers to a staff development program that must be completed before an applicant may be hired by an educational agency. There is no financial compensation for time spent in the preservice training. Staff refers to both certificated and classified faculty members, excluding administrators, who are assigned to a PAU. Staff includes classroom teachers, paraeducators, DIS teachers, and counselors. Staff Development refers to training and professional growth activities provided to staff members. It takes into account adult learning theories and training elements that lead to positive behavior changes in staff members. Substitute Teacher refers to a certificated employee who provides service in the absence of the regularly assigned teacher or until a teacher holding an appropriate credential is hired. A substitute teacher serves at the will of the employing educational agency. Teacher refers to a certificated staff member who has been assigned a specific classroom or subject matter. This staff member, after signing a contract, is expected to render service for one school year. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Outline o f the Remainder o f the Study Chapter two contains the review of literature. It includes relevant information on the teacher shortage, legislative proposals, staff development, adaptability of the LACOE program, adult learners, and student diversity. Chapter three describes the methodology of the study, including: (a) The sample population, (b) instrumentation, (c) data collection, and (d) data analysis. Chapter four presents: a) Findings and analysis of the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire, b) a summary of selected questionnaire findings, c) the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program, and d) issues concerning district implementation. Chapter five gives a summary of the entire study, including major findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The study concludes with references and appendices. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 CHAPTER II Review of Literature Introduction In order to understand why a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers has become an important educational issue, there must first be an understanding of the critical shortage of teachers in California and the factors contributing to that shortage. There is also the need for understanding what options the state and local districts have implemented to combat the teacher shortage and how substitute teachers were an important option. As stated earlier, the demand for teachers in California has many contributing factors: (a) Legislation passed in 1996 to quickly reduce class size, (b) enrollment growth, (c) declining supply of qualified teachers, (d) teacher retention (30% of new teachers leave in their first three years), and (e) veteran teachers are retiring (more than half of California teachers are at least 45 years old) (Gaston et al., 2000). Contributing Factors Class Size Reduction Class Size Reduction (CSR) is a voluntary incentive program which began in 1996 after the California legislature passed SB 1777 to reduce class size in early grades (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999; EdSource, 2001b, EdSource, 2002). Student enrollment in CSR classrooms is limited to 20 students. Districts implementing CSR began with First grade, added Second grade, then either (or both) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Kindergarten or Third grade (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999; EdSource, 2001b, EdSource, 2002). CSR was directly responsible for increasing the K-3 teacher workforce by 38% or 28,500 teachers in just three years (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999). By the 1998-99 school year, over 1.6 million students or 92% of California K-3 students were in CSR classrooms (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999). As CSR classrooms increased, the number of Emergency Multiple Subject Credentials issued by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing also increased (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999; Johns & Burke, 2000). The percentage of increase in Emergency Multiple Subjects Credentials was 119.2% in 1996-97, 31% in 1997-98, and 3.6% in 1998-99 (Johns & Burke, 2000). CSR expanded in 1997-98 to include high school classes, redefining the Morgan-Hart CSR Act of 1989 (EdSource, 2001b, EdSource, 2002). Although funds were authorized for two grade nine classes, English and one other core subject, only 59% of California school districts have taken advantage of this voluntary program (EdSource, 2001b). During the 1998-99 school year, 29% of all CSR teachers had less than three years’ experience and the overall percentage of provisionally credentialed teachers in California increased to 23% (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Enrollment Growth There are three types of school districts in California, elementary (usually K-8), high school (usually 9-12) and unified (K-12). During the 1999-00 school year, the total K-12 enrollment for California was 6,592,414 with over half of California’s students located from Ventura County south to California’s southern border (EdSource, 2001b). Long Beach Unified is a prime example of a Southern California school district. In the past decade, the district has constructed 10 new schools and plans to build 13 more to meet the needs of its growing student population (American Association of School Administrators, 2001). Also during the 2000-01 school year, 22% of schools (mostly elementary) were on year round programs in order to accommodate the ever increasing student enrollment that is not expected to peak until the 2006-2007 school year (EdSource, 2002). Larger birth cohorts entering school as well as generally higher-grade progression ratios account for this increase (Department of Finance, 1999). These factors prompted the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) to predict a 3.8% increase or an additional 225,000 students in the K-12 system by the 2008-09 school year (2000). Declining Supply o f Qualified Teacher. Research conducted by the Milken Family Foundation (MFF) and others predicts that schools across the nation will need to hire 2.45 million new teachers by the end of the decade and that there will be a shortage of 900,000 teachers (Hussar, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 1997; Milken Family Foundation, 2001b). Estimates in California are projecting the need to hire 300,000 new teachers this decade, the equivalent of its entire current teacher workforce (EdSource, 1999a, EdSource, 2001c; Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Maxson & Maxson, 2002). Only 14% of high school students had a strong interest in pursuing a career in teaching while 39% had no interest at all (Milken Family Foundation, 2001b). California began addressing the need for more teachers in the mid-1990s and since 1995 the number of individuals earning credentials has grown annually (EdSource, 2001a; Maxson & Maxson, 2002). However, this growth has not kept up with demand, in part because not all individuals who earn credentials enter or stay in education, and in part because of the vacancies created by class size reduction and enrollment growth (EdSource, 2001c). Yearly in California 5% of all teachers, and 30-50% of beginning teachers, leave the profession and the California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) systems have not produced enough new teachers to keep up with the demand (EdSource, 1999a). According to the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL), although colleges and universities, both public and private, train 17,000 teacher candidates a year, there are currently about 14% or 40,000 under qualified teachers in California (2000). The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning further states that 1.5 million California students attend schools with so many under qualified teachers that the schools no longer have the ability to improve (2000). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 Salary is usually cited as an issue in education. In 1998, college educated adults ages 22-28 earned $7,894 per year more than teachers in the same age group with the same education (Education Week, 2000). For the age group 44-50, the pay gap was three times greater in that teachers earned $23,655 less per year than their counterparts (Education Week, 2000). The worst gap occurred among those teachers age 44-50 holding a master’s degree. These teachers earned $43,313 per year while comparably educated non-teachers earned $75,824 per year - a difference of $32,511 (Education Week, 2000). Historically, the salaries of teachers have failed to keep pace with non-teaching employment. In 1940, 84% of male teachers earned more than male non-teachers, however in 1990 this percentage had dropped to 64% (Hardy, 2002). In 1940, 92.3% of female teachers earned more than female non-teachers, but by 1990 this percentage had dropped to 75.1% (Hardy, 2002). Recruiters from California are often confronted by cost of living comparisons created by the prospective applicant’s home state which no longer makes California so attractive to out of state teachers (California Teachers Association, 1998; Ross, 2001). Teacher Retention In conjunction with the shortage of qualified teachers, is the inability of school districts to retain teachers, especially new teachers. California follows the national pattern that documents that by the end of five years, 30% of new teachers will have left teaching, and up to 50% of new teachers in high poverty or high minority areas Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 will have left teaching (Bloom & Davis, 1999; Bolich, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000; EdSource, 1999a; Hare & Heap, 2001; Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Recmiting New Teachers, 2001; Silver, 2001b; Streisand & Tote, 1998; Viadero, 2002). For California that means between 11,000 and 15,000 teachers choose annually to leave the profession (EdSource, 1997). Of the newly trained teacher candidates each year, 30% never enter a classroom (Streisand & Tote, 1998). The reasons for not teaching vary; some people never intended to teach, some people used teaching as a “fallback” option, some people would only work in their home town so took other jobs while waiting for a teaching job to open, and other people would rather pursue higher education than work (Merrow, 1999). In addressing teacher retention, John Merrow (producer and anchor of The Merrow Report, a PBS documentary series on education) makes the following statement “Simply put, we train teachers poorly and then treat them badly—and so they leave in droves” (Merrow, 1999, p. 2). By the eighth year, attrition begins to level off and does not rise again until teachers near retirement (Bolich, 2001). Of the teachers who do leave, 25% pursue other careers and 25% leave because they are no longer interested or are dissatisfied with teaching (Bolich, 2001). Further, 40% of those who quit teaching say they would never teach again. To improve retention, both state and national studies have identified key factors that influence a teacher’s decision to leave: (a) Inadequate preparation, (b) conditions in the school and classroom, and (c) salaries and benefits Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 (Bolich, 2001). These factors will be examined under the Implemented State and Local Options section. Retirement o f Veteran Teachers Who in the United States is not aware of the aging Baby-Boomer generation? Nationally, elementary and secondary teachers are significantly older than the general labor force. In 1993-94, the median age for public school teachers was 44 compared to a median age of 38 for all workers (Hussar, 1997). Almost one-third of teachers have been in the profession for more than 20 years, most were hired in the 1960s and 1970s, and nearly one-half of current teachers will become eligible to retire in the next decade (Hardy, 2002; Hirsch, 2000). Projections are that approximately 759,000 teachers will retire between 1998-2009 (Hussar, 2000). In California, there are approximately 291,000 public school teachers and a third of these teachers are age 50 or older (CFTL, 2000; EdSource, 2001c). In other words, besides the normal recruitment and retention needs, district personnel administrators will have to replace over 96,000 retiring teachers in the next 15 years. With one out of six California teachers over 55, it is logical to assume that districts will begin to experience an increase in the teacher retirement rate (Hussar, 2000). Implemented State and Local Options The California Legislature and California school districts have responded in several ways to the teacher shortage. These responses can be broken down into Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 seven categories: (a) Preparation, (b) credentialing, (c) recruitment, (d) induction, (e) professional development, (f) compensation, and (g) working conditions. In the past, preparing to become a teacher meant completion of a four-year course of study leading to a baccalaureate degree and an additional fifth year of education classes (including pedagogy) and student teaching. Only upon successful completion of the fifth year did candidates earn an appropriate teaching credential. With pressure from school districts, potential teachers, and educational leaders, universities began exploring options to the current teacher preparation programs (Maxson & Maxson, 2002; Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Milken Family Foundation, 2001a; Silver, 2001b; Streisand & Tote, 1998). In 1998, the Legislature passed SB 2042 that allowed the consolidation of the fifth year of preparation into the four-year baccalaureate program (EdSource, 2001c). Critics of the fifth year program saw it as a disincentive to potential candidates due to the requirement of extra time and money before candidates could begin work (EdSource, 1999a; Hirsch, 2000). Colleges and universities are also revising their programs to meet the needs of mid-career students (Silver, 2001a). In 1997, the average age of newly credentialed teachers was 32.6 (EdSource, 1997). These adults need programs to meet their needs (e.g., evening classes and a compacted course of study) (Hirsch, 2000). While state higher education programs work through the bureaucratic system to change, private universities, especially National and Chapman, adapted their programs quickly and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 have no trouble filling their credential classes (Silver, 2001a, Silver, 2001b). Universities and districts are also partnering to better prepare aspiring teachers for the challenges they face once they leave the university setting (Little Hoover Commission, 2001). In 1998, the state Legislature also passed AB 1620 that directed the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) to revise the credentialing program (Hirsch, 2000; Little Hoover Commission, 2001). As a result, reciprocity (accepting teaching credentials from states with the same requirements as California) made recruitment of teachers outside California a viable option (EdSource, 1999a; Hirsch, 2000; Rojas, 1999). CTC was also required to increase the number of locations and number of times it offered the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) (EdSource, 1997). Teacher recruitment has also changed. Input from research and educational leaders supported the 1997 Legislature to approve funding for CalTeach, a one-step information referral and recruitment center (Darling-Hammond, 2000; EdSource, 1997; Hirsch, 2000). To localize recruitment, Governor Davis announced the awarding of six grants to Regionalized Teacher Recruitment Centers. According to the governor “These centers will be the centerpiece of the state’s multi-pronged approach to addressing the state’s teacher shortage” (Davis, 2000, p. 1). The agencies awarded the grants were: Northern California: Project Pipeline, Central California: Tulare County Office of Education, Inland Empire: San Bernardino Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 County Office of Education, Los Angeles Area (2 awards): Los Angeles County Office of Education and Los Angeles Unified School District, Southern Region: San Diego County Office of Education (Davis, 2000). Districts are also cultivating a “Grow Your Own” program where paraeducators and other interested school staff and community members utilize a career ladder that leads through substitute teaching to a full time position (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hare & Heap, 2001; Hirsch, 2000; Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Posnick-Goodwin, 2001). A federal program being utilized by districts is the federally funded Troops To Teachers (TTT). This program assists military personnel in transitioning into teaching careers (EdSource, 1999a, EdSource, 2002). As has already been identified, keeping teachers, especially new teachers, is a real concern for districts. AB 1266 and SB 1422 provided support for new teachers in the form of Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA), a two-year induction program. Teachers enter the program as Pre-intems, Interns, or first year fully credentialed teachers and, as supported in the literature, become part of a strong support system designed to ensure their success (Bloom & Davis, 1999; Bolich, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 1999, Darling-Hammond, 2000; EdSource, 2001a, EdSource 2001c, EdSource, 2002; Hare & Heap, 2001; Recruiting New Teachers, 2001). BTSA participants receive support in survival skills (e.g., classroom management) as well as subject matter competency. Many districts, after the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 completion of BTSA, are choosing to continue a program of support for their new fully credentialed teachers based on current literature recommendations (Bloom & Davis, 1999; Bolich, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000 EdSource, 2001a; Hare & Heap, 2001). This support has taken the form of specific assignment of subject matter and students, mentoring, and making sure these teachers are included on school committees but not overwhelmed with extra work (Bolich, 2001). Staff development is crucial if teachers are to remain life long learners (Darling-Hammond, 1999). A sustained program designed to meet the needs of staff provides a means for teachers to learn new material, try the material themselves, and problem solve with colleagues (Bloom & Davis, 1999; Darling-Hammond; 1999, EdSource 1999b; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). Staff development allows for experienced teachers to be a mentor as well as receiving mentoring (Hare & Heaps, 2001). Those experienced teachers requiring more support are able to participate in the Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) program, AB IX. PAR participants are either self referred, referred by a poor evaluation from administrators, or referred by criteria in the district’s collective bargaining agreement (EdSource, 1999b). They receive personal attention and multiple observations from a peer who works closely with the principal for the purpose of improving their performance (EdSource, 1999a, EdSource, 1999b). Compensation for teachers has always been an issue. In response to direction from educational leaders, California currently offers the Assumption Program Loans Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 for Education and Governor’s Teaching Fellowships, two programs which either provide loan forgiveness or graduate tuition in return for four years of teaching service in high demand subject areas or in low achieving schools (Bolich, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000; EdSource 2001a, EdSource, 2002; Hirsch, 2000; Streisand & Tote, 1998). Individual districts, through negotiations with their local teachers union, may offer signing bonuses for hard to fill subject areas (e.g., science, math, special education). The state has also helped by providing funds for relocation expenses for fully credentialed out-of-state teachers and low interest home loans (Silver, 2001a). To encourage retired credentialed teachers back into the classroom, California has loosened its retirement program restrictions (EdSource, 2002). Currently, California ranks sixth in the nation when teachers’ average salaries are compared (EdSource, 2002). Some districts, in conjunction with their teachers union, are exploring a total revamping of the salary schedule. Instead of being based on education and years of service, this salary schedule is based on multiple career paths (Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Milken Family Foundation, 2001a; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). Teachers move up the ranks knowing that as compensation increases, so do responsibilities, qualifications, and professional development requirements. Performance-based accountability, including student progress, is also a part of this new compensation package (Little Hoover Commission, 2001; Milken Family Foundation, 2001b). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Improving working conditions takes on many forms. The most cost effective and easiest to implement is the inclusion of teachers in the decision making process at the school site and district office (Hare & Heap, 2000). Collaborative teaching, as well as visible support from administrators and parents also improves school climate and working conditions (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hare & Heap, 2000; Public Agenda, 2000; Rojas, 1999). Of course improving the physical facilities and safety of California schools can also have a major affect on working conditions. The use of deferred maintenance monies and alternative funding (e.g., local business) must be considered (Little Hoover Commission, 2001) Substitute Teachers as an Option The use of substitute teachers as an option for filling teacher vacancies has many positive components. Monies from the Title II Teacher Quality Enhancement Recruitment Grant has allowed some districts to establish partnerships with their local CSU and implement an In-House Teacher Recruitment Program (ITRP). This program allows participants to work as paraeducators and substitute teachers while the district supports their education that includes a preliminary teaching credential upon graduation (Hirsch, 2000). Most school districts require substitute teachers to posses a baccalaureate degree. However, California will allow individuals who posses a minimum of 90 semester units credit from an approved university, have passed of all three sections of the California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST), and who are currently enrolled in a regionally-accredited four-year California college Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 or university to obtain a substitute teacher credential (Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2001). The requirement of 90 units (not a baccalaureate degree) allows paraeducators and other district staff members to utilize substitute teaching as a major step in their career ladder (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hare & Heap, 2001; Hirsch, 2000; Little Hoover Commission, 2000). Supporting classified employees as substitutes while they seek permanent teaching positions not only helps the employees but the district as well. Classified employees as substitute teachers: (a) Are usually from the district and know the students’ languages and cultures, (b) increase the district’s substitute pool, (c) puts substitutes in the classroom who are familiar with district policies and district students, (d) is an easier way to keep people in the district who already have roots in the community, and (e) creates loyalty among the employees (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Hare & Heap, 2001; Hirsch, 2000; National Education Association, 2000). Substitute teachers are regularly looked to and in most cases the first place districts look to fill vacancies (Burke, 2000; Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Hayes, 2000; Kelly & Reilly, 1999; Koehnecke, 2000; Lilly, 1998; Me Kay, 1999; Tracy, 1988). Administrators have the opportunity to observe substitute teachers in actual classroom settings. They are able to provide support and guidance to substitutes and conduct informal evaluations. After completion of their credential program, many substitutes are approached by districts, after being recommended by the site principal, and offered positions without ever going through a formal recruitment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 process (Burke, 2000; Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Lilly, 1998). This process benefits both the teacher and the district because the district has actually seen this teacher perform and the teacher is already familiar with the school, students, and district policies. When fully credentialed teachers cannot be found for a classroom, principals are quick to recommend the district support a substitute teacher who has demonstrated teaching potential (Hayes, 2000; Kelly & Reilly, 1999; Me Kay, 1999). The district then recommends the substitute teacher to the state for an appropriate provisional credential while at the same time referring that person to their BTSA program. Again, both the teacher and district benefit from this process for the same reasons as outlined above. The only problem remaining is for the district to recruit new substitute teachers. Legislative Proposals In California, both the Senate and House of Representatives passed AB 1431 on September 12, 2001 (Legislative Council, 2001a). This is the only legislation that specifically addressed a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers. Sponsored by Assembly Member Jerome E. Horton (Democrat, 51st Assembly District), the bill required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to award (on a competitive basis) a minimum of three, one-year grants for the purpose of establishing a new substitute teacher training pilot program (Legislative Council, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 2001b). Los Angeles Unified School District was state-mandated for selection and participation in the pilot project (Legislative Council, 2001b). The bill required a minimum of three days of preservice training before substitute teachers could provide service (Legislative Council, 2001b). Participants would have been paid $150 per day for attending training sessions with a maximum reimbursement for 200 participants per district (Legislative Council, 2001b). The training required preparation in the following areas: (a) Classroom management skills, (b) teaching strategies, (c) legal issues, and (d) first aid (Legislative Council, 2001b). It also required the Superintendent of Public Instruction to contract for an independent evaluation for possible continuance of the grants (Legislative Council, 2001b). In reviewing the program criteria identified in AB 1431, the program contained the same critical elements as preservice programs identified in the literature. This means that California school districts with existing preservice programs based on educational research already had programs that met the legislative criteria of AB 1431. However, this legislation was vetoed (returned without signature) by Governor Gray Davis on October 10, 2001. The governor gave the following reasons for his veto: (a) State resources need to be concentrated on providing professional development services to permanent staff, (b) by requiring Los Angeles Unified School District to participate in the program, it would have created a reimbursable Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 State mandate with a General Funds cost of one million dollars, and (c) state revenues have fallen 1.1 billion dollars below expectations in the first three months of this fiscal year creating a rapidly declining economy (Davis, 2001). In February 2002, Assembly Member Horton introduced AB 2269 (Legislative Council, 2002a). This bill is a modification of AB 1431. It appropriates $50,000 from the General Fund in the 2002-2003 fiscal year to each participating district (with enrollments over 500,000) for the modification of the substitute teacher training curriculum designed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education to meet district needs. The pilot programs, scheduled for the 2003-2004 school year, will include a minimum of two days of training. The first day seminar will still contain: (a) Classroom management, (b) teaching strategies, (c) legal issues, and (d) first aid, while the second day will be classroom observation (Legislative Council, 2002b). As with AB 1431, AB 2269 contains the same critical elements as preservice programs identified in the literature. Therefore, preservice staff development programs for substitute teachers based on educational research will contain all the elements needed to meet the legislative criteria of AB 2269. Staff Development Providing a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers increases the quality of teaching provided by the substitute (Griswold & Hughes, 2000). Fullan (1998, p. 91) notes that society and those in educational institutions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 must take preparation and continuous development of teachers seriously since “Those individuals and organizations that are the most effective do not experience fewer problems, less stressful situations, and greater fortune, they just deal with them differently” (italics by author). A substitute teacher who has participated in a preservice staff development program steps into a classroom much more prepared and able to handle problems differently. Robbins (1999) notes that at least a third of those who enter the teaching profession will leave within three years. The primary reason cited by these teachers for their departure is the lack of support. Birman, Desimone, & Porter (2000) report that it is professional development that plays a key role in eliminating the gap between teacher preparation and standards based reform. States that have invested considerably in professional development to support teachers have also seen an overall improvement in schools (Gaston et al., 2000). Teachers not only need to know their subject matter thoroughly, but “. . . how best to teach diverse students who come to them with a wide array of backgrounds and learning styles” (Gaston et al., 2000, p. 9). One of the major complaints heard at a nationwide gathering of Teachers of the Year was their condemnation of “silver bullet” types of staff development (Lewis, 1994). Top-down decision making and teacher isolation are major deterrents to a teacher’s professional growth (Abdal-Haqq, 1989; Lewis, 2002). Research shows that collaborative schoolwide forms of staff development have more power to change Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 the culture of a school. Such schools are “ .. . characterized by mutual respect, shared work values, cooperation, and specific conversations about teaching and learning” (Sergiovanni, 1990, p. 117-118). Only after an extended period of high quality staff development and networking will there be a change in teacher attitude and improved student achievement (EdCal, 2002; Lewis, 1994; Holmes, 2000). Joyce and Showers (1996) state that creating pervasive staff development does not require exotic skills, only the willingness to change routines. However, funding for staff development can be a challenge to a district’s budget. District budgets often contain little or no funding for professional development and it is the first item to be eliminated from a district’s budget (Applewhite, 1999; Bonstingl, 1997). Typically, school districts invest only one half to one percent of their budgets to staff development as compared to leading edge companies that spend four to five percent of their budgets in this area (Bonstingl, 1997). For financial assistance in staff development, school districts are looking more and more to the private sector since corporations have long provided resources, such as books and supplies, to school districts. In 1994, corporations began to focus on subsidizing professional development for teachers (Blair, 1999). Corporate leaders know employees are their most important assets and for a learning organization to remain dynamic, their people must continue to learn and grow (Bonstingl, 1997). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 What needs to be taken into consideration when designing a staff development program, especially for new teachers, is to ask them what they need to know (Wilkinson, 1997). Clearly staff development and school improvement are interdependent. There can be no change in school improvement without staff development, and staff development is aimless without collective agreement upon school improvement goals (Bloom, 1998; EdCal, 2002). Many staff development programs are designed around what the administrators want new teachers to know (how to take roll, grading, school policies) and not to support new teachers in areas they felt lacking (classroom management, effective teaching techniques, how to differentiate instruction) (Wilkinson, 1997). Accountability means that staff development must start with the end in mind. In education this means the impact staff development has on individual educators must be measured by student results (Archer, Hoff, & Manzo, 2001; EdCal, 2002; Hirsch, Koppich, & Knapp, 2000). In other words, what must adults know and be able to do to enable students to achieve desired goals? According to Speck and Knipe (2000), improving educator’s knowledge and skills, as a prerequisite to raising student performance, is a concept supported by research. They further explain, “Thus, a clear focus on professional development is key to building the capacity of educators to make true school reform happen and to sustain it over time” (Speck & Knipe, 2000, p. 3). There has been a shift in staff development from a deficit model (e.g., sporadic and short term), to a developmental Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 model (e.g., growth and long-term) (Abdal-Haqq, 1989; Archer et al., 2001). Although many educational leaders operate from a belief in the power of mandate (e.g., putting it on paper), it is sustained and intensive staff development, in a learning centered environment, that will affect teaching and, therefore, student learning (Brown & Moffett, 1999; EdCal, 2002; Speck & Knipe, 2000). The American Association of School Administrators has identified structural and core features of effective professional development as: (a) Reform of the organization (group instead of individuals), (b) duration (hours and span) (c) collective participation, (d) active learning, (e) content focus, and (f) coherence (alignment with standards and assessments) (Birman, Desimone, & Porter, 2000; Holmes, 2000). Research supports that staff development needs to address how teaching strategies will be presented to teachers, how well do new practices match the teacher’s present philosophy, the effort required to implement the new practice, how important is the new practice, and how difficult will the new practice be to use (Bracey, 1988). During the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift in staff development from “ hot topics” and “growth opportunities” to an inquiry model (Collinson, 2000). According to Collinson (2000), the inquiry model of staff development contains the following elements: (a) Recognizes the teachers’ practical knowledge, (b) appreciates the importance of teachers’ personal traits when making instructional judgments and decisions, (c) promotes an active process of individual and collaborative learning, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 and (d) staff development is linked to the goal of improving a school thus requiring a prolonged period of sustained interaction. In other words, professional development continues to be an individual experience that is more effective when teachers participate in related groups (e.g., school, grade, department) (Andrews & Rothman, 2002; Holmes, 2000) Staff development addresses the learning that takes place in teachers (adult learners). Learning describes several situations: (a) When referring to a product, the emphasis is on the outcome, the acquisition of a particular set of skills, (b) when referring to process, the emphasis is on what happens in a learning experience, how learners reach goals, and (c) when referring to function, the emphasis is on how to produce learning, how to motivate and change learners (Butler, 1992). For staff development to be effective, it will address all three types of learning situations. Learning denotes change. When applied to staff development, change: (a) Is a process, not an event, (b) must be understood in terms of what happens to individuals, (c) is a highly personal experience, and (d) entails growth (how they feel about the change and their skill in applying any innovations) (Butler, 1992; Lewis, 2002). However, before change can occur, staff development programs should take into account the adult learner, making learning accessible to them, and factors that will assist or impact adult motivation (Butler, 1992). Sparks and Hirsh (2000) state that effective staff development requires empowering educators to develop new models for integrating learning into all Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 aspects of the school and makes the connection between subject matter and pedagogy. In addition, staff development needs to be: (a) Results-driven and job embedded, (b) focused on helping teachers become deeply immersed in subject matter and teaching methods, (c) curriculum centered and standards based, (d) sustained, rigorous, cumulative, and (e) directly linked to what teachers do in their classrooms (Andrews & Rothman, 2002; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000). The National Staff Development Council (NSDC) Standards for Staff Development address accountability by describing what staff development must include in order to ensure high levels of learning for adults as well as students (Archer et al., 2001; Hirsh & Sparks, 2000). Three key areas—content, process, and context—are standards that have been identified by NSDC for quality staff development. Content standards can be defined as what is important to all educators (e.g., child development, classroom management, curriculum, and instruction). Process standards address how educators acquire knowledge and skills to ensure high levels of student learning (e.g., individual and organizational change, individual and group learning, and data analysis). Context standards identify organizational structure and cultures most conducive to professional learning (e.g., leadership, advocacy, resources, and time) (Hirsh & Sparks, 2000; Lewis, 2002). NSDC’s Standards also identify the need that high quality staff development consists of ongoing training with intensive follow-up. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 One of the main intents of NSDC is to change the mindset of educators to obtain new knowledge, transfer that knowledge and skill to on the job training, and to assess their impact on students (Archer et al., 2001). No longer will educators receive staff development “credit” for the accumulation of seat time hours. Based on NSDC’s Standards, teachers in Lawrence, Kansas, must engage in professional development that is related to student learning or that assists in improvement of their teaching, in order to earn inservice credit toward recertification or salary enhancement (Crowther, 1998). Preservice Staff Development for Substitute Teachers Preservice staff development programs for substitute teachers must first take into consideration the components of quality staff development programs. The National Staff Development Council Standards for Staff Development must be utilized in the development of programs for substitute teachers for these programs to be effective. Content standards, process standards, and context standards are key elements of any staff development program for substitute teachers. Fifty years ago substitutes faced the problems of classroom management, missing lesson plans, unfamiliarity with school district policies, and the perception of students, parents, and administrators that they are just a “warm body” (Abdal-Haqq, 1997). These are the same problems facing substitutes today. In other words, even though a course of action (preservice staff development) has been identified and is cost effective (e.g., increased retention of substitute teachers), the intervention has Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 been difficult to implement. In the United States, less than 10% of school districts provide training for their substitute teachers (Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2002). A review of the literature on effective preservice staff development programs for substitute teachers reveals that they all contain the same elements but in varying degrees (Bellflower Unified School District, 1986; Botempo & Deay, 1986; Clark County School District, 1998; Cromwell, 1998; Deay & Botempo, 1986; Douglas County School District, 2000; Edmonds School District, 2000; Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Heinrich, 1996; Hinkemeyer, 1988; Jones, 2000; Jones & Hawkins, 2000; Longhurst, 2000; LAUSD, 2001; Mclntire & Hughes, 1982; Minthom, 2000; Mountain View School District, 2001; O’Malley, 2000; Peterson, 1991; Purvis & Garvey, 1993; Rosborough, Sherbine, & Miller, 1993; San Diego County Office of Education, 1998; San Juan Unified School District, 1995; Shepherd, 2001; Simmons, 1991; Smith, 1999; St. Michel, 1995; Starr, 2000; Substitute Teaching Institute, 2000, Substitute Teaching Institute, 2002; Tracy, 1988; Ventura County Office of Education, 1996; Wisconsin Education Association, 2001). What must first be identified is the commitment of the district to substitute teachers and quality staff development programs. Is it the goal of the district to make a substitute teacher aware of district policies and procedures? Then a four-hour preservice program with a handbook covering all other areas will suffice (Minthorn, 2000; Shepherd, 2001). Is it the goal of the district to provide an induction into the district as well as increase the quality of instruction provided by substitute teachers? Then a five-day program Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 with a handbook should be considered (LAUSD, 2001; Mclntire & Hughes; 1982; Minthom, 2000). The substitute teacher handbook is a critical training component because after training is complete, it becomes an immediate reference source for instructional elements (e.g., teaching EL students) as well as for district policies and procedures (Bellflower Unified School District, 1986; Clark County SD 1998; Drury, 1988; Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Heinrich, 1996; Jones, 2000; Manera, 1992; Minthom, 2000; Mountain View School District, 2001; Peterson, 1991; Platt, 2000; Rosborough et al., 1993; Simmons, 1991; Starr, 2000; Substitute Teaching Institute, 2000, Substitute Teaching Institute, 2002; Ventura County Office of Education, 1996). Although as many as 18 elements have been identified as effective components of preservice training, it is the emphasis of each district for providing staff development, that identify the specific elements of each districts preservice program (Drury, 1988; Manera, 1992; St. Michel, 1995; Simons, 1991). Where a four-hour training program may cover special needs students in their district handbook (Platt, 2000), this topic may account for an entire afternoon in a two-week training program (Minthom, 2000). Major elements or sections identified in the literature that must be covered in order for a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers to be successful are: (a) District overview, (b) school law, (c) learning styles/instructional strategies, (d) classroom management, and (e) health/safety issues (Bellflower Unified School District, 1986; Clark County School Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 District, 1998; Cromwell, 1998; Jones, 2000; Longhurst, 2000; LAUSD, 2001; St. Michel, 1995; Minthom, 2000; O’Malley, 2000; Peterson, 1991; Smith, 1999; Starr, 2000; Substitute Teaching Institute, 2000, Substitute Teaching Institute, 2002; Ventura County Office of Education, 1996). The district overview is important because it instructs new substitute teachers how to survive in a district (Clark County School District, 1998; Mountain View School District, 2001; St. Michel, 1995). The overview should identify and explain the Mission and goals of the district. It should further explain how the substitute teachers contribute to the attainment of district goals. When describing the district, it is also important to describe the community the district serves. After explaining about the district, the overview should focus on the recipients of district services, the students (St. Michel, 1995). The district presents an overview of their student population, and discusses student performance expectations. Next, the overview should specifically spell out the level of professionalism expected of substitute teachers. This should include dress code, punctuality, length of workday, and performance level expectations (e.g., ability to implement a lesson plan) (Bontempo & Deay, 1986; Deay & Bontempo, 1986; Jones & Hawkins, 2000; Rosborough et al., 1993; Smith, 1999; Starr, 2000). The nuts and bolts of the district also need to be covered. This includes identifying the location and operating hours of each school, as well as a district calendar (Bellflower Unified School District, 1986; Drury, 1988; Jones, 2000; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Manera, 1992; Minthom, 2000; Mountain View School District, 2001; Peterson, 1991; Simmons, 1991; Wilson, 1999). Substitute teachers should know from the beginning what level of support they can expect from the district office and individual school sites (Wilson, 1999). Also included should be the names and phone numbers of district personnel to whom a substitute can turn for assistance. Most important to the substitute teacher is how do they get substitute teaching jobs and how do they get paid (Manera, 1992; Rosborough et al., 1993; Simmons, 1991). This discussion should be a part of the district overview if substitute teachers are already employees or as a concluding session if completion of the preservice program is required for employment. Wherever it occurs, substitute teachers should have a complete understanding of how to obtain jobs, how and when they will be paid, and whom to contact if pay problems should occur (Manera, 1992; Rosborough et al., 1993; Simmons, 1991). School law is an important element of training especially as litigation cases against schools have become more common. Most substitute teachers have no training on how to appropriately discipline students. What can then happen, as in Hillsborough, Florida, is the battering of elementary students by one substitute teacher and the hitting of students with a ruler by another substitute teacher (Minthom, 2000). Substitute teachers should also understand about the Individual Educational Plan for special education students and the legal issues surrounding the educational goals and objectives contained therein. (LAUSD, 2001; Platt, 2000). An Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 important part of legal issues is sexual harassment. Substitute teachers should not only be aware of a district’s sexual harassment policy, but should be provided training as to what actually constitutes sexual harassment (Ventura County Office of Education, 1996). The benefits of knowing and understanding school law help substitute teachers in problem solving situations. Remember that it is not the absence of problems, but dealing with them differently that makes an individual effective. Learning styles and instructional strategies are at the core of the teaching process. How can a district expect someone not trained in education to know about learning styles of students, especially in our multicultural, multilingual environment? What instructional strategies would a substitute have besides those they were exposed to as a student? Having an understanding of how students learn and of effective instructional strategies is the difference between having a substitute teacher as a babysitter or a professional educator. Substitute teachers need to have a basic understanding about all learners. Knowing that each student: (a) Has their own knowledge base, (b) has their own strategic processing method, (c) has their own motivational factors, (d) has developmental and individual differences, and (e) has learning shaped by the social context in which it occurs (Alexander & Murphy, 1998) assists substitute teachers in understanding students as individuals. Although direct instruction is probably the most familiar form or lesson presentation (Woolfolk, 2001), substitute teachers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 should also have a basic understanding of student-centered instruction (e.g., station teaching) in order to utilize alternative instructional strategies and to implement lesson plans (Woolfolk, 2001). Classroom management is the number one concern identified by substitute teachers and school administrators. Most substitute teachers have a lesson plan to follow or have come prepared with their own lesson as a back up. How do substitute teachers deal with classroom management problems? According to Woolfolk (2001), prevention of classroom management problems is the best medicine. Substitute teachers need to become acquainted with and be capable of managing activities within the class. Woolfolk (2001) states that effective classroom managers are skilled in four areas: (a) Withitness (awareness of everything happening in the classroom), (b) overlapping (supervising several activities at once), (c) group focus (keeping as many students as possible involved in activities), and (d) movement management (keeping lessons moving with smooth transitions to new topics). To assist in classroom management the substitute teacher should review with the class currently posted class rules or present one if no rules are posted. Preservice training in classroom management also provides the substitute teacher with insights into the basic principles of human behavior (Substitute Teacher Institute, 2000). Substitute teachers will gain an understanding that behavior is strengthened or weakened by its consequences (Substitute Teacher Institute, 2000) and that in every situation they have at least three choices: intervention, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 nonintervention, or interaction (Rowley & Hart, 1998). A review of typical non- acceptable behaviors (e.g., talking/interrupting lesson presentation, sleeping in class) with solutions provides a great base of knowledge for the substitute teacher. The final element to be discussed is health and safety. Health refers to such areas as: (a) Knowing first aid, (b) knowing correct procedures when exposed to blood bome pathogens, (c) knowing where to send students for minor scrapes, (d) knowing correct procedures in the disbursement of medication to students, (e) recognizing a student/staff medical emergency and knowing district procedures, and (f) identifying and knowing correct procedures when a student exhibits signs of a major motor (grand mal) seizure (Clark County School District, 1998; Minthom, 2000; Rosborough et al., 1993; Smith, 1999; Starr, 2000; Ventura County Office of Education, 1996; Wisconsin Education Association, 2001). Safety issues involve knowing district procedures to prevent most health emergencies. Substitute teachers should know that playground duty means supervision of activities with the enforcement of rules (e.g., one person on the jungle gym at a time) established to prevent injuries. Should an injury occur, what is the district policy on calling 911? Safety issues also involve knowing the correct procedures for fire drills and local occurrences (e.g., tornadoes or earthquakes) (Clark County School District, 1998; Purvis & Garvey, 1993; Rosborough et al., 1993; Ventura County Office of Education, 1996). Training concerning health and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 safety issues provides basic knowledge for substitute teachers and helps identify a plan of action before it is needed (Cromwell, 1998; Starr, 2000). In conducting this review of the literature, the Substitute Teacher Institute at Utah State University (STI/USU) was identified as a major contributor and resource concerning training for substitute teachers. The STI/USU produces several handbooks specifically for substitute teachers as well as audiovisual material that may be utilized by districts in designing their own substitute teacher preservice staff development program (Smith, 2000). In addition, the STI/USU publishes a semi-annual periodical of which has been stated “The SubJournal is the most comprehensive compilation of articles on the subject of substitute teaching” (Smith, 2000, p. 8). Adaptability o f LACOE Program Under the leadership of the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools and the Los Angeles County Board of Education, the Los Angeles County Office of Education provides to school districts a wide range of educational support services including staff development (LACOE, 2000a). The development of a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers by LACOE would produce several options for utilization by school districts. First, school districts could utilize the program as developed. Districts could change only those parts of the program that are specific to LACOE and substitute their information (Small, 2001). Districts would save all the time and money they Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Al would need to devote to the development of such a program. Since the LACOE program will be designed to meet research and legislative recommendations, by using this program, should AB 2269 become a funded preservice training option for districts, they would be entitled to one year and $50,000 to assist them in adapting the LACOE training curriculum to meet their needs. Another option open to the districts is to provide their district part of the training and contract with LACOE for the remainder of the staff development program (Small, 2001). This would be especially advantageous to small districts with little or no staff development departments. If a district feels they are unable to provide a full training, they may wish to consult with LACOE on the development of a limited preservice program that would meet the district’s staff development objectives (Small, 2001). Again, the district could choose to run this shortened program or contract out to LACOE staff development. The final option is to wait for LACOE to complete their pilot program and finalize their preservice program. At that time, LACOE will be putting considerable effort into designing a video streaming library of program elements as well as a CD ROM for at home computer training. Once work on these items is completed, districts may want to rent or purchase these training materials for their own use (Small, 2001). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Adult Learners According to Dezutti (1996), the writings of Dewey, Lewin, and Piaget identify a common theme, that learning is dependent on the integration of experience with reflection. In other words, learning is a function of the interaction of the person with the environment, and adult learners learn throughout their lives. Just as students have a variety of learning styles, so too do adult learners. The adult learner is also a person with a sense of self, one who brings previous professional and personal experiences together to understand new learning experiences (Andrews & Rothman, 2002; Butler, 1992). When planning staff development for the adult learner, Butler (1992) suggests consideration should be given to the person’s style of development; personal (cognitive, moral, ego, conceptual), chronological (early adulthood, mid-life), and professional (new or experienced teacher). While adult learners are self-directed and learn best in environments of trust and respect, they also control what is learned and are problem centered and learn best through practical application (Andrews & Rothman, 2002; Butler, 1992). In the adult learner, Butler (1992) states new learning is followed by a period of reflection to facilitate integration of the new knowledge and skills. For the adult learner to continue learning, there must be satisfaction and progress towards one’s own goals (Butler, 1992). Smith (1982, pp. 47-49) suggests adult learners learn best when the following six conditions are met: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 1. They feel the need to learn and have input into what, why and how they will learn. 2. Learning’s content and processes bear a perceived and meaningful relationship to past experience, and experience is effectively utilized as a resource for learning. 3. What is to be learned relates optimally to the individual’s developmental changes and life tasks. 4. The amount of autonomy exercised by the learner is congruent with that required by the mode or method utilized. 5. They learn in a climate that minimizes anxiety and encourages freedom to experiment. 6. Their learning styles are taken into account. Wlodkowski (1985, p. 36) performed an extensive review of literature concerning the motivation of adults to leam. The specific factors identified by Wlodkowski on adult learner motivation are: • ATTITUDE: the learner’s combination of concepts, information and emotions about the learning that results in a predisposition to respond favorably • NEED: the current condition of the learner, experienced as an internal force moving the learner toward the goal Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 • STIMULATION: any change in perception or experience of the external environment that prompts the learner’s action • AFFECT: the learner’s emotional experience (feelings, concerns, passions) • COMPETENCE: the learner’s sense of effectively interacting with the environment • REINFORCEMENT: the learning event maintains or increases the probability that the learner will achieve the appropriate response. These motivational factors exert their influence at different times during the learning sequence. The learner’s attitudes and needs are more important in the beginning of the learning process, stimulation and affect support the adult during the learning sequence, and competence and reinforcement occur at the end of the learning sequence (Butler, 1992). These motivational strategies have been outlined by Keller (1987) in his “ARCS” model. First of all, programs should get the participants’ attention (“A”). Second, content of the program should be high in relevance (“R”) for the adult learner. Third, confidence (“C”) should result from participation in the program with the fourth and final result being learner satisfaction (“S”). To view the teacher as learner is to focus staff development on adults with specialized experiences and needs (Butler, 1992). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 In 1983, Donald Schon, in his book The Reflective Practitioner, popularized and developed the term and theory “Reflective Practice”. Simmons & Schuette (1988, p. 20) define a teacher who is a reflective practitioner as “ .. . one who makes instructional decisions consciously and tentatively, critically considers a full scope of pertinent contextual and pedagogical factors, actively seeks evidence about the results, and continues to modify these decisions as the situation warrants”. Dezutti (1996) notes that reflective practice is heavily grounded in adult learning theory. Student Diversity Substitute teachers must become aware of the diverse population they will serve. Statistics show that “ . . . at the turn of the 21st century, the reality is that most of California’s teachers and their students do not share a common background. About one-quarter of the state’s school children live in poverty while the majority of teachers are from middle class backgrounds” (Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000, p. 4). During the 2000-01 school year, 46.8% (almost half) of the students in California qualified for Free/Reduced Price Meals for Children, a federal program based on parent or guardian income (EdSource, 2002). However, socioeconomic status is not the only difference between students and the professional personnel who teach them. There is also a wide discrepancy between the racial makeup of the students and their teachers. Overall, 61% of the state’s students are ethnic minorities while only 22% of teachers are from minority groups. There are approximately twice as many African Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 American students as teachers; Asian students and teachers mirror this same proportion. The greatest discrepancy, however, is between numbers of Latino students and teachers. Pupils from this group represent 41% of the student population while Latino teachers comprise only 12% of the state’s teachers. (Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000). This ethnic discrepancy between students and their teachers may also exist between students and their substitute teachers although there is no data to confirm this fact. The shortage of teachers and substitutes with economic, ethnic, or linguistic backgrounds similar to those of their students make it critical that any staff development for substitute teachers include information on how to work with all types of students. California’s student population is diverse and while the teaching population may not be as diverse, all teachers must learn different ways to help students reach their academic potential (Keefe & Jenkins, 2002). In the 2000-01 school year, more than 33% of kindergarten through second graders had a native language other than English, and 25% of all K-12 California students were English learners (EdSource, 2002). Understanding student diversity is so important that the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) has identified Diversity as one of its six standards (NCATE, 2001). Teachers are expected to acquire and apply knowledge and skills to assist all students to learn. In other words, teachers are to draw upon the representations from the students’ own experience and knowledge (NCATE, 2001). According to NCATE (2001, p. 29), it is expected that Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 teachers will “ . . . develop and teach lessons that incorporate diversity and develop a classroom climate that values diversity”. As LACOE overwhelmingly services special education and at-risk students, student diversity and school curriculum must be identified and addressed. In order for the educational needs of students to be met, substitute teachers must have an understanding of how culture influences learning styles. They must also have an understanding of how to meet the needs of English learners when presenting a lesson. It is of major importance that substitute teachers for the Los Angeles County Office of Education are well versed in student diversity and it’s effect on educational programs. In order to help substitute teachers learn how to work with a large percentage of California’s students, the English learner population, it is critical that substitute teachers review research on how to help this group of students improve academically. Phillips (1972) stated that educators cannot assume that because children from cultural backgrounds other than those that are implicit in American classrooms speak English, or are taught it in the schools, that they have assimilated all of the sociolinguistic rules underlying interaction in classrooms and other social situations where English is spoken. All teachers, including substitute teachers, need to be able to understand that, although some students may sound fluent in English because they can respond to conversational English, they really are not proficient in English. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 Academic fluency is different from conversational English. This type of linguistic knowledge must be taught to all teachers who work with English learners. English learners now comprise approximately 5.5% of the total school-age population, with a disproportionate number of these students in California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois (Fleishman & Hopstock, 1993). In order to work effectively with these types of students, substitute teachers must first learn how to best help these students. Any professional development in culturally diverse schools must address specific knowledge and attitudes that are relevant to teaching English learners. Substitute teachers need to understand “ . . . basic constructs of bilingualism and second language development, the nature of language proficiency, the role of first language and culture in learning, and the demands that mainstream education places on culturally diverse students” (Clair, 1993, p. 4). The relationships between teachers, administrators, substitute teachers, students, family life, language and culture need to be understood in order to best help all students. There is a connection between the school and the home and substitute teachers must be made to understand this concept in order to be more effective teachers. In other words, in order for teachers and substitute teachers to be effective they need to possess more than content knowledge. They must also possess knowledge about how to best teach to their student population (e.g., English learners, low socioeconomic status, and minorities). All teachers (substitute and fully Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 credentialed) must have knowledge about how to incorporate multiple learning styles into their classroom lessons. As both Phillips (1972) and Irvine and York (1995) have stated, there is a clear connection between culture and learning styles. Since all students are not the same, they cannot all leam the same. Substitute teachers need to be able to understand that the cultural influence on learning styles is mediated by such additional factors as social class and gender. Without this clear understanding, substitutes cannot begin to understand the impact of a student’s culture on their academic achievement. Hollins (1996, p. 15) states, “Little attention is given to the relationship between schools and other social institutions and the fundamental ideologies that direct their practices and organization”. Therefore, it is imperative that all teachers (including substitute teachers) become cognizant of how students leam and the use of various learning styles in their teaching “ . . . since leaming-style theory suggests that educational experiences designed to be more congruent with student learning style may enhance academic achievement” (Irvine & York, 1995, p. 487). Learning styles research (Irvine & York, 1995) on minority students (African-American, Hispanic and Native American) has demonstrated that different teaching strategies and techniques prove to be more effective with different students. “Although it is clear that culture, particularly ethnicity, is a powerful force that influences students’ predispositions toward learning, it must be emphasized that cultural practices are learned behavior that can be unlearned and modified. Culture is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 neither static nor deterministic; people of color are not solely products of their culture” (Irvine & York, 1995, p. 492). Substitute teachers must leam about their students’ culture in order to be able to modify their teaching strategies. As Banks (1996) stated, everyone (students and teachers) accepts the assumptions of their own community culture and internalizes its values and stereotypes. It is usually only the minority children, who must enter a different and usually more dominant culture when they enter school, who question their own culture. Members of the mainstream culture rarely have an opportunity to question their culture, values and stereotypes. Since research has shown that there is a discrepancy in ethnicity between teachers and the students they teach in California, it is imperative that all teachers and especially substitute teachers leam all they can about their students. Research on teacher effectiveness for multicultural students must focus on two principal domains: (a) Teacher attributes associated with effective teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse students and (b) the instructional strategies and teaching behaviors used by these teachers. Research indicates that it is the combination of personal qualities and attitudes with specified knowledge and skills that contribute to these teachers’ effectiveness with diverse learners. (Gandara & Maxwell-Jolly, 2000). Substitute teachers must become familiar with not only students’ multicultural characteristics but also leam about their own views and attitudes on multicultural students. This knowledge will assist them in their teaching. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 As Linda Darling-Hammond (1999, p. 2) states, “ . . . an effective teacher is one who learns from teaching rather than one who has finished learning how to teach”. Substitute teachers must become aware of the fact that culture is not a strict set of prescribed behaviors, but is a framework through which actions are filtered or checked as individuals go about daily life. Culture is constantly evolving and although some students may share the same cultural background and predispositions, not all members of the same cultural group behave in identical ways. The cultural influence on learning styles is mediated by such additional factors as social class and gender. (Irvine & York, 1995). In other words, boys can and do leam differently than girls. Since middle and high socioeconomic students are able to receive additional stimulus and experiences than low socioeconomic students, different teaching strategies and techniques are required for substitute teachers to be effective with all socioeconomic students. Thus, the need to foster more cultural knowledge for substitute teachers is necessary. Since not all students are alike, a substitute teacher must be knowledgeable about how to work with every type of student. They must be able to work effectively with different students on a daily basis. Summary Although there is a nation wide shortage of teachers, as evidenced by the coverage of this topic in Newsweek magazine, the shortage of teachers in California has many contributing factors. These factors include: (a) Class size reduction, (b) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 enrollment growth, (c) supply of qualified teachers, (d) teacher retention, and (f) retirement. Class size reduction (CSR) was initiated to provide a lower teacher/student ratio in the primary grades. The idea behind the smaller class size being students would receive more individual attention. As a direct result of CSR, there was a 38% increase (28,500 new teachers) in the K-3 workforce with almost one third CSR teachers having less than three years’ experience (CSRResearch Consortium, 1999). Although CSR has indeed lowered the teacher/student ratio, it has placed a tremendous amount of emergency credentialed teachers into California elementary schools. California is still experiencing growth in school enrollment and this growth is not expected to peak until 2006-2007 (EdSource, 2001b). Coupled with enrollment growth is the declining supply of qualified teachers. California will need 300,000 new teachers this decade while universities (private and public) are expected to train only 17,000 new teacher candidates each year (CFTL, 2000; EdSource, 1999, EdSource, 2001c; Little Hoover Commission, 2001). Not only is there a problem due to the declining supply of qualified teachers, but also school districts are finding it increasingly difficult to retain teachers. California follows the national average with 30% of new teachers leaving the profession after five years (Bloom & Davis, 1999; Bolich, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000; EdSource, 1999a; Hare & Heap, 2001; Little Hoover Commission, 2001; RNT, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 2001; Silver, 2001b; Streisand & Tote, 1998). California is seeking to improve new teacher retention rates by: (a) Improving teacher preparation, (b) improving the conditions of classrooms and schools, and (c) increasing teacher salaries (Bolich, 2001). Education, more so than business, is faced with a work force steadily moving towards retirement. One half of all current teachers will become eligible for retirement in the next decade (Hirsch, 2000). From 1998-2009, projections are that 759,000 teachers will leave the profession due to retirement (Hussar, 2000). In order to address the teacher shortage, California school districts have implemented several state and local options. These options include changes to: (a) The credentialing process, (b) the teacher preparation program, (c) teacher recruitment, (d) compensation, (e) working conditions, and (f) professional development. Professional development became a topic for the legislature last year when AB 1431 was introduced. This bill required a minimum of three days preservice staff development for substitute teachers (Legislative Council, 2001a). This bill was ultimately returned unsigned by Governor Gray Davis (Davis, 2001). However, AB 2269, a modification of AB 1843, was introduced this year and continues to identify preservice staff development as a legislative priority. Staff Development that prepares substitute teachers is important because: (a) Substitute teaching is an important step in the career ladder for classified employees, and (b) substitute Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 teachers are the first place districts look to fill teachers vacancies (Burke, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Hare & Heap, 2001; Hayes, 2000; Hirsch, 2000; Kelly & Reilly, 1999; Koehnecke, 2000; Lilly, 1998; Me Kay, 1999; NEA, 1998; Tracy, 1988). The literature overwhelmingly supports the utilization of staff development to improve the knowledge base and teaching strategies of educators which, in turn, supports improvement of performance by students. A staff development program provides support for new teachers that also assists in teacher retention, and provides a means for positive change in having educators accountable for teaching to standards and improving student performance (Hirsh & Sparks, 2000; Lewis, 1994; Speck & Knipe, 2000). However, in order for staff development to be effective, schools (and districts) must move away from the “silver bullet” or “hot topic” one session design information model, to a sustained and intensive inquiry based model (Abdal-Haqq, 1989; Brown & Moffett, 1999; Collinson, 2000; Hirsh & Sparks, 2000; Lewis, 1994; Speck & Knipe, 2000). To have a positive effect on educators, staff development needs to recognize the importance of the teacher in the educational process and address the learning that takes place in teachers as adult learners (Butler, 1992; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000; Wilkinson, 1997). Education must begin with the end in mind (improvement in student performance) in order to change the culture of a school (and district) to one that is focused on student learning and student outcomes (Hirsh & Sparks, 2000; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 Sergiovanni, 1990; Speck & Knipe, 2000). There will only be a change in student performance when teachers are supported in developing new models for integrating learning and making the connection between subject matter and pedagogy (Sparks & Hirsh, 2000; Speck & Knipe, 2000). Gandara and Maxwell-Jolly (2000) state, that we must prepare teachers (substitutes and regular) from all ethnic and linguistic backgrounds with the skills, characteristics, and knowledge that will allow them to effectively teach the diverse students in their classrooms. Teacher preparation and development programs must include substantial attention to issues of diversity. Such preparation and development is critical to increasing teacher quality and the associated gains in achievement for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Linda Darling-Hammond (1999) states that since teachers are to prepare an ever more diverse group of students for much more challenging work, they will need substantially more knowledge and radically different skills than most now have. Therefore, it is imperative that all teachers receive training to help them teach to this more diverse group of students. Teachers leam in many ways including from each other, with practice and by enrolling in college course work. Unfortunately, substitute teachers do not have this opportunity. Substitute teachers mostly get their experience through on the job training. However, with the diverse student population and the increased demand for student achievement in today’s society, it is especially imperative that substitute Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 teachers do more than just babysit students. They must teach their students. There is no other option. Substitute teachers must enter a classroom with some expertise if they are to do their job. Teachers must be taught how to pay attention to the knowledge and beliefs that learners bring to a learning task, and use this knowledge as a starting point for new instruction, and monitor students’ changing conceptions as instruction proceeds. This will help them to be able to interpret and modify their teaching instruction as needed. Teachers must be able to monitor their teaching and react to how well their students are learning. Teachers must become experts at teaching. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999, p. 1) state that “ .. . experts have acquired extensive knowledge that affects what they notice and how they organize, represent, and interpret information in their environment. This in turn, affects their abilities to remember, reason, and solve problems”. As teachers become more knowledgeable and become experts in teaching, they are able to observe and interpret new data (students’ responses) and modify their teaching strategies. This ability is extremely important to teachers and even more of a necessity for substitute teachers. Although the main focus on staff development has been on regular teachers, substitute teachers and their need for staff development is beginning to be seen in a new light. These “forgotten” district employees account for one year of instruction for every K-12 student and two years of instruction for at-risk students, and, due to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 the shortage of fully credentialed teachers, are becoming a district’s primary resource for obtaining emergency credentialed teachers (Griswold & Hughes, 2000; Smith, 2000). By focusing on their substitute teachers and providing them with a staff development program, districts will: a) Increase their retention of substitute teachers, b) increase the knowledge base of substitutes which will produce a decrease in negative performance, and c) be able to select a teacher for a permanent position that is better prepared to serve students than most other preliminary credentialed teachers (Minthom, 2000; Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2000). When questioned about their jobs, substitute teachers are quick to request training, especially in classroom management and teaching strategies that would assist them in providing quality instruction (Nidds & McGerald, 1994; Pardini, 2000). Hillsborough County, Florida has documented their efforts in the area of staff development for substitute teachers. By involving all stakeholders in identifying needs associated with substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program, Hillsborough County was able to develop a program that met the needs of substitute teachers as well as the district (Minthom, 2000). The attraction of this staff development program is its ability to be adapted to meet the needs of other districts. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 CHAPTER IE Methodology Introduction This study was designed to identify key elements of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program. In doing so, the study also sought to describe the design and implementation process utilized to bring this staff development program to fruition. Descriptive qualitative research was identified as being the appropriate research methodology. According to Maxwell (1996, pp. 17-20), qualitative research studies are especially suited for: (a) Understanding the meaning of events, situations, and actions, (b) understanding the particular context within which the participants act, (c) identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generating new grounded theories about the latter, (d) understanding the process by which events and actions take place, and (e) developing casual explanations. For the above reasons, qualitative research, specifically the case study format, was selected as the most appropriate research methodology for this study. This case study was limited to the Los Angeles County Office of Education due to their commitment to the development of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program and to allow for in depth analysis of the program and implementation process. In addition, LACOE utilized a questionnaire to understand perceptions of staff concerning substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 from three LACOE stakeholder groups: a) Administrators, b) teachers, and c) substitute teachers. A broader purpose of this study was to identify how the Los Angeles County Office of Education, as an intermediate educational agency, would be able to adapt their preservice substitute teacher staff development program in order to be implemented by school districts other than LACOE. Research Questions 1. What are the perceptions of staff concerning substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at the Los Angeles County Office of Education? 2. What are the implications from literature, legal mandates, policy requirements, and experience in identifying key elements of a preservice substitute teacher staff development program? 3. What issues need to be addressed for this preservice substitute teacher staff development program to be implemented by districts other than LACOE? Population This study restricted the population selection criteria to current certificated employees of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The three stakeholder groups identified for this study were: (a) Administrators, (b) teachers, and (c) substitute teachers. For substitute teachers, the term “current” was defined as having provided service as a substitute teacher to LACOE within the last six months. At the time this study was conducted, current records in LACOE Human Resource Services identified the following populations: (a) 114 administrators, (b) 1,195 teachers, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66 (c) 804 substitute teachers. These stakeholders were employed through LACOE educational programs (Division of Alternative Education, Division of Juvenile Court and Community Schools, and Division of Special Education) and Human Resource Services. Instrumentation A review of the literature identified the existence of a questionnaire specifically designed for use with a substitute teacher program (Billman, 1994). Ms. Billman created the questionnaire for the Ashland City Schools in Ohio. The main premise behind the questionnaire was to utilize information from all three stakeholder groups (school administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers) to “zero in” on substitute teacher problems in order to fix them (Billman, 1994). The original questionnaire was 24 questions long, and designed to measure attitudes of school administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers on: (a) Substitute teachers, (b) level of support for substitute teachers, and (c) communication and feedback (Billman, 1994). To answer a question, respondents were asked to identify their choice by circling a number from 1 (strongly agree) through 5 (strongly disagree) (Billman, 1994). The questionnaire requested school administrators to answer 12 of the 24 questions, teachers to answer 17 of the 24 questions, and substitute teachers to answer 23 of the 24 questions, with respondents remaining anonymous (Billman, 1994). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 The questionnaires were sent to all stakeholders (14 school administrators, 259 teachers, and 72 substitute teachers) with a return rate of 79% (11 questionnaires) from administrators, 65% (168 questionnaires) from teachers, and 67% (48 questionnaires) from substitute teachers (Billman, 1994). There was no follow-up request to the initial mailing of the questionnaire, nor did the article present results from any formal data analysis. Ms. Billman (1994) stated that results from the questionnaire identified several positive aspects of the current substitute teacher program while also identifying areas needing improvement. In discussing information gleaned from the questionnaire, input from one stakeholder group or a comparison between two stakeholder groups was presented. There was never any comparison of answers between all three stakeholder groups. For instance, teachers answered the statement “Substitute teachers should be evaluated on a regular basis” in the affirmative but there was no mention of how administrators (the evaluators) or substitute teachers (the evaluates) responded to the question. This same questionnaire, with one question added, was utilized by Hillsborough County, Florida, in March of 1997 to collect baseline information on their substitute teacher program (Minthom, 2000). The district utilized the same format on their questionnaire as in the original questionnaire from Billman. School administrators answered 10 of 25 questions, teachers answered 17 of 25 questions, and substitute teachers answered 24 of 25 questions (Minthom, 2001). The same continuous numerical system, 1 (strongly agree) through 5 (strongly disagree), was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 utilized by Hillsborough respondents to answer the questions (Minthom, 2000). Hillsborough sent the questionnaire to all three stakeholder groups (school administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers) and allowed all respondents to remain anonymous (Minthom, 2000). The questionnaires were sent to a 5% random sample of principals, teachers, and substitute teachers with a return rate of 90% from principals, 35% from teachers, and 70% from substitute teachers (Minthom, 2000). There was only one initial mailing of the Hillsborough questionnaire. As with the original questionnaire, no formal data analysis was presented. Again, as in the original questionnaire, there was discussion about input such as substitute teachers wanting to attend staff development meetings but teachers not wanting them at these meetings. There was no mention of input to any question being compared by all three stakeholder groups. Hillsborough utilized information from this questionnaire in the curriculum development of a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers. As suggested by Billman (1994), her original questionnaire was adapted to meet the needs of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Of the original 24 questions, 18 were utilized in the LACOE Questionnaire as was the 25th question developed by Hillsborough. Questions that were omitted dealt with: (a) Effectiveness of substitute teachers (covered in question 6), (b) student behavior (not applicable to LACOE), (c) the title “substitute teacher” (not applicable to LXCOE), (d) feedback from administrator (covered in question 24), (e) availability of materials Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 (not applicable to LACOE), and (f) substitute teaching as a rewarding experience (removed in favor of a question for all three stakeholders) (Vogel, 2001). These 19 questions were also modified so that all stakeholders, instead of assigning specific questions to specific stakeholders, could answer all questions. However, as with all questionnaires, the respondents still controlled the data collection process (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). Of the six questions added to the LACOE Questionnaire: (a) Two dealt with site communication/interaction with substitute teachers (important in the retention of substitute teachers), (b) one dealt with student diversity and learning (a specific need for teachers in Southern California), (c) one dealt with staff development for substitute teachers (support needed from all LACOE stakeholders), and (d) two dealt with the Substitute Finder Unit and unit components (information specific to LACOE programs) (Vogel, 2001). Another change that was made from both the original questionnaire and the Hillsborough questionnaire was the reversal of the scoring continuum. In the LACOE Questionnaire, 1 is strongly disagree while 5 is strongly agree. This was in response to aligning the LACOE closed form questionnaire to the standard Likert scale (Bates & Bierton, 2000; Gall et al., 1996; Guiton, 2001; Hocevar, 2001; Sparks, Donnelly, & Best, 1999; Trochim, 2001; Vogel, 2001). These modifications were made in preparation for formal data analysis of completed questionnaires. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 In reviewing the questionnaire format, the following items were taken into consideration: (a) Keeping the questionnaire short, one page if possible, (b) including brief, clear instructions at the top of the questionnaire, (c) avoiding negatively stated items, (d) making the questionnaire easy to read, and (e) utilizing a closed form of questionnaire (Gall et al., 1996; Hocevar, 2001). Finally, questions concerning: (a) The sex of the respondent, (b) number of years in education, (c) number of years in current position, and (d) number of years with LACOE were the last items added to the questionnaire. By taking the time in the construction and presentation of the questionnaire, LACOE has utilized results from research findings concerning factors that influence questionnaire return rates (Gall et al., 1996). The data collection instrument used in this study was the Los Angeles County Office of Education Substitute Teacher Questionnaire. LACOE designed an adaptation of Billman’s original Substitute Teacher Survey along with the Hillsborough adaptation of Billman’s original survey. The LACOE questionnaire: (a) Utilized 25 closed form questions, (b) asked all stakeholders to answer all questions, and (c) utilized the standard Likert scale. The final version of the Los Angeles County Office of Education Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is included as Appendix A. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Data Collection Questionnaire The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was distributed through the Division of Human Resource Services to all stakeholders (administrators, teachers and substitute teachers). The questionnaires themselves were color coded (lavender for administrators, blue for substitute teachers, and green for teachers) as well as numerically coded (1 for administrators, 2 for substitute teachers, and 3 for teachers). Knowing the importance of a cover letter (Gall et al., 1996; Guiton, 2001; Hocevar, 2001), the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was accompanied by a letter from the Acting Superintendent, Mrs. Marilyn T. Gogolin, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Programs, Dr. Robert R. Earner. Each stakeholder group was given a cover letter outlining the first steps to the preservice program and specifically identifying why completing and returning the questionnaire was so important to their stakeholder group (see Appendix B, C, D). Attached to the Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was an explanation concerning the tracking of questionnaires returned by respondents and an assurance of anonymity concerning the questionnaire itself (see Appendix E, F, G). This first mailing was sent December 3, 2001 and was monitored for a three-week return (Gall et al., 1996; Guiton, 2001). Approximately two weeks later (January 4, 2002), an initial or first follow-up request was immediately sent to stakeholders missing the original due date (Gall et al., 1996; Guiton, 2001; Hocevar, 2001). Accompanying Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 the Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was a second cover letter (see Appendix H, I, J) with a personal appeal that, due to some oversight or error on the part of Human Resource Services, their completed questionnaire could not be found (Gall et al., 1996; Guiton, 2001). In order to receive the highest rate of return, Gall et al. (1996) propose a second follow-up cover letter (see Appendix K, L, M) and questionnaire. The second follow-up letter was sent January 28, 2002, one week after the due date of the first follow-up letter. Completion of the cycle for the second follow-up letter (a total of 4 weeks) completed the data collection process. Focus Groups After collection of the LACOE questionnaire was completed, the Coordinator of the Substitute Unit arranged for three days of Focus Group meetings. The Focus Groups were developed to solicit curriculum input for the Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program from staff members in the field. The Staff Development Unit of Human Resource Services developed a script (see Appendix N) to be utilized by the facilitator of the Focus Groups to ensure consistency among the group meetings. The Staff Development Unit also provided input as to the length of the meetings (90 minutes) and number of participants (6-12). Three dates were selected (March 26th , 27th, and 28th), as were three different locations (North Area Complex, Cortez School, and the Education Center East). Division Directors were contacted for the names of principals they wished to represent their division in the Focus Groups. Principals were contacted for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 names of teachers and substitute teachers they wished to represent their division in the Focus Groups. After phone calls confirmed participation, letters were sent to all Focus Group participants confirming the date, location, and time of their specific Focus Group. Timelines for the Focus Groups were as follows: a) Teachers met from 9:00 AM to 10:30 AM, b) administrators met from 11:00 AM to 12:30 PM, and c) substitute teachers met from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM. Teachers arrived on the predetermined date and location first thing in the morning while their substitute teachers reported to the appropriate classroom assignment. After the Focus Group, teachers were released for their lunch break and then reported to their classrooms. Administrators participated in the midday Focus Groups, as it was easiest for them to alter their schedule and meet during this time frame. Substitute Teachers were released for their lunch break by the return of the teacher and then reported for participation in the afternoon Focus Group. Data Analysis Questionnaire Responses to the questionnaire were treated as ordinal data. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare the responses of the three stakeholder groups (administrators, substitute teachers, and teachers) to each other. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 In addition, a factor analysis was conducted on all 25 questions utilizing a five component analysis. Using .3 and above as the level of significance, components one and two provided significant findings. Four questions soliciting data from individual respondents were added. These questions were: (a) Sex (gender) of the respondent, (b) number of years in education, (c) number of years in current position, and (d) number of years with LACOE. A summary report of demographic characteristics of respondents was also included. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS, version 10. Results of the questionnaire were forwarded to the Human Resource Services department of LACOE and are scheduled be shared with all stakeholders. Focus Groups Focus Groups were formed from current LACOE stakeholders including: (a) Administrators, (b) substitute teachers, and (c) teachers. The Focus Groups provided specific input related to the content of the preservice staff development program, as well as goals for substitute teachers completing the preservice program. The Staff Development Unit, BTSA Unit, Substitute Unit Coordinator, Credentials Unit Coordinator, and the Coordinator-In-Charge analyzed information obtained from all Focus Groups. Results of the analysis of the Focus Groups were forwarded to the Human Resource Services department for review in the final design of the LACOE preservice program. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 CHAPTER IV Findings Introduction This chapter reports the findings of a case study concerning the Los Angeles County Office of Education. LACOE serves a very different student population from most school districts (at-risk youth, juvenile offenders, and moderate to severe special education students). Research indicates that students in these categories have approximately two years of their K-12 education taught by substitute teachers (Smith, 2000). With that knowledge, LACOE sought to develop a program that would better prepare their substitute teachers concerning the LACOE student population as well as the substitute teacher’s instructional delivery. As the Los Angeles County Office of Education is a support service provider to districts, the ability to adapt the program for district use was also a part of the project. This case study was designed to investigate the following questions: 1. What are the perceptions of staff concerning substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at the Los Angeles County Office of Education? 2. What are the implications from literature, legal mandates, policy requirements, and experience in identifying key elements of a preservice substitute teacher staff development program? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 3. What issues need to be addressed for this preservice substitute teacher staff development program to be implemented by districts other than LACOE? Analysis o f Findings Perceptions o f Substitute Teachers and the Substitute Teacher Program The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was utilized to obtain perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program from three stakeholder groups: a) Administrators, b) substitute teachers, and c) teachers. In accordance with the recommendations of Gall, Borg, & Gall (1996), the original mailing to stakeholders was followed by two additional mailings of the questionnaires in order to produce a maximum return. Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 identify the rate of return for each stakeholder group and for each mailing. Table 4.1 Administrators ’ Rate o f Questionnaire Return (114) Due Date # Received Percentage First Request 12/23/01 51 45% Second Request 1/23/02 55 48% Third Request 2/08/02 6 5% Total 112 98% It was interesting to review the number and percentages of questionnaires returned by each stakeholder group and in total. A high percentage of return was expected from administrators as the Acting Superintendent, Mrs. Marilyn T. Gogolin, and the Assistant Superintendent of Educational Programs, Dr. Robert R. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 Bamer, signed the cover letter to the questionnaire. The actual number of questionnaires returned was 112 out of 114 for a 98% return rate. In some ways it was surprising that there was not a 100% return rate from this stakeholder group. As administrators were the smallest stakeholder group, a high rate of return from them was seen as statically important. Table 4.2 Substitute Teachers ’ Rate o f Questionnaire Return (804) Due Date # Received Percentage First Request 12/23/01 290 36% Second Request 1/23/02 145 18% Third Request 2/08/02 101 13% Total 536 67% The rate of questionnaire return for substitute teachers, 536 out of 804, was 67%, the lowest of all three stakeholder groups. It should be noted that this group of stakeholders was and is continually in flux. Some substitute teachers were in the process of being hired by LACOE, or another school district, into full time positions. Other substitute teachers used this line of work till a full time position in their chosen field (e.g., accounting) became available. Many people become substitute teachers when they relocate. This allows for employment until they actually settle on a specific geographic area on where to live. A new school district, where the person has now established permanent residence, can be added to an existing substitute teaching credential. Substitute teaching allows people to say, “ I am not available to work today” and not be penalized. LACOE is Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 the third largest employer of substitute teachers in Los Angeles County, behind LAUSD and LBUSD (see Appendix R). As such, LACOE hires approximately 400 new substitute teachers every year. This being the case, a return of 500 questionnaires was seen as a major accomplishment. Table 4.3 Teachers’ Rate o f Questionnaire Return (1,195) Due Date # Received Percentage First Request 12/23/01 534 45% Second Request 1/23/02 280 23% Third Request 2/08/02 168 14% Total 982 82% Teachers, the largest stakeholder group, returned 982 out of 1,195 questionnaires for a return rate of 82%. The return rate for teachers was actually higher than expected and produced an unexpected bonus. Several classroom teachers after reading the cover letter to the questionnaire became committed to the preservice training program. They volunteered to serve on the Focus Groups and also volunteered to serve as instructors in the substitute teacher preservice training program. The support of the teachers to the preservice program and the information gained from their questionnaires provided LACOE with important information from this stakeholder group. Demographic information was collected on all questionnaires and included questions concerning gender, years in education, years in present position, and years at LACOE. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Information on respondent gender is presented in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Gender Distribution by Job Category Gender Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total Male Count 48 307 348 703 % within Gender 6.8% 43.7% 49.5% 100.0% % within Group 45.3% 58.8% 36.4% 44.4% Female Count 58 215 607 880 % within Gender 6.6% 24.4% 69.0% 100.0% % within Group 54.7% 41.2% 63.5% 55.6% Total Count 106 522 955 1583 % within Gender 6.7% 33.0% 60.4% 100.0% % within Group 100% 100.0% 100% 100.0% The information collected on gender provided some interesting information. It was no surprise that females accounted for 607 or 63.5% of all teachers in a profession dominated by females. What was interesting to note was that 58 or 54.7% of administrators were also females. Although not at the same percentage as in the teaching ranks, females composed the majority of administrators. The real surprise came with the examination of data concerning substitute teachers. The majority of substitute teachers, 307 or 58.8%, were male. As stated above, teaching is a female dominated profession so this data concerning the gender of substitute teachers was totally unexpected. Tables 4.5, 4.6. and 4.7 present demographic information concerning the number of years respondents have been in education (Yrs Ed). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 Table 4.5 Years in Education Years in Education Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total 1-5 Count 1 252 94 347 % within Yrs Ed .3% 72.6% 27.1% 100.0% % within Group .9% 49.7% 9.9% 22.2% 6-10 Count 5 95 165 265 % within Yrs Ed 1.9% 35.8% 62.3% 100.0% % within Group 4.7% 18.7% 17.4% 17.0% 11-15 Count 7 46 130 183 % within Yrs Ed 3.8% 25.1% 71.0% 100.0% % within Group 6.6% 9.1% 13.7% 11.7% 16-20 Count 10 37 134 181 % within Yrs Ed 5.5% 20.4% 74.0% 100.0% % within Group 9.4% 7.3% 14.1% 11.6% 21-25 Count 17 21 172 210 % within Yrs Ed 8.1% 10.0% 81.9% 100.0% % within Group 16.0% 4.1% 18.1% 13.4% 26-30 Count 37 23 160 220 % within Yrs Ed 16.8% 10.5% 72.7% 100.0% % within Group 34.9% 4.5% 16.8% 14.1% 31+ Count 29 33 95 157 % within Yrs Ed 18.5% 21.0% 60.5% 100.0% % within Group 27.4% 6.5% 6.8% 10.0% Total Count 106 507 950 1563 % within Yrs Ed 6.8% 32.4% 60.8% 100.0% % within Group 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 4.6 Years in Education Processing Summary Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent 1563 95.8% 68 4.2% 1631 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Table 4.7 Years in Education Chi-Square Test Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 448.857a 12 .000 Likelihood Ratio 446.166 12 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 18.841 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1563 a0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 10.65. Data on the respondents’ number of years in education supplied important information specific to employees of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Administrators followed the pattern specific to what would be expected from educators. The largest number of administrators, 37 or 35.2%, had been in education 26-30 years. The next largest number of administrators, 24 or 22.9% had been in education 31-35 years. There were five administrators or 4.8% with 36-40 years in education. Estimating five years of college, this data met 66 or 62.9% of LACOE administrators were between the ages of 49-63 years of age. Therefore Human Resource Services will need to replace almost 63% of administrators in the next 1-13 years due to retirement. Substitute teachers were the exact opposite of administrators with 347 or 68.4% having completed 10 or fewer years in education. Almost half, 252 or 49.7% of substitute teachers had five or less years experience in education. This data specifically supported the need for a preservice staff development program for substitute teachers in order to introduce them into the field of education. At the other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 end of the spectrum were 14 substitute teachers or 2.8% with 41-55 years experience in education. Although not specifically identified due to the anonymity of the questionnaire, it is hypothesized that these substitute teachers represent teachers who have retired from regular teaching positions and utilize substitute teaching to supplement their income. The stakeholder group that proved most surprising was the teachers. It was expected that teachers would follow the same years in education as LACOE administrators. This was not true. Only 246 or 25.8% of teachers had 26-40 years of service compared to 62.9% of administrators. The numbers, however, were larger for teachers, and will require further investigation by Human Resource Services concerning the replacement of teachers due to retirement. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Years in Education presents a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Tables 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10 present demographic information concerning respondents’ number of years in their current position (Yrs Job). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Table 4.8 Years in Current Position Years in Current Position Administrator s Substitute Teachers Teachers Total 1-5 Count 64 362 430 856 % within Yrs Job 7.5% 42.3% 50.2% 100.0% % within Group 68.1% 81.7% 50.4% 61.6% 6-10 Count 20 43 169 232 % within Yrs Job 8.6% 18.5% 72.8% 100.0% % within Group 21.3% 9.7% 19.8% 16.7% 11-15 Count 5 26 105 136 % within Yrs Job 3.7% 19.1% 77.2% 100.0% % within Group 5.3% 5.9% 12.3% 9.8% 16+ Count 5 12 149 166 % within Yrs Job 3.0% 7.2% 89.8% 100.0% % within Group 5.3% 2.7% 17.5% 11.9% Total Count 94 443 853 1390 % within Yrs Job 6.8% 31.9% 61.4% 100.0% % within Group 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 4.9 Years in Current Position Processing Summary Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent 1390 85.2% 241 14.8% 1631 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 Table 4.10 Years in Current Position Chi-Square Test Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 137.5053 6 .000 Likelihood Ratio 151.699 6 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 92.169 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1390 a0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 9.20. It was interesting to find that, even though they had the longest period of time in education, administrators had almost the same length of time in their current position as substitute teachers. Where 83 or 89.2% of administrators had been in their current position 10 years or less, 405 or 91.4% of substitute teachers had been in their position 10 years or less. Teachers also had a significant number of respondents, 599 or 70.2%, in the 10 years or less category. Although the number of years in current position was expected to be low in substitute teachers, it was not expected to be so low in administrators and teachers. The relevance of this data has been questioned due to the term “current position”. An assistant principal of seven years, who recently promoted to principal, would have claimed one year in current position. The same held true for teachers who transferred or moved to a new position in the same PAU. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Years in Current Position presents a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Tables 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 present demographic information concerning respondents’ number of years with LACOE (Yrs LACOE). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 Table 4.11 Years with LACOE Years with LACOE Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total 1-5 Count 13 392 261 666 % within Yrs LACOE 2.0% 58.9% 39.2% 100.0% % within Group 12.1% 77.3% 27.3% 42.4% 6-10 Count 16 44 214 274 % within Yrs LACOE 5.8% 16.1% 78.1% 100.0% % within Group 15.0% 8.7% 22.4% 17.5% 11-15 Count 14 30 145 189 % within Yrs LACOE 7.4% 15.9% 76.7% 100.0% % within Group 13.1% 5.9% 15.2% 12.0% 16-20 Count 16 14 99 129 % within Yrs LACOE 12.4% 10.9% 76.7% 100.0% % within Group 15.0% 2.8% 10.4% 8.2% 21-25 Count 27 7 111 145 % within Yrs LACOE 18.6% 4.8% 76.6% 100.0% % within Group 25.2% 1.4% 11.6% 9.2% 26 + Count 21 20 125 166 % within Yrs LACOE 12.7% 12.0% 75.3% 100.0% % within Group 19.6% 3.9% 13.1% 10.6% Total Count 107 507 955 1569 % within Yrs LACOE 6.8% 32.3% 60.9% 100.0% % within Group 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 4.12 Years with LACOE Processing Summary Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent 1569 96.2% 62 3.8% 1631 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 Table 4.13 Years with LACOE Chi-Square Test Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 413.717a 10 .000 Likelihood Ratio 427.478 10 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 31.279 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1569 a0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 8.80. The final demographic question dealt with the number of years each stakeholder group had spent with LACOE. It is no longer expected in the business world or in education that you will have the same employer over the course of your career. For that reason, it is important to note that 64 or 60.4% of administrators had been with LACOE 16 years or longer. There were also 355 or 35.1% of teachers who had been with LACOE 16 years or longer. What was a surprise was to find 14 or 7.8% of substitute teachers who reported 16 or more years of service to LACOE. The longevity with LACOE was especially surprising when the student populations served by LACOE were taken into consideration. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Years with LACOE presents a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 Table 4.14 M ean Summary Group Years in Education Years in Position Years in LACOE Administrators Mean 25.96 5.63 17.52 N 106 94 107 Std. Deviation 7.38 5.34 8.78 Substitute Teachers Mean 10.32 3.75 5.15 N 507 443 507 Std. Deviation 11.08 4.67 7.32 Teachers Mean 18.71 8.59 12.92 N 950 853 955 Std. Deviation 9.83 8.10 9.00 Total Mean N Std. Deviation 16.48 1563 11.12 6.85 1390 7.35 10.72 1569 9.37 In addition to the individual summary of years in education, years in position, and years in LACOE, a Mean Summary provided another way of looking at the data in a compressed form. The data contained in this table supports previous information that identified administrators as having had the most years in education and the most years in LACOE. As expected, teachers followed administrators in these two categories with substitute teachers finishing last. It should be noted that teachers were first under the category of years in position. They were followed by administrators and then substitute teachers. Information on each of the 25 questions contained on the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is presented on a question-by-question basis beginning with Figure 4.1 and Tables 4.14 and 4.15. Cronbach Alpha was used to assess reliability across all three stakeholders groups and for the questionnaire itself. Reliability for Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 data from administrators was .80, reliability for data from the substitute teachers was .83, reliability for data from the teachers was .83, and the overall reliability for the questionnaire was .85. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 Figure 4.1 Question 1 Substitute Teachers are an Essential Part of the Education Process II Disagree ■Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.15 Group Tabulation Question 1 Question 1 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 18 40 58 % within Q1 31.0% 69.0% 100.0% % within Grp 3.5% 4.4% 3.8% 1.00 Count 107 490 879 1476 % within Q1 7.2% 33.2% 59.6% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 96.5% 95.6% 96.2% Total Count 107 508 919 1534 % within Q1 7.0% 33.1% 59.9% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 Table 4.16 Chi-Square Test Question 1 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 5.109a 2 .078 Likelihood Ratio 9.117 2 .010 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.984 1 .046 N of valid Cases 1534 al cell (16.7%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 4.05. There was no doubt that all three stakeholder groups identified substitute teachers as an essential part of the education process. Administrators led the way with 100% in support of that statement, substitute teachers were next at 96.5%, and teachers completed the stakeholder groups at 95.6%. It was somewhat surprising that this statement was not 100% supported by all three stakeholder groups. It is postulated that substitute teachers who did not support this statement did not have a clear understanding of the role they play in the education of LACOE students. Are they able to follow lesson plans? Do they utilize appropriate teaching and classroom management methods? What is missing that these substitute teachers did not see themselves as an essential part of the educational process? Were the teachers who did not see substitute teachers as essential to the education process the same teachers who lock up all their materials, leave no lesson plan, and “sub proof’ their room? Teachers who did not see substitutes as essential to the education process were: a) Unaware of LACOE’s expectations of substitute teachers, and b) unaware of LACOE’s expectations of regular teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Statistically, one cell had an expected count less than five, which violates one of the assumptions of the chi-squared test. Therefore results of Question 1 should be described descriptively and not statistically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 Figure 4.2 Question 2 Substitute Teachers Should be Evaluated on a Regular or Annual Basis Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.17 Group Tabulation Question 2 H Disagree ■ Agree Question 2 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 2 79 48 129 % within Q2 1.6% 61.2% 37.2% 100.0% % within Grp 2.0% 20.3% 5.5% 9.4% 1.00 Count 100 311 827 1238 % within Q2 8.1% 25.1% 66.8% 100.0% % within Grp 98.0% 79.7% 94.5% 90.6% Total Count 102 390 875 1367 % within Q2 7.5% 28.5% 64.0% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Table 4.18 Chi-Square Test Question 2 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 76.0753 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 69.684 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 15.725 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1367 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 9.63. That 98% of administrators felt substitute teachers should be evaluated on a regular or annual basis was a surprise finding. It is no secret that site administrators have a demanding job. However, no one but LACOE site administrators could evaluate the performance of substitute teachers due to the geography (4,000 square miles) of the county. That administrators identified evaluation of substitute teachers as important supports their belief that substitute teachers are an essential part of the educational process and should be held accountable for their teaching. Teachers, 94.5% of them, also felt substitute teachers should be evaluated on a regular or annual basis. This was not a surprise. Since most teachers felt substitute teachers were an essential part of the education process, then why would they not be held accountable for the educational services they provide? Teachers also do not have the responsibility for conducting the performance evaluations; therefore it would not be a scheduling problem for them. The second surprise in question two was the finding that only 79.7% of substitute teachers felt they should be evaluated on a regular or annual basis. That Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 they overwhelmingly identified themselves as essential in the education process would have led one to believe that substitute teachers wanted validation of their contributions via the evaluation process. However, over 16% of substitute teachers wanted not to be held accountable for their teaching and thereby their contributions to the educational process. It may also be postulated that substitute teachers felt inadequate in performing their job and therefore did not want to be evaluated. Further investigation into the concerns of substitute teachers in this area is warranted. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 2 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Figure 4.3 Question 3 A County Wide Orientation/Training Program is needed for New Substitute Teachers 100 w m 0 o > CO c § 01 S Disagree a Agree a. Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.19 Group Tabulation Question 3 Question 3 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 49 34 83 % within Q3 59.0% 41.0% 100.0% % within Grp 10.5% 10.5% 5.5% 1.00 Count 108 418 893 1419 % within Q3 7.6% 29.5% 62.9% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 89.5% 96.3% 94.5% Total Count 108 467 927 1502 % within Q3 7.2% 31.1% 61.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.20 Chi-Square Test Question 3 97 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 34.5133 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 36.886 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 4.123 1 .042 N of valid Cases 1502 a0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 5.97. Administrators, 100% of this stakeholder group, saw a county wide training program for new substitute teachers as important. Administrators are the ones who get called into a class when the substitute teacher is unable to control student behavior. They are also the ones called into the room when the substitute teacher chooses to read a newspaper instead of teach. Administrators who supported this proposal saw benefits not only for students, but also for themselves. Teachers, 96.3% of them, also overwhelming supported training for new substitute teachers. Trained substitute teachers could have a direct, positive impact on each teacher’s classroom. Teachers could leave more detailed lesson plans and feel comfortable that classroom materials would be used appropriately. Again, teachers that supported training for substitute teachers saw the direct impact this training would have on their classroom. Substitute teachers supported a training program for new substitute teachers by 89.5%, the lowest of the three stakeholder groups. However, the overwhelming majority of substitute teachers saw a preservice training program as beneficial to new Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 substitute teachers. Perhaps they were remembering their own beginning as a substitute teacher and how much better they could have been if they had received training before they entered a classroom. Knowledge concerning teaching strategies, knowledge concerning LACOE student populations, and knowledge of LACOE policies and procedures were obtained slowly when they had to be acquired on the job. It was again possible that LACOE had not communicated what it expected from substitute teachers thus lowering what substitute teachers felt they needed to know. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 3 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Figure 4.4 Question 4 Substitute Teachers Receive a Welcome at all LACOE PAUs 70 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.21 Group Tabulation Question 4 Question 4 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 23 134 194 351 % within Q4 6.6% 38.2% 55.3% 100.0% % within Grp 44.2% 36.7% 38.2% 37.9% 1.00 Count 29 231 314 574 % within Q4 5.1% 40.2% 54.7% 100.0% % within Grp 55.8% 63.3% 61.8% 62.1% Total Count 52 365 508 925 % within Q4 5.6% 39.5% 54.9% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.22 Chi-Square Test Question 4 100 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 1.1213 2 .571 Likelihood Ratio 1.106 2 .575 Linear-by-Linear Association .052 1 .819 N of valid Cases 925 3 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 19.73. It was surprising to find out that substitute teachers, at 63.3%, the highest reporting from all stakeholder groups, felt they received a warm welcome at LACOE PAUs. Teachers were not far behind in supporting this belief at 61.8%. Administrators were more concerned that not enough was being done to welcome substitute teachers at PAUs. Their support, at 55.8%, was an indication that more attention needed to be directed to this area. Phone interactions with substitute teachers have supported the fact that they have their favorite PAUs and other PAUs where they refused to work. When asked why they made these decisions about specific PAUs, substitute teachers reported that they enjoyed working at PAUs where: a) They were greeted by name, b) informed of school’s activities for the day, c) received an “introduction” (location of staff bathrooms, where to get coffee, how/where to get and eat lunch, where to get materials for the classroom, and how to get assistance) on their first visit, and d) were thanked for their services when they left for the day. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 On the other hand, substitute teachers stated they did not like to go to PAUs where: a) They were “tolerated” (their presence went unacknowledged), b) shown no support, and c) had experienced difficulties getting paid for their previous assignments at that PAU. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 4 presented a p value of .571 indicating no significant finding Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Figure 4.5 Question 5 Interested Substitutes Should be asked to serve on School Committees Administrators Substitute Teachers H Disagree ■ Agree Table 4.23 Group Tabulation Question 5 Question 5 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 20 83 303 406 % within Q5 4.9% 20.4% 74.6% 100.0% % within Grp 25.3% 21.1% 43.3% 34.6% 1.00 Count 59 310 397 766 % within Q5 7.7% 40.5% 51.8% 100.0% % within Grp 74.7% 78.9% 56.7% 65.4% Total Count 79 393 700 1172 % within Q5 6.7% 33.5% 59.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 Table 4.24 Chi-Square Test Question 5 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 57.873a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 59.998 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 45.184 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1172 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 27,37. Substitute teachers led all stakeholders at 78.9% in positive support to the statement that interested substitutes should be asked to serve on school committees. Administrators were not far behind, at 74.7%, in their support of asking substitutes to serve on school committees. That substitutes were willing to become more involved at schools was a surprise as committees usually meet after the students leave but as part of the professional day. Administrators also saw the benefit of having more staff members involved in the development and implementation of site objectives and goals. What was a surprise was that only 59.7% of teachers supported substitute teachers being asked to serve on school committees. Although 95.6% of teachers saw substitute teachers as an essential part of the educational process, and 82.1% of teachers identified substitute teachers as professional educators, teachers were not that supportive of working on the same school committees with substitutes. It is hypothesized that: a) Teachers see themselves as possessing more expertise in education than substitute teachers and b) that their expertise and influence would be Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 diminished with the addition of substitutes to school committees. Only after further investigation into this particular question during staff development trainings will the specific concerns of teachers be identified and addressed. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 5 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Figure 4.6 Question 6 Substitute Teachers are Professional Educators Administrators Substitute Teachers B 3 Disagree m Agree Table 4.25 Group Tabulation Question 6 Question 6 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 10 31 137 178 % within Q6 5.6% 17.4% 77.0% 100.0% % within Grp 11.8% 6.5% 17.9% 13.4% 1.00 Count 75 449 630 1154 % within Q6 6.5% 38.9% 54.6% 100.0% % within Grp 88.2% 93.5% 82.1% 86.6% Total Count 85 480 767 1332 % within Q6 6.4% 36.0% 57.6% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Table 4.26 Chi-Square Test Question 6 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 33.361a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 36.291 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 22.076 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1332 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 11.36. It was not surprising to find that 93.5% of substitute teachers responded positively to the statement that substitute teachers are professional educators. Substitute teachers in Question 1 supported this sentiment where they saw themselves as an essential part of the educational process. Administrators, at 88.2%, were the next highest stakeholder group supporting this statement. This support, however, was 12% less than the support administrators had for substitute teachers as an essential part of the educational process. Teachers, at 82.1% were the stakeholder group that provided the least support for viewing substitute teachers as professional educators. This support was over 13% less than the support teachers had shown substitute teachers in Question 1. It was expected that substitute teachers would see themselves as being more of a professional educator then teachers saw them in this capacity. However, it was surprising that so many teachers saw substitute teachers as professional educators when only 59.7% of teachers supported having substitute teachers on school committees. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 6 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Figure 4.7 Question 7 Substitute Teachers Should Attend Regular Faculty and In-Service Meetings 90 80 70 60 U Disagree H Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.27 Group Tabulation Question 7 Question 7 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 15 145 223 383 % within Q7 3.9% 37.9% 58.2% 100.0% % within Grp 16.0% 37.9% 31.5% 32.3% 1.00 Count 79 238 485 802 % within Q7 9.9% 29.7% 60.5% 100.0% % within Grp 84.0% 62.1% 68.5% 67.7% Total Count 94 383 708 1185 % within Q7 7.9% 32.3% 59.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Table 4.28 Chi-Square Test Question 7 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.0963 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 18.489 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association .861 1 .353 N of valid Cases 1185 a 0 cells (.0%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 30.38. Having substitute teachers attend regular faculty and in-service meetings was, at 84%, strongly supported by administrators. Teachers, at 68.5%, were the next stakeholders to support this statement. Substitute teachers who, at 93.5%, identified themselves as professional educators, supported their attendance at faculty and in-service meetings at only 62.1%. Administrators saw the participation of substitute teachers in faculty and in-service meetings as a way to keep them informed of site business/practices as well as informed of new changes in the curriculum at LACOE (e.g., how substitute lesson plans should be aligned with state standards). Teachers strongly supported, at 94.5%, the evaluation of substitute teachers, but showed much less support, 68.5%, for substitute teachers being kept abreast of policy and curriculum developments that are disseminated at faculty and in-service meetings. It was interesting to note that while substitute teachers wanted to volunteer to serve on school committees (78.9%), they were not as excited in experiencing the normal activities expected of teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi- square analysis on Question 7 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l Figure 4.8 Question 8 Substitute Teachers Need to Understand About Student Diversity and Learning 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers H D isagree ■ A gree Table 4.29 Group Tabulation Question 8 Question 8 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 27 36 63 % within Q8 42.9% 57.1% 100.0% % within Grp 5.4% 3.9% 4.1% 1.00 Count 109 472 889 1470 % within Q8 7.4% 32.1% 60.5% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 94.6% 96.1% 95.9% Total Count 109 499 925 1533 % within Q8 7.1% 32.6% 60.3% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 Table 4.30 Chi-Square Test Question 8 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.927a 2 .031 Likelihood Ratio 11.218 2 .004 Linear-by-Linear Association .257 1 .612 N of valid Cases 1533 a 1 cell (16.7%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 4.48. That substitute teachers need to understand about student diversity and learning was strongly supported by all stakeholder groups. Administrators (100%), teachers (96.1%), and substitute teachers (94.6%) clearly understood that diversity plays a major role in how educational lessons should be developed and presented to students. To meet the needs of students, lesson plans, lesson techniques, work products, and methods of assessment must all be taken into consideration. LACOE is currently in a transition phase for its teaching staff whereby in five years it expects every fulltime staff member to complete certification in lesson preparation and execution for English learners. In addition, several options in the area of diversity were offered to all employees throughout the year. Due to the student populations served by LACOE, understanding cultural diversity was, and continues to be, a major emphasis for educational staff. Statistically, one cell had an expected count less than five, which violates one of the assumptions of the chi-squared test. Therefore results of question 8 should be described descriptively and not statistically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 Figure 4.9 Question 9 Lesson Plans are Always Provided in LACOE Classrooms 80 70 1 3 Disagree ■ Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.31 Group Tabulation Question 9 Question 9 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 47 301 240 588 % within Q9 8.0% 51.2% 40.8% 100.0% % within Grp 61.8% 73.8% 40.0% 54.2% 1.00 Count 29 107 360 496 % within Q9 5.8% 21.6% 72.6% 100.0% % within Grp 38.2% 26.2% 60.0% 45.8% Total Count 76 408 600 1084 % within Q9 7.0% 37.6% 55.4% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.32 Chi-Square Test Question 9 114 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 113.518a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 116.729 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 79.268 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1084 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 34.77. The major concern of a substitute teacher is to carry out lesson plans provided by the regular classroom teacher. The statement that lesson plans are always provided in LACOE classrooms received the highest support from the teachers. What was surprising was that only 60% of teachers supported that statement. In other words, although lesson plans are required for the educational process to continue with minimal interruption, teachers admitted they had not provided those lesson plans a great deal of the time. Administrators, at 38.2%, were substantially less supportive that lesson plans were provided for substitute teachers by their staff. It was interesting to note that administrators identified this as a problem area. Now aware of the situation, how administrators correct this problem will play a major role in the quality of lessons delivered by substitute teachers. Both teachers and administrators should take note that only 26.2% of substitute teachers supported the statement that lesson plans are always provided in LACOE classrooms. Data from this question identified a key finding that strikes at Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 the core of the substitute teacher program. Certainly the lack of lesson plans stopped the educational process in its tracks. When substitute teachers are accused of being a “babysitter”, is it because the regular classroom teacher has failed to provide lesson plans for the substitute teacher to implement? Data from this question supported the development of the Substitute Teacher Input Form (see Appendix S). Substitute teachers complete this form about the day’s activities and leave a copy for the regular classroom teacher and site administrator. One of the first questions on this form concerns the availability of lesson plans. Also included on the Substitute Teacher Input Form were questions about the presence of classroom operational procedures and the location of instructional materials. The utilization of this form will hold the teacher accountable for providing lesson plans and the substitute teacher accountable for the implementation of those lesson plans. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 9 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Figure 4.10 Question 10 Lesson Plans are Detailed Enough to Teach Lessons Effectively 70 60 50 B Disagree ■ Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Tahle 4.33 Group Tabulation Question 10 Question 10 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 44 247 200 491 % within Q10 9.0% 50.3% 40.7% 100.0% % within Grp 57.9% 62.1% 33.6% 45.9% 1.00 Count 32 151 395 578 % within Q10 5.5% 26.1% 68.3% 100.0% % within Grp 42.1% 37.9% 66.4% 54.1% Total Count 76 398 595 1069 % within Q10 7.1% 37.2% 55.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Table 4.34 Chi-Square Test Question 10 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 82.424a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 83.304 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 65.155 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1069 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 34.91. Of the 60% of LACOE teachers who provided lesson plans, 66.4% stated that the lesson plans they provided were detailed enough to teach effectively. This statement was supported by less than half, 42.1%, of the administrators. Even fewer substitute teachers, 37.9%, supported the statement that lesson plans were detailed enough to teach effectively. Results from Questions 9 and 10 suggested that an immediate improvement in the instruction provided by LACOE substitute teachers could be obtained: a) By placing more emphasis on the classroom teacher providing current lesson plans, and b) by providing lesson plans containing greater detail. As the lesson plan is the primary communication between the classroom teacher and the substitute teacher, the more attention and importance given this document by all stakeholders, the more it will be utilized to ensure quality instruction. A review of the Substitute Teacher Input Form by the site administrator will strengthen the accountability expected of both the teacher and substitute teacher. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 10 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Figure 4.11 Question 11 Information on Classroom Schedules, Duties, and Procedures is found in Classrooms 90 80 70 60 8 > 50 ■ S c a p 5 40 C l 30 20 10 1 n H Disagree ■Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.35 Group Tabulation Question 11 Question 11 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 17 176 113 306 % within Q1 5.6% 57.5% 36.9% 100.0% % within Grp 21.8% 45.1% 17.0% 27.0% 1.00 Count 61 214 553 828 % within Q1 7.4% 25.8% 66.8% 100.0% % within Grp 78.2% 54.9% 83.0% 73.0% Total Count 78 390 666 1134 % within Q1 6.9% 34.4% 58.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Table 4.36 Chi-Square Test Question 11 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 100.149a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 97.194 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 45.351 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1134 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 21.05. Teachers, at 83%, felt that information on classroom schedules, duties, and procedures was found in classrooms. Administrators, at 78.2%, supported that statement. However, only 54.9% of substitute teachers found the statement to be true. Data from this question identified another key finding that has a direct impact on the substitute teacher program. This question, as did Questions 10 and 12, identified a communication breakdown between teachers and substitute teachers. A substitute teacher is only able to implement schedules, duties and procedures of which they have knowledge. When more attention is given to the communication process (especially lesson plans and the Substitute Teacher Input Fonn) by all stakeholders, it is reasonable to assume improvement in the educational process will follow. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 11 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Figure 4.12 Question 12 Behavior Management/Discipline Procedures are included in Lesson Plans 70 U Disagree ■ Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.37 Group Tabulation Question 12 Question 12 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 34 245 216 495 % within Q12 6.9% 49.5% 43.6% 100.0% % within Grp 47.2% 63.8% 36.0% 46.9% 1.00 Count 38 139 384 561 % within Q 12 6.8% 24.8% 68.4% 100.0% % within Grp 52.8% 36.2% 64.0% 53.1% Total Count 72 384 600 1056 % within Q12 6.8% 36.4% 56.8% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Table 4.38 Chi-Square Test Question 12 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 72.682a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 73.413 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 42.186 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1056 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 33.75. Due to the student population served, LACOE educational programs had very specific behavior discipline procedures. Teachers, at 64%, felt these behavior management/discipline procedures were included in their lesson plans. Over half of the administrators, 52.8%, felt that lesson plans did indeed cover behavior management/discipline procedures. Substitute teachers did not share this view. Only 36.2% of substitute teachers supported the statement that behavior management/discipline procedures were included in lesson plans. One of the most important strategies in working with at-risk and special education student is consistency. It is therefore important that stakeholders communicate about specific classroom and individual student behavior management/discipline procedures. Putting tape over a student’s mouth (a not unheard of technique by inexperienced substitute teachers) is unacceptable. How much better would it have been for the substitute teacher and student that the regular teacher identified talking as a problem and provided proven appropriate techniques in resolving the behavior. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 12 presented ap value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Figure 4.13 Question 13 All Substitute Teachers Should be Provided Staff Development Training 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers H Disagree ■Agree Table 4.39 Group Tabulation Question 13 Question 13 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 2 56 65 123 % within Q13 1.6% 45.5% 52.8% 100.0% % within Grp 2.0% 13.0% 7.7% 9.0% 1.00 Count 99 376 774 1249 % within Q13 7.9% 30.1% 62.0% 100.0% % within Grp 98.0% 87.0% 92.3% 91.0% Total Count 101 432 839 1372 % within Q13 7.4% 31.5% 61.2% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Table 4.40 Chi-Square Test Question 13 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 16.0233 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 17.717 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association .225 1 .635 N of valid Cases 1372 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 9.05. Administrators, at 98%, strongly supported the statement that all substitute teachers should be provided staff development training. At 92.3%, teachers also supported training for substitute teachers. Surprisingly, it was the substitute teachers, at 87%, who were the stakeholders who least supported training for all substitute teachers. Support for Question 13 mirrors the scores of all three stakeholder groups on Question 3 (a training program for new substitute teachers). However, all three stakeholder groups continued to support staff development training for all substitute teachers. As noted in the literature, staff development not only provides support for the individual, it plays a key role in the overall improvement in schools. Collaborative staff development (which includes substitute teachers) has the power to change the culture of a school. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 13 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 Figure 4.14 Question 14 Classroom Responsibilities of Substitute Teachers are Clearly Defined 70 -r 60 H Disagree m Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.41 Group Tabulation Question 14 Question 14 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 29 184 249 462 % within Q14 6.3% 39.8% 53.9% 100.0% % within Grp 39.7% 47.2% 40.5% 42.9% 1.00 Count 44 206 366 616 % within Q14 7.1% 33.4% 59.4% 100.0% % within Grp 60.3% 52.8% 59.5% 57.1% Total Count 73 390 615 1078 % within Q14 6.8% 36.2% 57.1% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Table 4.42 Chi-Square Test Question 14 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.677a 2 .096 Likelihood Ratio 4.665 2 .097 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.482 1 .223 N of valid Cases 1078 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 31.29. Question 14, classroom responsibilities of substitute teachers are clearly defined, received almost the exact support from administrators, at 60.3%, as teachers, 59.5%. Just over half of the substitute teachers, 52.8%, felt they could support this statement. This failure to fully communicate the classroom responsibilities was not only a problem for the sites, but for the current central office training of substitute teachers as well. It is important that the classroom responsibilities be addressed beginning at the central office substitute teacher training and carried over at the sites. This is again a problem in communication that should be addressed in lesson plans. It is becoming apparent that the lack of attention to lesson plans has caused communication problems in several areas of importance that support student learning. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 14 presented a p value of .096 indicating no significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Figure 4.15 Question 15 Substitute Teachers Should use Lesson Plans Provided by the Classroom Teacher 100 90 80 70 a o > 8 Q CL 60 50 40 30 20 10 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers H Disagree H Agree Table 4.43 Group Tabulation Question 15 Question 15 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 1 22 35 58 % within Q15 1.7% 37.9% 60.3% 100.0% % within Grp .9% 4.7% 4.0% 4.0% 1.00 Count 105 447 851 1403 % within Q15 7.5% 31.9% 60.7% 100.0% % within Grp 99.1% 95.3% 96.0% 96.0% Total Count 106 469 886 1461 % within Q15 7.3% 32.1% 60.6% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 Table 4.44 Chi-Square Test Question 15 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.187a 2 .203 Likelihood Ratio 4.248 2 .120 Linear-by-Linear Association .419 1 .517 N of valid Cases 1461 a 1 cell (16.7%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 4.21. All three stakeholder groups overwhelmingly supported Question 15, that substitute teachers should use lesson plans provided by the classroom teacher. Administrators, at 99.1%, teachers, at 96%, and substitute teachers, at 95.3%, felt that lesson plans created by the classroom teacher were the blueprint that allowed the educational program to continue with the least disruption. It was interesting to note such strong support by all three stakeholder groups in implementing lesson plans, yet all three stakeholder groups acknowledged, in Question 9, the lack of lesson plans in LACOE educational programs. This inconsistency needs to be addressed immediately. Lesson plans are the communication tool between two professionals. If teachers, at 96%, expect substitute teachers to implement their lesson plans, then more than the 26.2% of substitute teachers who said lesson plans were provided needs to be increased. Statistically, one cell had an expected count less than five, which violates one of the assumptions of the chi-squared test. Therefore results of Question 15 should be described descriptively and not statistically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 Figure 4.16 Question 16 Substitutes leave Adequate Information regarding the day’s Events and Lessons 90 80 70 60 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.45 Group Tabulation Question 16 Question 16 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 53 70 331 454 % within Q16 11.7% 15.4% 72.9% 100.0% % within Grp 72.6% 18.8% 52.0% 41.9% 1.00 Count 20 303 306 629 % within Q16 3.2% 48.2% 48.6% 100.0% % within Grp 27.4% 81.2% 48.0% 58.1% Total Count 73 373 637 1083 % within Q16 6.7% 34.4% 58.8% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Table 4.46 Chi-Square Test Question 16 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 136.7383 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 144.953 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 17.032 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1083 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 30.60. Question 16 explored the role of the substitute teacher in providing feedback of the day’s events and lesson to the classroom teacher. Substitute teachers, at 81.2%, felt they were doing a great job of informing the classroom teacher about how the day went. On the other hand, only 48% of teachers felt substitutes left them enough information. Administrators, the stakeholder group with the lowest support of the statement at 27.4%, were even less supportive about adequate information being left by substitute teachers. Results from the Focus Groups, Question 9, and this question prompted the development of the Substitute Teacher Input Form (see Appendix S). The initial draft form was being field tested by LACOE in May 2002. The goal of the form was: a) To specifically improve communications between teachers and substitute teachers and b) to keep administrators informed about the communications that was taking place between teachers and substitute teachers. In its final form, the questionnaire will be printed on NCR paper allowing the teacher, administrator, and substitute teacher to maintain a copy for their records. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 16 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Figure 4.17 Question 17 When a School Administrator is called to a Sub’s Classroom, it is a Reflection of the Substitute’s Management Skills 80 70 60 50 - Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.47 Group Tabulation Question 17 Question 17 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 39 221 342 602 % within Q17 6.5% 36.7% 56.8% 100.0% % within Grp 54.9% 67.0% 59.5% 61.7% 1.00 Count 32 109 233 374 % within 8.6% 29.1% 62.3% 100.0% Q17 % within Grp 45.1% 33.0% 40.5% 38.3% Total Count 71 330 575 976 % within Q17 7.3% 33.8% 58.9% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 Table 4.48 Chi-Square Test Question 17 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.455a 2 .040 Likelihood Ratio 6.500 2 .039 Linear-by-Linear Association .678 1 .410 N of valid Cases 976 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 27.21. Administrators, at 45.1%, believed that when a school administrator was called to a substitute teacher’s classroom, it was a reflection on the substitute’s management skills. Teachers, at 40.5%, supported this statement, while only 33% of substitute teachers supported this statement. This was one of only two questions where the majority of all three stakeholder groups disagreed with the statement presented on the questionnaire. Substitute teachers, 67%, teachers, 59.5%, and administrators, 54.9%, all disagreed that the presence of a school administrator in a substitute teacher’s class was a reflection on the substitute’s management skills. The lack of support for this statement was a surprise given the overwhelming support from all three stakeholders to Question 22. Question 22 states that substitute teachers are most concerned with maintaining classroom control. A review of Questions 17 and 22 together suggested that school administrators were called into a substitute’s classroom for more reasons than behavior management. One possible reason, identified in Questions 9 and 11, may have been the lack of a lesson plan or class operating procedures. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 17 presented ap value of .040 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Figure 4.18 Question 18 LACOE Policies are Clearly Stated in Materials Given to Substitute Teachers 80 60 50 E 3 Disagree B Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.49 Group Tabulation Question 18 Question 18 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 30 121 170 321 % within Q8 9.3% 37.7% 53.0% 100.0% % within Grp 52.6% 30.2% 38.2% 35.5% 1.00 Count 27 280 275 582 % within Q18 4.6% 48.1% 47.3% 100.0% % within Grp 47.4% 69.8% 61.8% 64.5% Total Count 57 401 445 903 % within Q18 6.3% 44.4% 49.3% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 Table 4.50 Chi-Square Test Question 18 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.6833 2 .001 Likelihood Ratio 13.453 2 .001 Linear-by-Linear Association .056 1 .813 N of valid Cases 903 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 20.26. At 69.8%, substitute teachers support Question 18, which stated that LACOE policies were clearly stated in materials given to them. Teachers, many of whom came from the substitute teacher ranks, also supported this statement at 61.8%. Administrators, at 47.4%, were the only stakeholder group that did not support this statement. A district’s policies and procedures were identified in the literature as playing a major role in training for substitute teachers. Currently these policies and procedures are provided on handouts to new substitute teachers when they attend the current training/sign-up program. Time spent in this area has been greatly expanded in the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program. As LACOE administrators will be participating as trainers in the policies and procedures part of the program, it is expected that they will become more familiar with the material presented to substitute teachers in this area. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 18 presented a p value of .001 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 Figure 4.19 Question 19 School Administrators Support Substitute Teachers when they have Difficulties Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers II Disagree H Agree Table 4.51 Group Tabulation Question 19 Question 19 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 8 110 185 303 % within Q19 2.6% 36.3% 61.1% 100.0% % within Grp 8.9% 30.5% 33.4% 30.1% 1.00 Count 82 251 369 702 % within Q19 11.7% 35.8% 52.6% 100.0% % within Grp 91.1% 69.5% 66.6% 69.9% Total Count 90 361 554 1005 % within Q19 9.0% 35.9% 55.1% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 Table 4.52 Chi-Square Test Question 19 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 22.1033 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 26.770 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 15.199 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1005 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 27.13. Evaluation of data from previous questions demonstrated that the stakeholder group responsible for a specific task rated their performance at a higher rate than the remaining two stakeholder groups. This pattern continued in Question 19 where it was stated that school administrators supported substitute teachers when they had difficulties. A high level of support of 91.1 % of administrators felt they supported substitute teachers. Unfortunately for the administrators, only 69.5% of substitute teachers felt they were supported. This was actually higher than the 66.6% level of support reported by the teachers. In this particular case, administrators were seeing their interactions with substitute teachers as supportive, however substitute teachers did not perceive those same actions as supportive. This was another area where communication between stakeholders needed to be improved. It is expected that the Substitute Teacher Input Form will assist administrators in monitoring their interaction with substitute teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Another possible reason for substitute teachers not feeling supported by administrators may be the physical make-up of LACOE PAUs. With numerous classes located throughout a large geographic area, it is not unusual that the only contact a substitute teacher may have with an administrator would be when the administrator calls the substitute teacher on his/her cell phone as the administrator visits classes within the PAU. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 19 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 Figure 4.20 Question 20 The Substitute Finder Unit is able to assist me when I have Questions U Disagree ■Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Table 4.53 Group Tabulation Question 20 Question 20 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 19 103 243 365 % within Q20 5.2% 28.2% 66.6% 100.0% % within Grp 21.8% 26.7% 46.5% 36.6% 1.00 Count 68 283 280 631 % within Q20 10.8% 44.8% 44.4% 100.0% % within Grp 78.2% 73.3% 53.5% 63.4% Total Count 87 386 523 996 % within Q20 8.7% 38.8% 52.5% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 Table 4.54 Chi-Square Test Question 20 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 46.424a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 47.272 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 42.340 1 .000 N of valid Cases 996 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 31.88. Question 20 dealt with the Substitute Finder Unit, a unit important, but for different reasons, to all three stakeholder groups. Stakeholders responded to the statement that the Substitute Finder Unit was able to assist me when I had questions. Administrators, the stakeholder group that gave the highest support to this statement, were at a 78.2% level. Support for administrators from the Substitute Unit included the major areas of: a) Getting new applicants hired in a timely manner, b) getting classes covered with a substitute teacher, and c) getting the correct payroll for substitute teachers. Substitute teachers, at 73.3%, were also supportive of the assistance given by the Substitute Finder Unit. Services provided to substitutes included the major areas of: a) Securing work (substitute assignments), b) resolving pay issues, c) assisting with credential renewal, and d) making adjustments to personal information (e.g., inputting new phone numbers). Of the three stakeholder groups, teachers, at 53.5%, found the Substitute Finder Unit to be the least supportive. Services provided to teachers by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 Substitute Finder Unit included the major areas of: a) Securing a substitute teacher for their absence, b) making adjustments to a teacher’s work assignments (e.g., movement from one site to another), and c) verifying the time and date a teacher reported an absence and requested a substitute teacher. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 20 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 Figure 4.21 Question 21 Communication Exists Between Teachers, Administrators, and Substitute Teachers 80 70 H Disagree B Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.55 Group Tabulation Question 21 Question 21 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 21 145 350 516 % within Q21 4.1% 28.1% 67.8% 100.0% % within Grp 24.4% 40.4% 55.8% 48.1% 1.00 Count 65 214 277 556 % within Q21 11.7% 38.5% 49.8% 100.0% % within Grp 75.6% 59.6% 44.2% 51.9% Total Count 86 359 627 1072 % within Q21 8.0% 33.5% 58.5% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 Table 4.56 Chi-Square Test Question 21 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 42.8403 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 43.984 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 42.795 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1072 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 41.40. Less than half the teachers, at 44.2%, felt that communication existed between teachers, administrators, and substitute teachers. Administrators, at 75.6%, strongly supported the statement that communication did exist between all three stakeholders. Substitute teachers, at 59.6%, also supported the statement, but to a lesser degree. Data from this question supported the need for a countywide site based manual for substitute teachers. Focus Groups identified the need for PAU manuals (using a standardized LACOE format) that would convey both policies/procedures and site information (e.g., location of staff restrooms). Again, the Substitute Teacher Input Form was also seen as a way to increase communication between all stakeholder groups. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 21 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 Figure 4.22 Question 22 Substitute Teachers are most Concerned with Maintaining Classroom Control 90 80 70 60 G > O ) 50 ■ S c 0 ) o fe 40 Q . 30 20 10 0 Disagree ■ Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.57 Group Tabulation Question 22 Question 22 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 16 61 132 209 % within Q22 7.7% 29.2% 63.2% 100.0% % within Grp 17.6% 14.3% 18.8% 17.1% 1.00 Count 75 366 571 1012 % within Q22 7.4% 36.2% 56.4% 100.0% % within Grp 82.4% 85.7% 81.2% 82.9% Total Count 91 427 703 1221 % within Q22 7.5% 35.0% 57.6% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 Table 4.58 Chi-Square Test Question 22 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.7913 2 .150 Likelihood Ratio 3.874 2 .144 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.827 1 .176 N of valid Cases 1221 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 15.58. One statement that was strongly supported by all stakeholders was that substitute teachers were most concerned with maintaining classroom control. Substitute teachers themselves, at 85.7%, voiced the strongest support for this statement. Administrators, at 82.4%, and teachers, at 81.2%, closely echoed the support given this statement by substitute teachers. All three stakeholder groups saw the need for classroom control by substitute teachers. Without classroom control, no teaching can take place. Classroom management (including behavior management and student discipline) is so important that an entire afternoon session is dedicated to it in the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program. Classroom management was not only covered in material from LACOE but it was also included in the Substitute Teacher Elandbook from Utah State University. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 22 presented a p value of .150 indicating no significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 Figure 4.23 Question 23 Feedback from Administrators and Teachers is Important to Substitute Teachers 1 0 0 1 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - < D O ) <0 1 50 - s a “■ 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 - Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers U Disagree ■Agree Table 4.59 Group Tabulation Question 23 Question 23 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 4 14 46 64 % within Q23 6.3% 21.9% 71.9% 100.0% % within Grp 3.8% 3.0% 5.6% 4.6% 1.00 Count 100 457 770 1327 % within Q23 7.5% 34.4% 58.0% 100.0% % within Grp 96.2% 97.0% 94.4% 95.4% Total Count 104 471 816 1391 % within Q23 7.5% 33.9% 58.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.60 Chi-Square Test Question 23 149 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 4.977a 2 .083 Likelihood Ratio 5.249 2 .072 Linear-by-Linear Association 3.499 1 .061 N of valid Cases 1391 a 1 cell (16.7%) had expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 4.79. Question 23 identified feedback from administrators and teachers as being important to substitute teachers. All three stakeholder groups strongly supported this statement. Substitute teachers, at 97%, were the strongest supporters of this statement. Administrators closely followed them at 96.2%, and teachers, at 94.4%. Again, the need for a site handbook, detailed lesson plans, and the Substitute Teacher Input Form was documented. All of these items pointed to the need for increased communication between all three stakeholder groups. No one stakeholder group provides services to students in isolation of the other two stakeholder groups. When information is shared and everyone has an understanding of the program and curriculum content, students will be the ultimate winners of this collaboration. Statistically, one cell had an expected count less than five, which violates one of the assumptions of the chi-squared test. Therefore results of Question 23 should be described descriptively and not statistically. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 Figure 4.24 Question 24 Substitute Teachers Receive Feedback from Teachers and Administrators 60 50 H Disagree ■ Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.61 Group Tabulation Question 24 Question 24 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 34 187 269 490 % within Q24 6.9% 38.2% 54.9% 100.0% % within Grp 44.7% 53.6% 53.8% 53.0% 1.00 Count 42 162 231 435 % within Q24 9.7% 37.2% 53.1% 100.0% % within Grp 55.3% 46.4% 46.2% 47.0% Total Count 76 349 500 925 % within Q24 8.2% 37.7% 54.1% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 Table 4.62 Chi-Square Test Question 24 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 2.259a 2 .323 Likelihood Ratio 2.255 2 .324 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.135 1 .287 N of valid Cases 925 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 35.74. Only administrators, at 55.3%, supported the statement that substitute teachers received feedback from teachers and administrators. The answers to this question were actually quite surprising. All three stakeholder groups were over 94% in their support of feedback from administrators and teachers being important to substitute teachers. However when it came to giving that feedback, just over 50% of the administrators felt substitute teachers received that support from both teachers and administrators. Teachers, at 46.2%, and substitute teachers, at 46.4%, were almost identical concerning the feedback substitute teachers actually received from teachers and administrators. This was another area of communication that, once identified as lacking, should be easy to rectify. Increased attention to lesson plans (both in their writing and their implementation) and to the information received from the Substitute Teacher Input Form will aid in the receiving of feedback for all stakeholders. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 24 presented a p value of .323 indicating no significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 Figure 4.25 Question 25 There are Currently Enough Substitute Teachers Working for LACOE 100 90 80 70 60 f f l u t H Disagree ■Agree Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Table 4.63 Group Tabulation Question 25 Question 25 Administrators Substitute Teachers Teachers Total .00 Count 70 169 635 874 % within Q25 8.0% 19.3% 72.7% 100.0% % within Grp 78.7% 66.8% 92.6% 85.0% 1.00 Count 19 84 51 154 % within Q25 12.3% 54.5% 33.1% 100.0% % within Grp 21.3% 33.2% 7.4% 15.0% Total Count 89 253 686 1028 % within Q25 8.7% 24.6% 66.7% 100.0% % within Grp 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.64 Chi-Square Test Question 25 154 Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 99.455a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 91.270 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 60.412 1 .000 N of valid Cases 1028 a 0 cells (.0%) had an expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count was 13.33. None of the three stakeholder groups supported the statement that there were currently enough substitute teachers working for LACOE. Teachers, at 7.4%, were the least supportive of this statement followed by administrators at 21.3%. Substitute teachers themselves only supported this statement by 33.2%. Human Resource Services was very anxious to hear from substitute teachers on this statement. It remains a delicate balance for all districts trying to maintain the right number of substitute teachers that LACOE strives to have enough substitute teachers so that classes do not go unfilled (no substitute teacher available to teach that day), and having too many substitute teachers (not enough work for substitute teachers so they move to another district). Data from the fall of 2001 (see Appendix T) supported the belief that there was a need for more substitute teachers (a 94.79% fill rate in October). The current national fill rate by school districts for teacher absences is 95%. However, since January of 2002 there has been a consistent fill rate of between 98.15% and 99%. The Substitute Finder Unit began monitoring the number of calls from substitute Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 teachers calling the Substitute Finder Unit looking for work instead of waiting for the automatic system to call them. In the spring of 2002, the LACOE Substitute Finder Unit had achieved that delicate balance. Statistically (using .05 as the level of significance), data from the chi-square analysis on Question 25 presented a p value of .000 indicating a significant finding. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.65a Chi-Square Summary Analysis (Questions 1-13) Questions x2 Value P Administrators Substitute Teachers Teac lers Disagree % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree % Agree % 1 5.1 <.078* 0 100 3.5 96.5 4.4 95.6 2 76.1 <.000 2.0 98.0 20.3 79.7 5.5 94.5 3 34.5 <.000 0 100 10.5 89.5 3.7 96.3 4 1.1 <.571 44.2 55.8 36.7 60.3 38.2 61.8 5 57.9 <.000 25.3 74.7 21.1 78.9 43.3 56.7 6 33.4 <.000 11.8 88.2 6.5 93.5 17.9 82.1 7 17.1 <.000 16.0 84.0 37.9 62.1 31.5 68.5 8 6.9 <.031* 0 100 5.4 94.6 3.9 96.1 9 113.5 <.000 61.8 38.2 73.8 26.2 40.0 60.0 10 82.4 <.000 57.9 42.1 62.1 37.9 33.6 66.4 11 100.1 <.000 21.8 78.2 45.1 54.9 17.0 83.0 12 72.7 <.000 47.2 52.8 63.8 36.2 36.0 64.0 13 16.0 <.000 2.0 98.0 13.0 87.0 7.7 92.3 CT\ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.65b Chi-Square Summary Analysis (Questions 14-25) Questions y l Value P Administrators Substitute Teachers Teac lers Disagree % Agree % Disagree % Agree % Disagree % Agree % 14 4.7 <.096 39.7 60.3 47.2 52.8 40.5 59.5 15 3.2 <.203* 0.9 99.1 4.7 95.3 4.0 96.0 16 136.7 <.000 72.6 27.4 18.8 81.2 52.0 48.0 17 6.5 <.040 54.9 45.1 67.0 33.0 59.5 40.5 18 13.7 <.001 52.6 47.4 30.2 69.8 38.2 61.5 19 22.1 <.000 8.9 91.1 30.5 69,5 33.4 66.6 20 46.4 <.000 21.8 78.2 26.7 73.3 46.5 53.5 21 42.8 <.000 24.4 75.6 40.4 59.6 55.8 44.2 22 3.8 <.150 17.6 82.4 14.3 85.7 18.8 81.2 23 5.0 <.083* 3.8 96.2 3.0 97.0 5.6 94.4 24 2.3 <323 44.7 55.3 53.6 46.4 53.8 46.2 25 99.5 <.000 78.7 21.3 66.8 33.2 92.6 7.4 * At least one of the cells has an expected count less than five which violates one of the assumptions of the chi-squared test. Therefore, results of this question should be described descriptively and not statistically. 158 In order to consider an analysis of variance, a Pearson Correlation Matrix was performed. Results of this 25 x 25 matrix are presented in Table 4.66a and Table 4.66b. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.66a Pearson Correlation Matrix (Questions 1-13) 159 Q 13 .2 3 6 .3 1 7 .397 .063 .2 2 0 .183 .3 6 9 .4 0 4 .073 C O o 1 — 4 t- o H 00 00 p o o p N " C N T — 4 .2 3 4 o m p .0 6 0 .049 .0 6 8 .0 7 6 .0 5 9 in < n r — 4 .331 .075 -.0 3 7 < N in V O fN C O m rn r - ~ V O m O n r~ o o 00 O V 1 — 4 C N O N f" fN in m o C O C O a in C N r- C M o in O O r- O fN o oo N " N " C O 1 — 4 fN m vo ^ t " N O Tf N " o T -4 p co p p p p p N O p T — 4 p p T — 4 C N T — l C O cn p C O r — 4 t — 4 co O oo C O t — 4 r- n o m N O N " O N 1 — H o o r- t-- r- ^r av ov o rn 1 — 4 O v r- 00 in in O oo r- I N co p 1 m N O m N O O o C N o o O N C N vo N O fN in C O C O © 1 — 4 r — 4 co O O T — 4 N O p V O t — 4 p r — 4 C N 1 — 4 C O cn P C O t — 4 r — 4 C O P o * ■ 4 N O C O 00 r- C O fN m in o o ov C O av O n Tf vo oo m o ov ov vo C O a r- C O r - ~ N O N O (N n |- o o o o C N 1 — 4 r- C O C O O N 1 — 4 Tf C N C O vo r- o p co 1 * O © T _ 1 p — p v q T — 4 in C N C N ‘ J C O p C N ro 1 — 4 1 — 4 C O p O N o O rn in ov m oo in o o O N C O co co O C O Tt o O N r — 4 C O C N O N av N“ O' in V C O N V O o fN m T — 4 o ■ 't N O r - ~ - r " ~ O i t Tt C N O O O v C N O 1 — 4 C N r- o p C O 1 * O p ' “1 T — 4 p N O «n P p i — 4 C N 1 — 4 C O p r — 4 C O r — 4 1 — 4 C O o Q O r- r — C O C O in m o o in in ''t vo ov N O vo V O N " N- V O T |- i — 4 vo O' o in O n o T f r © oo o T — 4 fN in 00 o o O N o C O C N o co V O C N O V N O o rn C O rn 1 — 4 r - H (N C N T — 4 1 — 4 T — 4 p p Tt p p p r - 4 1 — 4 O o t — 4 C N o 1 * oo V O O N C M C N O o o co 00 in N O ov N " o vo o o vo ov co o O C N m r- o n o o i — 4 V O o o oo C O N O N O in vo O v r ~ - o oo 1 — 4 m vo r^ N O in r - ~ o 1 — 4 C N p C O p C N O O O p C O O p 1 * p p p p o p C N p o r- " ft 00 V C O o o in co < N rn C O C O C N oo vo C N V O C O oo N * N O C N 00 oo O' O ' * i ' 4 in fN o o o C N N O in N " 00 o 00 C N N” m C N V O m N * 00 p O p r~ l C N T — 4 < N C N O O p p T — 4 T — 4 1 — 4 1 — 4 O ■ p 1 — 4 i — ^ 1 — 4 1 — 4 C N 1 — 4 p in r - " fN O N in o o V C fN C O av m N O co o C O fN r - ~ N- (N 00 vo r- i — 4 T — ( N " vo O' in N O p t" O in p o T — H r^ C N N O p N " p 1 * O 1 * O r o p C N p N O p i t O T — 4 i— 4 r- p t — 4 p 00 p p t — 4 C N 1 — 4 < N N O O 00 p m fN r" o o in 00 fN co in r- r- co rn N O T — 1 00 1 — H t — 4 N " O V ov m in O' oo in in o in C N r - H O N O r- C O C N N O N O C N O V o fN V O N " N - 1 — 4 C O o O v o p p p T ~‘ ! P p C O C O C O O m T — 4 C N p C O < N C O 1 — 4 r — 4 rn t — 4 m V O N O o o r- O n O N r- m 00 i * — t (N o C N 00 rn 00 r * > vo O N vo r- V O O' in " it o m in o av O N P - * (N r- O N C N o C N rn i — 4 t — 4 1 — 4 C N r T .— 1 O P p p co O p 1 — 4 P m p p \’ o p p i * p i — 4 C N O i’ m ■ * t o o N O fN fN r- N O T — 4 o C O C O vo r~ ro o 1 — 4 -- 00 O N 00 C O m O O O V O 00 o n t - m N O i — i ^t in N O C O r ~ » C N r - H o oo r* > , o 4" o o C N m 1 — 4 C O I-- 1 4 1 — 4 nr p O p P C O T — 4 i 1 1 4 r - 4 C O 1 — 4 i — 4 i * t— 4 p p p p o C N O » * t H o o N- N O in r - ~ ^r 00 r ~ - o N O 00 in N O O i " 4 in N O o r- C N in oo C O ' t N- jV L o o 00 m oo in C V N O o in r - ~ 00 in rn O N o 00 O 1 — 4 C N 00 O N C N 00 r~ O i 1 — 4 1 — 4 p o 1 — 4 C N T — I C O o o p o C N o p o O t — 4 1 — 4 o o C N o Q 1 0 2 m O Q 4 i n O' VO a 07 | 0 8 09 1 Q 1 0 o ' 0 1 2 0 1 3 Q 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 6 017 | 0 1 8 0 1 9 Q 2 0 Q 21 Q 22 0 2 3 0 2 4 i n C N a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 4.66b Pearson Correlation M atrix (Questions 14-25) 160 Q 2 5 - . 0 7 4 O n C N 1 1 < 1 * SO r — I r in Ov r - H . 0 8 6 00 00 p .0 0 7 - . 0 4 6 . 0 7 4 .0 7 3 I ------------------ . 0 4 5 .0 4 3 - . 0 3 7 o r - H - . 0 2 9 .2 7 7 . 0 7 9 r —H 00 r - H r - H o p .2 3 5 . 2 5 0 in V O r - H .0 8 3 .2 3 5 o o o r— H f s N - O r'- cn H" 00 C O r - H O V s o in cn in cn vo N- vo in <N 00 O O vo m o o in O ' r~- r-~ i o SO r H t " so C N so m r - H oo CN in C N OS O V in m SO o cn P o © cn O r —H p p cn p cn cn p P p cn r - H cn p C N in C N p r - H C N cn Nf SO Ov r — H C N C N "sf O V OS 00 o r - H oo in ov O r - so O V O V r - H o o cn cn O oo m H - cn r - H H- IC O OS r —H cn cn vo cn o cn r - in vo o in C N r-~ o vo 00 C N C N C N p C N C N p C N r - H r - H r - H r - H cn <N CN p p I p ’ "I C N p r —H C N p fN 00 o O n ov r - H so O SO <N ov r - in in OS O i n <N cn rn m 00 o o r —H vo in o CM r - H r —H r - H <N co SO C N O CN in rt- in SO r - H N “ 00 r - o r - H cn o in vo t -h o r - H r —H r - H r —H o ,_ H 1 T — ™ ! T “ ! T—H ' 1 (N o i t C N CN C N (N C N r - H CN in cn so T t ’xf" o H" cn o O V • n Os r - H N* CN O o 00 Os 00 o o G \ cn r - H r—H vo r - SO C N vo m <N o cn in 00 so o cn (N in in o p O cn r - H r —1 H p p cn cn cn cn p r - H cn r - H rn in T t — C N p in C N o fN CN cn r - H o r - so 00 C O H" cn C N so O O O V ■^r 00 vo so o o C N cn Os oo in o O O C N on N" r-~ C N SO cn ov r - H C N cn r-~ oo oo vo cn cn ^t- o N- r - H in Ov cn O O i* C N p *"1 O O r —H C N C N C N P O N p CN ^ H cn p H p C N r - H O N C N OS r - 00 00 oo cn OS Ov O O cn r - 00 O N in m C N o o vo in cn so C N r - H o C N oo N" so oo m in o 00 O V V D on so 00 Tt- r~- r - o V O o O O V o > n p p p p r - H O »— < C N CN cn cn p cn ! CN r — H p r - H cn in C N p rn C N 00 o ov cn r H C N vo so H" o V D o Ov OS T f (N C N vo o o C N vo N" cn f'- in r —H o r - H cn <N r - H r - H C N C N cn V D r - H T|- O O r - N- o N” cn oo c - so C N 00 r - H p p cn p r - H p P cn cn cn cn O cn r —H CN r —H r —H p cn cn r - H p cn H so 00 00 H- C N o SO N- Cv cN o N- O V C N o o vo N" 00 » - H cN o vo OS o O o C N O r-~ C N 00 cn N " cn SO N - O o r - cn in O O in in r - o r - H O r - H P O o O r —H T — H i —H p r - H p r - H r - H r - H r - H r - H p p H p so in r - H o* C N O O SO so 1 —1 SO C N O V r 1 1 : 4 o in cn o o C N C N m T t* r - H in OS N* o oo m cn O N r —H 00 r*s SO rt" r - (N cn m H cn o O r - r - V O cn r- C N o t’ r C N r—H 1 * p C N O N C N C N p cn r H r - H C N C N C N cn C N r —H cn p If) r - H o o r —H C N 00 o so O ov N" Ov H- cn o o CO O V C N in O V N" o in vo OS a o 00 o C N H" o r~~ Os ^1" r - H O V m r - o m Tf 00 O r - H cn 00 o C N r —H C N r - H p r - H p C N r - H C N r - H r —H p r - H r - H p r - H r—H o r - H r - H C N p l' Tf O cn r - V O C O CN H" OS cn ov r - H" O o r n in N" N" C N 00 o s O O cn p o Os o (N V O SO r - os o o C N o Tf- <N o r - r - H 'N- 00 00 00 C N so O H o o r - H o cn o r - H o r - H in m in in r —H r H r H cn r —H cn cn C N p r —H C N r - H rH O ' N O 0 3 Q4 i Q 5 0 6 Q 7 80 60 Q10 Q li 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 Q22 023 024 Q25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 The analysis of variance, or factor analysis, utilized a weighted principal component analysis with five components extracted. Significance was identified at .3 and above. Results of the analysis of variance are presented in Table 4.67. Table 4.67 Analysis o f Variance Cl C2 C3 C4 C5 Qi .261 .473 9.260E-02 -.170 -.348 Q2 .251 .519 -.338 -8.742E-02 .365 Q3 .214 .610 -.249 -.233 .208 Q4 .561 -.135 4.539E-02 7.410E-02 -4.350E-02 Q5 .170 .363 .390 .553 -3.610E-02 Q6 .279 .292 .385 .198 -.445 Q7 .225 .519 .105 .529 .165 Q8 .313 .617 -9.980E-02 -.143 -5.750E-02 Q9 .679 -.212 -.436 .164 -8.046E-02 Q10 .717 -.197 ..412 .151 -.148 Q ll .712 -.166 -.420 7.613E-02 -7.124E-02 Q12 .674 -.197 -.341 .139 -5.743E-02 Q13 .288 .640 -3.043E-02 5.921E-02 9.816E02 Q14 .706 -.159 -.108 .126 -.107 Q15 .327 .303 -.125 -.352 -.239 Q16 .485 -.170 .325 -5.387E-02 -.227 Q17 .258 -2.511E-02 3.484E-02 .141 .527 Q18 .583 -.159 .110 -.198 2.501E-02 Q19 .626 -.131 .217 -.159 .166 Q20 .485 -.134 .325 -.143 .199 Q21 .655 -.193 .296 -8.855E-02 .171 Q22 .363 .100 .312 -.252 -1.984E-03 Q23 .425 .436 .209 -.116 -4.896E-02 Q24 .619 -.167 .205 -5.996E02 .159 Q25 .245 -.235 .485 9.968E-03 .140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 Component One included Questions 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24 which dealt with content (e.g., lesson plans), organization (e.g., classroom schedule and behavior plans), and communication (e.g., between teachers, substitute teachers, administrators, and the Substitute Finder Unit) in LACOE classrooms. Statistically (using .3 as the level of significance), data from the analysis of variance on the above identified questions indicates a significant finding. Component Two included Questions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 19, and 23 which dealt with the importance of substitutes (e.g., an essential part of education), training (e.g., serve on school committees and attend regular in-service meetings), and feedback (e.g., evaluation and feedback) in LACOE classrooms. Statistically (using .3 as the level of significance), data from the analysis of variance on the above identified questions indicates a significant finding. Summary o f Selected Questionnaire Findings The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire produced the following data: 1. Females composed the majority of administrators and teachers, however males composed the majority of substitute teachers. 2. Substitute teachers had the least amount of experience in education of all stakeholders. Nearly 50% of LACOE substitute teachers had five or less years in the field of education. 3. In 1-13 years, 66 LACOE administrators will retire. This means HRS will need to replace almost 63% of the administrators who participated in this study. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 4. In 1-13 years, 246 LACOE teachers will retire. This means HRS will need to replace almost 26% of the teachers who participated in this study. 5. The majority of all stakeholders had been in their current position five or less years. 6. Teachers had the largest number (102) and highest percentage (79.1%) of staff serving LACOE the longest (26-30 years). 7. Over 95% of stakeholders identified substitute teachers as an essential part of the education process. 8. Over 89% of stakeholders supported the need for a County-wide training program for substitute teachers. 9. Only 51.8% of teachers supported having interested substitute teachers on school committees. 10. Over 94% of stakeholders supported training for substitute teachers in the area of student diversity and learning. 11. Over 95% of all stakeholders believed substitute teachers should use lesson plans provided by the classroom teacher. 12. Teachers, at 60%, believed lesson plans were available in LACOE classrooms. However, only 26.2% of substitute teachers were able to locate those lesson plans. 13. Teachers, at 66.4%, believed lesson plans were detailed enough to teach lessons effectively. However, only 37.9% of substitute teachers supported that statement. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 14. Teachers, at 83%, believed classroom schedules and procedures were found in the classroom. However, only 54.9% of substitute teachers supported that statement. 15. Teachers, at 64%, believed behavior management/discipline procedures were found in the classroom. However, only 36.2% of substitute teachers supported that statement. 16. Between 52% and 61% of all stakeholders believed the classroom responsibilities of substitute teachers were clearly defined. 17. Over 81% of all stakeholders believed substitute teachers were most concerned with maintaining classroom control. 18. Over 94% of all stakeholders believed feedback from administrators and teachers to substitute teachers were important. 19. Between 46% and 53% of all stakeholders believed substitute teachers received feedback from administrators and teachers. In summary, data collected from the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire was part of the information utilized in the development of the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program. Data also supported the belief that all stakeholders knew what should have been happening in classrooms (e.g., using lesson plans provided by the classroom teacher), but in reality wasn’t. In addition, data supported the belief that an increase in communication between all stakeholders (e.g., updated, detailed lesson plans) could lead to immediate Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 improvement in the instruction provided by substitute teachers. All stakeholders did support a training program for substitute teachers. Key Elements Having completed a questionnaire on the perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at LACOE, a thorough review of the literature, and having identified: a) Legal mandates, b) policy requirements, and c) the current needs of substitute teachers employed by LACOE, a Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program was developed for use by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The Focus Groups provided additional input into the content of the program curriculum. In addition to goals for every substitute teacher, specific requests from the Focus Groups that were incorporated into the training program were that: a) Participants be given instruction on how to work with paraeducators, and b) participants job shadow a teacher from all three educational programs. When the review of literature was conducted, the Substitute Teaching Institute at Utah State University was identified as a leader in the field of staff development for substitute teachers. The institute currently publishes three substitute teacher handbooks: (a) Elementary K-8, (b) secondary 6-12, and (c) K-12. These substitute teacher handbooks are constantly revised and updated. These handbooks were designed for use in school districts across the country and are adaptable to specific student populations (e.g., students served by LACOE). They are designed as hands on reference books for substitute teachers. They provide information specific Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 to educational settings, classroom management, teaching methods, and contain activities and lessons. The curriculum contained in the Los Angles County Office of Education Preservice Substitute Teacher Staff Development Program came from two sources: (a) LACOE and (b) the K-12 Substitute Teacher Handbook developed by the Substitute Teaching Institute at Utah State University. The information provided by LACOE was specific to LACOE itself (e.g., description of students, policies, and procedures). The information provided by the Substitute Teaching Institute was general to teaching (e.g., classroom management, teaching strategies). By breaking the curriculum down into two categories (e.g., a LACOE specific curriculum and a general teaching curriculum), it will be very easy for districts to adapt the LACOE curriculum to meet their needs. The LACOE specific curriculum can be used as a model by districts that can substitute their own information (e.g., description of students, policies, and procedures) for LACOE’s information. By utilizing general teaching materials from the Substitute Teaching Institute, districts will have a choice of handbooks: (a) Elementary K-8, (b) secondary 6-12, or (c) K-12. AB 2269, if enacted, would allow districts one year and $50,000 to modify the LACOE curriculum to meet their needs. Even without the funding of AB 2269, the costs to districts to modify the LACOE curriculum will be minimal. The Focus Groups (LACOE administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers) developed the following goals for the LACOE Substitute Teachers: Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 1. A LACOE substitute teacher will be able to execute lessons plans prepared for them by the classroom teacher so that there is no break in instruction or lesson sequence. Rationale: There should be continual student learning, even in the absence of the regular classroom teacher. Substitute teachers will understand lesson plans, teaching road maps, and know how to read and implement them. Addressed: Session 2 (AM) 2. A LACOE substitute teacher will have an understanding of the student populations served by LACOE and an understanding of teaching itself in order to be an effective guest teacher for regular classroom teachers. Rationale: As substitute teachers account for almost two years of education for at-risk or special education students, there is no room during the LACOE school year for lost days or babysitting. Addressed: Session 1 (AM), Session 2 (AM), Session 2 (PM), Session 3 (AM), and Session 3 (PM). 3. A LACOE substitute teacher will be knowledgeable concerning policies as they relate to: a) Professional ethics, b) confidentiality, c) negligence, d) sexual harassment, e) medical procedures, f) emergency procedures (medical and crisis intervention), and g) standard operating procedures (including dress code, professional day, available resources, working with paraeducators, and security procedures). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168 Rationale: These are the day-to-day operating procedures of LACOE, which constitutes basic survival knowledge for any LACOE educator. Addressed: Session 1 (AM) and Session 1 (PM) 4. A LACOE substitute teacher will be knowledgeable about student learning. Rationale: Knowing that students learn differently will assist the substitute teacher in understanding the reasoning behind a teacher’s lesson plans. Addressed: Session 2 (AM), Session 3 (AM), and Session 3 (PM) 5. A LACOE substitute teacher will be knowledgeable about student diversity and learning. Rationale: Not only do students learn by having lesson material presented to their strength, substitutes must also know that a student’s ethnicity and culture influence how they learn. Addressed: Session 3 (AM) and Session 3 (PM) 6. A LACOE substitute teacher will be knowledgeable concerning standards based language arts, math, social studies, and science curriculum. Rationale: Substitute teachers must know the performance level that is expected of LACOE students and how state standards have been incorporated into lessons. Addressed: Session 2 (AM) Information from the review of literature, analysis of data gained from the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire, input from the Focus Groups, and input from LACOE field specialists (e.g., coordinator of nurses, county counsel, BTSA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 support teachers, and coordinator of the EL program) was all taken into consideration in the development of a preservice program for substitute teachers. The LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program is hereby presented: Session 1 (AM) • What to Expect from the 5 Day Training Program • Participants Interview and Introduce Each Other • Overview of LACOE • Overview of DAE, JCCS, DSE (Divisions of LACOE) • Geographic Locations of LACOE Classes • Standard Operating Procedures by Division (e.g., working with paraeducators) • Safety and Emergency Procedures Session 1 (PM) • Ethics • Confidentiality • Avoiding Negligence (e.g., reporting of suspected child abuse) • LACOE Sexual Harassment Policy • Medical Concerns (e.g., dispensing of medications) • LACOE Expectations of Substitute Teachers • LACOE Expectations of PAUs • Risk Management (e.g., lifting techniques) Session 2 (AM) • LACOE Curriculum Standards (aligned with California State Academic Standards and Framework) • Pedagogy and Teaching Strategies • Interpreting/Implementing Lesson Plans Session 2 (PM) • Classroom Management (all three divisions) • Behavior Management (special education) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 • Student Discipline • Documentation Session 3 (AM) • Introduction to Cultural Diversity (stereotypical thinking, low student expectations) • Teaching Strategies for the EL Population • Communication Skills • Listening Skills Session 3 (PM) • Learning Styles • A Substitute’s “Bag of Tricks” • Prepare Participants for Job Shadow Experience Session 4 (AM) • Job Shadow in a School Session 4 (PM) • Job Shadow in a School Session 5 (AM) • Job Shadow in a School Session 5 (PM) • Discussion of Job Shadow Experience • Identify and Address Areas Requiring Further Discussion • Course Evaluation • The Substitute Finder System • Employment Sign-ups A daily schedule (see Appendix O) was developed for delivery of the preservice training program, as was an initial implementation schedule (see Appendix P). The LACOE Educational Telecommunications Network (ETN) has Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 joined with Human Resource Services and Educational Programs to produce and implement the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program. While Human Resource Services and Educational Programs will be responsible for the content of the program, Educational Telecommunications Network will collaborate to enhance the presentation of inservice material and develop a computer disk (PC/Mac) of the entire inservice. This CD will be given to all substitute teachers completing the preservice training program and will allow them to review specific topics (e.g., classroom management), after the original training is complete. It was decided to offer the training to current substitute teachers first. Current substitute teachers would not have to job shadow or go through employee sign-ups. This would reduce their training to three days. The three days of training would contain the same content that new substitute teachers would receive. Current substitute teachers will be offered the training program first because: a) It is the goal of LACOE to have all substitute teachers complete this training program and b) since substitutes who complete the program will receive a pay raise from $110 per day to $140 per day, LACOE wanted to support current employees in having the opportunity to obtain a better salary. Current plans are to offer the three days of training to current employees from July 2002 to December 2002. A questionnaire (see Appendix Q) will be sent to all current substitute teachers requesting input for additional scheduling of trainings. It has already been approved to offer trainings in the evenings, on weekends, and at different geographic locations throughout Los Angeles County. The LACOE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 172 Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program is scheduled to begin for all new substitute teachers in October 2002. Issues Concerning District Implementation The curriculum contained in the Los Angeles County Office of Education Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program came from two sources: (a) LACOE and (b) the K-12 Substitute Teacher Handbook by the Substitute Teacher Institute. The information provided by LACOE was specific to LACOE itself (e.g., description of students, policies, procedures). The information provided by the Substitute Teacher Institute was general to teaching (e.g., teaching strategies, classroom management, lesson plans). By breaking the curriculum down into two categories (e.g., a LACOE specific curriculum and a general teaching curriculum), it will be very easy for districts to adapt the LACOE program to meet their needs. The curriculum that is specific to LACOE can be used as a model by districts that can substitute their own information (e.g., description of students, policies, procedures). By utilizing general teaching materials from the Substitute Teacher Institute, districts will have their choice of handbooks: (a) Elementary K-8, (b) secondary 6-12, or (c) K-12. AB 2269, if enacted, would allow districts one year and $50,000 to modify the substitute teacher preservice program endorsed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education to meet their particular needs. The districts would also have the ability to work with LACOE personnel in adapting the preservice program, as well as access to all the materials developed by LACOE. As discussed previously, there Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. are several ways in which the LACOE program could be modified and adapted to meet district needs, including having LACOE conduct district training, having LACOE conduct part of the district training, the use of videos, CDs, and internet access. Adapting this program to meet the needs of districts is part of the educational support services provided by the Los Angles County Office of Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174 CHAPTER V Summary of Findings, Conclusions, Recommendations Summary The Problem It is estimated that on any given day, substitutes are teaching 10% of the nation’s classes (Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2002). It is also estimated that districts have a 30% turnover rate for substitute teachers (Pardini, 2000). Staff development training for substitutes has been shown to increase substitute teacher satisfaction, help districts recruit and retain substitutes, and appears to be a greater predictor of success than formal education (Pardini, 2000; Smith, 2002). When we take into account the influence substitute teachers have on a student’s educational career (1 year for all K-12 students or 2 years for at-risk students), and their potential of becoming permanent employees, districts need to re-examine their status as marginal members of the educational community (Longhurst, 2000; Smith, 2000). Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) suggest that staff development needs to integrate pedagogy with content. Substitute teachers must be taught not only the content they are expected to teach but also different teaching strategies and techniques they can use to teach this content. A preservice staff development program for substitute teachers was recommended as a way of not only supporting substitute teachers, but of increasing the level of instruction for students that takes place in a classroom when a permanent teacher is absent. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study was to examine the development and implementation of a researched based preservice staff development program for substitute teachers serving the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Through use of a questionnaire, the study measured the expectations of administrators, teachers and substitute teachers on attitudes towards substitute teachers, current level of support for substitute teachers, and communication between administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers. Additionally, the study identified key elements of a preservice program for substitute teachers, presented a model preservice program, discussed state legislative influences in this area, and discussed how this preservice program may be utilized by other school districts. Population This study restricted the population selection criteria to current certificated employees of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. The three stakeholder groups identified for this study were: (a) Administrators, (b) teachers, and (c) substitute teachers. For substitute teachers, the term “current” was defined as having provided service as a substitute teacher to LACOE within the last 6 months. At the time this study was conducted, current records in LACOE Human Resource Services identified the following populations: (a) 114 administrators, (b) 1,195 teachers, and (c) 804 substitute teachers. These stakeholders were employed through LACOE educational programs (Division of Alternative Education, Division of Juvenile Court Schools, and Division of Special Education) and Human Resource Services. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176 Questions to be Answered 1. What are the perceptions of staff concerning substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at the Los Angeles County Office of Education? 2. What are the implications from literature, legal mandates, policy requirements, and experience in identifying key elements of a preservice substitute teacher staff development program? 3. What issues need to be addressed for this preservice substitute teacher staff development program to be implemented by districts other than LACOE? Methodology This case study was limited to the Los Angeles County Office of Education due to their commitment to the development of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program and to allow for in depth analysis of the program and implementation process. In addition, LACOE utilized a questionnaire to understand perceptions concerning their substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program from three LACOE stakeholder groups: a) Administrators, b) teachers, and c) substitute teachers. A broader purpose of this study was to identify how the Los Angeles County Office of Education, as an intermediate educational agency, would be able to adapt their preservice substitute teacher staff development program in order to be implemented by school districts other than LACOE To determine an appropriate substitute teacher preservice staff development program, an extensive review of literature was conducted. This review included Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ill research on staff development, staff development for substitute teachers, adult learners, student diversity, and, of course, existing staff development programs and handbooks for substitute teachers. In order to support the preservice program for substitute teachers, LACOE determined it needed to know the perceptions of their substitute teachers from their three stakeholders groups. An existing questionnaire was modified to meet the needs of LACOE and was distributed through Human Resource Services to all members of each stakeholder group. All 25 questions were answered by all stakeholders. Chi-squared analysis was used to compare the responses of the three stakeholder groups. In order to support findings from the questionnaire, LACOE conducted Focus Groups in three different geographic areas of the county. These Focus Groups were attended by all three stakeholder groups (administrators, substitute teachers, and teachers) and by all three educational divisions (Alternative Education, Juvenile Court and Community Schools, and Special Education). Information from all sources was then reviewed to develop a substitute teacher preservice staff development program that would meet the needs of all LACOE employees and of the student populations served by LACOE educational programs. Findings Having completed a questionnaire on staff perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program, an extensive review of the literature, and considered input from LACOE Focus Groups, key elements of a research based preservice staff development program for substitute teachers were identified. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 K-12 Substitute Teacher Handbook from the Substitute Teacher Institute at Utah State University was recommended as the basic “hands on” resource to be distributed to all LACOE substitute teachers. A second resource book, containing procedures and curriculum, was also developed for distribution to substitutes by LACOE. The LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program was developed to present key elements to all LACOE substitutes. Key elements included in the training are: a) Overview of LACOE, b) safety and emergency procedures, c) required trainings (e.g., child abuse reporting, sexual harassment), d) curriculum standards, e) teaching strategies (including EL populations), f) implementing lesson plans, g) classroom/behavior management, h) cultural diversity, i) learning styles, and j) communication skills. New employees will receive three days of training specific to teaching (e.g., teaching strategies, classroom management, and implementing lesson plans), one and one half days of job shadowing, and one half day of employee sign-ups. Current employees will receive the same three days of training as new employees but will be excused from the final two days of the program. This preservice program is expected to have a direct impact on student learning. Substitute teachers will enter the classroom on their first assignment prepared to execute the specific educational program for that class. Classroom teachers will be expected not only to leave lesson plans, but also to leave detailed and lesson specific plans for substitute teachers. Teaching and learning will be an Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 expected daily occurrence in every LACOE classroom including the classes where substitute teachers provide the instruction. The demographic information provided by respondents of the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire yielded interesting results, especially concerning substitute teachers. First, in a female dominated profession, almost 59% of LACOE substitutes were male. Second, almost 50% of substitutes had been in education five or less years. Third, almost 82% of substitute teachers had been in their current position five or less years, and fourth, 77% of substitute teachers had been with LACOE five or less years. In summarizing the demographic data on teachers, first, 63.5% of all LACOE teachers were female. Second, only 9.9% of teachers had been in education five or less years. The largest number of teachers (18.1%) had been in education 21-25 years. Third, teachers, at just over 50%, were closest to substitutes in the number of staff members having five or less years in their current position. Fourth, the greatest number of teachers, 27.3%, had been with LACOE five or less years. Demographic data on administrators revealed first of all that 54.7% of LACOE administrators were female. Secondly, administrators had one staff member, or 1% of their ranks, in education five or less years. They had the highest percentage, 35.2%, of staff members in education 26 - 30 years. Third, administrators had the lowest group percentage, 7.5%, of staff members in their current position five or less years. However, although this percentage was low when compared to the other two stakeholder groups, it was very high, 68.8%, when Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180 looking only at the administrators. Fourth, although only accounting for 18.6% of the group percentage for number of years with LACOE, when examining only administrators, 25.5% had been with LACOE 21-25 years. Data collected from the 25 questions provided interesting information on how substitute teachers are perceived at LACOE. Although all stakeholders identified substitute teachers as an essential part of the education process, they did not agree on having substitute teachers serve on school committees. All stakeholders supported training for substitute teachers but disagreed on how well the three stakeholders groups communicated once substitute teachers began working at school sites. The most important information gained from the questionnaire was the lack of communication between teachers and substitute teachers. While 60% of teachers reported that lesson plans were always provided in LACOE classrooms, only 26.2% of substitute teachers reported finding those lesson plans. There were also discrepancies between teachers and substitute teachers in communication concerning the detail of lesson plans, classroom schedules and procedures, behavior management/discipline procedures, and the classroom responsibilities of substitute teachers. Data from administrators suggested they suspected communication between teachers and substitute teachers was not taking place. Data from administrators also suggested that perceptions of substitute teachers could be improved at school sites (e.g., substitute teachers receive a warm welcome at LACOE PAUs) as well as communication between all three stakeholder groups. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 All three stakeholder groups, especially teachers, identified concerns with the ability of the Substitute Finder Unit to assist them. Data from the Absence Fill Rates for 2001-2002 (see Appendix T) show that the unit consistently surpasses the national absence fill rate of 95%. Again, communication, not performance, was identified as a concern. The curriculum contained in the Los Angeles County Office of Education substitute teacher preservice staff development program came from two sources: (a) LACOE and (b) the K-12 Substitute Teacher Flandbook by the Substitute Teacher Institute. The information provided by LACOE was specific to LACOE itself (e.g., description of students, policies, procedures). The information provided by the Substitute Teacher Institute was general to teaching (e.g., teaching strategies, classroom management, lesson plans). Since the curriculum has already been broken down into two categories, it will be very easy for districts to adapt the LACOE program to meet their needs. The curriculum that is specific to LACOE can be used as a model by districts that can substitute their own information (e.g., description of students, policies, procedures). By utilizing general teaching materials from the Substitute Teacher Institute, districts will have their choice of handbooks: (a) Elementary K-8, (b) secondary 6-12, of (c) K-12. AB 2269, if enacted, would allow districts one year and $50,000 to modify the substitute teacher preservice program endorsed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education to meet their particular needs. With the addition of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 representatives from the Educational Technologies Network to the Educational Programs and Human Resource preservice development team, the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program became even more attractive and adaptable to individual districts. The CD designed for LACOE substitute teachers could easily be modified to reflect each district’s policies and procedures. The basic curriculum items (e.g., teaching strategies and classroom management) would remain the same. The districts would also have the ability to work with LACOE personnel in adapting the preservice program, as well as access to all the materials developed by LACOE. As discussed previously, there are several ways in which the LACOE program could be modified and adapted to meet district needs, including having LACOE conduct district training, having LACOE conduct part of the district training, the use of videos, CDs, and internet access. Adapting this program to meet the needs of districts is part of the educational support services provided by the Los Angles County Office of Education. Conclusions This case study was undertaken to investigate: (a) Staff perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at the Los Angeles County Office of Education, (b) the implications from the literature, legal mandates, and policies in identifying key elements to a preservice substitute teacher staff development program, and (c) the issues of district adaptability of this preservice program. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 A thorough review of the literature provided support for the development of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program. This review also assisted in the identification of key elements to be contained in a program specific to substitute teachers. That training for substitute teachers is becoming an area of interest outside educational agencies in California can be seen by the introduction of state legislation on this topic. The LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program has also come to the attention of California State Legislators. The LACOE program is specifically mentioned in AB 2269 as the training program to be modified and utilized by districts participating in the program. Even without the ability to participate in AB 2269, districts have contacted the Human Resource Services department of the Los Angeles County Office of Education inquiring about the substitute teacher preservice staff development program. Clearly, the direct impact substitute teachers have on the educational process, specifically student learning, has been recognized. Staff perceptions of substitute teachers and the substitute teacher program at LACOE, as well as demographic information by all stakeholders, was important in identifying baseline information for the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Data from demographic information supported the need for a substitute teacher preservice staff development program with almost 50% of LACOE substitute teachers having five or less years experience in education. Information extrapolated from years in education by administrators has alerted LACOE Human Resource Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 Services that they will need to recruit 66 new administrators in the next 1-13 years due to retirement. All three stakeholder groups realized the importance of training for substitute teachers. They supported not only a preservice program, but also staff development for relevant topics such as student diversity. All stakeholder groups realized that substitute teachers were an essential part of the educational process. What was now confronting the stakeholders was how to change the perceptions and practices regarding substitute teachers employed by the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Information that was the most informative from the questionnaire was the lack of communication between all stakeholders. This is both good and bad news. The good news is that since specific communication problems have been identified (e.g., lack of lesson plans), they can be easily rectified. The bad news is the knowledge that such primary and specific communication was missing. Another communication problem identified through the questionnaire was that substitute teachers had no formal means of informing the regular classroom teacher and the principal about the day’s activities. This information has already resulted in a meeting of stakeholders to develop the Substitute Teacher Input Form (see Appendix S). The draft copy of this form is currently in use at LACOE PAUs and will be evaluated and revised in August 2002. The final communication issue facing LACOE was the support given to all three stakeholder groups by the Substitute Finder Unit. Although this unit had a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 higher absence fill rate (97.78%) than the national average (95%), they were not meeting the needs of the stakeholders utilizing their services. As the Los Angeles County Office of Education already provides leadership in coordinating programs and partnerships with school districts, resolving concerns of districts over the use of the LACOE Substitute Teacher Preservice Staff Development Program is expected to be a standard operating procedure. The services provided by LACOE will allow districts to utilize a Trainer of Trainers model to a technology based district specific CD. Utilization of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program will provide each district the opportunity to improve instruction to their students. Recommendations The area of preservice training for substitute teachers is fairly unexplored. However, as districts become more and more accountable for student learning, the instructional time substitute teachers spend with students can no longer be ignored. Preservice training of substitute teachers has the potential to produce: (a) Improvement in instructional delivery from substitute teachers (thus leading to improved student learning) and (b) increased district teacher recruitment opportunities during a teacher shortage. Therefore it is suggested that further research be conducted in this area To reinforce adult learning, staff development requires a sustained effort. For that reason, it is recommended that a yearly staff development program for continuing substitute teachers be developed in conjunction with LACOE’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186 Educational Program’s Goals and Objectives and with current staff development programs for LACOE teachers. In cooperation with the BTSA program, a second recommendation is that LACOE provide two test preparation programs per year for substitute teachers for the CBEST (Math AM session, Reading/Writing PM session). The third recommendation is that substitute teachers have the continuing opportunity to observe exemplary LACOE teachers in order to improve their teaching skills. Concerning the questionnaire, a second administration of the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is recommended to document the level of success that LACOE will have had in improving specific problem areas (e.g., leaving lesson plans for substitute teachers). Paraeducators are such a large part of the educational programs operated by LACOE that it is also recommended that they be added as a stakeholder group the next time the LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is administered. Since paraeducators are in the classroom with the substitute teachers, it will be very interesting to compare their perceptions of substitute teachers to the other three stakeholder groups. Since this is a case study, it is recommended that the questionnaire be duplicated in a district setting to determine if the findings are unique to the Los Angles County Office of Education. Research in this area would also provide data on the adaptability of the LACOE program to a district setting. Finally, it is recommended that a study be designed to examine the effect of a substitute teacher preservice staff development program on the level of instructional delivery by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 substitute teachers and does this change in instructional delivery produce measurable results in student learning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 REFERENCES Abdal-Haqq, I. (1989). The influence of reform on inservice teacher education. ERIC, ED 322147. Abdal-Haqq, I. (1997). Not just a warm body: Changing images of the substitute teacher. ERIC, ED 412208. Alexander, P.A., & Murphy, P.K. (1998). The research base for APA’s learner-centered psychological principles. In N.M. Lambert & B.L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner- centered education (pp. 25-60). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. American Association of School Administrators. (2001). Baby boom echo: New immigrants fuel enrollment growth that matches record. American Association o f School Administrators-Leadership News. March 23, 2001. [On-line], Available: http://www.aasa.org/publications/in/01-03/01-03- 23census.htm. Andrews, K. & Rothman, M. (2002). Cultivating innovation: How a charter/district network is turning professional development into professional practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 507-512. Applewhite, A. (1999). Funding staff development for school improvement and student Achievement. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 83(610), 49-54. Archer. J., Hoff, D., & Manzo, K. (2001). Staff-development guidelines emphasize student achievement. Education Week, 21(14), 16. Banks, J., & Hollins, E. (1996). Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Bates, R., & Bierton, R. (2000). Experimental determination of quantifiers for usability questionnaire design. British Computer Society, Proceedings o f Human Computer Interaction. 2, 55-56. Birman, B., Desimone, L., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28-33. Bellflower Unified School District. (1986). Substitute teacher handbook. Bellflower Unified School District. Bellflower, CA. August 1986. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000), Equal resources, equal outcomes? The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. Public Policy Institute o f California. San Francisco. February 2000. Billman, L.W. (1994). Keep subs afloat. Executive Educator, October 1994. Blair, J. (1999). Disney plans initiative to aid poor schools, staff development. Education Week, 19(10), 8. Blair, J. (2000). ETS study links effective teaching methods to test-score gain. Education Week, 20(8), 24. Bloom, G., & Davis, B. (1999). Supporting new teachers: A fundamental responsibility. [On-line]. Available: http://www.newteachercenter.org/articlel.html. Bolich, A.M. (2001). Reduce your losses: Help new teachers become veteran teachers. Southern Regional Education Board. June 2001. [On-line], Available: http://www.sreb.org/ Bonstingl, J. (1997). Staff development must be fully funded. The Developer, May 1997. Bontempo, B.T., & Deay, A.M. (1986). Substitute teachers: An analysis of problem situations. Contemporary Education, 57(2), 85-89. Bracey, G. (1988). The impact of computers. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(1), 70-74. Brans ford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Brown, J., & Moffett, C. (1999). The hero’ s journey: How educators can transform schools and improve learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Burke, R.M. (2000). Substitutes as graduate interns: Everyone becomes a winner. Sub Journal, 1(1), 57-62. Butler, J. (1992). Staff development. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Close-Up #12, Portland, OR. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 California Teachers Association. (1998). Wanted: 200,000 teachers. California Teachers Association, California Educator, October 1, 1998. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2000). The status of the teaching profession 2000: An update to the teaching and California’s future taskforce. Summary Report, The Center for the Future of Teaching & Learning, Santa Cruz, CA. Clair, N. (1993). Beliefs, self-reported practices and professional development needs o f three classroom teachers with language minority students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York. Clark County School District. (1999). The guest teacher’s guide to a positive classroom experience. Clark County School District. Las Vegas, NV. 1999. Collinson, V. (2000). Staff development by any other name: Changing words or changing practices? The Educational Forum, 64(2), 124-132. Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2001). Substitute teaching permit. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Sacramento, CA. 2001. Cromwell, S. (1998). Schools respond to substitute shortage. Education World. March 9, 1998. Crowther, S. (1998). Secrets of staff development support. Educational Leadership, 55, 75-76. CSRResearch Consortium. (1999). Class size reduction in California 1996-98: Early findings signal promise and concerns. CSRResearch Consortium Report. June 1999. [On-line]. Available: http://www.classize.org/summary/96-98.html. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Professional development fo r teachers: Setting the stage for learning from teaching. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the dilemmas of teacher supply, demand, and standards: How we can ensure a competent, caring, and qualified teacher for every hild. Kutztown, PA. National Commission on Teaching & America’ s Future. 2000. Davis, G. (2000). Governor Davis announces $8.8 million in grants fo r teacher recruitment centers. Sacramento, CA., Governor’s Press Release. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 Davis, G. (personal communication, October 10, 2001). Deay, A.M., & Bontempo, B.T. (1986). Helping substitute teachers contribute to school effectiveness. The Clearing House. April 1986. Department of Finance. (1999). California K-12 public enrollment and high school graduate projections by county. California State Department o f Finance: Demographic Research Unit-Report. November 1999. [On-line], Available: http://indian.monterey.edu/strategy/encou.htm. Douglas County School District. (2000). Substitute teacher handbook. Douglas County School District. Castle Rock, CO. March 2000. Dezutti, S. (1996). Reflective practice: A staff development strategy for principals ’ professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Drury, W.R. (1988). Eight ways to make sure substitute teachers aren’t baby-sitters. American School Board Journal, 175(3), 51. EdCai. (2002). Professional development key to success. EdCal, 32(23), 1-2. Edmonds School District. (2000). Substitute teacher’s handbook. Edmonds School District 15. Lynnwood, WA. 2000. EdSource. (1997). Recruiting, preparing, and credentialing California’s teachers. EdSource Report. April 1997. EdSource. (1998). Who are California’s students? EdSource Report. November 1998. EdSource. (1999a). How California recmits, prepares, and assists new teachers. EdSource Report. April 1999. EdSource. (1999b). Strengthening teacher quality in California: Defining consequences, building capacity. EdSource Report. April 1999. EdSource. (2001a). Teacher quality: Overview. EdSource Report. February 2001. EdSource. (2001b). Resource cards 2001. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 EdSource. (2001c). Update on California’s teacher workforce issues. EdSource Report. March 2001. EdSource. (2002). Teacher quality: Overview. EdSource Report. February 2002. Education Week. (2000). Who should teach? The states decide. Editorial Projects in Education^ 19(18), 8-9. Fleischmann, H.L., & Hopstock, P.J. (1993). Descriptive study o f services to limited English proficient students: Vol. 1. Summary o f findings and conclusions. Arlington, VA: Development Associates. Fullan, M. (1998). Change forces. Levittown, PA: The Falmer Press. Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., & Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY. Longman Publishers. 1996. Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J. (2000). Teaching and California’ s future: Preparing teachers fo r diversity: A dilemma o f quality and quantity. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Gaston, M., Hunt, H., Thompson, J., & Wilkes, P. (2000). Teaching and California’ s future: The status o f the teaching profession. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. Griswold, P., & Hughes, W. (2000). School improvement and the availability of substitute teachers in Ohio: An irony of professional development. Sub Journal, 1(1), 13-23. Guiton, G. (2001). EDPT 552: Assessing individual and program performance lecture notes. University of Southern California, Fall Semester, 2001. Hardy, L. (2002). Who will teach our children? American School Board Journal, 189(4), 18-23. Hare, D., & Heap, J.L. (2001). Effective teacher recruitment and retention strategies in the Midwest: Who is making use of them? North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. [On-line], Available: http://www.ncrel.org. May 2001. Hayes, D. (2000, October 18). Substitute teacher shortage strikes classrooms. The Issaquah Press. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 193 Heinrich, D. (1996). The substitute/student teacher’ s survival handbook. Davenport, IA. Dennis Heinrich. 1996. Hinkemeyer, A. (1988). Beat the bushes for substitute teachers. The Executive Educator. August 1988. Hirsch, E. (2000). Education program, teacher recruitment. National Conference o f State Legislatures. Washington DC. Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp, M. (2000). Reflections on teacher quality. Journal o f Staff Development, 21(4), 8-13. Hirsh, S. & Sparks, D. (2000). New year’s resolutions to sharpen staff development. Education Digest, 65(5), 15-20. Hocevar, D. (2001). EDPT 550: Statistical inference lecture notes. University of Southern California Spring semester, 2001. Hollins, E. (1996). Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Holmes, N. (2000). Lack of change in teaching tied to weak professional development. American Association o f School Administrators Leadership News, December 21, 2000. Hussar, W.J. (1997). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09. National Center for Education Statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov. Irvine, J.J., & York, D.E. (1995). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A literature review. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.). Learning styles and culturally diverse students: A literature review. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995. Johns, D., & Burke, S. (2000). 1998-99 Annual report: Emergency permits and credential waivers. California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Sacramento, CA. June 2000. Jones, K.R. (2000). From the peaks in Park City, Utah. SubJournal, 1(1), 63-78. Jones, K.R., & Hawkins, A. (2000). Substitute solutions: Finding good teachers is hard enough, but finding substitutes to fill in for them is even harder. American School Board Journal. August 2000. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). Staff development as a comprehensive service organization. Journal o f Staff Development, 17(4), 2-6. Kantrowitz, B., & Wingert, P. (2000). Teachers wanted. Newsweek, CXXXVI(14), 37-42. Keefe, J. & Jenkins, J. (2002). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappan. 83(6), 440-448. Keller, J. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance and Instruction, 26(9), 1-7. Kelly, K., & Reilly, M.C. (1999). Schools get creative to find good subs. Harvard Education Letter, September/October 1999. Koehnecke, D.S. (2000). Top five issues in substitute teaching. Sub Journal, 1(2), 59-65. Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2000). 2000 Cal facts program trends: part 1. Legislative Analyst’ s Office-Report. December 2000. [On-line]. Available: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2000 reports/calfacts/2000 calfacts program trends partl.html. Legislative Council. (2001a). AB 1431 Assembly bill history. [On-line]. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 1401- 450/ab 1431 bill 20010912 history.html. Legislative Council. (2001b). AB 1431 Assembly bill - enrolled. [On-line]. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 1401- 1450/ab 1431 bill 20010912 enrolled.html. Legislative Council. (2002a). AB 2269 Assembly bill history. [On-line]. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 2251- 2300/ab 2269 bill 20020228 history.html. Legislative Council. (2002b). AB 2269 Assembly bill - introduced. [On-line], Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab 2251 - 2300/ab 2269 bill 20020220 introduced.html Lewis, A. (1994). Developing good staff development. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(7), 508-510. Lewis, A. (2002). School reform and professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 488-489. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 Lilly, D. (1998, November 10). Shortage of substitute teachers has schools scrambling. The Seattle Times. Little Hoover Commission. (2001). Teaching our children well. Little Hoover Commission, Executive Summary. September 2001. Longhurst, M. (2000). Enhance “one” year of education. SubJournal, 1(1), 40-47. Los Angeles County Office of Education. (1999). Teach where you make a difference. [Brochure], Downey, CA. Los Angeles County Office of Education Communication Department. Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2000a). Los Angeles county office o f education facts. [Brochure]. Downey, CA. Los Angeles County Office of Education Communication Department. Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2000b). Los Angeles county regional teacher recruitment center. [Brochure]. Downey, CA. LACOE Human Resource Services. Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2000c). Los Angeles county office o f education substitute teacher staffing. [Brochure]. Downey, CA: LACOE Human Resource Services. Los Angeles County Office of Education. (2001). Directory of the public schools of Los Angeles County 2000-01. Los Angeles County Office of Education Communication Department. Downey, CA. Los Angeles Unified School District. (2001). Substitute teacher handbook. Los Angeles Unified School District. Los Angeles, CA. Manera, E.S. (1992). A training model for the substitute teacher. Contemporary Education, Summer 1992. Maxson, R. & Maxson, S. (2002). No-fault teacher education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 414. Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications. Mclntire, R., & Hughes, L. (1982). Houston program trains effective substitutes. Phi Delta Kappan, 63(9), 702. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 McKay, G. (1999, January 26). No substitute: Substitute teachers become hot commodity. The Post Gazette. Merrow, J. (1999). The teacher shortage: Wrong diagnosis, phony cures. Education Week. October 6, 1999. Milken Family Foundation. (2001a). A matter of quality: A strategy for assuring the high caliber of America’s teachers. Milken Family Foundation-Report. September 30, 2001. [On-line], Available: http://www.mff.org. Milken Family Foundation. (2001b). Facts about the teacher quality crisis. Milken Family Foundation-Report. September 30, 2001. [On-line], Available: http://www.mff.org. Minthom, R. (2000). How one district implemented a substitute teacher training program. Sub Journal, 1(1), 27-39. Mountain View School District. (2001). A substitute teacher’s handbook. Mountain View School District. El Monte, CA. 2001. National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future. National Commission on Teaching & America’ s Future. September 1996. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2001). Professional standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of education. Washington, DC, NCATE. National Education Association. (2000). Teacher shortage. National Education Association. Washington, D.C. Nidds, J., & McGerald, J. (1994). Substitute teachers: Seeking meaningful instruction in the teacher’s absence. The Clearing House, 68(1), 25-27. O’Malley, P. (2000). The back door is open! SubJournal, 1 (1), 54-56. Pardini, P. (2000). Are you available to work for us today? Journal o f Staff Development, 21(4), 52-57. Peterson, S. (1991 September/October). An action plan for training substitute teachers. The Clearing House, 65 (1), 37-38. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 Phillips, S. (1972). Participating structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V. John, and D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions o f language in the classroom. Prospect Heights, 11 1 : Waveland Press. Platt, J. (2000). Preparing substitute teachers for special education settings: Ensuring the quality and continuity of teaching and learning. SubJournal, 1(2), 15-24. Posnick-Goodwin, S. (2001). How to fill the teacher shortage: Look in your district’s own backyard. California Educator. [On-Line]. Available: http://www.cta.org/cal educator/v6il/diff howto.html Public Agenda. (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. Public Agenda. Washington DC. Purvis, J. R., & Garvey, R. C. (1993). Components of an effective substitute teacher program. The Clearing House, 66(6), 370-373. Recruiting New Teachers. (2001). Learning the ropes. Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. Belmont, MA. 2001. Robbins, P. (1999). Mentoring. Journal o f Staff Development, 20(3), 40-42. Rojas, A. (1999, November 21). Poorest schools suffer exodus: Qualified teachers seek better districts. Sacramento Bee. [On-line], Available: http://www.sacbee.com/news/proiects/teaching califomia/112199.html. Rosborough, M., Sherbine, D., & Miller, D. (1993). Recruiting, selecting, and training substitute teachers. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 106-107. Ross, J. (2001, August 4). California will try to lure Michigan teachers: They’re needed here, but sun, surf are there. Detroit Free Press. Rowley, J.B., & Hart, P.M. (1998). Recruiting & training: Successful substitute teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. San Diego County Office of Education. (1998). Substitute teacher resources. San Diego County Office o f Education. San Diego, CA. 1998. San Juan Unified School District. (1995). Guest teacher handbook. San Juan Unified School District. San Juan, CA. July 1995. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198 Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY. Basic Books. Shepherd, R. (2001). Formative assessment for substitute teachers. SubJournal, 2(1), 18-20. Sergiovanni, T. (1990). Value-added leadership: How to get extraordinary performance in schools. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Silver, S. (2001a). Accelerated certification programs target teacher shortage. CTNOW. August 13, 2001. [On-line], Available: http://www.courant.ctnow.com/classifieds/careers/silver/archive/Augl3- ctn careers silver classifieds.html. Silver, S. (2001b, August 19). Accelerated certification options aim to address teacher shortage. Santa Barbara News Press. [On-line]. Available: http://www.news.newspress.com/nt home/iobsource archives/teachershortag e0819.html. Simmons, B. J. (1991, January). Planning to improve the quality of the substitute teacher program. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletina 98. Simmons, J., & Schuette, M. (1988). Strengthening teacher’s reflective decision making. Journal o f Staff Development, 9(3), 18-27. Small, T. (personal communication, October 8, 2001). Smith, G. G. (1999). Dealing with substitute teacher shortage. School Administrator, 56(4), 31. Smith, G. G. (2000). The revolution continues. SubJournal, 1(1), 8. Smith, G. G. (2002). Quick to criticize, slow to train. Education Week. 21(20), 34. Smith, R. (1982). Learning how to learn: Applied theory fo r adults. Chicago, Follett Publishing Company. Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development..Oxford, Ohio, The Nation Staff Development Council. Sparks, R., Donnelly, J., & Best, J. (1999). Extracting useful information from survey data. [On-line]. Available: http://www.cmis.csiro.av/statline/1999/feb99.htm. October 19, 2001. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 Speck, M., & Knipe, C. (2000). Why can’ t we get it right? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. St. Michel, T. (1995). Effective substitute teachers: Myth, mayhem, or magic? Thousand Oaks, CA. Corwin Press. Starr, L. (2000). Solving the substitute shortage: Four rules to keep your best subs coming back. Education World. August 22, 2000. Substitute Teaching Institute. (2002). Substitute teacher handbook k-12. Logan, UT. Substitute Teaching Institute. January 2002. Substitute Teaching Institute. (2000). Substitute teacher training: 10-hour step-in workshop guide. Logan, UT. Substitute Teaching Institute. June 2000. Streisand, B., & Tote, T. (1998). Many millions of kids, and too few teachers: Across America teaching jobs go wanting. U.S. News and World Report, 125(10), 24. Tracy, S. (1988). Improve sub training with staff development. NASSP Bulletin, May 1988. Trochim, W.M.K. (2001). Likert scaling. [On-line], Available: http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/scallik.htm. October 19, 2001. Ventura County Office of Education. (1996). Substitute handbook. Ventura County Superintendent o f Schools Office. August 1996. Viadero, D. (2002). Researcher skewers explanations behind teacher shortage. Education Week,2\(f>Q), 7. Vogel, H. (Personal communication, August 21, 2001). Wilkinson, G. (1997). Beginning teachers identify gaps in their induction programs. Journal o f Staff Development, 18, 48-51. Wisconsin Education Association. (2001). Substitute teacher training. Madison, WI. Wisconsin Education Association Professional Development Academy. 2001. Wilson, K. (1999). Working with substitute teachers. National Association of Elementary School Principals, Principal, 78, 43-44. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200 Wlodkowski, R. (1985). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A guide to improving instruction and increasing learner achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Woolfolk, A. (2001). Educational psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201 APPENDIX A LACOE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Sex: Male Female Number of years in education________ Number of years in current position Number of years with LACOE_______ Directions: There are five possible responses to each statement: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Not Sure, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree. For each statement circle ONE response that best describes your opinion. Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree 1. Substitute teachers are an essential part of the education process. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Substitute teachers should be evaluated on a regular or annual basis. 1 2 3 4 5 3. A county wide orientation/training program is needed for new substitute teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 4. Substitute teachers receive a welcome at all LACOE PAUs. 1 2 3 4 5 5. Interested substitutes should be asked to serve on school committees. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Substitute teachers are professional educators. 1 2 3 4 5 7. Substitute teachers should attend regular faculty and in-service meetings. 1 2 3 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202 LACOE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 8. Substitute teachers need to understand about student diversity and learning. 1 2 3 4 5 9. Lesson plans are always provided in LACOE classrooms. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Lesson plans are detailed enough to teach lessons effectively. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Information on classroom schedules, duties, and procedures is found in classrooms. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Behavior management/discipline procedures are included in lesson plans. 1 2 3 4 5 13. All substitute teachers should be provided staff development training. 1 2 3 4 5 14. Classroom responsibilities of substitute teachers are clearly defined. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Substitute teachers should use lesson plans provided by the classroom teacher. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Substitutes leave adequate information regarding the day’s events and lessons. 1 2 3 4 5 17. When a school administrator is called to a sub’s classroom, it is a reflection of the substitute’s management skills. 1 2 3 4 5 18. LACOE policies are clearly stated in materials given to substitute teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 19. School administrators support substitute teachers when they have difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5 20. The Substitute Finder Unit is able to assist me when I have questions. 1 2 3 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 LACOE SUBSTITUTE TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Page 3 21. Communication exists between teachers, administrators and substitute teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 22. Substitute teachers are most concerned with maintaining classroom control. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Feedback from administrators and teachers is important to substitute teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 24. Substitute teachers receive feedback from teachers and administrators. 1 2 3 4 5 25. There are currently enough substitute teachers working for LACOE. 1 2 3 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 APPENDIX B Cover Letter - Administrators December 3, 2001 LACOE Administrators, In accordance with the LACOE Mission Statement - “The Los Angeles County Office of Education is in the business of promoting excellence by providing comprehensive educational services to all communities” - it is a pleasure for us to announce that LACOE is leading the way in staff development for substitute teachers. There will be focus groups held in different geographic areas of the county to discuss and share in the development of curriculum content for this new program. These focus groups will consist of administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers. To support this preservice staff development program, we are seeking input from all the major stakeholders through a questionnaire. Information collected from each stakeholder group will be analyzed and a comparative analysis performed. This will afford us an identified starting point. As administrators constitute the smallest group of stakeholders, it is imperative that your voice be heard. Information gathered will affect the quality of substitute teachers in your PAU. Please complete and return the attached questionnaire by Friday, December 21, 2001 in the envelope provided to Linda Harris, Secretary Substitute Finder Unit, Human Resource Services, ECE, Room 102. As we break new ground in providing support to our educational programs, your involvement and support in this new and important undertaking is greatly appreciated. Results of the Substitute Teacher Questionnaire will be shared with staff in the Spring of 2002. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 APPENDIX C Cover Letter - Teachers December 3, 2001 LACOE Teachers, In accordance with the LACOE Mission Statement - “The Los Angeles County Office of Education is in the business of promoting excellence by providing comprehensive educational services to all communities” - it is a pleasure for us to announce that LACOE is leading the way in staff development for substitute teachers. There will be focus groups held in different geographic areas of the county to discuss and share in the development of curriculum content for this new program. These focus groups will consist of administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers. To support this preservice staff development program, we are seeking input from aU the major stakeholders through a questionnaire. Information collected from each stakeholder group will be analyzed and a comparative analysis performed. This will afford us an identified starting point. As this information will eventually the quality of substitute teachers in your classroom, it is imperative that your voice be heard. Information gathered will affect the training of substitute teachers, both current employees and new applicants. Please complete and return the attached questionnaire by Friday, December 21, 2001 in the envelope provided to Linda Harris, Secretary Substitute Finder Unit, Human Resource Services, ECE, Room 102. As we break new ground in providing support to our educational programs, your involvement and support in this new and important undertaking is greatly appreciated. Results of the Substitute Teacher Questionnaire will be shared with staff in the Spring of 2002. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 APPENDIX D Cover Letter - Substitute Teachers December 3, 2001 LACOE Substitute Teachers, In accordance with the LACOE Mission Statement - “The Los Angeles County Office of Education is in the business of promoting excellence by providing comprehensive educational services to all communities” - it is a pleasure for us to announce that LACOE is leading the way in staff development for substitute teachers. There will be focus groups held in different geographic areas of the county to discuss and share in the development of curriculum content for this new program. These focus groups will consist of administrators, teachers, and substitute teachers. To support this preservice staff development program, we are seeking input from all the major stakeholders through a questionnaire. Information collected from each stakeholder group will be analyzed and a comparative analysis performed. This will afford us an identified starting point. As this information personally affects LACOE substitute teachers, it is imperative that your voice be heard. Information gathered will affect the training of substitute teachers, both current employees and new applicants. Please complete and return the attached questionnaire by Friday, December 21, 2001 in the envelope provided to Linda Harris, Secretary Substitute Finder Unit, Human Resource Services, ECE, Room 102. As we break new ground in providing support to our educational programs, your involvement and support in this new and important undertaking is greatly appreciated. Results of the Substitute Teacher Questionnaire will be shared with staff in the Spring of 2002. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 APPENDIX E Confidentiality Letter - Administrators LACOE Administrators, As Superintendent Gogolin and Assistant Superintendent Bamer have stated, receiving information from you is extremely important. This form contains an ID number used in tracking the questionnaires. Once this form and completed questionnaire are returned to Linda Harris, secretary to the Substitute Finder Unit, the ID number linked to your name will be recorded so you do not receive follow-up requests. The completed questionnaire should reach Human Resource Services no later than Friday, December 21, 2001. Once you have returned this form and your ID number removed from the appropriate stakeholder list, this form will be removed from your questionnaire. Only then will the questionnaire be forwarded for processing ensuring that your responses will remain totally anonymous. ID# Return To: Linda Harris Secretary, Substitute Finder Unit Human Resource Services ECE, Room 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 208 APPENDIX F Confidentiality Letter - Teachers LACOE Teachers, As Superintendent Gogolin and Assistant Superintendent Bamer have stated, receiving information from you is extremely important. This form contains an ID number used in tracking the questionnaires. Once this form and completed questionnaire are returned to Linda Harris, secretary to the Substitute Finder Unit, the ID number linked to your name will be recorded so you do not receive follow-up requests. The completed questionnaire should reach Human Resource Services no later than Friday, December 21, 2001. Once you have returned this form and your ID number removed from the appropriate stakeholder list, this form will be removed from your questionnaire. Only then will the questionnaire be forwarded for processing ensuring that your responses will remain totally anonymous. ID# Return To: Linda Harris Secretary, Substitute Finder Unit Human Resource Services ECE, Room 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 APPENDIX G Confidentiality Letter - Substitute Teachers LACOE Substitute Teachers, As Superintendent Gogolin and Assistant Superintendent Bamer have stated, receiving information from you is extremely important. This form contains an ID number used in tracking the questionnaires. Once this form and completed questionnaire are returned to Linda Harris, secretary to the Substitute Finder Unit, the ID number linked to your name will be recorded so you do not receive follow-up requests. The completed questionnaire should reach Human Resource Services no later than Friday, December 21, 2001. Once you have returned this form and your ID number removed from the appropriate stakeholder list, this form will be removed from your questionnaire. Only then will the questionnaire be forwarded for processing ensuring that your responses will remain totally anonymous. ID# Return To: Linda Harris Secretary, Substitute Finder Unit Human Resource Services ECE, Room 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210 APPENDIX H Second Cover Letter - Administrators January 4, 2002 LACOE Administrators, As you know, LACOE is in the process of collecting data on our substitute program through a questionnaire. Although the return due date of the questionnaire has passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. Perhaps there has been some oversight or error on the part of Human Resource Services. Due to the importance of this study, and especially because administrators comprise the smallest group of stakeholders, we are asking you to take five minutes from your day, complete the questionnaire and return it no later than Wednesday, January 23,2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Acting Superintendent MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs 211 APPENDIX I Second Cover Letter - Teachers January 4, 2002 LACOE Teachers, As you know, LACOE is in the process of collecting data on our substitute program through a questionnaire. Although the return due date of the questionnaire has passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. Perhaps there has been some oversight or error on the part of Human Resource Services. Due to the importance of this study, and especially because the training of substitute teachers will have a direct impact on your classroom, we are asking you to take five minutes from your day, complete the questionnaire and return it no later than Wednesday, January 23, 2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212 APPENDIX J Second Cover Letter - Substitute Teachers January 4, 2002 LACOE Substitute Teachers, As you know, LACOE is in the process of collecting data on our substitute program through a questionnaire. Although the return due date of the questionnaire has passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. Perhaps there has been some oversight or error on the part of Human Resource Services. Due to the importance of this study, and especially because training will directly affect you and new substitute teacher applicants, we are asking you to take five minutes from your day, complete the questionnaire and return it no later than Wednesday, January 23, 2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Acting Superintendent MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs 213 APPENDIX K Third Cover Letter - Administrators January 28, 2002 LACOE Administrators, The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is the means whereby all stakeholders provide information as to the current status of the substitute program. Although two return dates have passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. If there has been some error on the part of Human Resource Services, please contact the Substitute Unit at (562) 803-8350. As the person most responsible for substitute teachers when they are working (and the smallest stakeholder group), your completion and return of this questionnaire is expected. Please stop right now, take five minutes to complete and return the questionnaire. The completed questionnaire is expected no later than Friday, February 8, 2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Acting Superintendent MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs 214 APPENDIX L Third Cover Letter - Teachers January 28, 2002 LACOE Teachers, The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is the means whereby all stakeholders provide information as to the current status of the substitute program. Although two return dates have passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. If there has been some error on the part of Human Resource Services, please contact the Substitute Unit at (562) 803-8350. As you know, the training of substitute teachers will have a direct impact on your classroom. Please stop right now, take five minutes to complete and return the questionnaire so that your opinions are heard. The completed questionnaire is expected no later than Friday, February 8, 2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 APPENDIX M Third Cover Letter - Substitute Teachers January 28, 2002 LACOE Substitute Teachers, The LACOE Substitute Teacher Questionnaire is the means whereby all stakeholders provide information as to the current status of the substitute program. Although two return dates have passed, we regret to inform you we are unable to account for your questionnaire. If there has been some error on the part of Human Resource Services, please contact the Substitute Unit at (562) 803-8350. As you know, information gathered from this questionnaire will have a direct impact on you and new substitute teacher applicants. Please stop right now, take five minutes to complete and return the questionnaire so that your opinions are heard. The completed questionnaire is expected no later than Friday, February 8, 2002. Your support is greatly appreciated. Marilyn T. Gogolin Robert R. Bamer, Ph.D. Acting Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Educational Programs MTG:RRB:SWA Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX N Focus Group Script Substitute Teacher Unit LACOE Focus Group: Substitute Training Program Agenda Introductions of Group Members Activity: My experience as a/or with substitute(s). Purpose for Training Focus Groups Brainstorm ideas of topics to cover Prioritize the topics Brainstorm the critical elements within each topic Summarize Next steps Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX O SUBSTITUTE TEACHER TRAINING SCHEDULE 8:00 a.m. Welcome and review of the day’s Agenda 8:10 - 10:00 First Session 10:00-10:10 Break 10:10- 11:45 Second Session 11:45- 12:45 Lunch 12:45 - 2:00 Third Session 2:00-2:10 Break 2:10-3:30 Fourth Session 3:30 Adj oumment Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 May 13, 2002 May 20, 2002 May 24, 2002 June 3, 2002 June 10, 2002 June 17, 2002 June 24, 2002 July 8,2002 July 15, 2002 July 22 to 24, 2002 APPENDIX P Substitute Training Program Time Line DRAFT 5/8/02 Meet with Ed Programs Assistant Supt. and Directors HRS Secure facility for 3 day training in July HRS Meet with Richard Quinones-HRS, ED PROGRAMS Order Substitute Teacher Handbook-ED PROGRAMS All presenters contacted and preparations begun ED PROGRAMS, HRS 1st Group meeting with presenters ED PROGRAMS, HRS List of Invited Participants - HRS 2n d Group meeting with presenters - HRS Letters of invitation sent out to 75 subs - HRS Outlines prepared - Presenters Presenters finalized - ED PROGRAMS, HRS Submit outlines and presenter names for Agenda preparation - ED PROGRAMS, HRS Rehearsal for Training Program Substitute Training Program North Area Complex (no charge) 11600 Eldridge Lake View Terrace 91342 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 APPENDIX Q THREE DAY STAFF DEVELOPMENT TRAINING SURVEY NAME: I am interested in the following options for completing the 3-day staff development training to raise my base rate of pay to $140.00 per day. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday (3 full days of training) Three Consecutive Saturdays 10 Consecutive Evenings (4:00pm -7 :3 0pm) I am interested in attending this training in the following geographic area Lakeview Terrace San Gabriel Valley Downey I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ATTENDING THE 3-DAY STAFF DEVELOPMENT TRAINING AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MY BASE SALARY WILL REMAIN AT THE RATE OF $120.00 PER DAY. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A P P E N D IX R Los Angeles County Substitute Teachers, June 2001 School District Subs School District Subs ABC Unified 335 Lennox 35 Acton 31 Little Lake 81 Alhambra 297 Long Beach 1,700 Antelope Valley 178 LAUSD 4,600 Arcadia 185 LACOE 850 Azusa 251 Los Nietos 45 Baldwin Park 100 Lowell 51 Bassett 40 Lynwood 134 Bellflower 155 Manhattan Beach 50 Beverly Hills 149 Monrovia 130 Bonita 160 Montebello 365 Burbank 243 Mountain View 102 Castaic 75 Newhall 125 Centinela Valley 78 Norwalk 432 Charter Oak 130 Palmdale 173 Claremont 112 Palos Verdes 125 Compton 335 Paramount 220 Covina Valley 265 Pasadena 407 Culver City 75 Pomona 410 Downev 160 Redondo Beach 293 Duarte 55 Rosemead 75 East Whittier City 150 Rowland 350 Eastside 38 San Gabriel 91 El Monte City 65 San Marino 65 El Monte Union 75 Santa Monica-Malibu 80 El Rancho 115 Saugus 304 El Segundo 50 South Pasadena 101 Garvey 95 South Whittier 92 Glendale 300 Sulphur Springs 79 Glendora 155 Temple City 147 Gorman 2 Torrance 500 Hacienda-La Puente 235 Valle Lindo 11 Hawthorne 40 Walnut Valley 200 Hermosa Beach 50 West Covina 150 Hughes-Elizabeth Lakes 10 Westside 128 Inglewood 264 Whittier City 142 Keppel 40 Whittier Union 141 La Canada 50 William S. Hart 100 Lancaster 133 Wilsona 35 Las Vergenes 181 Wiseburn 20 Lawndale 69 TOTAL 18,723 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221 APPENDIX S Substitute Teacher Input Form To: SUBSTITUTE TEACHER It is the intent of the Los Angeles County Office of Education to ensure that a quality educational program continues when the regular classroom teacher is absent. Please complete the following information and return it to the secretary at the end of the day. It is our desire to support you as a professional. 1. Your Name__________________________________ Date_______________ 2. Classroom/Site Teacher Was the following information made available to you? Site Orientation Yes No Lesson Plans Yes No Operational Procedures of Class Yes No Location of Instructional Materials Yes No Location of Staff Lounge/Lunchroom Yes No Location of Staff Bathrooms Yes No Were you able to implement the lesson plan? Yes No If no, what can this site do to ensure that other substitute teachers will not have this problem? Are there student discipline issues that need to be addressed? Yes No Are there student behavior issues that need to be addressed? Yes No Please explain: What can we do in the future to improve your next teaching assignment at our site? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (N O O < N H X H-H Q g P h O h X O o <N < D Is Pi t i l < D O a o c n Daily Average 175.2 133.8 147.8 1 171.7 161.4 145.3 “ 139.5 146.1 149.7 125.0 151.3 158.5 Days in Month <N 23 OS 23 OO T — H in t * * 4 <N OO 22 22 20 N ® c x 99.14% 98.68% 97.43% 94.79% 96.75% j 97.51% 98.23% 98.15% 98.15% 99.00% 98.60%| 98.16% TOTAL Days 3680.0 3076.5 2809.5 ! 3948.0 2904.5 2179.0 2928.5 2629.5 3144.5 2751.0 3328.0 3170.0 N ® 0s 99.13% 97.86% 96.82% 94.18% 96.65% 95.88% 06'96 96.89% 98.09% 98.50% 98.10% 97.29% DSE Days i 1373.5 365.5 1096.5 O ' 1091 | 1096.5 * n so OO « n o o 1092.0 1232.0 984.5 1339.0 1221.5 c r 98.99% 98.64% 98.81% 94.18% 96.28% 98.40% 99.31% 98.92% 97.80% 99.59% 98.77% 98.525 DAE Days 489.0 506.5 332.5 © 0 0 SC in 466.5 369.5 578.0 459.5 © O O * •n 489.0 o o OO 533.0 v ® © N 99.18% 98.83% 97.59% 1 95.27% 97.03% « n so OO os 98.76 99.17% 98.31% 99.15 98.95% 98.68% JCCS Days 1 1817.5 2204.5 1379.5 1713.5 1341.5 948.0 1349.0 I 1078.0 1334.5 1277.5 1509.0 1415.5 Month July August September October j November December January February March April May June Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

A case study of social promotion and retention policies, strategies, and programs

PDF

An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study

PDF

A longitudinal look at what's important in comprehensive reform: A case study

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

Addressing social promotion and retention issues: A look at one middle school in the process of reform

PDF

Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District

PDF

A case study of Long Beach Unified School District: How elements of effective reading strategies can be implemented at the secondary level

PDF

A case study: An analysis of the adequacy of one school district's model of data use to raise student achievement

PDF

Black male perception of opportunity structures

PDF

A descriptive study of probation officers' views of delinquency in males and females

PDF

A study of the significant changes in a small urban school district from 1991--2001 as perceived by educators in the city of Pereslavl -Zalessky in the Russian Federation

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high -achieving urban elementary school

PDF

"Show me the money": Analyzing student-level resource allocation and use in a large urban elementary school

PDF

Effects of an integrated content and methods course on preservice teachers' beliefs and efficacy toward mathematics

PDF

Elementary school teachers' perceptions of professional development needs

PDF

A case study of the Math Matters professional development program in one elementary school

PDF

A case study of a successful urban school: Climate, culture and leadership factors that impact student achievement

PDF

HP2 schools achieving in spite of: A case study looks at programs, culture, and leadership

PDF

A closer look at the impact of teacher evaluation: A case study in a high performing California elementary school

Asset Metadata

Creator Wheeler-Ayres, Sue Ann (author)

Core Title A substitute teacher preservice staff development program: A case study of the Los Angeles County Office of Education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Gothold, Stuart (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Ferris, Robert (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-265742

Unique identifier UC11339208

Identifier 3093935.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-265742 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3093935.pdf

Dmrecord 265742

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wheeler-Ayres, Sue Ann

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